PDA

View Full Version : Today's News,Tuesday,March.23



denime
03-23-2010, 05:26 AM
Mornin'


MLS players happy with deal (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/mls-players-happy-with-deal/article1508754/)


Players still left without freedom of movement (http://soccernet.espn.go.com/columns/story?id=760003&sec=mls&root=mls&cc=5901)



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

Stouffville_RPB
03-23-2010, 06:27 AM
Players still left without freedom of movement (http://soccernet.espn.go.com/columns/story?id=760003&sec=mls&root=mls&cc=5901)


While the players didn't get free agency they got the ability to land on another MLS roster which was what they were after.

CretanBull
03-23-2010, 06:41 AM
^ The question is whether or not the team who selects the player in the re-entry draft are forced to sign or even offer a contract to that player, and what happens if they fail to come to terms?

There's no question that the player lost these negociations, and they're locked into a bad deal for a full five years.

scooter
03-23-2010, 06:57 AM
mornin d

keem-o-sabi
03-23-2010, 07:03 AM
coed girls 1 (http://coedmagazine.com/2010/03/22/miss-coed-kt-so/)

Oblio2
03-23-2010, 07:07 AM
coed girls 1 (http://coedmagazine.com/2010/03/22/miss-coed-kt-so/)

Holy Fuck!!!!:flare:

cuecas_red
03-23-2010, 07:22 AM
FIRE WAIVES GOALTENDER BUSCH (http://www.tsn.ca/soccer/story/?id=315112)

Parkdale
03-23-2010, 07:26 AM
oh yeah..... HAPPY BIRTHDAY DENIME!!!!!

pekduck
03-23-2010, 07:31 AM
coed girls 1 (http://coedmagazine.com/2010/03/22/miss-coed-kt-so/)


Holy Fuck!!!!:flare:

:flare:
holy motherland...

drewski
03-23-2010, 07:39 AM
not TFC news specifically but it talks about the autonomy MLSE gives to its teams to "succeed or fail on the basis of [their] decisions"

http://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey/nhl/mapleleafs/article/783719--cox-leafs-owners-not-meddling-with-burke-s-team?bn=1

boban
03-23-2010, 07:42 AM
SUNSHINE (http://www.torontosun.com/sunshinegirl/)
She's got a solid body.

daner90
03-23-2010, 07:50 AM
SSG is smoking but she needs to put a bit of meat on her, not a fan of seeing all that rib....

is GolTV showing the game on Thursday night?

Jitter
03-23-2010, 07:56 AM
GolTV's schedule for Thursday is showing a La Liga game for that time slot

:(

I know I would much rather watch the Union/Sounders match

flambe
03-23-2010, 08:11 AM
Wasn't Mo supposed to be doing a press conference upon his return from Charleston?

icecoldbeer
03-23-2010, 08:43 AM
The MLS roster deadline is Wednesday at 5 p.m. for 20 senior and four developmental players. While the developmental classification remains in place in the new collective bargaining agreement, developmental contracts no longer exist, the Insider has learned. Other details in the CBA are expected to be made public within two weeks. The pact must first be ratified by the players and MLS board of governors.

Reported by Steven Goff (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/soccerinsider/2010/03/najar_signs_with_dc_united.html). Which I found on the Footy Blog (http://blogs.thescore.com/footyblog/)
I wonder how this will effect the cap...

Nuvinho
03-23-2010, 08:45 AM
^ I am suprised they didn't do anything about the domestic vs. international rule (ie. Americans counting as international for TFC), seeing that Vancouver is coming into the league next year, and Montreal soon.

denime
03-23-2010, 08:56 AM
oh yeah..... HAPPY BIRTHDAY DENIME!!!!!

Thanks,and HAPPY Birthday to ULTRAS BOY AL-MO :drinking:

spark
03-23-2010, 09:03 AM
Saw the note on the roster deadlines coming up ... sigh ... we'll see what happens in the next few days. Here's hoping something happens!! but in the meantime ...

TFCs SEASON ALREADY HANGS IN THE BALANCE (http://www.rednationonline.ca/TFCs_Season_Already_Hangs_in_the_Balance_mar_23_10 _column.shtml)

Redcoe15
03-23-2010, 09:07 AM
coed girls 1 (http://coedmagazine.com/2010/03/22/miss-coed-kt-so/)
I was wondering why there was only one. Now I know! :yum: :drool5: :hump: :D

And Happy Birthday, denime!

