PDA

View Full Version : Concacaf CL and Salary cap.



ExiledRed
05-25-2008, 09:20 PM
Am I correct in assuming that the salary cap and squad restrictions dont apply to our potential opponents in CONCACAF CL or Superliga?

Im aware the USL teams have their own cap and limitations, but theyre different than MLS, so how fair is that to opposing teams in the Canada Cup?

It seems daft that we might have to play the likes of Pachuca competetively, and that while they are able to spend what they can afford on players, we are 'nerfed' by handicaps that arent relevant to the competition.

Can TFC theoretically field players in these games from outside our MLS roster? (i.e - a player on loan not signed to MLS)

Just wondering.

footyfan
05-25-2008, 09:26 PM
Am I correct in assuming that the salary cap and squad restrictions dont apply to our potential opponents in CONCACAF CL or Superliga?

Im aware the USL teams have their own cap and limitations, but theyre different than MLS, so how fair is that to opposing teams in the Canada Cup?

It seems daft that we might have to play the likes of Pachuca competetively, and that while they are able to spend what they can afford on players, we are 'nerfed' by handicaps that arent relevant to the competition.

Welcome to MLS. Ooops look like you'd have been better off joining the Mexican Primera Division....



Can TFC theoretically field players in these games from outside our MLS roster? (i.e - a player on loan not signed to MLS)

Just wondering.

No. CONCACAF rules that out. Clubs must use the players available to them under their league's rules.

ExiledRed
05-25-2008, 09:35 PM
Welcome to MLS. Ooops look like you'd have been better off joining the Mexican Primera Division....



No. CONCACAF rules that out. Clubs must use the players available to them under their league's rules.

Could MLS stand for

Mickey's Lite Soccer?

Winning Concacaf puts you in the world club cup, against the world elite teams who dont have a player that is worth less than triple MLS salary cap on their starting XI.

I think DC were lucky they missed it LOL.

SilverSamurai
05-25-2008, 10:34 PM
Hopefully the cap will go up this coming season. It's WAAAAAY too low!
I wonder how these guys can even afford food!

footyfan
05-25-2008, 11:13 PM
Could MLS stand for

Mickey's Lite Soccer?

Winning Concacaf puts you in the world club cup, against the world elite teams who dont have a player that is worth less than triple MLS salary cap on their starting XI.

I think DC were lucky they missed it LOL.

Call it what you want but had they "sacked the cap" years ago you wouldn't be playing in this league because it wouldn't exist and your top level footy would have been the Toronto Lynx in the USL.

The cap is too low NOW but that is a rather new occurance (post 2005). So when the players union negotiates a new deal I am sure we will see a huge increase in the cap next year or the year after.

I'd be shocked if they don't at least double it to 4.6 million. Everyone seems to be calling for it and MLS is not stupid, they'd have loved DC or Houston in the FIFA Club World Cup but if they raised the cap now then they'd have to raise it again in 2009 or 2010 when the players new deal starts.

footyfan
05-25-2008, 11:16 PM
Hopefully the cap will go up this coming season. It's WAAAAAY too low!
I wonder how these guys can even afford food!

It is quite possible to afford food on 20K a year.

Many non-professional athletes do every day...

ExiledRed
05-25-2008, 11:39 PM
Call it what you want but had they "sacked the cap" years ago you wouldn't be playing in this league because it wouldn't exist and your top level footy would have been the Toronto Lynx in the USL.
.

I dont buy the 'look what happened to NASL' argument.

NASL existed before satellite TV, Fifa console games, the internet, a FIFA world cup in the states and a thousand other things that would have made it more marketable and profitable all round (not least an immigrant population that has close to quarupled)

I dont think a single NASL game was broadcast in Europe, even though they had Pele, Beckenbauer and George Best, now it's different and all it took was brand Beckham.

The NASL 'implosion' wouldn't happen again.

footyfan
05-25-2008, 11:57 PM
I dont buy the 'look what happened to NASL' argument.

NASL existed before satellite TV, Fifa console games, the internet, a FIFA world cup in the states and a thousand other things that would have made it more marketable and profitable all round (not least an immigrant population that has close to quarupled)

I dont think a single NASL game was broadcast in Europe, even though they had Pele, Beckenbauer and George Best, now it's different and all it took was brand Beckham.

The NASL 'implosion' wouldn't happen again.

Consider this:

Until 1999 there were no Soccer Specific Stadiums meaning, clubs hemoraged money on really bad leases.

