Gall was offered a FOUR YEAR DEAL?!?!?!?

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sports/...1466-21434612/

If this story is true, we need to worry about Mo's sanity a little. A four-year deal for Kevin Gall? We might as well have kept Samuel or just played Jarrod Smith up top all year.

Thank god he turned it down/is full of it, depending on which is true.

As someone who hasn't yet jumped on the "beat up on Mo for his lack of contacts" bandwagon, this kind of story is unnerving at best, since Kevin Gall couldnt' score regularly at League Two level, much less here. Shit, we might as well offer Simeon Jackson a big deal if this story is true.

May have had one year options, or been non-guaranteed.

Amado got a four year as well. IIRC it was two years and then another two at the club's option which doesn't seem too bad.

Maybe Gall was offered a deal like that.

On a related note, Martin Brittain just signed with non-league Kidderminster. So Mo was looking at trialists who aren't even good enough for the Football League...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tfcleeds

On a related note, Martin Brittain just signed with non-league Kidderminster. So Mo was looking at trialists who aren't even good enough Football League...

---

Young unattached player with strong link to Carver, hung around for a while when bodies were needed, worked hard, finally left when the only possibility was a Dev contract...wasn't signed...so what?

There was an article in the sun July 25 page S4 (check it out).
Quote:It was a great place and I enjoyed my time there.When it came time to sign on the dotted line Gall found out MLS would own his contract not TFC."I would have been at Toronto for a couple of years but after that I may have been drafted to another club thousands of miles away.I didn't want that for my family".

almost all MLS contracts are 4 years, with lots of variation on the guarantees.

So what's the solution here? How can we sign a player to a 4 year contract and guarantee him he'll still be here in four years?Especially players with families that need at least a little bit of stability in their lives.
It seems to me that that this is something else that needs to change in MLS.
How many other signings have we missed out on that we may never hear about because of this?

I doubt many; it's the right to transfer thing that was allegedly a problem for Gall. There are probably clauses that can be inserted to prevent it even in a single entity situation.

I would think there is a way around it otherwhise you would not have players at one team for more than two years. But what I don"t understand is why, if they offered him a four year contract they didn't make sure that they could honour it ie: with the necessary clauses.
So maybe we should be negotiating two year contracts, and then another two years etc, if thats the guaranteed time frame befor being transferred.
Anyone up on the transfer regulations?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jloome

I doubt many; it's the right to transfer thing that was allegedly a problem for Gall. There are probably clauses that can be inserted to prevent it even in a single entity situation.

---

Read the collective agreement, articles 15:1 and 15:2:

"...a player may be required, without his concent, to relocate to any team in the league, as directed by MLS... "

These are probably the clauses he was concerned with. Basically, a transfer to a club outside MLS needs player approval, a trade to another MLS club does not. I could see how he woul be concerned with that...especially where Mo's concered! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jocut

I would think there is a way around it otherwhise you would not have players at one team for more than two years. But what I don"t understand is why, if they offered him a four year contract they didn't make sure that they could honour it ie: with the necessary clauses.
So maybe we should be negotiating two year contracts, and then another two years etc, if thats the guaranteed time frame befor being transferred.
Anyone up on the transfer regulations?

---

Or maybe Seth Blatter was right "slavery lives", but he has the wrong league, he was obviously referring to MLS.
Why is this not explained to the players from word one?
You can negotiate with Mo and John, but in two years it won't mean a thing, MLS can send you to butt f#$% Idahoe if we want to.
MLS can't attract players?NO WONDER. Listen folkes I'm not so sure it's the turf or the caliber of play, after reading more and more stories like this.
Why is Dickov waffaling? He apparently liked it here.
Hmmmm Maybe contract terms eh.

^ I completely agree. The number one obsticle for this league right now is the terrible contract situation. The rules are absolutely 4th rate.

This league wants to operate like a monopoly when it will clearly never be one. It should get with the times and strike a better balance between controling expenses and driving away the talent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arbogast

Read the collective agreement, articles 15:1 and 15:2:

"...a player may be required, without his concent, to relocate to any team in the league, as directed by MLS... "

---

Someone show the MLS brass how to run spellcheck on their CBA!:rolleyes:

Here's the link to the story in the Sun.
torontosun.com/Sports/OtherSports/2008/07/25/6259896-sun.html

Sorry forget it looks like they want you to buy the story.
Sorry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhapido

Someone show the MLS brass how to run spellcheck on their CBA!:rolleyes:

---

oops that was probably my bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mlsintoronto

almost all MLS contracts are 4 years, with lots of variation on the guarantees.

---

Wow. Okay, this is quite a bit different than what I had previously thought. Who typically holds the balance of power, though? The club or the player?