James17930
03-23-2010, 09:24 AM
:flare:
holy motherland...

The wonders of DNA. :o

rocker
03-23-2010, 09:45 AM
There's no question that the player lost these negociations, and they're locked into a bad deal for a full five years.

really? I thought the players gained a good deal, if the reports of guaranteed contracts making up the "majority" are true. Although we need to see the actual details in print.

drewski
03-23-2010, 09:49 AM
really? I thought the players gained a good deal, if the reports of guaranteed contracts making up the "majority" are true. Although we need to see the actual details in print.


there's that for sure. and IMO, its a win compared to one of the alternatives, a strike.

Stouffville_RPB
03-23-2010, 09:56 AM
Both sides give a little that is why it is called negotiating.

Players wanted guarenteed contracts - Owners didn't = increased guarenteed contracts

Players wanted increased min. salary - Owners didn't = increased min. salary

Players wanted FA - Owners didn't = re-entry draft

Players wanted increase in salary cap and got a small increase.

Players wanted short term CBA - Owners didn't = 5 year CBA

You have to give a little to get a little. If you are the players you have to look at it this way, they advanced on every one of their major issues. That's what you build on in the next CBA.

rocker
03-23-2010, 10:05 AM
yes, negotiations rarely lead to massive increases on one side... instead they are usually incremental gains from contract to contract.

if the players wanted to win everything to the highest degree, they would have gone out on strike for a year.

CretanBull
03-23-2010, 10:09 AM
really? I thought the players gained a good deal, if the reports of guaranteed contracts making up the "majority" are true. Although we need to see the actual details in print.

In signing a new deal, the critical issue for the players was free agency and for the owners it was maintaining the single-entity structure of the league. Modest consessions were won by the players, but at the end of the day the players didn't get their primary objective and the owners didn't give up theirs.

The cap increase is very small, especially considering all of the expansion fees and the success (and safely predicted success) of the expansion teams - the owners essentially gave up a cap increase that's in line with inflation. While raising the cap is a victory for the players, it helps the league (and thus the owners) attract/retain talent and further establish it's "major league" status.

Raising the min salary is a non-issue for the owners, whether the bottom end players made $5 or $50,000 it doesn't matter to them because either way their salary expenses are fixed by the cap.

Guaranteed contracts...a personal victory for the players, but almost a non-issue for the owners. It gives the players some security, but it doesn't cost owners any money (their costs are still fixed by the salary cap). All that it means is that managers will have to be more carefull when handing out contracts.

In short, the owners gave up: guaranteed contracts (cost the owners nothing), raised the min salary (cost the owners nothing), a modest cap increase (5% per year, very manageable and helps the league as much as it does the players). They didn't give up free agency, and they maintained the single-entity structure of the league. So, other than raising the cap they gave up nothing that costs them money, and the two critical issues fell on their side. That's a massive win for the owners.

Wooster_TFC
03-23-2010, 10:16 AM
Reported by Steven Goff (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/soccerinsider/2010/03/najar_signs_with_dc_united.html). Which I found on the Footy Blog (http://blogs.thescore.com/footyblog/)
I wonder how this will effect the cap...

I'm guessing the only difference is the pay scale. Before to sign someone to a dev contract, the max you could pay them was 19.9k or something like that. With the new min 40k, I'm guessing that you are able to pay a dev player anything you want. There's probably a restriction to whom you can mark as dev.

Dev players always counted against the cap, it was the GA players that didn't.

Stouffville_RPB
03-23-2010, 10:18 AM
In signing a new deal, the critical issue for the players was free agency and for the owners it was maintaining the single-entity structure of the league.

I think the bigger issue for the players was being able to play within the MLS once their contract was terminated. In that sense they won. Players won't be locked out of MLS for years until their contract expires. They are still able to make a living.

Roogsy
03-23-2010, 10:21 AM
really? I thought the players gained a good deal, if the reports of guaranteed contracts making up the "majority" are true. Although we need to see the actual details in print.

I think the players got as much as they were going to get. With that being the case, I think this is a good deal and everyone can move forward.

