PDA

View Full Version : Today's News,Wednesday,Mar.17



denime
03-17-2010, 05:28 AM
Mornin'


Barret Update-TFC TV (http://torontofc.neulion.com/tfc/console.jsp?catid=2&id=1674)


MLS players gone wild (http://www.torontosun.com/sports/soccer/2010/03/16/13253511.html#/sports/othersports/2010/03/16/pf-13253506.html)




SUNSHINE (http://www.torontosun.com/sunshinegirl/)

DOMIN8R
03-17-2010, 06:19 AM
Interesting timing for Nowak's comments.

Good strategy to try to make players feel contrite when negotiating a new CBA.

Eastend
03-17-2010, 06:39 AM
HAPPY ST. PATRICK'S DAY TO ALL....

Patio's should be open so here's to hoping you can enjoy a pint or 2.....(will also help get ready for the season).

:drinking::drinking:

koryo
03-17-2010, 08:01 AM
The counter argument to Nowak's position is that players are generally more disciplined on the pitch when the officials in charge of the game apply the rules of the game consistently. In other words, the boundaries are made quite clear.

I've seen little or no evidence of that in this league to-date.

scooter
03-17-2010, 08:06 AM
mornin d

agreed if you want respect as a ref call the game properly and earn it

CoachGT
03-17-2010, 08:32 AM
The comments about TFC and Carver are not in context. TFC didn't rein in its coach because at least some of the coach's comments were valid, at least in the eyes of the team and fans.

Carver argued long and hard about the refereeing. We've all complained that the calls in MLS are not consistent - the quality of referreeing is nowhere near the standard that it should be, and there is some question (at least in my mind) as to whether it is improving at all.

MLS referees have had their own scandals (would you care for a Blanco jersey, Mr. Referee?) and a few were disciplined publicly last year for poor performance.

The cards I've seen this year are deserved, but the evidence put forward in the article about Carver (and other MLS coaches who have made similar comments) is incorrect. Few teams ever discipline a coach for comments about refereeing.

mastermixer
03-17-2010, 08:42 AM
I can't believe I'm saying this, but I hope Barrett gets healthy soon.

Roogsy
03-17-2010, 08:45 AM
The comments about TFC and Carver are not in context. TFC didn't rein in its coach because at least some of the coach's comments were valid, at least in the eyes of the team and fans.

Carver argued long and hard about the refereeing. We've all complained that the calls in MLS are not consistent - the quality of referreeing is nowhere near the standard that it should be, and there is some question (at least in my mind) as to whether it is improving at all.

MLS referees have had their own scandals (would you care for a Blanco jersey, Mr. Referee?) and a few were disciplined publicly last year for poor performance.

The cards I've seen this year are deserved, but the evidence put forward in the article about Carver (and other MLS coaches who have made similar comments) is incorrect. Few teams ever discipline a coach for comments about refereeing.


I agree. One way to "reign in" coaches and players is to reduce the reasons they have to complain. If MLS refereeing standards don't improve, what exactly does Sandor expect players to do? Keep quiet? I wouldn't.

Suds
03-17-2010, 08:45 AM
I think Nowak makes a point when he touches on the amount of complaints during the games and that you now have asst. coaches, trainers, etc. having a go at the ref. In my mind there are only two people who should even be allowed to have a civil conversation with the ref - the captain & coach/manager. Everyone else should shut the hell up. (and this coming from me who is one of the worst culprits :D)

I no way am I defending the standard of refereeing in the MLS; we all know it's not where it needs to be. But the answer to that the the federations and the MLS investing in these refs to make them better. The answer it not a free-for-all from players and coaching staff. It sets the wrong example.

Suds
03-17-2010, 08:48 AM
I agree. One way to "reign in" coaches and players is to reduce the reasons they have to complain. If MLS refereeing standards don't improve, what exactly does Sandor expect players to do? Keep quiet? I wouldn't.

And there's the rub, Roogsy. I know as a recreational player and fan how frustrating it is when a ref is not performing well. I can only imagine how frustrating it is for the players and coaches. I would find it alomost impossible to keep my cool.

However, the answer is better training for referees and until that is done it will be hard for players and coaches to keep cool.

Mikey
03-17-2010, 08:50 AM
I can't believe I'm saying this, but I hope Barrett gets healthy soon.

Im prety sure most would agree. No one doubts his work rate in the game. Personally I think he should change his boots....

Parkdale
03-17-2010, 08:52 AM
Im prety sure most would agree. No one doubts his work rate in the game. Personally I think he should change his boots....

and not to those yellow hand-me-downs he got from Dero last year.

(yeah, you have to be a bit obsessive to notice that Dero wore yellow filas and then barrett wore the same style the week after)

Roogsy
03-17-2010, 08:55 AM
They're both Puma players. It's more than likely it was a new Puma shoe that they are promoting and both were given the same shoes to play in.

[NBF]
03-17-2010, 08:56 AM
SSG: Looks fine as hell:yum:


TFC Players Gone Wild:

Here's a picture of former-TFC manager/DOF Mo Johnston celebrating St.Patrick's with Julian DeGuzman.......Ooh La La.

http://www.deportivo-la-coruna.com/pics/regular/De-Guzman_082.jpg

JonO
03-17-2010, 09:00 AM
I think Nowak makes a point when he touches on the amount of complaints during the games and that you now have asst. coaches, trainers, etc. having a go at the ref. In my mind there are only two people who should even be allowed to have a civil conversation with the ref - the captain & coach/manager. Everyone else should shut the hell up. (and this coming from me who is one of the worst culprits :D)

I agree. Even though the refereeing in this league is horrible, there is wayyyy to much chirping by the players. Seems to be happening in all leagues not just ours though. The Refs need to warn players that they will get a yellow card if they do and then follow through.

Whoop
03-17-2010, 09:15 AM
LOL

If you ask players in other leagues their referees are the worst.

They can never win. LOL

At the end of the day, as others have stated, only two people should be entitled to complain while a match is being played - the captain and the manager. And in reality it should only be the captain as that is why he is the captain.

Parkdale
03-17-2010, 09:20 AM
They're both Puma players. It's more than likely it was a new Puma shoe that they are promoting and both were given the same shoes to play in.


I know, it just looked funny that Dero got them the week before Chad.

oh, and dero played like crap in them that day. he looked like he had sore feet, and I've never seen him wear those shoes again.

Boondaddy
03-17-2010, 09:29 AM
sunshine girl today has nice cleavage....that is all.

T.O TILL I DIE
03-17-2010, 09:40 AM
sunshine girl today has nice cleavage....that is all.


all haill boobiiess:D

happy st.patties dayy everyone:drinking:

Phil
03-17-2010, 10:27 AM
Another story out of Seattle:

http://blog.thenewstribune.com/soccer/2010/03/17/more-from-sounders-owner-on-possible-strike/

similar to yesterday, just some quotes that didn't make it in.

Technorgasm
03-17-2010, 10:39 AM
Julian de Guzman unleashed a malicious, ill-advised tackle on New York Red Bulls star Juan Pablo Angel

Must have read the manual on "HOWE TO ENDEAR YOURSELF TO TFC FANS"

WELL IN JDG!

Boondaddy
03-17-2010, 10:40 AM
http://www.soccerbyives.net/soccer_by_ives/2010/03/players-union-set-to-strike-on-monday.html

what happened to the 25th???

Pigfynn
03-17-2010, 10:47 AM
Another story out of Seattle:

http://blog.thenewstribune.com/soccer/2010/03/17/more-from-sounders-owner-on-possible-strike/

similar to yesterday, just some quotes that didn't make it in.