Until 2004 The idea of turning a profit running an MLS club was considered ludicrious

Until 2005 an MLS club cost you $10 Million And MLS had to go BEGGING for buyers. Today the price is up to $40 Million and there are more people wanting in MLS than MLS has expansion slots for.

Until 2006 MLS received no Television rights fees (what ultimately doomed the NASL)

Until 2007 Most MLS clubs were losing money.

Additionally....

For a good portion of MLS's existance 3 billionaires financed the league and lost hundreds of millions of dollars in the process.

So, explain then how a league without a cap could have operated under those circumstances.

NASL tried it your way and truthfully had MLS done the same without the infrastructure in place (stadium) to turn a profit, (to gain more investment) and without a sound business strategy (getting TV to pay rights fees) then MLS would have gone the way of NASL.

You only see the soccer aspect of MLS but don't really see the financial aspect.

Here are some famous quotes from back when the league started:

"There is no chance (MLS) will survive. Absolutely no chance whatsoever."---Nye Lavalle, Sports Marketing Group, in The Sporting News, 6/27/94

"There's a better chance of a national health plan being passed by Congress than of a major pro (soccer) league in America."---Art Spander, San Francisco Examiner, 6/5/94.

"The World Cup, should no one get killed, is a fabulous event. Enjoy it. And enjoy the next one. And if, in between, you patronize any and all pro soccer leagues that begin here, enjoy them too. They'll be gone faster than the girl over there with the hula hoop."---Sportswriter Phil Mushnick, New York Post, 6/15/94.

That's the world that MLS existed in from about 1994-2005.

There is no way you'd have gotten the kinds of investors in the league we now see had MLS pursued a "lets spend all the money we're not making" approach and it would have proved the people above right and gone out of business. There was a letter ready to go, a press release ready for MLS's doomsday, which quite possibly could have been the 2003 season.

It is precisely why by managing its growth, it has gained real large investors and sponsors. Who would have wanted to invest in or sponsor a league which on paper was losing tons of money. Certainly not BMO and definately not Volkswagen.

Laurignano
05-26-2008, 12:09 AM
^ Thats true, but with the addition of Seattle, maybe Montreal, Vancouver, and Philly this league can be really healthy and it would be possible to raise the cap IMO. I think it is now, but better let the clubs make profit for a little bit to pocket some cash. I am hoping this league continues to grow and they make the right decisions on expansion teams.

footyfan
05-26-2008, 12:23 AM
^ Thats true, but with the addition of Seattle, maybe Montreal, Vancouver, and Philly this league can be really healthy and it would be possible to raise the cap IMO. I think it is now, but better let the clubs make profit for a little bit to pocket some cash. I am hoping this league continues to grow and they make the right decisions on expansion teams.


The operative words are "now" and "maybe". Garber has always maintained that they would go slow but when clubs started turning a profit (which they now are) then there will be money spent on the pitch, which there has been (Designated Players), the next step is the cap going up, which it will.

Cashcleaner
05-26-2008, 12:26 AM
Good points, footfan - unfortunately its still a bitter pill to swallow. I have no problems with a league maintaining a pool of cash and assets. Let's face it - every so often a club is just gonna hit a slump and need a quick fix. That said, I do have a problem with a league that seems perfectly okay with clubs like Kansas City or New York bringing in less than 10,00 fans on average for MLS games last year. Obviously there has to be a cost that the more successful clubs are paying to subsidise those that are struggling. As I said, I'm cool with covering for a club that's having a bad year or two, but somewhere along the line you gotta cut the cord.

Bringing it back to the point about the salary cap, is it really fair or even reasonable from a business point-of-view to maintain a low salary cap so the struggling teams are able to keep up pace with the more profitable clubs? For example: Why should Toronto adhere to a salary cap put in place to keep a club such as Kansas City afloat, when a more viable market exists in a place such as St. Louis or possibly Montreal?

At the end of the day, I'm not really sweating the cap as much as I am other aspects of the league. I just think it should be acknowledged that we are in the position we are at the moment because of clubs failing to bring in enough revenue.

james
05-26-2008, 12:32 AM
id say raise the cap a bit. But not to much, and not to fast. All tho i know its hard to compete in Champions League against Mexican Clubs who can spend whatever they want, if we raise are salaries up MLS will just start to lose money again. MLS must try to spend as much money on player salaries as possible as long as teams can still make a profit.

footyfan
05-26-2008, 12:33 AM
Good points, footfan - unfortunately its still a bitter pill to swallow. I have no problems with a league maintaining a pool of cash and assets. Let's face it - every so often a club is just gonna hit a slump and need a quick fix. That said, I do have a problem with a league that seems perfectly okay with clubs like Kansas City or New York bringing in less than 10,00 fans on average for MLS games last year. Obviously there has to be a cost that the more successful clubs are paying to subsidise
those that are struggling. As I said, I'm cool with covering for a club that's having a bad year or two, but somewhere along the line you gotta cut the cord.