CretanBull
03-23-2010, 10:23 AM
I think the bigger issue for the players was being able to play within the MLS once their contract was terminated. In that sense they won. Players won't be locked out of MLS for years until their contract expires. They are still able to make a living.

Thats yet to be seen. As I said in the first post -

The question is whether or not the team who selects the player in the re-entry draft are forced to sign or even offer a contract to that player, and what happens if they fail to come to terms?

I understand that the players wanted to be able to continue playing, and I can't imagine the league wanting to prevent that - they just wanted to avoid teams competing for a players service and not allow anything to that might threatened single-entity. The players got a very limited form of what they wanted, the league got exactly what it wanted.

Whoop
03-23-2010, 10:25 AM
Deal is done.

We'll revisit in 4 1/2 years.

Whoop
03-23-2010, 10:27 AM
I wonder where DVB will land.

gtaguy
03-23-2010, 10:30 AM
Happy B-day D ..

Thanks as always for bringing us the TFC news

Stouffville_RPB
03-23-2010, 10:30 AM
Thats yet to be seen. As I said in the first post -

The question is whether or not the team who selects the player in the re-entry draft are forced to sign or even offer a contract to that player, and what happens if they fail to come to terms?

I understand that the players wanted to be able to continue playing, and I can't imagine the league wanting to prevent that - they just wanted to avoid teams competing for a players service and not allow anything to that might threatened single-entity. The players got a very limited form of what they wanted, the league got exactly what it wanted.

If it is a draft I would imagine it works similarily to the entry draft. Teams select a player and if they don't want anyone in the pool then they do not enter it.

Pigfynn
03-23-2010, 10:34 AM
Happy bday Denime.

CretanBull
03-23-2010, 10:38 AM
If it is a draft I would imagine it works similarily to the entry draft. Teams select a player and if they don't want anyone in the pool then they do not enter it.

What if I don't want him, I just don't want you to have him? Am I forced to sign him, or even forced to offer him a contract? What happens if we can't come to terms? What if I just draft him with the intention of trading him, but can't find a trade partner or don't like the offers I get?

In a free agency system, a player can weigh the pros and cons of multiple offers and pick the one that's best for him. In this system, a player is simply forced to deal with a team (not of his chosing) if he's let go by another team. Is it better than what they had? Yes, but can it really be called a victory? Not in my book...and again, it costs the owners nothing so its not a loss for them.

CretanBull
03-23-2010, 10:45 AM
At the end of the day, in exchange for raising the salary cap by a modest level, the owners prevented free agency and maintained the single-entity structure of the league. There's no way to see that other than a win for the owners.

Mark in Ottawa
03-23-2010, 10:55 AM
oh yeah..... HAPPY BIRTHDAY DENIME!!!!!
Holy Crap!! It's your birthday??
Have a happy there guy and thanks again for keeping us all "in the loop".

DOMIN8R
03-23-2010, 11:08 AM
Happy Bday Old Man

rocker
03-23-2010, 11:12 AM
At the end of the day, in exchange for raising the salary cap by a modest level, the owners prevented free agency and maintained the single-entity structure of the league. There's no way to see that other than a win for the owners.

but those were just starting points in negotiations.
The starting point for the players was "free agency" (in theory all players want full free agency)
The starting point for the owners was not guaranteeing more contracts or spending more money (in theory no owner would want to guarantee contracts or spend more money on the players he already has under contract).

Neither side got what they wanted in the extreme.

Indeed though, the players gave nothing "back" to the league that they had before (concessions on old gains) while the league has given a number of things to the players. The players gained.

Now, the spin will be that the players' gains are the league's gains too, of course.

CretanBull
03-23-2010, 11:24 AM
Absolutely no one thought that a renegociated deal would come without a cap increase...so the owners 'gave up' what everyone in the world thought that they'd give up and exchange they kept all the power on all of the key issues on their side. Like I said earlier, things like guaranteed contracts and higher bottom end salaries don't cost the owners money so those are all red herring issues for them. The players 'won' everything that costs the owners nothing. The owners increased the cap as everyone - themselves included - expected them to and in exchange they prevented free agency and maintained the single entity structure of the league for five years! If you can't see that as big win for the owners....

ecospice
03-23-2010, 12:08 PM
Here's some news. J-Mo reports Gerba to be gone soon.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/soccer/story/2010/03/23/sp-toronto-fc-gerba.html

keem-o-sabi
03-23-2010, 01:38 PM
I would have posted a link, but it came in an email to soccer america subscribers

Players union didn't 'cave,' it gained

By Ridge Mahoney

Is "greater freedom of movement" the same as "free agency?"