Sorry but it's hard to disagree with alot of what he says in there.

Most teams in the MLS don't fill their stadiums. MLS games have very low TV ratings. The players to some degree have taken the increased interest in clubs like Toronto and Seattle and decided to take a stand based on very little ground.

If the owners give in on 75% of what the players want, they should count their lucky stars, sign this fucking thing and kick this bad boy off.

rocker
03-17-2010, 10:53 AM
Must have read the manual on "HOWE TO ENDEAR YOURSELF TO TFC FANS"

WELL IN JDG!

yess!!

Boondaddy
03-17-2010, 10:56 AM
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/soccerinsider/2010/03/mls_player_reps_to_meet.html

free agency off the table period.

Phil
03-17-2010, 10:57 AM
http://www.soccerbyives.net/soccer_by_ives/2010/03/players-union-set-to-strike-on-monday.html

what happened to the 25th???

This is going to be intresting.

It might be positive in getting the resolution done in time for season start. It also brings the 11th hour a hell of a lot closer.

Yohan
03-17-2010, 10:58 AM
now is not the time to demand free agency I think

give it 2 more years to see how well philly and vancouver is doing, and players would have better bargaining position

Roogsy
03-17-2010, 11:08 AM
That's crazy. Players keep getting asked to "push back" their demands and that is simply bad business. Players have a bargaining position NOW. It's all about leverage. What more leverage will players have in 2 years that they don't have now? I tell you what they have now that they won't have in 2 years. 1) The World Cup 2) An expansion team coming into the league.

Besides...CBAs are drawn up for periods of "2 years". This one will mostly likely be like the last one, 4 years.

Owners aren't the only ones who have been asked to pay a price for a new league. Players have been underpaid from the very start. Now that owners are beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel...so should the players.

They should strike up a deal that is beneficial for BOTH sides since both have sacrificed from the inception of the league.

Whoop
03-17-2010, 11:15 AM
But Roogs... it looks like if a deal is going to have to be done it's the players that will have to cave.

The owners have said that they are willing to go forward with the current CBA thereby forcing the players to strike.

The players strike... there goes the league.

Not saying it's right but the players are the ones that will likely have to blink first.

To me this being a World Cup year hurts the players more than it helps.

P-NUTZ
03-17-2010, 11:15 AM
RE: Refs - i've played soccer for over 30 years, and unfortunately bad refs are part of the game at most any level. However, when even bad refs throw down the discipline gauntlet during a game, and then even the most chippy mouthy players shut up - the result is often a cleaner more responsible style of play. It's all on the players and coaches to shut up and play. Respect the ref even when they suck because they are the ref for that game so the teams need to get on with it and play. The ref can even refuse a captains request for an explanation. The ref owes the teams nothing, except the best job possible in adhering to the rules and managing safety and discipline. It's awful when poor officiating affects a result. But the behavior of players and staff should remain professional regardless.

Bad refs will appear. Players and coaches should know better and deal with it respectfully.

Yohan
03-17-2010, 11:18 AM
That's crazy. Players keep getting asked to "push back" their demands and that is simply bad business. Players have a bargaining position NOW. It's all about leverage. What more leverage will players have in 2 years that they don't have now? I tell you what they have now that they won't have in 2 years. 1) The World Cup 2) An expansion team coming into the league.

Besides...CBAs are drawn up for periods of "2 years". This one will mostly likely be like the last one, 4 years.

Owners aren't the only ones who have been asked to pay a price for a new league. Players have been underpaid from the very start. Now that owners are beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel...so should the players.

They should strike up a deal that is beneficial for BOTH sides since both have sacrificed from the inception of the league.
the owners have invested helluva a lot of money in the league, but most do so because they are supporters of the game

if it comes to push and shove, the owners might just say to hell with all of this and walk away. no more MLS and death of soccer in NA

Boondaddy
03-17-2010, 11:22 AM
RE: Refs - i've played soccer for over 30 years, and unfortunately bad refs are part of the game at most any level. However, when even bad refs throw down the discipline gauntlet during a game, and then even the most chippy mouthy players shut up - the result is often a cleaner more responsible style of play. It's all on the players and coaches to shut up and play. Respect the ref even when they suck because they are the ref for that game so the teams need to get on with it and play. The ref can even refuse a captains request for an explanation. The ref owes the teams nothing, except the best job possible in adhering to the rules and managing safety and discipline. It's awful when poor officiating affects a result. But the behavior of players and staff should remain professional regardless.

Bad refs will appear. Players and coaches should know better and deal with it respectfully.

Methinks someone got started early on St. Paddy's Day! :drinking:

ManUtd4ever
03-17-2010, 11:29 AM
I've assumed throughout this entire mess that sanity would prevail but it seems that might not be the case. There is a stark reality that we are all gearing up for a season that will never be, perhaps a league that may never return despite the momentum MLS has gained over the last few years. I truly hope this isn't the last week of TFC football because the alternative is too difficult to fathom...

Beach_Red
03-17-2010, 11:30 AM
That's crazy. Players keep getting asked to "push back" their demands and that is simply bad business. Players have a bargaining position NOW. It's all about leverage. What more leverage will players have in 2 years that they don't have now? I tell you what they have now that they won't have in 2 years. 1) The World Cup 2) An expansion team coming into the league.

Besides...CBAs are drawn up for periods of "2 years". This one will mostly likely be like the last one, 4 years.

Owners aren't the only ones who have been asked to pay a price for a new league. Players have been underpaid from the very start. Now that owners are beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel...so should the players.

They should strike up a deal that is beneficial for BOTH sides since both have sacrificed from the inception of the league.

Joe Roth's quotes were very interesting yesterday. He said the league's stucture was one of the reasons he invested. He's been through a couple of writer's strikes in Hollywood and they have a lot in common with a sports league strike. I do get the feeling that he's interested in owning a sports team under the right circumstances, but he won't hesitate to get out of the sports business if the circumstances aren't right. He makes a lot of money in the movie business.

Whoop
03-17-2010, 11:35 AM
That's why I think some of these owners will just pull out and find some other play thing to spend their money on.

While some of the guys in the MLS might be able to catch on with some other teams in other leagues... for most of these guys this is it.

mastermixer
03-17-2010, 11:36 AM
question... if we go on the very possible scenario that the players strike and MLS puts in scab players do we get some sort of compensation on our season seats? I can't see paying what I paid for my season seats be worth watching some last minute call-ups play eachother.

Phil
03-17-2010, 11:38 AM
question... if we go on the very possible scenario that the players strike and MLS puts in scab players do we get some sort of compensation on our season seats? I can't see paying what I paid for my season seats be worth watching some last minute call-ups play eachother.

Scab players have only been talked about on the boards. I would be really surprised if they are used.

Players that are elligable are most likely already playing in USL / NASL right now.

In other reports I found this today which looks to have some good info:

http://pitchinvasion.net/blog/2010/03/17/peter-wilts-proposed-solution-to-mls-labor-strife/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PitchInvasion+%28Pitch+Invasi on%29



There are reportedly three main issues that the players are seeking concessions on: free agency, guaranteed contracts and receiving 10% of international transfer fees

Dave67
03-17-2010, 11:39 AM
question... if we go on the very possible scenario that the players strike and MLS puts in scab players do we get some sort of compensation on our season seats? I can't see paying what I paid for my season seats be worth watching some last minute call-ups play eachother.


What if it's more entertaining than what we watch now? :D

Dave67
03-17-2010, 11:43 AM
/\ /\


sigh...