Bringing it back to the point about the salary cap, is it really fair or even reasonable from a business point-of-view to maintain a low salary cap so the struggling teams are able to keep up pace with the more profitable clubs? For example: Why should Toronto adhere to a salary cap put in place to keep a club such as Kansas City afloat, when a more viable market exists in a place such as St. Louis or possibly Montreal?

At the end of the day, I'm not really sweating the cap as much as I am other aspects of the league. I just think it should be acknowledged that we are in the position we are at the moment because of clubs failing to bring in enough revenue.

Most clubs didn't bring in any revenue until recently. The reason your club subsidizes Kansas City is because Lamar Hunt subsidized the league for all the years prior to his death. Had he not, you'd be the Toronto Lynx in USL.

Just because Toronto was not in the league during the lean years doesn't mean they get a pass.

ExiledRed
05-26-2008, 12:36 AM
I dont disagree with your assessment, nor the historical truths about how this league was formed, and the obstacles it faced at the outset.

Im suggesting that the momentum has grown to a point now, that further success will only happen DESPITE the single entity league 'management' and nerfing for parity that continues to take place, and not because of it.

I also disagree that the cautious approach taken by MLS was the only alternative to NASL excess, and challenge that MLS teams have been spurned by and will continue to be spurned by immigrants because of the obsessive compulsion with north american absurdities (absurd in a soccer context) such as 'pawning picks for players' 'expansion drafts' 'franchising' 'development rosters' ' youth/senior slots' and of course a $2million salary cap.

TFC itself would be six times as huge if it were truly embraced by the immigrant population. I work in a factory with people from all over the world, I talk footy with them every day, but they just give me a knowing grin when I try to explain what's going on at BMO. They dont believe me, and until top calibre players are coming here from top leagues (in their youth) they probably wont change that opinion.

All of your quotes were echoed in Toronto media, concerning TFC btw, it's just anti soccer rhetoric that exists across the continent because soccer is an 'immigrant sport' . Toronto sports writers still dont know quite what hit them last year.

I said before, the stadium was even completed that 20,000 and fieldturf in a city owned stadium was unambitious and I was right. This organisation could have owned the stadium for the cost of two of it's hockey players, and it would still be looking at a rosy future.

In my opinion, it's time for MLS to grow up, and cut the cord.

TFC Via Buffalo
05-26-2008, 12:45 AM
All of your quotes were echoed in Toronto media, concerning TFC btw, it's just anti soccer rhetoric that exists across the continent because soccer is an 'immigrant sport' . Toronto sports writers still dont know quite what hit them last year.



This is what I find hilarious for all the wrong reasons. Soccer is considered and "immigrant sport here in the US for sure. Yet, after watching the Spurs/Lakers game, half the guys on the freakin floor were foreign. Baseball is littered with Cubans and other southern countries. Hockey is the same thing. Football is the only sport predominantly American because we are really the only country that plays it. It's really sad that we can't warm up to soccer as a nation because it really is amazing.

Cashcleaner
05-26-2008, 12:57 AM
Most clubs didn't bring in any revenue until recently. The reason your club subsidizes Kansas City is because Lamar Hunt subsidized the league for all the years prior to his death. Had he not, you'd be the Toronto Lynx in USL.

Just because Toronto was not in the league during the lean years doesn't mean they get a pass.

I see what you mean, but is it a healthy atittude to have with the current dynamics of sport of North America? I'm starting to think it's not. As ExiledRed mentioned, with Toronto there is a shedload of potential new fans here that don't follow the league simply because of the lack of top-quality players that they can watch easily on TV playing in Europe, Asia, and South America. Case in point - look at the interest Beckham brought to the league. He brought exposure to every game, home and away, that he was attending. Consider teams getting others of his calibre - we'd be a league to reckon with on the world stage if teams were given the ability to negiotiate in the same manner as Real Madrid, Man United, AS Roma, etc.

