PDA

View Full Version : Splitting the Salary Cap.



TFCREDNWHITE
12-09-2008, 01:53 PM
I read this article, and the idea actually stems from Ivan Gazidis (former number 2 at MLS Headquarters) I think it is exactly where the league should go!

http://soccer365.com/us_news/story_81208190400.php

flatpicker
12-09-2008, 02:26 PM
I think it's a terrific plan.
It's a shame we can't put it into action now, considering the economic times we currently live in.
Giving clubs more spending room is essential to the growth of this league.
He mentioned that there could be some competitive imbalance.... which is not necessarily bad.
I agree, a few teams with a slight edge would add some spark to the league.
Give fans teams they can truly love or hate.

One thing I would add...
A two-tier cap would also compliment a single table nicely (assuming they start giving more exposure to the Supporters Shield)
I would allow every team in the league to qualify for the MLS Cup.
Make the season about finishing first... Make the Cup about giving small teams the chance to play giant-killer.

Lower ranked/poorer teams may know halfway through the season that their chances of winning the league are gone.
But knowing the Cup competition will give them another shot and respectability is something to aim for.
Not to mention letting every team in will earn more money for the league
Especially if you include the first round of Cup games in season tickets

Roogsy
12-09-2008, 02:32 PM
The article makes sense.

RedRum
12-09-2008, 02:36 PM
I think it's a good idea. The low cap served it's purpose, but there comes a point where fan interest begins to level off with a sub-par product on the field. Mind you, look forward to $50.00 south end tickets if TFC is paying out $10 million a year in salaries.

Oldtimer
12-09-2008, 02:38 PM
Good idea, I think it would have to be tweaked a bit - for example, you might want a hit under the "hard" cap for teams that chose to employ players under the soft cap.

flatpicker
12-09-2008, 02:41 PM
I think it's a good idea. The low cap served it's purpose, but there comes a point where fan interest begins to level off with a sub-par product on the field. Mind you, look forward to $50.00 south end tickets if TFC is paying out $10 million a year in salaries.



you get what you pay for, I guess...

Not sure how much the increase would be, but it definitely would be something noticeable if spending went up to 10mil.

But if ticket cost reflects the level of product on the field, then you can't really complain.

Ossington Mental Youth
12-09-2008, 02:50 PM
I think youd be hardpressed to find any fans that disagree with this.
As for owners, thats a different story.
Great idea without a doubt

rocker
12-09-2008, 03:02 PM
the only problem I have is that the author pulls numbers out of the sky. why 3 million?
why 7 million?
all of these proposals sound great but they aren't based on real numbers... revenues... expenses etc.. forecasts...

Why not 5 million and 10 million? why not 2 million and 4 million? it's a very arbitrary idea, even though these numbers are absolutely crucial.

I need more of a concrete rationale than that.

flatpicker
12-09-2008, 03:17 PM
^ I think it's the concept that is being discussed, more than the fine details.

Obviously the league would look at the books and determine what the appropriate numbers would be.


We might see something like this get discussed more as the new agreement with players gets renewed next year.

profit89
12-09-2008, 04:03 PM
This is Ben Knight's idea: a two-tier league. Without the numbers thrown out though.

Beach_Red
12-09-2008, 04:09 PM
the only problem I have is that the author pulls numbers out of the sky. why 3 million?
why 7 million?
all of these proposals sound great but they aren't based on real numbers... revenues... expenses etc.. forecasts...

Why not 5 million and 10 million? why not 2 million and 4 million? it's a very arbitrary idea, even though these numbers are absolutely crucial.

I need more of a concrete rationale than that.

He didn't give reasons for those numbers, but that doesn't mean he pulled them out of thin air. They may actually be based on revenues (or forecastss), expenses and so on. He was the #2 guy in the league, he may have some idea what he's talking about.

And, it's a good idea. $10 million hardly seems too high a cap for a league with expansion fees at $40 million and there's nothing wrong with an imbalance, it rewards the fans of teams willing to support. Easy for us to say, I guess.

I do find it funny that the article mentions the Galaxy, as though everything this league does is an effort to make them successful.

