Page 1 of 30 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 879
  1. #1
    RPB Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Frozen Swampland
    Posts
    17,366
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default The official CBA thread

    Because current CBA ends after this season.
    http://www.sbnation.com/soccer/2014/...MLS-cba-battle
    “Years have gone by and I’ve finally learned to accept myself for who I am: a beggar for good football.

    I go about the world, hand outstretched, and in the stadiums I plead: ‘A pretty move, for the love of God.’

    And when good football happens, I give thanks for the miracle and I don’t give a damn which team or country performs it.”

    -Eduardo Galeano

  2. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    on the TTC
    Posts
    1,241
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    This will be interesting. The DP rule has showed that there are a handful of teams willing to drop massive dollars but they are only allowed to spend it on two or three players. The league as a whole won't see a huge increase in quality until the teams are able to spend that money on a balanced roster. Imagine if TFC would be allowed to spend the 100 million on the entire roster instead of two players. They could build a very well rounded squad. Obviously they wouldn't spend that much since a lot of that 100 million is attached to marketing and advertising specific players but any boost in salary cap will provide real benefits to MLS.

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    F5
    Posts
    15,304
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think it's more comparable to look at yearly payroll when judging how much we are spending.

    Bradley + Defoe + Gilberto + reg roster = 6+6+1+2= approximately 15M in payroll per year. Ignoring transfer fees that puts a top MLS team in the range of mid but not elite sides in leagues such as France, Holland, or Portugal. Believe the top Liga MX sides spend somewhere in that neighbourhood too.
    Now that being said these guys typically have resources MLS teams don't, ie better development pyramids, more transfer dollars etc...
    Last edited by ag futbol; 02-24-2014 at 12:47 PM.

  4. #4
    RPB Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Frozen Swampland
    Posts
    17,366
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    One of attractiveness of MLS is the perception that player wages are under control. Owners like the choice of salary cap and ability to spend money on DP players if they choose. By drastically increase salary cap, MLS loses that attractiveness and be seen just as another league where player wages are out of control.

    MLS aren't attracting all investors who are soccer nuts. They want to buy into a league that makes money. (for most part) And these billionaires don't make a habit of buying into bad investments.

    And if the salary cap goes up too much, then it will be seen that MLS is too weak, and the player's union is too strong. Perception is the key
    “Years have gone by and I’ve finally learned to accept myself for who I am: a beggar for good football.

    I go about the world, hand outstretched, and in the stadiums I plead: ‘A pretty move, for the love of God.’

    And when good football happens, I give thanks for the miracle and I don’t give a damn which team or country performs it.”

    -Eduardo Galeano

  5. #5
    RPB Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    116
    Posts
    21,718
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Does the nature of how TFC and NYFC will provide an ROI to their owners, through content, change how this CBA develops?

  6. #6
    RPB Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Frozen Swampland
    Posts
    17,366
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OgtheDim View Post
    Does the nature of how TFC and NYFC will provide an ROI to their owners, through content, change how this CBA develops?
    I don't think so, at least not in short term. I think DP rule is going to expand.

    If we look at CBA from MLSPU's POV, the players union is going to look more for job security (more free agency, more guaranteed contracts) and benefits that affect the majority of players, not just few big name players. I think, MLSPU will be pushing for more upper limit of max wage before DP, rather than more DP spots.

    Increasing salary cap doesn't guarantee that majority of current players will benefit. General trend has always been team FOs will spend most of the cap on players 1 -11, and maybe on couple of first off the bench subs. With so loose of foreign quota in MLS, and how easy it is to get a green card to go around that foreign quota, too much increase in the cap has potential to make a lot of current players out of their jobs, as the FOs will continue to look towards better foreign players for starting 11.

    I see a push for raise of min wage again, maybe more roster spots esp with HG and reserve team programs going to take off.

    So, MLSPU will want a piece of increased spending by owners, but only if it can benefit majority of the players, and it protects job security also.
    “Years have gone by and I’ve finally learned to accept myself for who I am: a beggar for good football.

    I go about the world, hand outstretched, and in the stadiums I plead: ‘A pretty move, for the love of God.’