I should mention that I am a fan of a cap and most of the financial
arrangements teams have with the league. I just think that we could be shooting ourselves in the foot at times by keeping the cap too low (not to mention the minimum salary). From what I've heard, all that will be renegotiated prior to next season, however.

ExiledRed
05-26-2008, 01:02 AM
^^^ Even at double the cap, the entire squad couldn't cover Owen Hargreaves restaurant tip.

Cashcleaner
05-26-2008, 01:27 AM
^ Let the bastard starve!!! :D

Laurignano
05-26-2008, 01:38 AM
instead of doubling the cap, rasie it by a million, and add 1 more DP slot instead. So each team has 3 DP slots.

Cashcleaner
05-26-2008, 02:33 AM
^ You mean 2 DP slots. Teams are allocated one at the moment, however they can trade them.

SilverSamurai
05-26-2008, 06:43 AM
I don't think the cap should be scrapped completely, but think it needs to be raised big time. Perhaps to 5-6 million and/or also adding a 2nd DP slot or semi-DP as an an additional player you can pay up to 1.5 million or so.
But I feel sorry for the guys living off 13k. How can they eat, let alone have a place to sleep and live!
The league at the min. should allow for players to be provided housing or something along the lines.

ensco
05-26-2008, 07:36 AM
Most clubs didn't bring in any revenue until recently. The reason your club subsidizes Kansas City is because Lamar Hunt subsidized the league for all the years prior to his death. Had he not, you'd be the Toronto Lynx in USL.

Just because Toronto was not in the league during the lean years doesn't mean they get a pass.

This is not true, either about KC, or about TFC's "ownership" of the league's lean years.

KC - that's a decent franchise with a horrible stadium situation. The real subsidies are to Chivas and Columbus, which are horrible franchises with good stadiums but no following. Are you really saying KC and Columbus only continue to exist because of loyalty to the memory of Lamar Hunt?

Our "ownership" of the lean years - footyfan, this isn't a family restaurant, show me a multi-million dollar business that works this way. MLSE should and will do whatever they think will grow the business - they won't give a rat's ass about the past (and the hardcore fans probably don't rank high in their thoughts either, btw)

Big, big money is arriving on the scene, in multiple locations. TV dollars will start to make everyone crazy. A lot of things are going to change - the cap is just one of them. You are going to see a lot more "name" players arriving.

I don't mean to demean the past, but it's of little relevance now. Chivas and Columbus will relocate, I'd bet on it. Either KC gets a stadium or it moves to Miami/Detroit/Atlanta/Vancouver/Montreal/St Louis.

graeme117
05-26-2008, 07:53 AM
I also disagree that the cautious approach taken by MLS was the only alternative to NASL excess, and challenge that MLS teams have been spurned by and will continue to be spurned by immigrants because of the obsessive compulsion with north american absurdities (absurd in a soccer context) such as 'pawning picks for players' 'expansion drafts' 'franchising' 'development rosters' ' youth/senior slots' and of course a $2million salary cap.


I think you hit the nail on the head here exiled. The constant roster rule changes, and the different designations, coupled with assumed forced trades, and an allocation system where no one knows wtf is going on. IMO, this type of stuff is what turns people off, i know it puts me off.

For example, how the hell did we file a 'discovery' claim on huckerby? WTF is a discovery claim? how can it be filed on a 30 year old? and if it can be WTF is allocation for?

Or, how can LA sign who ever they want at what ever price they want w/ the cap? while trading cap space lowers the quality of rosters trading the $ away. This is not the way to improve play.

The list goes on and it becomes bloody frustrating...

And to bring the topic full circle... it will hurt us internationally, especially w/ the CCL

SilverSamurai
05-26-2008, 07:53 AM
This is not true, either about KC, or about TFC's "ownership" of the league's lean years.

KC - that's a decent franchise with a horrible stadium situation. The real subsidies are to Chivas and Columbus, which are horrible franchises with good stadiums but no following. Are you really saying KC and Columbus only continue to exist because of loyalty to the memory of Lamar Hunt?

Our "ownership" of the lean years - footyfan, this isn't a family restaurant, show me a multi-million dollar business that works this way. MLSE should and will do whatever they think will grow the business - they won't give a rat's ass about the past (and the hardcore fans probably don't rank high in their thoughts either, btw)

Big, big money is arriving on the scene, in multiple locations. TV dollars will start to make everyone crazy. A lot of things are going to change - the cap is just one of them. You are going to see a lot more "name" players arriving.