" I don’t know first hand what MLS Commissioner Don Garber and MLS Players’ Union Executive Director Bob Foose (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/bob-foose/3/935/679)are debating, but from the outside, there still seems to be quite a gap between the two sides despite the inclusion (http://www.socceramerica.com/article/37197/commissioner-garber-on-mediator-cba-talks-and-do.html) of a federal mediator (http://www.cbssports.com/soccer/story/13014278/federal-mediator-appointed-for-mls-labor-talks/cbsnews). "

Yohan
03-17-2010, 11:44 AM
That's why I think some of these owners will just pull out and find some other play thing to spend their money on.

While some of the guys in the MLS might be able to catch on with some other teams in other leagues... for most of these guys this is it.
exactly

what trump cards do the players hold?

most US/Cdn players would starve, or end up playing for usl 2 or PDL teams at best

Roogsy
03-17-2010, 12:12 PM
the owners have invested helluva a lot of money in the league, but most do so because they are supporters of the game

if it comes to push and shove, the owners might just say to hell with all of this and walk away. no more MLS and death of soccer in NA

As someone who has worked with types just like these owners....I can assure you that is the least likely scenario.

Really? Do you think an owner is willing to walk away because the cap might go from 2.2 to 3? Because a player wants free agency that might help his salary go from 150k to 200k and give him freedom of movement? Because of those things he'd be willing to cut his losses in the tens of millions of dollars and give up any gains made in the last couple of years and any hope of profitability which appears to be right around the corner?

There's a reason they are millionaires and we aren't and it's because they let the numbers talk, not their emotions.

And yet these are the same types that bought Beckham for 250mill and ran the NASL into the ground. They ARE willing to spend, how much is the only question and that is what the players are testing. They are no different. Letting the league fall into oblivion is the LAST thing they want. And nobody is walking away. They might SELL...but nobody is closing up shop and saying "That's it, I've had enough." If they did, they wouldn't be millionares. Joe Roth talks a big game but he has had to endure several strikes in Hollywood and nobody closed up shop and said "I am not putting up with this anymore".

Money talks. In this case, the only way to generate money is to keep the league up and running. You don't make money off of a defunct league and they all know it.

Gazza
03-17-2010, 12:23 PM
I haven't been paying much attention this pre-season, but has/is De Guzman getting suspended? How bad was the tackle?

At least he chose the right guy on the field to go after...that's the scarberian in him!

Whoop
03-17-2010, 12:29 PM
Roogsy I agree with what you say.

But a multi-millionaire is also willing to holding out a little longer than a guy who is making $50,000.

That's part of the reason they are also multi-millionaires. They know their risks. While I'm sure they're not necessarily willing to walk away I don't think they're intimidated by the players.

And you know they could make money off other investments and shuffle their money into other projects.

P-NUTZ
03-17-2010, 12:30 PM
The article link RooneyRPB posted was excellent. Even as I drink it still helps me sort this out.

With the World Cup this summer, the league risks losing out on tons of walk-up ticket buyers, as even moderate footy fans will get inspired to watch some soccer in-person as the WC approaches and plays out. And with VAN, PORT and MONT joining soon, the league should be able to give these players some extra financial allowances to which the players should agree as 95% of them will be done as professional soccer players if they don't. The min. wage and cap are disturbingly low.

Beach_Red
03-17-2010, 12:39 PM
As someone who has worked with types just like these owners....I can assure you that is the least likely scenario.

Really? Do you think an owner is willing to walk away because the cap might go from 2.2 to 3? Because a player wants free agency that might help his salary go from 150k to 200k and give him freedom of movement? Because of those things he'd be willing to cut his losses in the tens of millions of dollars and give up any gains made in the last couple of years and any hope of profitability which appears to be right around the corner?

There's a reason they are millionaires and we aren't and it's because they let the numbers talk, not their emotions.

And yet these are the same types that bought Beckham for 250mill and ran the NASL into the ground. They ARE willing to spend, how much is the only question and that is what the players are testing. They are no different. Letting the league fall into oblivion is the LAST thing they want. And nobody is walking away. They might SELL...but nobody is closing up shop and saying "That's it, I've had enough." If they did, they wouldn't be millionares. Joe Roth talks a big game but he has had to endure several strikes in Hollywood and nobody closed up shop and said "I am not putting up with this anymore".

Money talks. In this case, the only way to generate money is to keep the league up and running. You don't make money off of a defunct league and they all know it.


Yeah, you're right, of course, it's in everyone's best interest to keep the league going. Hollywood had to make some concessions to the writers, reluctantly, but they did it. The relationhip between producers/studios and writers has always been contentious - it goes back to the fact that Hollywood was establshed with silent films and then with talkies they had to bring in writers. They didn't get along from the start. Well, who can get along with writers ;)).

There's an article in the Toronto Star today about one of the guys on Dragon's Den from Calgary. It says he owns Derby County in the UK and refers to them as the Saskatchewan Roughriders of the midlands. It also says he's thinking about buying into the Nashville Predators.

Maybe we should go on Dragon's Den and pitch him on the idea of a USL team.

P-NUTZ
03-17-2010, 12:51 PM
I hope there is a place in any new CBA that deals with Garcia making $190,000.00 base salary while Nana makes $34,000.00. An assistant manager at McDonald's makes at least $31,000.00. It's sometimes hard to take this league seriously, but dam i can't wait 'til April 25th if the openers still on.

P-NUTZ
03-17-2010, 12:54 PM
make that the 15th - oops i just spilled my beer again.

rocker
03-17-2010, 12:57 PM
I hope there is a place in any new CBA that deals with Garcia making $190,000.00 base salary while Nana makes $34,000.00. An assistant manager at McDonald's makes at least $31,000.00. It's sometimes hard to take this league seriously, but dam i can't wait 'til April 25th if the openers still on.

the sad thing is there will be many more Nick Garcia-like contracts if the players get their way. He is guaranteed, and the union wants more guaranteed contracts. So if a player has a dropoff in quality all the sudden, the team has to still pay the big bucks.

Steve
03-17-2010, 01:07 PM
As someone who has worked with types just like these owners....I can assure you that is the least likely scenario.

Really? Do you think an owner is willing to walk away because the cap might go from 2.2 to 3? Because a player wants free agency that might help his salary go from 150k to 200k and give him freedom of movement? Because of those things he'd be willing to cut his losses in the tens of millions of dollars and give up any gains made in the last couple of years and any hope of profitability which appears to be right around the corner?

There's a reason they are millionaires and we aren't and it's because they let the numbers talk, not their emotions.

And yet these are the same types that bought Beckham for 250mill and ran the NASL into the ground. They ARE willing to spend, how much is the only question and that is what the players are testing. They are no different. Letting the league fall into oblivion is the LAST thing they want. And nobody is walking away. They might SELL...but nobody is closing up shop and saying "That's it, I've had enough." If they did, they wouldn't be millionares. Joe Roth talks a big game but he has had to endure several strikes in Hollywood and nobody closed up shop and said "I am not putting up with this anymore".

Money talks. In this case, the only way to generate money is to keep the league up and running. You don't make money off of a defunct league and they all know it.

No, they aren't balking because of an increase in salary cap, or a slight increase in possible player salary. They bought into a league with a single-entity structure. That structure makes their calculations for future profitability and risk come to a certain figure. Player free agency has a very real possibility of destroying single-entity (the league would get challenged in court). So, it's not a question of more cost right now for potential future earnings (which owners might grip at, but would accept in the end) it's a question of changing the original parameters of investment, and if you do that, you're likely to have situations where it just doesn't make any sense anymore. Let's say an owner is currently losing money, but has determined that with single entity and league growth, they have a 90% chance of profitable in 5 years, and make enough to make hanging on now worth it. Let's also say destroying single-entity changes that calculation to a 50% chance, and pushes the 5 years out to 8. Now, suddenly, the numbers might no longer add up. If that is the case, they will walk away without a seconds thought, since they are currently losing money.