    And when good football happens, I give thanks for the miracle and I don’t give a damn which team or country performs it.”

    -Eduardo Galeano

  7. #7
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    5,380
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Merritt Paulson was asked about expansion to 4 DPs in next CBA recently (either online or at a Timbers Army event, I forget which) and he said flat out "no."

    He occasionally shoots from the lip so I wouldn't bank on this but it may reflect current view of owners right now.

  8. #8
    Registered
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    6,451
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Detroit_TFC View Post
    Merritt Paulson was asked about expansion to 4 DPs in next CBA recently (either online or at a Timbers Army event, I forget which) and he said flat out "no."

    He occasionally shoots from the lip so I wouldn't bank on this but it may reflect current view of owners right now.
    People also forget that the MLS is a development league with the primary goal of feeding the US national teams. That's why we have a quota system, one skewed towards protecting American jobs in my opinion.

    More internationals. More DPs. That means less jobs for US players. It makes a tidy profit but it would seem that the bulk of that comes from expansion fees and SUM television rights. The motivation to lower US domestic quotas in favour of high priced international talent would seemingly be contained to just a couple of owners... who by the way are more like operators considering MLS itself is the owner.

  9. #9
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    t.dot
    Posts
    7,192
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    from a players perspective, MLS is attractive league to play in because your paycheck will always be received in its entirety and on time

  10. #10
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    5,380
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pookie View Post
    People also forget that the MLS is a development league with the primary goal of feeding the US national teams. That's why we have a quota system, one skewed towards protecting American jobs in my opinion.

    More internationals. More DPs. That means less jobs for US players. It makes a tidy profit but it would seem that the bulk of that comes from expansion fees and SUM television rights. The motivation to lower US domestic quotas in favour of high priced international talent would seemingly be contained to just a couple of owners... who by the way are more like operators considering MLS itself is the owner.
    That is very possibly the thinking. The past period has been about getting the non-North American talent. If that focus has shifted to using the NA domestic talent (incl bringing back Nat team players) then the answer would be bigger rosters and bigger paychecks for a wider range of players. Ironically, I guess, doing either or both of those might make MLS more attractive to non-domestic players too.

  11. #11
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    16,746
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yohan View Post
    One of attractiveness of MLS is the perception that player wages are under control. Owners like the choice of salary cap and ability to spend money on DP players if they choose. By drastically increase salary cap, MLS loses that attractiveness and be seen just as another league where player wages are out of control.

    MLS aren't attracting all investors who are soccer nuts. They want to buy into a league that makes money. (for most part) And these billionaires don't make a habit of buying into bad investments.

    And if the salary cap goes up too much, then it will be seen that MLS is too weak, and the player's union is too strong. Perception is the key
    True. But keep in mind, too, that even far smaller teams in Europe, ASia and Africa have bigger budgets than anyone in MLS. Right now, it is restrictively low relative to franchise value; franchise value, in turn, is exceptionally high not because of bottom line but because corporate tax laws in the U.S. allow write-downs against subsidiaries. So MLS is a cash cow for some owners, even though their bottom line shows a loss.

    In fact, some of them would probably argue that by upping the salary cap to about $6M per season, they'd be in line with competing leagues for players (i.e. Scandinavia and Holland) but still able to write losses on the books easily even if their team is successful. COuld be a win-win.

  12. #12
    Registered
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    6,451
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jloome View Post
    True. But keep in mind, too, that even far smaller teams in Europe, ASia and Africa have bigger budgets than anyone in MLS. Right now, it is restrictively low relative to franchise value; franchise value, in turn, is exceptionally high not because of bottom line but because corporate tax laws in the U.S. allow write-downs against subsidiaries. So MLS is a cash cow for some owners, even though their bottom line shows a loss.

    In fact, some of them would probably argue that by upping the salary cap to about $6M per season, they'd be in line with competing leagues for players (i.e. Scandinavia and Holland) but still able to write losses on the books easily even if their team is successful. COuld be a win-win.
    The fun question I always wrestle with is whether an increased cap would help compete for players or whether a better use of it would be to raise the minimum salaries and remove the non-guaranteed nature of entry level contracts.