I don't mean to demean the past, but it's of little relevance now. Chivas and Columbus will relocate, I'd bet on it. Either KC gets a stadium or it moves to Miami/Detroit/Atlanta/Vancouver/Montreal/St Louis.
1 thing to keep in mind is that Chivas' owner obviously has deeep pockets. With the cap being raised we could see Chivas USA become like a "loan team" for Chivas of Guadalajara. Although I hope this is not the case really.
I do see Chivas being tossed more $$$ to aquire new players once the cap goes up. Chivas USA=Chivas Jr?:eek:

Oldtimer
05-26-2008, 07:54 AM
The cap is one of the really good ideas that needs to stay.
Show me any North American sport that does well without a cap or a luxury tax.
Many European leagues look in envy on the financial arrangements we have over here.

The ONLY problem is that the cap is too low now, given the money pouring into the league in sponsorships/TV rights.

Footyfan is right that the current arrangements were absolutely necessary until recently, and I'm sure that the new collective bargaining arrangement will result in a much higher cap. 3-4 million seems about right.

Add 1 more non-tradeable domestic-only DP slot, and the league will be very competitive.

Gazidis (assistant commish) said on BBC world Football last week that 10 years from now MLS will be one of the top leagues in the world. We won't recognize it from what we have even right now, I'm sure. Patience is what is needed. The owners won't open up the purse-strings now when the CAB is about to be renegotiated. That's just good business, and MLS is (like any sport) a business. We will see significantly more money being spent in a year or two. A lot of clubs are spending a lot more in areas not under the cap already. Getting additional coaching and technical staff (such as TFC has done), scouts (like DC has done), and LA spending big time on a world-class head coach is a start.

Bigger rosters are also needed if MLS clubs are to compete successfully in CONCACAF and maybe the Copa Liberatadors (sp?).

SilverSamurai
05-26-2008, 08:13 AM
The cap is a good idea.
Perhaps a 2nd DP idea could be a domestic DP in addition to say an international (or 2 domestic DP's if you wish)
Could be incentive for domestic players to stay instead of going abroad.
Just a thought...

Billy the kid
05-26-2008, 08:14 AM
Does anybody know what the team salaries are like in Mexico (premier division)? I know their much higher, but I haven't been able to find any numbers online. I'm sure there's a range from small markets to bigger ones.

rocker
05-26-2008, 08:36 AM
i luv the cap. I hate it when the opposition wins championships by spending more than other teams. when I've been a fan of teams that are not able to spend, it gets really discouraging. With no relegation or promotion in NA, your team was always stuck getting its ass kicked by teams that spend more money. The cap situation in most NA sports now is a blessing.

I mean, everyone makes a big deal about Manchester United and Chelsea and others as the great teams of Europe.. Well, why are they "great"??? Cuz they spend more money than the other teams!!!
So winning the EPL is a battle of who spends the most cash, not "who is most competitive". not every team has the market or the wherewithal to spend as much as the big boys.

That's why the great european teams wanted to create that superleague across europe -- take all the teams who spend the most and play each other so that there's better competition.

Primavera
05-26-2008, 10:26 AM
Is there a good explanation available online which covers has LAG managed to sign Beckham? I'm just wondering how the issue of the salary cap was handled.

RPB_RED_NATION_RPB
05-26-2008, 10:29 AM
If MLS want to compete on the higher stage such as winning a CL.......the caps have to rise no question!!

Oldtimer
05-26-2008, 10:33 AM
Is there a good explanation available online which covers has LAG managed to sign Beckham? I'm just wondering how the issue of the salary cap was handled.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Designated_Player_Rule

ExiledRed
05-26-2008, 10:57 AM
The cap is one of the really good ideas that needs to stay.
Show me any North American sport that does well without a cap or a luxury tax.
Many European leagues look in envy on the financial arrangements we have over here.



a)Soccer is not a north american sport.

b) There are no north american sports without a salary cap or luxury tax are there?

c)Which European leagues? EPL, La Liga or Serie A? Do me a favour.

RPB_RED_NATION_RPB
05-26-2008, 11:07 AM
caps.....have there advantages when your only competing in your own leauge...but when you decide to compete in cups such as SUPER LIGA..CL.....your league..is now at a huge disavantage in competing to win with other leagues who have no CAP! IF the big picture of MLS is to compete on the world stage...its only chance is to bump the cap!! Even to 5million......would then allow us to compete with mexicans and the south americans for CL and Super liga

TorontoBlades
05-26-2008, 11:17 AM
Dear Footyfan,

how come your fans only had one chant on Saturday....don't you think 11 years is enough time to learn a second.