Broadview
12-09-2008, 04:09 PM
Taking the article at face value, y'think $10 million would cover the salaries of a quasi-Canadian National Team?

profit89
12-09-2008, 04:45 PM
$10Million - 20 players
Avg = $500K
Sure beats the avg now

Toronto Ruffrider
12-09-2008, 04:56 PM
Taking the article at face value, y'think $10 million would cover the salaries of a quasi-Canadian National Team?

Without getting into the issue of whether our established vets should stay in Europe, I'd say we could form a quasi-Canadian National Team with $10M. That kind of a cap would provide enough money for us to sign players along the lines of Iain Hume. Guys like JDG and Atiba Hutchinson would still too expensive, but that goes without saying.

Hitcho
12-09-2008, 05:33 PM
I like the idea in the abstract for sure. but two things worry me about it in relation to TFC:

1. are MLSE going to cough up the dough to make full use of the "hard" cap, despite the fact we provide one of the highest turnouts in the elague each season and, if so, will they then screw us on ticket prices?

2. with the field turf in place, TFC is immediately at an even bigger disadvantage in terms of attarcting a range of top players, nevermind trying to secure just one DP. We'd have to get grass in place on the pitch and and in the training facility to attarct the players we wanted, even if MLSE will pay the money for them (and that means getting the city its own community place with the plastic in it, which as we all know isn;t going to happen).

So in general terms, it'd be good for the league I think (the competetive imbalance would be limited and capped, so we won't get an abramovich going nutso like with chelski) but in specific terms it would worry me for TFC.

TFCREDNWHITE
12-09-2008, 05:42 PM
He didn't give reasons for those numbers, but that doesn't mean he pulled them out of thin air. They may actually be based on revenues (or forecastss), expenses and so on. He was the #2 guy in the league, he may have some idea what he's talking about.

And, it's a good idea. $10 million hardly seems too high a cap for a league with expansion fees at $40 million and there's nothing wrong with an imbalance, it rewards the fans of teams willing to support. Easy for us to say, I guess.

I do find it funny that the article mentions the Galaxy, as though everything this league does is an effort to make them successful.

I fully agree with you.

Lucky Strike
12-09-2008, 06:02 PM
In the abstract, I fully support the concept. It's a great idea!
In the specific, my numbers would be probably be a soft cap at 3 million with the hard cap at 5 million.

With the 5 million figure, it allows to keep costs under tighter control than the 10 million and it won't create an excessive talent imbalance.

gmacpheetfc
12-09-2008, 08:33 PM
I think it's a good idea. The low cap served it's purpose, but there comes a point where fan interest begins to level off with a sub-par product on the field. Mind you, look forward to $50.00 south end tickets if TFC is paying out $10 million a year in salaries.

Stadium Expansion!!!!! cha ching more seats more money over the Long Run of course but that is why we have money from guys like edu and potentially wynne

T_Mizz
12-09-2008, 08:38 PM
I think that you should let teams spend more if they want to, if we become like the Chelsea or Yankees of the MLS and everyone hates us, that will make every game so much more interesting for everyone. But then again this brings up whether or not the "superclubs" across the pond are good for their leagues. My vote is for yes.

werewolf
12-09-2008, 08:51 PM
Its a great idea to keep the league competitive. Those specific numbers are a bit of a stretch though, LA could theoretically be spending three times more on players then Kansas City.

Dunkers
12-10-2008, 01:33 AM
I think that you should let teams spend more if they want to, if we become like the Chelsea or Yankees of the MLS and everyone hates us, that will make every game so much more interesting for everyone. But then again this brings up whether or not the "superclubs" across the pond are good for their leagues. My vote is for yes.


Its been tried over here, and once upon a time the New York Cosmos drew 60,000 to see Pele play...but where is the NASL today?

Cashcleaner
12-10-2008, 01:45 AM
This new system would feature not one salary cap, but two – a "soft" cap and a "hard" cap. The soft cap could be set at, say, $3 million, to be drawn from the league's coffers under MLS's single-entity structure. The hard cap, in which the balance would be funded solely by each team's owner, could be set at $10 million, allowing each team to beef up its roster by spending up to $7 million extra on players at each owner's discretion.Yes! Do it! Thank-you, Gazidis!