As you said, these people make decisions with their wallets, not their hearts, but in this case, with so many teams losing money, if you change the parameters you have a decent chance that owners will no longer be interested in sticking around .

Roogsy
03-17-2010, 01:11 PM
Roogsy I agree with what you say.

But a multi-millionaire is also willing to holding out a little longer than a guy who is making $50,000.

That's part of the reason they are also multi-millionaires. They know their risks. While I'm sure they're not necessarily willing to walk away I don't think they're intimidated by the players.

And you know they could make money off other investments and shuffle their money into other projects.


What makes them millionaires is that they don't "pool" their investments. Each investment has to make a return. And this being a WC year, they were/are planning on making serious marketing inroads on the back of the tournament. Hence, any stoppage in the league won't cost them a pittance, it will be millions on lost revenues and years of lost opportunity. Regardless if on a dollar basis, they can "hold out" longer than players...the real decision isn't whether they can weather this better than players but rather what they are willing to give up in opportunity costs.

P-NUTZ
03-17-2010, 01:16 PM
Thats a tough place for a team to be in rocker, as many such players are already on the brink of a decline. Just look at the likes of Serioux who couldn't get/stay healthy, Robinson who couldn't keep up with the pace and Garcia who arrived way overrated. These guys all had some quality or experience at some time to be paid reasonably, but can really handcuff a team when their contributions soon fall short of their cost. To attract better players at those prices the min wage and cap must go up so teams dont settle for what little they can choose from when looking for some real quality/experience in a 25 -28 yr old player. This is still not a terribly attractive league to play in. ;(

P-NUTZ
03-17-2010, 01:20 PM
roogsy right. this is a critical point in the MLS legacy.

Whoop
03-17-2010, 01:23 PM
What makes them millionaires is that they don't "pool" their investments. Each investment has to make a return. And this being a WC year, they were/are planning on making serious marketing inroads on the back of the tournament. Hence, any stoppage in the league won't cost them a pittance, it will be millions on lost revenues and years of lost opportunity. Regardless if on a dollar basis, they can "hold out" longer than players...the real decision isn't whether they can weather this better than players but rather what they are willing to give up in opportunity costs.

Of course, they don't pool their investments. I'm sure their MLS team is one of many investments.
And of course there is an opportunity with the World Cup to make inroads though I would argue that would be based on the performance of the US team at the World Cup more than anything else. If the US flames out in the first round, the end result could be negligible.

Again... I'm not disputing what you are saying, all I said is that if anyone is going to blink first, it will be the players.

P-NUTZ
03-17-2010, 01:28 PM
whoopee is right. players must take the cash raises and increased job opps they can get from a new agreement and get back to work. even maybe play through negotiations? the players really shouldn't push their luck.

Beach_Red
03-17-2010, 01:35 PM
Of course, they don't pool their investments. I'm sure their MLS team is one of many investments.
And of course there is an opportunity with the World Cup to make inroads though I would argue that would be based on the performance of the US team at the World Cup more than anything else. If the US flames out in the first round, the end result could be negligible.

Again... I'm not disputing what you are saying, all I said is that if anyone is going to blink first, it will be the players.


If we look at what the owners were willing to go through in baseball, football and hockey then yes, it's unlikely they'll give in very much. Many people here have said how the labour strife has put them off baseball completely and certainly hockey lost a lot of fans as well.

I don't know how many of those owners would say today that what they went through was worth it.

Whoop
03-17-2010, 01:38 PM
I'm sure MLSE is making more money now then they were pre-lockout days.

I'm sure they could make more but that's more of a result of their performance on the ice.

i.e. If MLS were to shut down for a season I think teams like TFC and Seattle would still be able to survive... not sure of some other teams.

Bottom line, the haves in baseball/hockey are doing quite well. The have nots... not so much.

The NFL will be tested next season as there is a battle of epic proportions on the horizon.

ManUtd4ever
03-17-2010, 01:42 PM
If we look at what the owners were willing to go through in baseball, football and hockey then yes, it's unlikely they'll give in very much. Many people here have said how the labour strife has put them off baseball completely and certainly hockey lost a lot of fans as well.

I don't know how many of those owners would say today that what they went through was worth it.

Absolutely. One need only glance at reader comments posted on mainstream sports media websites to understand that the majority of MLS fans are casual at best and will not hesitate to invest their time and money elsewhere...

Roogsy
03-17-2010, 01:43 PM
Again... I'm not disputing what you are saying, all I said is that if anyone is going to blink first, it will be the players.

At the end of the day, I agree this is true since the owners have the most leverage.

However, it will only happen if they get to save face and manage to squeeze something out of the owners.

That being said, I wouldn't doubt the player's resolve on this issue either and I think that is the mistake some fans are making, let's hope the league isnt making the same mistake. Picketers on strike in other industries have been in the same situation, where their livelihoods are at stake and they will tough it out on principle despite having owners with all the leverage. If there is anything that we have learned it's that unions have a way of creating solidarity and a degree of obstinance amongst it's rank and file that create a front necessary in the negotiating process, otherwise management would take them to the cleaners. It's actually pretty necessary for the union to have any type of negotiating position.

ManUtd4ever
03-17-2010, 01:46 PM
And another element of fan reaction worth considering: How many people in this time of economic strife (especially in the hard hit regions of the U.S.) will have any patience or sympathy for either side of yet another sports related work stoppage? If the dispute is not resolved before the regular season or within a couple of months at the very latest, the league will simply never recover...

Whoop
03-17-2010, 01:47 PM
At the end of the day, I agree this is true since the owners have the most leverage.

However, it will only happen if they get to save face and manage to squeeze something out of the owners.

That being said, I wouldn't doubt the player's resolve on this issue either and I think that is the mistake some fans are making, let's hope the league isnt making the same mistake. Picketers on strike in other industries have been in the same situation, where their livelihoods are at stake and they will tough it out on principle despite having owners with all the leverage. If there is anything that we have learned it's that unions have a way of creating solidarity and a degree of obstinance amongst it's rank and file that create a front necessary in the negotiating process, otherwise management would take them to the cleaners. It's actually pretty necessary for the union to have any type of negotiating position.

I agree.

However, difference between a sports union/association and a labour union, is there normally isn't as wide a disparity in salaries in labour unions as there is in a sports union.

Roogsy
03-17-2010, 01:48 PM
Very true. However, unlike the Baseball strike, they can't call the player's side "millionaire athletes".

P-NUTZ
03-17-2010, 01:49 PM
MLS is a lot like NHL in that many cities that have franchises never have, and never likely will, care enough about the sport to make a difference. So unlike the NFL and the NBA where massive TV contracts put millions on the line for the whole business and brand, there will ultimately be a more realistic ceiling on MLS where it will peak it's performance and then much like the NHL - just find ways to survive in many of it's markets from then on. Soccer and hockey are simply to niche for the masses and will always suffer the realities of such markets.

Whoop
03-17-2010, 01:51 PM
Still... a lot of people don't have a lot of sympathy for athletes regardless especially since 3/4 of the guys are making more money than the average North American.

Which I always found kind of funny.

No one blinks an eye when some actors make $10-20 million per film yet an athlete asks for more money and it's like they are pedophiles.

Roogsy
03-17-2010, 01:53 PM
I agree.