Oldtimer
05-26-2008, 11:18 AM
a)Soccer is not a north american sport.

b) There are no north american sports without a salary cap or luxury tax are there?

c)Which European leagues? EPL, La Liga or Serie A? Do me a favour.

a) soccer is not a North American sport, but we are playing here in North America. It's true that the player market is international, but the team economics here are North American.

b) I won't say there are NONE (maybe lacrosse doesn't have any), but all of the major ones have one. Even the CFL is now enforcing their previously very loose cap.

c) I've heard the manager of a lower-table EPL team (sorry, can't remember which) state that he would prefer a salary cap to the usual suspects winning every year (England used to have a maximum salary for footballers until the 1960's). I remember also someone out of the Uefa office saying in an interview that he wishes they could have one, but it would be impossible to implement.

Of course, given the team you support, I wouldn't expect you to support a cap, unless it only applied to Man utd and Chelsea. :)

SilverSamurai
05-26-2008, 11:23 AM
caps.....have there advantages when your only competing in your own leauge...but when you decide to compete in cups such as SUPER LIGA..CL.....your league..is now at a huge disavantage in competing to win with other leagues who have no CAP! IF the big picture of MLS is to compete on the world stage...its only chance is to bump the cap!! Even to 5million......would then allow us to compete with mexicans and the south americans for CL and Super liga

Even at 5million, it would only be a drop in the bucket compared to the Mexican League. Don't forget that the Mexican League is not only one of the best but also 1 of the richest outside of Europe. Wish I could find the quote from where I read that...

Still $5mill would be VERY helpful!

ExiledRed
05-26-2008, 11:41 AM
a) soccer is not a North American sport, but we are playing here in North America. It's true that the player market is international, but the team economics here are North American.

Of course, given the team you support, I wouldn't expect you to support a cap, unless it only applied to Man utd and Chelsea. :)

Try not to bring up my home team, cause then I have to go on about them, and people complain when I do.

Liverpool's past successes from the sixties through to the eighties were due to Shankly and Paisley's intelligent spending on hard working professional british players, not on excessive ultra spending. When Manchester United were breaking transfer fee records on the likes of Bryan Robson, they weren't winning leagues, Liverpool, Arsenal and Everton were

Without an alternative, and Lacrosse doesnt count, there is no argument, other than 'every sport in north america has it, so we have to have it as well.'

Soccer is an INTERNATIONAL sport, north america has to adapt to that, because the biggest international sport ever will not adapt to north america.

I am not against all capping, a better example would be the lower leagues in England whose spending power is limited by their gate.

I am however, against any kind of capping that puts an entire squad at a lower pay rate than one 'average' player in an elite league.

ExiledRed
05-26-2008, 11:45 AM
a $5 million cap should only serve to raise the salaries of existing players to something more respectable, it still leaves us at square one when it comes to attracting top calibre players.

ag futbol
05-26-2008, 11:56 AM
a $5 million cap should only serve to raise the salaries of existing players to something more respectable, it still leaves us at square one when it comes to attracting top calibre players.
Ya, we're still light years away financially from being able to compete with global teams in terms of revenue.

We're like a decade away (at least) from that even possibly happening.

Oldtimer
05-26-2008, 12:06 PM
I am however, against any kind of capping that puts an entire squad at a lower pay rate than one 'average' player in an elite league.

You won't find me arguing with you there. The cap level (and the pay of the GA kids) are disgracefully low.

rocker
05-26-2008, 12:18 PM
a $5 million cap should only serve to raise the salaries of existing players to something more respectable, it still leaves us at square one when it comes to attracting top calibre players.

I wouldn't say it'd be that way completely. Certainly players already here would get a raise. But teams aren't going to just hand out the cash to guys they already have. Some will have contracts already set in stone beyond the cap expansion, and will be stuck at that rate.
Teams like TFC who already use a lot of internationals will be a bit better able to attract a different quality of foreign player, perhaps beginning to compete with some of the championship salaries without having to resort to a DP.
It may also keep players from leaving. I'm also interested in seeing what effect a lower end raise may have on enticing promising young players to stay here rather than going to lower divisions in other countries.
What'll be interesting to see is if MLS lowers roster domestic limits as they expand the # of teams in the league. They can justify this by noting that the total # of American jobs will increase while teams individually will have more flexibility not to have to give domestics the extra money the cap allows.