Hard and soft cap would be a step in the right direction for us. You wouldn't even have to make it all that high. Why not simplify it even more and make it a 50-50 thing. $3 million is your salary under the regulations of single-entity ownership and $3 million is from your pockets. Make discovery signings fall under your half of the cap as well!

This is exactly the sort of brainstorming I like to hear from the league's brass. 10 million seems a bit high as suggested in the article, but I think a hard cap at $6-$8 million sounds good.

Oldtimer
12-10-2008, 10:29 AM
Actually, the two-tier cap doesn't come from Gazidis, that is the author's response to Gazidis' comments.

Cashcleaner
12-10-2008, 12:03 PM
^ Then we hire the writer as Deputy Commish! :D

Hitcho
12-10-2008, 01:31 PM
there's no way owners are going to go for this. why would they want to cough up millions of dollars extra a year for not much more of a return (if any)? I know they wouldn;t have to, but the prospect of it will not fly with current owners and new frnachisees will be put off by it too, especially in these financial times.

i'm in favour for sure, but the extra amount you can spend under the hard cap needs to be kept under control to begin with. getting the owners on board is another matter though.

"Hello MLSE, would you like to cough up as much as 10m dollars extra per season from your own pockets, or just keep letting the league pay for the wages for you?"

Hmmmm.....

flatpicker
12-10-2008, 01:54 PM
^ nobody would force them to pay the extra money... it's a matter of choice.

I happen to believe that by letting teams spend more, it will actually increase popularity and profit for the league.
More talent in the league means more respect from die-hard soccer fans in North America.
It's all about credibility.
Achieve that, while still in a controlled spending environment, and you have a good thing going.

Beach_Red
12-10-2008, 02:09 PM
there's no way owners are going to go for this. why would they want to cough up millions of dollars extra a year for not much more of a return (if any)? I know they wouldn;t have to, but the prospect of it will not fly with current owners and new frnachisees will be put off by it too, especially in these financial times.

i'm in favour for sure, but the extra amount you can spend under the hard cap needs to be kept under control to begin with. getting the owners on board is another matter though.

"Hello MLSE, would you like to cough up as much as 10m dollars extra per season from your own pockets, or just keep letting the league pay for the wages for you?"

Hmmmm.....

Well, as we just saw with Montreal, some owners are prepared to spend $40 million just to get a team and some are not.

So some (Seattle? LA?) would be willing to spend more on salaries than others, that's why the league enforces a cap now.

Pretty soon the owners who have paid the bigger expansion fees will want to have a better product and that means higher paid players.

TFCREDNWHITE
12-10-2008, 02:17 PM
there's no way owners are going to go for this. why would they want to cough up millions of dollars extra a year for not much more of a return (if any)? I know they wouldn;t have to, but the prospect of it will not fly with current owners and new frnachisees will be put off by it too, especially in these financial times.

i'm in favour for sure, but the extra amount you can spend under the hard cap needs to be kept under control to begin with. getting the owners on board is another matter though.

"Hello MLSE, would you like to cough up as much as 10m dollars extra per season from your own pockets, or just keep letting the league pay for the wages for you?"

Hmmmm.....

Well, the owners also realize that if they don't spend more and improve the product on the field that they will just wither away and die...you think fans will be around 5-10 years from now if they don't improve...

Cashcleaner
12-10-2008, 02:24 PM
^ nobody would force them to pay the extra money... it's a matter of choice.

I happen to believe that by letting teams spend more, it will actually increase popularity and profit for the league.
More talent in the league means more respect from die-hard soccer fans in North America.
It's all about credibility.
Achieve that, while still in a controlled spending environment, and you have a good thing going.

Exactly, it's just about giving team the option to spend more on their roster if they so choose to. No-one has a gun to their head forcing them to spend money on talent, but they do have a metaphorical gun to the head now in the form of the present salary cap.

A system with a hard and soft cap as suggested would be a good compromise. On one hand, you're not leaving smaller teams in the dust because they can't compete economically with larger clubs (because you still have a limited amount as to how much you're going to spend), but one the other hand it rewards success and gives clubs with the money some increased monetary flexibility.

Hitcho
12-10-2008, 04:49 PM
^ nobody would force them to pay the extra money... it's a matter of choice.