However, difference between a sports union/association and a labour union, is there normally isn't as wide a disparity in salaries in labour unions as there is in a sports union.

Not so...it depends on the industry. Case in point: teachers.

At the end of the day, it will come down to comparing league revenues to other sports leagues and when this happens, the players have a serious case to make. I forgot where I read this, but in MLS, league salaries are closer to 25% of revenue whereas in the NBA, NHL and other leagues, it's over 50%. The case the players will make is regardless of the losses the league has taken over the years (which the players will attribute to startup costs that will no longer be a factor going forward) why is it other leagues can be profitable despite the fact that their largest expense item, salaries and compensation has a substantially higher ratio to revenue than in the MLS and why shouldn't MLS salaries have a ratio more similar to other sports leagues? In my opinion, that's a fair question not just for owners, but for fans to answer as well. I mean, at the end of the day, aren't the players the commodity that we all go to see?

ManUtd4ever
03-17-2010, 01:54 PM
Very true. However, unlike the Baseball strike, they can't call the player's side "millionaire athletes".

I agree wholeheartedly and I sympathize with the players on every key issue except free agency. Unfortunately, the MLS fan base in general isn't nearly as knowledgeable as members of supporter groups regarding the CBA issues and will likely paint MLS athletes with same brush as most professional athletes. The end result is no sympathy, and plenty of apathy...

P-NUTZ
03-17-2010, 01:55 PM
Tv. Tv. Tv.

Whoop
03-17-2010, 02:00 PM
Not so...it depends on the industry. Case in point: teachers.



I've never encountered a millionaire teacher.

P-NUTZ
03-17-2010, 02:03 PM
Dr. Oz, Oprah, Jon and Kate....TV TV TV....dictates revenue and salaries and power and influenc in the market...right now MLS soccer players are basically irrelevent in the broad sports world market.

Roogsy
03-17-2010, 02:05 PM
I've never encountered a millionaire teacher.

You said discrepancy in salaries. While we are not talking to the degree of Gabe Gala to David Beckham, we also aren't talking about the difference between $20/hour and $30/hour.

And just for the record...I have. Between salaries earned and vested pensions, some teachers wind up being worth millions.

Whoop
03-17-2010, 02:07 PM
At the end of the day, it will come down to comparing league revenues to other sports leagues and when this happens, the players have a serious case to make. I forgot where I read this, but in MLS, league salaries are closer to 25% of revenue whereas in the NBA, NHL and other leagues, it's over 50%. The case the players will make is regardless of the losses the league has taken over the years (which the players will attribute to startup costs that will no longer be a factor going forward) why is it other leagues can be profitable despite the fact that their largest expense item, salaries and compensation has a substantially higher ratio to revenue than in the MLS and why shouldn't MLS salaries have a ratio more similar to other sports leagues? In my opinion, that's a fair question not just for owners, but for fans to answer as well. I mean, at the end of the day, aren't the players the commodity that we all go to see?

I thought in the NHL salaries accounted for 75%?

But you're last point is intriguing... I think in the MLS case a lot of fans go to see TFC as opposed to the individual players. As Jerry Seinfeld would say, "We're cheering for laundry."

There is a grain of truth in that. There might be some connection with 2-3 players per team but the turnover in MLS rosters is ridiculous to the point if TFC got rid of all their players and replaced them with a whole other team and that team got results, most wouldn't complain.

I think that's what the owners are banking on.

It's a messy situation. But it seems like the solution is simple.

I mean, raise the salary cap a bit, raise the minimum to say $50,000, let players, say 30 years old and older, if released can sign with another team?

Whoop
03-17-2010, 02:10 PM
You said discrepancy in salaries. While we are not talking to the degree of Gabe Gala to David Beckham, we also aren't talking about the difference between $20/hour and $30/hour.

And just for the record...I have. Between salaries earned and vested pensions, some teachers wind up being worth millions.

I was talking about salary/per year. LOL

I know millionaire teachers too. Just never met one who made millions from their salary alone in a year.

ManUtd4ever
03-17-2010, 02:11 PM
Not so...it depends on the industry. Case in point: teachers.

At the end of the day, it will come down to comparing league revenues to other sports leagues and when this happens, the players have a serious case to make. I forgot where I read this, but in MLS, league salaries are closer to 25% of revenue whereas in the NBA, NHL and other leagues, it's over 50%. The case the players will make is regardless of the losses the league has taken over the years (which the players will attribute to startup costs that will no longer be a factor going forward) why is it other leagues can be profitable despite the fact that their largest expense item, salaries and compensation has a substantially higher ratio to revenue than in the MLS and why shouldn't MLS salaries have a ratio more similar to other sports leagues? In my opinion, that's a fair question not just for owners, but for fans to answer as well. I mean, at the end of the day, aren't the players the commodity that we all go to see?

All valid points except for the issue of players as commodities that attract the fans. This is the one key area where I believe the players have no leverage whatsoever. I think it is fair to say that with the exception of 10% of the talent pool in the MLS, players are more expendable in this league than in any other professional sports league in North America. I think most fans would be loyal to the badge regardless of the player identities if the talent level was comparable...

P-NUTZ
03-17-2010, 02:14 PM
im going now. interesting reading, thank you.

Roogsy
03-17-2010, 02:20 PM
I was talking about salary/per year. LOL

I know millionaire teachers too. Just never met one who made millions from their salary alone in a year.


True...but some teachers start at 40k for example whereas department heads and principals make over 6 figures in some cases. That's a pretty wide variance.

As opposed to traditional union jobs in a factory where one worker makes $21.50 and the guy next to him with 20 years seniority makes $25.10.

Roogsy
03-17-2010, 02:22 PM
All valid points except for the issue of players as commodities that attract the fans. This is the one key area where I believe the players have no leverage whatsoever. I think it is fair to say that with the exception of 10% of the talent pool in the MLS, players are more expendable in this league than in any other professional sports league in North America. I think most fans would be loyal to the badge regardless of the player identities if the talent level was comparable...

Oh for sure they are more expendable than players in other leagues.

We aren't talking about Sidney Crosby or Lebron James.

However, they are still valuable commodities with some leverage. I will pay to go see Dwayne DeRosario and Amado Guevara. I will not pay to go see scabs from the CSL. So they still carry some weight, not the same as Lebron and Shaq...but still some.

Whoop
03-17-2010, 02:23 PM
I just think the two guys making in the factory will fight together a lot harder than a guy making $500,000 and a guy making $45,000.

In sports, the older vets will throw the younger guys/rookies under the bus when the older should be fighting for the younger guys.