    If the player quota stays the same and the money is used on international slots all that they would accomplish is creating a bigger financial divide amongst those in the locker room. TFC's all over the place.

    If the quota changes though and it becomes a free market what does that do to US programs? It would all but kill Canada's. The top players would rise to capture bigger dollars but there would be fewer of them as players give up to find real jobs. Canadians already have it tough. Ranked one hundred and something suggests that the development program itself is flawed. Combine that with restrictive roster rules that treat Canadians as Internationals in the US and wow, that becomes bleak.

    The best solution may be to use any salary increase on domestic players to make soccer a viable career option for a larger number of North Americans... and relax the Canadians as Internationals rule. With the US ranking amongst the top in the world, that might do more for the long term competitive balance than attracting big names from worldly locales.

    I really think that changing the Canadians as Internationals rule would be one of the biggest things that the 3 Canadian MLS teams could do to alter the fate for youth of this country going forward.

  13. #13
    RPB Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    116
    Posts
    21,718
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pookie View Post
    ..
    I really think that changing the Canadians as Internationals rule would be one of the biggest things that the 3 Canadian MLS teams could do to alter the fate for youth of this country going forward.
    I believe that's a US labour law issue and thus unlikely to change. That and IIRC, Vancouver is not in favour of Canadians being mandated for the Canadian teams. They don't mind if they come along but would prefer to be able to choose between Yanks and Canucks.

  14. #14
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    F5
    Posts
    15,304
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Labor law theory doesn't wash. Can't remember whether it's USL or NASL, but they count Canadians as full domestics.

  15. #15
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,469
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ag futbol View Post
    Labor law theory doesn't wash. Can't remember whether it's USL or NASL, but they count Canadians as full domestics.
    USL pro Canadians count as domestics... which is a good thing for us to be able to develop our young guys with Wilmington

  16. #16
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    126
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't know anything about Labor Law, but I also find this very hard to believe. Has anyone ever heard of any similar issues with NHL, NFL, NBA or MLB? The MLS was created to help further the sport of soccer in the U.S. and to help improve the strength of the national team. Canada didn't feature in that mandate. I think the rule has a lot more to do with a lack of interest/desire than it has any labor laws (although I'm purely guessing here). As for Vancouver, as much as I want TFC to succeed, I would be very uncomfortable if we worked against the development of Canadian talent. I think there's a moral obligation - and a long-term financial incentive - to help development young Canadian talent. I would not be very happy if Toronto had a similar position to Vancouver.

  17. #17
    RPB Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Frozen Swampland
    Posts
    17,366
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Villa TFC View Post
    I don't know anything about Labor Law, but I also find this very hard to believe. Has anyone ever heard of any similar issues with NHL, NFL, NBA or MLB? The MLS was created to help further the sport of soccer in the U.S. and to help improve the strength of the national team. Canada didn't feature in that mandate. I think the rule has a lot more to do with a lack of interest/desire than it has any labor laws (although I'm purely guessing here). As for Vancouver, as much as I want TFC to succeed, I would be very uncomfortable if we worked against the development of Canadian talent. I think there's a moral obligation - and a long-term financial incentive - to help development young Canadian talent. I would not be very happy if Toronto had a similar position to Vancouver.
    Clubs develop youth players because it is their first goal to produce good players to help the first team win. I'd say this is the philosophy of most soccer teams in the world. Any help to national team is almost an accident by product of youth development. If you put national team aspirations ahead of the winning, well, it's very hard to win and develop national team players esp youngsters at the same time.

    As for Vancouver, one of reasons why Rennie's contract wasn't renewed is that he didn't give the youths enough of a chance. The Caps have a boatload of good HG players that needs mins. They've seen what Teibert can do, and other guys like Fisk, Alderson (another Ontario boy!) should get a contract as well. That Carducci kid I think might be Canada #1 in the future. So, Robbo will give the youths a chance (and he has said this repeately), but the Caps will be doing this because they think the kids will help them win in the future, not to be a feeder club for Canada.
    “Years have gone by and I’ve finally learned to accept myself for who I am: a beggar for good football.