I happen to believe that by letting teams spend more, it will actually increase popularity and profit for the league.
More talent in the league means more respect from die-hard soccer fans in North America.
It's all about credibility.
Achieve that, while still in a controlled spending environment, and you have a good thing going.

I agree with you on all points FP. All I'm saying is I'm not convinced enough of the owners will go for it to bring it to fruition. You've got to convince those that don't want to spend the extra cash to go for it too, and what motivation do they have? If they vote in favour then the league might be a better rpoduct, but they know they'll be operating at the lower end of it. That said, I don't know what level of owner support is or isn't needed to get something like this through. But you would imagine that MLS will at least canvass opinions.

Hitcho
12-10-2008, 04:52 PM
Well, the owners also realize that if they don't spend more and improve the product on the field that they will just wither away and die...you think fans will be around 5-10 years from now if they don't improve...

A good point, and I agree with you in fact. but as I said above, the sell you have to make to the owners who don't want to spend the extra cash is that even though they don't have to pay the money and the league overall will become a better product and therefore hopefully garner more fans, the clubs who don't want to spend the extra wonga will liekly be at the bottom end of the improved league, which is likely to seriously diminish their enthusiasm for the move.

flatpicker
12-10-2008, 04:56 PM
^ well, if you take my radical suggestion from earlier in this thread, and tell owners, "Put this new soft cap deal through, and every team will make the MLS Cup", then maybe they could see a bright side. Even if an owner knew they wouldn't be able to spend as much as others, and therefore would likely finish lower in the table, they could be content in knowing an opportunity awaits them in the MLS Cup to create some surprises. Think of it like an FA Cup'ish type of scenario. All teams get a crack at it... the difference here being, there aren't other leagues competing... but it could act as a way to ease people into the idea of a two-tier MLS league structure - wink wink nudge nudge -

Hitcho
12-10-2008, 05:07 PM
^ yep, makes sense. that, of course, is the absolute beauty of competitions like the FA Cup. I also like this idea as part of the two-tier MLS idea that was floated. Make it a genuine MLS Cup on a straight knock-out basis with everyone involved and it becomes a much more interesting trophy to play in and win. plus the supporter's shield (renamed the league title) becomes way, way, way, way, way more respected.

flatpicker
12-10-2008, 05:09 PM
^ we always seem to find a way to bring conversations back to the "Two-Tier" league topic!

hehehe...

Cashcleaner
12-10-2008, 05:19 PM
Quick question, but does anyone know the ratio of relatively successful clubs to those still in debt or slipping?

Hitcho
12-10-2008, 05:21 PM
^ we always seem to find a way to bring conversations back to the "Two-Tier" league topic!

hehehe...

Or is it that ALL roads lead to a two-tier MLS...? :D

Hitcho
12-10-2008, 05:23 PM
Quick question, but does anyone know the ratio of relatively successful clubs to those still in debt or slipping?

interesting stat to find out. although what region are we talking about, or is it the whiole world? and either way, surely it all depends on fan base and not having made stupidly expensive signings you cannot sustain etc (a la Leeds Utd - sorry Cretan Bull!). not sure what we'd glean from it but yeah, I;d be interested to know that too!

flatpicker
12-10-2008, 05:24 PM
Quick question, but does anyone know the ratio of relatively successful clubs to those still in debt or slipping?

I dunno about clubs in debt...
But Forbes seems to indicated that every team made money, with KC making the least amount (5mil)


FORBES (http://www.forbes.com/2008/09/09/mls-soccer-beckham-biz-sports-cz_kb_0909mlsvalues_slide_2.html?thisSpeed=15000)


*edit*

The Forbes articles has this paragraph:

"Our estimates indicate the league is not yet profitable, with its 13 teams posting an operating loss (in the sense of earnings before interest, taxes and depreciation) of $20 million on revenue of $165 million. But there are signs of hope. In 2007, the three teams that were in the black--Los Angeles Galaxy, Toronto FC and FC Dallas--had a combined operating profit of $6.7 million."


- so, I'm not exactly sure what they are saying, since the link I provided above says every team had revenue of some X millions...