Phil
03-17-2010, 03:08 PM
Well, the earthques spoke out today:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/soccerinsider/2010/03/earthquakes_investor_speaks_ou.html



A strike will be a set back to the dedicated efforts of our players, coaches, management and ownership in seeking to maintain a MLS team in the Bay Area. Without labor being a cooperative partner, our plans for a new venue and expansion of our youth program will be set back for a period that certainly does not benefit the current or future players

ManUtd4ever
03-17-2010, 03:54 PM
Players' strike threatens start of MLS season


League and players union have not agreed to a new labour deal


Last Updated: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 | 4:01 PM ET Comments0 (http://www.redpatchboys.ca/forums/#socialcomments)Recommend4 (http://www.redpatchboys.ca/forums/#)


By John F. Molinaro, CBC Sports (http://www.redpatchboys.ca/sports/credit.html)



http://www.redpatchboys.ca/gfx/images/sports/photos/2008/11/23/garber-don-getty.jpgCommissioner Don Garber is trying to avoid a work stoppage from delaying the start of the 2010 MLS season. (Dave Sandford/Getty Images) Opening day of Major League Soccer's regular season is drawing close, but whether the campaign kicks off on time — or at all — remains to be seen.
The labour dispute between the league and the players union has cast a dark pall over the soccer landscape in Canada and the United States, threatening the start of the MLS season.
The old collective bargaining agreement ran out Feb. 25 after the league and the players union twice extended the five-year labour pact, which was originally to expire Jan. 31. Next Thursday, the Seattle Sounders are scheduled to host the expansion Philadelphia Union on the first day of the season, but a game will likely depend on whether or not the two sides can agree to a new agreement within the next eight days.
The two sides recently met with U.S. federal mediator George Cohen in Washington, D.C., but no new pact was forthcoming. MLS commissioner Don Garber is on record as saying that the league would not lock out the players and that he would not be averse to beginning the season under the terms of the expired agreement.
Last week, the players overwhelmingly voted to strike if a new labour pact wasn't in place by the start of the season on March 25.
"We are united as a union and if we need to strike, we will," Toronto FC defender Nick Garcia told reporters last week.
CBCSports.ca contacted both the league and the union Wednesday for an update on the negotiations and whether or not a new labour deal was imminent. Both declined to comment.
A phone call to Houston Dynamo goalkeeper Pat Onstad, one of five players on the union's executive board, was not returned.
San Jose Earthquakes owner Lew Wolff released a statement via the league.
"Sadly, the players and their representatives say they will strike unless a new collective bargaining agreement is reached by the March 25 season opener," Wolff said.
"Being a relatively new MLS owner, I truly enjoy and appreciate our players, but I believe a strike would not be in the players', fans' and owners' best interests."
Turning point for league


Indeed, any type of work stoppage could potentially be disastrous for MLS in what could be a critical year for the league.
The expansion Philadelphia Union are slated to join MLS as the league's 16th franchise, and teams will be added in Vancouver and Portland, Ore., in 2011. The New York Red Bulls are set to move into Red Bull Arena, a new $200-million US soccer-specific stadium located in Harrison, N.J.
Also, the FIFA World Cup in South Africa runs from June 11 to July 11. Interest in soccer will be at an all-time high in the U.S. and Canada, and MLS would like to piggyback on the popularity of World Cup and capture the attention of soccer fans who traditionally don't watch the league.
"A lockout or a strike doesn't help anyone," Toronto FC midfielder Dwayne De Rosario told CBCSports.ca back in January. "I don't think the players are asking for a whole lot. I think [our demands] are reasonable, so hopefully they'll come to a decision soon and we can get on with our jobs."
Issues at the heart of the labour dispute include the structure of contracts and the security and freedom of players.
MLS is a single-entity structure, which means all players sign with the league rather than individual teams. The union alleges that close to 80 per cent of players in MLS have non-guaranteed contracts.
Under the current pact, players can be transferred to another club without their consent. Even when a player is released from his contract, he's not free to automatically sign with another team in the league.
In effect, the union argues, there is no player free agency in MLS, unlike in the NBA, NHL and Major League Baseball.
A veteran of 10 MLS seasons, Garcia said the league hasn't come close to addressing the union's major concerns regarding improved player rights.
"We, as a union, have come more than half-way [in the negotiations]," Garcia stated. "To this point, the league hasn't taken us seriously, so for me I don't think real issues have been addressed and I know other guys on other teams feel the same way."
But Wolff claims that he and most of his fellow owners are not making money, and that should temper the players' expectations at the bargaining table and influence their decision to strike.
"The Earthquakes and the majority of MLS teams did not generate a profit in 2009, nor do they expect to generate a profit in 2010," Wolff stated. "I believe that the profitability goal should be as much of a concern for the players and their union as it is to the owners."
Wolff later added: "MLS is still a young league that is not fully established yet. To lose the benefits that have been gained to date and to risk league stability is, in my opinion, a risk that the players and their unions need to fully consider."




Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/sports/soccer/story/2010/03/17/sp-mls-unino.html#ixzz0iTAXwGOa (http://www.cbc.ca/sports/soccer/story/2010/03/17/sp-mls-unino.html#ixzz0iTAXwGOa)

DOMIN8R
03-17-2010, 07:38 PM
I think that Garcia should retire and take a job with the MLS Players association. He seems to be better at representing the players interests.

Roogsy
03-17-2010, 08:29 PM
I just think the two guys making in the factory will fight together a lot harder than a guy making $500,000 and a guy making $45,000.

In sports, the older vets will throw the younger guys/rookies under the bus when the older should be fighting for the younger guys.

Now you're talking about player/worker relations which have nothing to do with money and contract negotiations.

Roogsy
03-17-2010, 08:30 PM
I think that Garcia should retire and take a job with the MLS Players association. He seems to be better at representing the players interests.

He has a keen interest in these matters and is very informed and eloquent. I wouldn't be surprised if that is what happened.

Roogsy
03-17-2010, 08:32 PM
Players' strike threatens start of MLS season


League and players union have not agreed to a new labour deal


Last Updated: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 | 4:01 PM ET Comments0 (http://www.redpatchboys.ca/forums/#socialcomments)Recommend4 (http://www.redpatchboys.ca/forums/#)



By John F. Molinaro, CBC Sports (http://www.redpatchboys.ca/sports/credit.html)



Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/sports/soccer/story/2010/03/17/sp-mls-unino.html#ixzz0iTAXwGOa (http://www.cbc.ca/sports/soccer/story/2010/03/17/sp-mls-unino.html#ixzz0iTAXwGOa)



Please remember not to quote more than a few sentences when referring to a news article. For one, it gets sticky from a legal point of view and also, we want to support our soccer writers by sending traffic to their websites. Posting large segments of their articles defies both these points.

ManUtd4ever
03-17-2010, 08:40 PM
Please remember not to quote more than a few sentences when referring to a news article. For one, it gets sticky from a legal point of view and also, we want to support our soccer writers by sending traffic to their websites. Posting large segments of their articles defies both these points.

No problem...

Roogsy
03-17-2010, 08:41 PM
The union alleges that close to 80 per cent of players in MLS have non-guaranteed contracts.

Under the current pact, players can be transferred to another club without their consent. Even when a player is released from his contract, he's not free to automatically sign with another team in the league.In my opinion, this is unacceptable. None of us would work under these conditions, and I don't think it's fair to ask the players to longer than they should. They feel now is the time to make a stand with the league and I agree. As much as I don't want to see the season delayed or cancelled, the players have to take advantage of the unique situation that has presented itself this year with the World Cup, the new team in Philly and the new stadium in NY, the league has a lot invested in this season and the players have more leverage than they ever had and probably will for quite some time.

rocker
03-17-2010, 09:15 PM
In my opinion, this is unacceptable. None of us would work under these conditions, and I don't think it's fair to ask the players to longer than they should. They feel now is the time to make a stand with the league and I agree. As much as I don't want to see the season delayed or cancelled, the players have to take advantage of the unique situation that has presented itself this year with the World Cup, the new team in Philly and the new stadium in NY, the league has a lot invested in this season and the players have more leverage than they ever had and probably will for quite some time.

so what would be acceptable? 100% guaranteed contracts? 80%? just 1 year guaranteed? all 4 years guaranteed?

we all work under these conditions though... no employee can choose the division of the company he wants to work in without permission of the boss. that's managements' right. and if you don't like the terms of your contract, you are free to leave and go to another company (like the NASL or England).