It'll take decades to compete with the world for the best players, but in the meantime a boost to 4-5 million would definitely increase the quality of the league.

Another point, one of the biggest things I see in the uncapped leagues is the ability to solve mistakes by throwing money at players. Many big teams have the wherewithal to correct their mistakes immediately by throwing so much money at players that even other wealthy teams don't even bother with an offer. It's a crutch that is best eliminated by caps.

giambac
05-26-2008, 12:51 PM
Am I correct in assuming that the salary cap and squad restrictions dont apply to our potential opponents in CONCACAF CL or Superliga?

Im aware the USL teams have their own cap and limitations, but theyre different than MLS, so how fair is that to opposing teams in the Canada Cup?

It seems daft that we might have to play the likes of Pachuca competetively, and that while they are able to spend what they can afford on players, we are 'nerfed' by handicaps that arent relevant to the competition.

Can TFC theoretically field players in these games from outside our MLS roster? (i.e - a player on loan not signed to MLS)

Just wondering.

How about we worry about this when and if we get there. Thers is alot of football to be played until TFC qualifies. Let's concentrate on things we can control -like our opponents in Montreal and Vancouver.
No use worrying about things they can't control.

Billy the kid
05-26-2008, 01:10 PM
To go slightly off topic, the Puerto Rico Islanders clinched the third Carribean slot yesterday. So their will be atleast one USL team in the CONCACAF champions league. Should we get through the Canada Cup, I wouldn't mind drawing them, or any of the Caribean teams for that matter.

Oldtimer
05-26-2008, 01:14 PM
Another point, one of the biggest things I see in the uncapped leagues is the ability to solve mistakes by throwing money at players. Many big teams have the wherewithal to correct their mistakes immediately by throwing so much money at players that even other wealthy teams don't even bother with an offer. It's a crutch that is best eliminated by caps.

That's why capped leagues require much more careful player selection, and clever dealing.

BeachRed
05-26-2008, 01:26 PM
Soccer is an INTERNATIONAL sport, north america has to adapt to that, because the biggest international sport ever will not adapt to north america.


Certainly the goal is for the North American teams to someday compete evenly with the best in the world. But it can't be rushed, the fans have to be there, in the stadiums and watching on TV.

The MLS is using the NFL as its model and the salary cap combined with revenue sharing means that Green Bay has as much of a chance to win the Super Bowl as New York. That's what the MLS wants, because otherwise 2-4 teams would dominate and the league would fold - this isn't Scotland.

Someday, if the league is strong enough and the TV ratings are high enough, the cap may get lifted. It will certainly get raised as the revenues increase.

Laurignano
05-26-2008, 01:36 PM
The question is how do you get interest in a league?
I think that you need to bring quality players to get respect within the MLS.

Personally I think the MLS needs a players like Ronaldinho and Henry to come to the MLS before we can really raise the cap and get a good international following of the league.

Billy the kid
05-26-2008, 02:20 PM
Raising the cap too quickly might squeeze out the domestic content on teams. You'd have a huge gap between your international player salaries and your required domestics. Hopefully the academies around the league will provide a larger pool of quality domestic talent as the cap goes up.

ExiledRed
05-26-2008, 02:31 PM
How about we worry about this when and if we get there. Thers is alot of football to be played until TFC qualifies. Let's concentrate on things we can control -like our opponents in Montreal and Vancouver.
No use worrying about things they can't control.

How about we discuss all aspects of our team, the state of MLS, our opponents and players, and make seperate threads about each subject?

We can put the concept online and open the discussion to multiple users, allowing them to respond to each others points....we can call it a message board or a discussion forum.

Nodoubtguy
05-26-2008, 02:39 PM
The question is how do you get interest in a league?
I think that you need to bring quality players to get respect within the MLS.

Personally I think the MLS needs a players like Ronaldinho and Henry to come to the MLS before we can really raise the cap and get a good international following of the league.

Would be nice, but I think that for the MLS to really step up, we'd need one bright young star that is in the prime or up-swing of his career. Imagine if we had someone like Messi being the Star of MLS for the next 10+ years and not someone like Henry who would come for a 2-3 year payday

ExiledRed
05-26-2008, 02:56 PM
Would be nice, but I think that for the MLS to really step up, we'd need one bright young star that is in the prime or up-swing of his career. Imagine if we had someone like Messi being the Star of MLS for the next 10+ years and not someone like Henry who would come for a 2-3 year payday

Messi's transfer fee would be roughly the same as the entire MLS salary of all 14 teams, disregarding the DPs.