I would say not, but judging by the spin spun by MLS and subsequent coverage of this critical facet of CBA negotiations, these terms are one and the same. MLS did an excellent job of equating the two, and perhaps for this reason much criticism has been aimed at the players for “caving in,” whereas a more accurate portrayal might be the players “took what they could get.”

Early in the process, player representatives told me one of their sticking points was the lack of leverage for players who were out of contract, had their options declined, or had been waived. None of them stumped for “free agency,” i.e., the unfettered right to bargain and negotiate with all MLS teams, as would be the case if they headed overseas. But that is exactly what league president Mark Abbott implied in February, tossing every player not under contract into a free-agency hopper.

While true free agency exists in American pro sports, it isn’t universal nor automatic. A baseball player is subject to the arbitration process for several years until he hits the six-season benchmark of free agency. The NHL classifies players as restricted free agents and unrestricted free agents; the NFL uses the same terms, and also has categories of “transition” and “franchise” players. Those leagues, however, are not single-entity leagues, and so comparisons to them are in many cases irrelevant.

For restricted free agents, in some cases the player’s current team has a right of first refusal if it is willing to match or come close to the offer tendered by another team, and is entitled to a draft pick if it loses the player. This isn’t all that different than how MLS mechanisms have worked, and may do in the future depending on how a special draft is organized and implemented for those players.

There is no unrestricted free agency in MLS, but the underpinnings of single-entity, by definition, exclude open bidding for players. When Abbott contended that unfettered free agency could yield successful legal challenges to the league’s single-entity status, he spoke the truth.

Of course, the league didn’t publicly offer up any juicy alternatives; it used the negotiation and bargaining sessions to grind out a compromise with the players’ union. One “rule” of negotiation is not to offer anything you know the other side will jump at; instead, you inch in that direction, yielding ground grudgingly, bit by bit, giving away as little as possible until agreement, forged by exhaustion as much as effort, is reached.

Considering how far apart the two sides were when talks broke off Tuesday, it’s astonishing that even marathon sessions created a deal by early Saturday, since there were five or six core issues that, due to their interdependence on each other, had to be evaluated collectively as well as separately. But on each major issue, the sides kept talking and haggling and discussing; by late Thursday, both sides had gained enough ground to believe a deal was imminent, and to push through frustration and mounting fatigue to reach the summit.

Players who leave MLS after their contracts expire to play overseas and then return to the league are no better off. It seems ludicrous for their last MLS team to retain their rights, but again, the single-entity structure doesn’t provide a lot of wiggle room. Players whose contracts expire or are terminated at the end of a season are simpler to deal with, via a single draft, then players who might arrive at different times during the MLS season. A weighted lottery could be used, as MLS has done for certain players in the past, but the players agreed to leave things as they are this time around.

If a player has gone overseas on trial and his return isn’t certain, a team can still claim his rights, as occurs in the SuperDraft. And as executive committee member Pat Onstad pointed out, very few players each season come back to MLS from overseas. Many more are affected by being out of contract, terminated (option declined), or waived, and wanted more security in the form of guaranteed contracts.

For those players, the union got what it came for.

CretanBull
03-23-2010, 08:03 PM
^ If that was posted in response to my arguement, I didn't say that the players got nothing, I said that in the end the owners won - and I still think that's true.

olegunnar
03-23-2010, 08:16 PM
^ If that was posted in response to my arguement, I didn't say that the players got nothing, I said that in the end the owners won - and I still think that's true.

I agree. People can talk about salary caps guarenteed contracts etc. etc. yes those were issues that had to be hashed out, but the core issue was the single entity structure of the league. The league was able to maintain that structure so I think they "won".

$200K raise in salary cap, $6K raise in minimum salary....minor and basically chump changed, when compared to being able to maintain a single entity structure. That's safe for 5 more years.