Super
03-17-2010, 09:27 PM
so what would be acceptable? 100% guaranteed contracts? 80%? just 1 year guaranteed? all 4 years guaranteed?

we all work under these conditions though... no employee can choose the division of the company he wants to work in without permission of the boss. that's managements' right. and if you don't like the terms of your contract, you are free to leave and go to another company (like the NASL or England).

I agree. No one is holding a gun to their head, telling them to sign the contract in the first place. If you don't want to play in the MLS, then choose a different league. Now, having said that, I still think we need to make some changes and allow for free agency. We need to make this league a hell of a lot more attractive to players, and also increase the quality level as well.

ag futbol
03-17-2010, 09:45 PM
we all work under these conditions though... no employee can choose the division of the company he wants to work in without permission of the boss.[/B]
I'm sorry this is a complete falsehood. I think you're forgetting what a competitive business professional sports is. The amount of torment these guys go through to keep their spots would leave the average person leaving work in tears on a given day.

There is no incentive to fire the a regular employee (or bring in replacements) the way there is in professional sports. Let's not forget that many of these guys are being strong armed into taking a pay cuts mid-contract, by absolutely wild amounts.


that's managements' right. and if you don't like the terms of your contract, you are free to leave and go to another company (like the NASL or England)
.
Right, except MLS has cornered a segment of the market and the foreign considerations have no baring because short of gaining a work visa players have no right to gain employment in those markets. NASL means nothing because it's a different skill requirement. In court, this sort of "non-comp" agreement preventing people from working consistently gets thrown out.

The league also would probably be at a loss to explain why Preki, Bruce Arena, Mo Johnston, sigi schmid, Juan Carlos Osorio (who left mid-contract for another "division"), seem to be subject to a different movement of labor than the players are.

The bottom line here is that this league will get what it pays for, or provides in benefits. By Guaranteeing contracts, you make it easier to sign talent and considering the total compensation level is the same there's very little risk of expenditures creeping up.

At some point MLS is going to have to put the quality on the field, while it has the public's attention. Otherwise, it's never going to make it as a business.

koryo
03-17-2010, 09:47 PM
so what would be acceptable? 100% guaranteed contracts? 80%? just 1 year guaranteed? all 4 years guaranteed?

we all work under these conditions though... no employee can choose the division of the company he wants to work in without permission of the boss. that's managements' right. and if you don't like the terms of your contract, you are free to leave and go to another company (like the NASL or England).

Acceptable, for me, is when his contract ends a player has the legal right to seek employment elsewhere. That doesn't happen in the MLS right now. That the league retains a player's rights in perpetuity after a contract has expired is utter joke.

Roogsy
03-17-2010, 10:34 PM
I agree. No one is holding a gun to their head, telling them to sign the contract in the first place. If you don't want to play in the MLS, then choose a different league. Now, having said that, I still think we need to make some changes and allow for free agency. We need to make this league a hell of a lot more attractive to players, and also increase the quality level as well.

Nobody is holding a gun to their head true. So the option is to renegotiate the CBA that governs how they obtain the contracts, which is what they are doing.

I think it's pretty funny that on one hand we recognize that they are willing parties to a contract but then tie their hands by saying don't do anything to change how the contracts are negotiated. By using labour negotiating tactics, they are acting in accordance with your statement that nobody is "holding a gun to their head". That's right...so they've decided to act on their position and renegotiate.

Whoop
03-17-2010, 10:43 PM
Now you're talking about player/worker relations which have nothing to do with money and contract negotiations.

Just going back to my first point that the players will blink first.

We know the owners are happy with the current CBA... but what are the player demands? We mention things like free agency, guaranteed contracts, etc. but do we know any specifics?

Roogsy
03-17-2010, 10:53 PM
so what would be acceptable? 100% guaranteed contracts? 80%? just 1 year guaranteed? all 4 years guaranteed?

we all work under these conditions though... no employee can choose the division of the company he wants to work in without permission of the boss. that's managements' right. and if you don't like the terms of your contract, you are free to leave and go to another company (like the NASL or England).


I like how all these comparisons pop up as to what employees cannot do and yet we fail to also award them the right to have what employees CAN do as well.

Do you really want to take this example and apply it fully or only apply segments of your example that agree with your point? Because right now we are pretty much saying "as an employee of MLS you have to endure the bad but not benefit from the good". How about in accepting the bad, they also get the benefits of the good?

The ironic part about all this is that I bet some here who have been less than sympathetic to the player's position are working in industries and jobs that have benefits that were hard-fought with labour negotiating tactics and yet seem less willing to allow other fellow workers the right to freely negotiate their own contracts just the same.

Even more ironic is that we are debating the number of contracts that are "guaranteed". Shouldn't a contract by definition BE guaranteed to a point? When a player starts a season with the club, he is foregoing the opportunity to work elsewhere that season. He is expecting work for a defined period of time. For management to halfway through a season change their mind and cancel the contract without good reason other than they felt like it is unethical from my point of view unless of course they are willing to pay the employee the remaining compensation for that contract. That's how it happens everywhere else (sports or not) except in MLS and I think it's a joke.

Contracts should be revisited during the off-season unless there are extenuating circumstances (such as player behaviour). If I sign a 3 year contract with the league and start the season with TFC, I should at least know that during the season I won't be released on a whim and that the status of the contract will be revisited once the season is over if the team wishes to release me at that time. Otherwise, what is the point of signing a contract if a week later Mo can decide to cancel it? That is an unbalanced level of power over contracts. None of us would work under those conditions.

Whoop
03-17-2010, 11:12 PM
The ironic part about all this is that I bet some here who have been less than sympathetic to the player's position are working in industries and jobs that have benefits that were hard-fought with labour negotiating tactics and yet seem less willing to allow other fellow workers the right to freely negotiate their own contracts just the same.

Even more ironic is that we are debating the number of contracts that are "guaranteed". Shouldn't a contract by definition BE guaranteed to a point? When a player starts a season with the club, he is foregoing the opportunity to work elsewhere that season. He is expecting work for a defined period of time. For management to halfway through a season change their mind and cancel the contract without good reason other than they felt like it is unethical from my point of view unless of course they are willing to pay the employee the remaining compensation for that contract. That's how it happens everywhere else (sports or not) except in MLS and I think it's a joke.

Contracts should be revisited during the off-season unless there are extenuating circumstances (such as player behaviour). If I sign a 3 year contract with the league and start the season with TFC, I should at least know that during the season I won't be released on a whim and that the status of the contract will be revisited once the season is over if the team wishes to release me at that time. Otherwise, what is the point of signing a contract if a week later Mo can decide to cancel it? That is an unbalanced level of power over contracts. None of us would work under those conditions.

Roogs... I'm not sympathetic to either side - I can see both side of the argument but just to point out that part of the reason that the NFL is so successful is that NFL contract are not guaranteed. Now, if you're smart you can sign a contract and get guaranteed money - usually in a form of a signing bonus.

However, where I agree with the players is that "fine, I'll sign a non-guaranteed contract but if you release me I should be able to sign some other team in the league, provided I'm wanted."

That I don't agree with. A player, if released, should be able to sign with another club.