I don't really have a mind for business, so if you can clarify it, please do...


ok... another *edit*

I realised my mistake... I was looking at the wrong numbers...
I should have been looking at the "Operating Income" stat.
In that case, as they said, only LA, TFC, and FCD posted a positive Operating Income.
The worse losses for a team seemed to be about 3mil... not a huge hole to climb out of with the right tweaking of the league.

Cashcleaner
12-10-2008, 05:29 PM
interesting stat to find out. although what region are we talking about, or is it the whiole world? and either way, surely it all depends on fan base and not having made stupidly expensive signings you cannot sustain etc (a la Leeds Utd - sorry Cretan Bull!). not sure what we'd glean from it but yeah, I;d be interested to know that too!

I should have clarified. I meant only for MLS.

Yohan
12-10-2008, 05:31 PM
I agree with you on all points FP. All I'm saying is I'm not convinced enough of the owners will go for it to bring it to fruition. You've got to convince those that don't want to spend the extra cash to go for it too, and what motivation do they have? If they vote in favour then the league might be a better rpoduct, but they know they'll be operating at the lower end of it. That said, I don't know what level of owner support is or isn't needed to get something like this through. But you would imagine that MLS will at least canvass opinions.
gotta wonder. how many owners actually want a higher cap? i'm going to bet the number that are happy with the current cap is larger than those that want to spend.

even allowing a soft cap means teams that spend more has an edge over teams that dont which normally equates to higher quality team in the field which equals a winning team. losing team doesnt get fans in the stadium so lower profit.

cant see this soft cap idea going anywhere

TFCREDNWHITE
12-10-2008, 06:49 PM
gotta wonder. how many owners actually want a higher cap? i'm going to bet the number that are happy with the current cap is larger than those that want to spend.

even allowing a soft cap means teams that spend more has an edge over teams that dont which normally equates to higher quality team in the field which equals a winning team. losing team doesnt get fans in the stadium so lower profit.

cant see this soft cap idea going anywhere

Just wondering then how would you improve the product on the field???

Would you just go to church and pray!??? :rolleyes:

rocker
12-10-2008, 08:13 PM
one thing that worries me is that they'll raise the cap and rather than directly causing an improvement in quality, it'll just give raises to players we already have. With the roster restrictions, there are only so many foreigners you can bring in.

Keyman
12-10-2008, 08:39 PM
However, you could also argue that it will actually keep our talented domestic players at home, instead of them going abroad to further their career. Yes, the idea of playing in Europe plays a major role in the decision making of these players, however, so do economics. If a domestic player can earn similar money at home, they may be more inclined to stay. If you mix that domestic core of players and sprinkle in some internationals, well, you really have the best of both worlds.

werewolf
12-10-2008, 08:41 PM
p.s. for the record, I am fully in favour of the salary cap being raised as much as possible.

flatpicker
12-10-2008, 11:03 PM
one thing that worries me is that they'll raise the cap and rather than directly causing an improvement in quality, it'll just give raises to players we already have. With the roster restrictions, there are only so many foreigners you can bring in.


I don't see this as a concern at all.
Look how many non-Canadians we had playing for us.... and key players too!
Now imagine replacing them all with players with even more talent... (not that I am criticizing those guys)

I think what you will see more of is higher paid foreigners, while Canadian and US players earn pretty much what they do now.

Yohan
12-10-2008, 11:44 PM
Just wondering then how would you improve the product on the field???

Would you just go to church and pray!??? :rolleyes:
why would the owners against spending care about on field product, as long as it is good enough to keep fans in the seats?

Cashcleaner
12-11-2008, 01:43 AM
^ That's the thing. Let's say the proposal is made and the clubs all vote it down. By doing so, they've just pissed off a good number of MLS fans who acknowledge that the talent on the pitch isn't as good as we'd like to see.

Mark in Ottawa
12-15-2008, 06:50 AM
The idea seems like a good one.
Improving the salaries bring in & keeps better players thereby improving the calibre of play.

Improving the calibre of play attracts players who see a chance to improve their games to a higher level in the MLS.

Improved calibre of players & play improves the entertainment value and may bring in more fans from the knowledgeable group that currently sees MLS as an inferior product to other leagues around the world.