That is the kind of thing people are referring to when they downtalk this league as a 'minor league'

jloome
05-26-2008, 03:11 PM
It is quite possible to afford food on 20K a year.

Many non-professional athletes do every day...

Not in Toronto they don't. DUde, 20,000 is below the bread-basket poverty line.

And while I'm at it, don't ever assume you're being told the truth by a private north American sports oligopoly, especially when over that period, they were among the top-10 attendance draws in world foortball; if they can't make money averaging more than 15,000 fans a game with substantially higher salaries than they pay now, they're doing something very, very wrong, becasue even the CFL and the pre-CBA NHL paid more than MLS average in salary, with little to no support from tv revenue sharing.

BeachRed
05-26-2008, 06:30 PM
Big, big money is arriving on the scene, in multiple locations. TV dollars will start to make everyone crazy. A lot of things are going to change - the cap is just one of them. You are going to see a lot more "name" players arriving.

I don't mean to demean the past, but it's of little relevance now. Chivas and Columbus will relocate, I'd bet on it. Either KC gets a stadium or it moves to Miami/Detroit/Atlanta/Vancouver/Montreal/St Louis.

We Canadians always put Vancouver on that list, but I don't see it happening, they'llhave to get a stadium first and with everything poured into the Olympics that's a longshot.

Sports team ownsership is a little different from other businesses, though, because while other teams are your competition, you also need them to be healthy for your own business to survive.

MLS is in a bit of a tough spot because it has to be successful in the North American market but constantly be compared to leagues around the world - which it also has to co-exist with.

So, some things will be North American, like the player draft out of colleges and the idea of parity throughout the league. For a while, anyway.

Ossington Mental Youth
05-26-2008, 06:48 PM
Inevitably the cap will remain for a good while. I do however (as mentioned previously) believe it will go up in 2009 when the players union contract expires. It is being realized that teams are too thin to compete a) internationally and b) even when there are national games/friendlies going on. Its in everyones business to keep the teams stacked.

Another issue is the minimum wage. Its hardly competitive and does not spur growth in NA as a result you will see that raise as well to i would guess about 30k or a bit more, possibly 45k.

RPB73
05-26-2008, 06:53 PM
Most clubs didn't bring in any revenue until recently. The reason your club subsidizes Kansas City is because Lamar Hunt subsidized the league for all the years prior to his death. Had he not, you'd be the Toronto Lynx in USL.

Just because Toronto was not in the league during the lean years doesn't mean they get a pass.

That's fine but for how long will the profitable clubs, not just Toronto have to subsidize. I assume that KC, Columbus, NY, and probably a couple of other teams are losing money. So are there viable locations in the U.S for this league to succeed. I am pretty sure Montreal and Vancouver will but where else could these teams go.

SilverSamurai
05-26-2008, 07:23 PM
That's fine but for how long will the profitable clubs, not just Toronto have to subsidize. I assume that KC, Columbus, NY, and probably a couple of other teams are losing money. So are there viable locations in the U.S for this league to succeed. I am pretty sure Montreal and Vancouver will but where else could these teams go.

NY is owned by Red Bull or whatever the big company is called. Money is prob no object to them. But I agree about the others.

30k I think is fair for a min. roster spot.

ensco
05-26-2008, 07:29 PM
How about we discuss all aspects of our team, the state of MLS, our opponents and players, and make seperate threads about each subject?

We can put the concept online and open the discussion to multiple users, allowing them to respond to each others points....we can call it a message board or a discussion forum.

Best post today

Azerban
05-26-2008, 09:46 PM
How about we discuss all aspects of our team, the state of MLS, our opponents and players, and make seperate threads about each subject?

We can put the concept online and open the discussion to multiple users, allowing them to respond to each others points....we can call it a message board or a discussion forum.

this idea sounds good in theory but fucking stupid in practice

S_D
05-26-2008, 11:09 PM
Is there a good explanation available online which covers has LAG managed to sign Beckham? I'm just wondering how the issue of the salary cap was handled.

Haven't seen one, but it is pretty easy to explain... Beckham liked the idea of the U.S. and AEG were interested so MLS changed the rules and created the "DP" slot to allow for Beckham to get his cash.

AEG pays his salary and he also has a bunch of deals to flog some brands to bring his pay up. Not sure who actually negotiated the product spokesman deals whether it was AEG, MLS, SUM or a combination of all 3. I wouldn't be surprised if AEG did most of the work.