Roogsy
03-17-2010, 11:31 PM
Even in the NFL, you just can't be release mid-season. At least not as far as I am aware. While the entire life of the contract is not guaranteed, things like signing bonuses and in-season guarantees if you're on the roster by a certain date are. These are things I am sure are reasonable enough for MLS to provide players as an appeasement for player concerns over being released. As it stands now, the league has far too much power over the player contracts with regards to whether he continues working or not and I think some of that power should be done away with, whether it be ensuring contracts are valid for the season or whether it be players being unrestrcited once their contract runs out. And none of these really impact the profitability of the league in any significant way. A small price to pay to continue paying professional athletes a pittance. Because while we hold up the NFL as a standard, let's also remember that their average salary is 5 times higher than MLS so a player with a family who earns 750k and gets released won't be in as much dire straights as a player with a family earning 150k. In my opinion, the players are fighting for the right to be able to earn a decent wage without having to worry about job security mid-season. I don't doubt that they recognize the fluid nature of sports and that their contracts should not be guaranteed over multiple seasons, but I would think at the very least we'd agree that a guy like Sutton, who has a family, was put in an awful position of getting released halfway through the season when he wasn't making an onerous salary at what, 120, 150k? If it were any other industry, he'd be owed the remaining portion of the contract.

Whoop
03-17-2010, 11:42 PM
I'm not disputing that. Nor am I using the NFL as the standard I just wanted to put out that you were wrong/incorrect when you stated it doesn't happen anywhere else. :D

(Though normally they don't cut "star" players mid-season usually just guys on the practice roster and stuff. But NFL teams can terminate your contract before the contract is up or they even ask you to restructure your contract.)

But to ask my question again, what are the specifics the players are asking for?

Whoop
03-17-2010, 11:55 PM
NFL CBA if anyone is interested.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/20343876/NFL-Collective-Bargaining-Agreement-2006-2012

NHL CBA

http://www.nhlfa.com/CBA/

MLS CBA

http://www.mlsplayers.org/files/collective_bargaining_agreement__final.pdf

Steve
03-18-2010, 08:32 AM
I like how all these comparisons pop up as to what employees cannot do and yet we fail to also award them the right to have what employees CAN do as well.

Do you really want to take this example and apply it fully or only apply segments of your example that agree with your point? Because right now we are pretty much saying "as an employee of MLS you have to endure the bad but not benefit from the good". How about in accepting the bad, they also get the benefits of the good?

The ironic part about all this is that I bet some here who have been less than sympathetic to the player's position are working in industries and jobs that have benefits that were hard-fought with labour negotiating tactics and yet seem less willing to allow other fellow workers the right to freely negotiate their own contracts just the same.

Even more ironic is that we are debating the number of contracts that are "guaranteed". Shouldn't a contract by definition BE guaranteed to a point? When a player starts a season with the club, he is foregoing the opportunity to work elsewhere that season. He is expecting work for a defined period of time. For management to halfway through a season change their mind and cancel the contract without good reason other than they felt like it is unethical from my point of view unless of course they are willing to pay the employee the remaining compensation for that contract. That's how it happens everywhere else (sports or not) except in MLS and I think it's a joke.

Contracts should be revisited during the off-season unless there are extenuating circumstances (such as player behaviour). If I sign a 3 year contract with the league and start the season with TFC, I should at least know that during the season I won't be released on a whim and that the status of the contract will be revisited once the season is over if the team wishes to release me at that time. Otherwise, what is the point of signing a contract if a week later Mo can decide to cancel it? That is an unbalanced level of power over contracts. None of us would work under those conditions.

Umm, nope. I can't speak for sports, but if you sign a one year contract with a company, they can usually let you go at any time during that contract and only have to give you a few weeks notice. And no, they don't have to pay our the remainder of the contract. What jobs have you had that gave you that much job security?

Kaz
03-18-2010, 08:35 AM
Even in the NFL, you just can't be release mid-season. At least not as far as I am aware.

The Chargers are aware that the can, as the did it to Clinton Hart

On April 7, 2008 the Chargers signed Hart to a five-year extension through 2012.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Hart#cite_note-1) During the 2008 season he remained the Chargers starter at strong safety, starting in all 14 games he played. He finished the season with 63 tackles and 0 interceptions.
Hart was cut from the Chargers on October 14. 2009.

In the work world if you suck at your job you get fired, the company isn't forced to keep paying you while continue to screw up, there is a process to do that. MLS players need more security yes, but what the players are asking for is a bit much for a League of this caliber. It's a now now now demand rather the a evolution, and that is why I don't work in a union environment.

Steve
03-18-2010, 08:45 AM
The Chargers are aware that the can, as the did it to Clinton Hart


In the work world if you suck at your job you get fired, the company isn't forced to keep paying you while continue to screw up, there is a process to do that. MLS players need more security yes, but what the players are asking for is a bit much for a League of this caliber. It's a now now now demand rather the a evolution, and that is why I don't work in a union environment.

Exactly. I work in an environment that if I underperform, I won't have a job to come back to. I enjoy this environment and I thrive on it. I would hate to work in a place where I could suck at my job and unless I raped a coworker I can't be fired.

As for guaranteed contracts for players, though I disagree with a lot of it, because it is a special situation (where it's hard for players to find other work mid-season) I think a compromise would be fair. That is to say, players are guaranteed to receive a portion of their compensation for the entire year, but if they are released, the owning company pays for it, and it doesn't count under the cap. That way TFC could buy themselves out of a contract and not be stuck with useless players, but the players wouldn't be as screwed. The same should apply for situations like Robinson, where TFC could (if they wanted to) pay for the 175k, but have it not count against the cap.

ag futbol
03-18-2010, 06:29 PM
There are (usually) two types of term contracts:

1) A contract for a set prior of time where either party can leave at their discretion. So you sign a one year deal at work you can leave whenever you want, the employer can also let you go at their discretion.

2) A guaranteed contract where you are WITHOUT the ability to leave and your employer is required to pay.

This is why the MLS deal is so strange, it's very management heavy and from my best understandings of labor law I have no idea how it's considered legal. Because the recourse of a normal contract is that the employee can leave at any time. The recourse for the guaranteed contract is that both are obligated. Courts have been extremely consistent when it comes down to throwing out non-comp or equivalent measures in favor of employees.

If 80% of the league was on 1 or 2 year guaranteed deals it would not be the end of the world. Not guaranteeing deals when other leagues do means MLS either has to increase compensation to get the same guy or settle for someone worse. The soccer labor market is efficient, you get what you pay for.

rocker
03-18-2010, 06:40 PM
There are (usually) two types of term contracts:

1) A contract for a set prior of time where either party can leave at their discretion. So you sign a one year deal at work you can leave whenever you want, the employer can also let you go at their discretion.

2) A guaranteed contract where you are WITHOUT the ability to leave and your employer is required to pay.

This is why the MLS deal is so strange, it's very management heavy and from my best understandings of labor law I have no idea how it's considered legal. Because the recourse of a normal contract is that the employee can leave at any time. The recourse for the guaranteed contract is that both are obligated. Courts have been extremely consistent when it comes down to throwing out non-comp or equivalent measures in favor of employees.

If 80% of the league was on 1 or 2 year guaranteed deals it would not be the end of the world. Not guaranteeing deals when other leagues do means MLS either has to increase compensation to get the same guy or settle for someone worse. The soccer labor market is efficient, you get what you pay for.

isn't it legal because the players and the league signed a CBA 6 years ago that made it legal?

ag futbol
03-18-2010, 06:49 PM
isn't it legal because the players and the league signed a CBA 6 years ago that made it legal?
I know it held up in court last time, but i doubt it. MLS must of had a regular Lionel Hutz rep their case.

Pigfynn
03-18-2010, 06:55 PM
Glimmer of hope? from Steven Goff's twitter:

MLS labor meetings still going on. Dinner break and then back to work. Good sign? #mls (http://twitter.com/search?q=%23mls) 8 minutes ago (http://twitter.com/SoccerInsider/status/10695656566)via web


That's been a long day eh? doubt they still be at it if there was stone walling going on