    I go about the world, hand outstretched, and in the stadiums I plead: ‘A pretty move, for the love of God.’

    And when good football happens, I give thanks for the miracle and I don’t give a damn which team or country performs it.”

    -Eduardo Galeano

  18. #18
    RPB Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    116
    Posts
    21,718
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ag futbol View Post
    Labor law theory doesn't wash. Can't remember whether it's USL or NASL, but they count Canadians as full domestics.
    To be honest, labour law is what I hear every time this is mentioned on a US based board. The response to the NASL and USL thing is usually

  19. #19
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Mississauga
    Posts
    24
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Labour Laws are not the issue. Canadian kids are getting the short end of the stick league wide to keep the Canadian clubs happy. If US based clubs could sign our talent up as domestics, this would drive up the price on TFC, Vancouver and Montreal for local talent. They don't want that! Therefore, the rules as they sit now is perfect for Canadian clubs. Just not for Canadian players.

  20. #20
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,138
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Labour Laws is a load of BS. MLS is a single entity that exists in Canada and the USA. Surely they should be able to make a rule limiting the number of players not from one of the two countries that the league exists in.

    As for another DP spot, I don't think it's in the union's interest to fight to allow more money to be spent on star players. That's money that they'll likely be fighting to have added to the cap.
    I don't know what the union's position is, but I would imagine that they would be fighting for more players to be making good money (increase in minimum salary). I think there would be a noticeable increase in quality if the base salary doubled and there were a lot more 200k salaries (similar to the number of current 100k salaries)

  21. #21
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    5,833
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ag futbol View Post
    Labor law theory doesn't wash. Can't remember whether it's USL or NASL, but they count Canadians as full domestics.
    Could possibly be both, but USL counts Canadians as domestic.

  22. #22
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    114
    Posts
    244
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OgtheDim View Post
    To be honest, labour law is what I hear every time this is mentioned on a US based board. The response to the NASL and USL thing is usually
    It was Don Garber himself who told TSN’s Jason DeVos during last year's First Kick broadcast that it was U.S. Labour Law which was the problem. There's a very nice summary of the issue here .

    Personally, I don't buy it and I think it should be a bigger issue for Canadian Supporters (and SGs?). If nothing else, no one ever raises the question as to whether MLS hiring practices and preferential treatment of American players is legal in Canada. That is, if American teams can't discriminate in favour of Canadian players over other foreign players (although, oddly, in the USL they can), how is it that Canadian MLS teams can discriminate in favour of American players (over other foreigners)? I'm not a lawyer, but I can't believe that that is actually legal in Canada. The visa requirements that allow foreign athletes and entertainers to enter Canada specifically stipulates that Canadian athletes and entertainers must be granted reciprocal treatment in the athlete's home country. Well forget that, Canadian soccer players are not even treated as well as American players in their own country!

    Barring the elimination of the domestic player rules or reducing it to 3 players for all teams (essentially what we have for Canadian player development), one simple solution is to change the definition of a "domestic player", to one based on place of training instead of nationality. For example, a "domestic player" could be so designated if they had trained in North America for 3 years before the age of 18, etc.. Legal problem solved Mr. Garber.
    Last edited by Commie Red; 02-25-2014 at 02:16 PM. Reason: typo

  23. #23
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    F5
    Posts
    15,304
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Keep in mind a large part of the reason for producing local players is to serve as a catalyst to find a larger domestic audience. Yes the associations sanction and mandate content rules but the reason clubs fall in line with them is because they are *usually* in the pro teams best interests.

  24. #24
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    5,498
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yohan View Post
    Clubs develop youth players because it is their first goal to produce good players to help the first team win. I'd say this is the philosophy of most soccer teams in the world. Any help to national team is almost an accident by product of youth development. If you put national team aspirations ahead of the winning, well, it's very hard to win and develop national team players esp youngsters at the same time.
    You know, in some cases (maybe many cases), this is still true. But in a lot of places, developing players for the first team is now the secondary goal of academies. Developing players to sell to larger clubs at a huge profit is the primary goal. There was an in depth article about Ajax floating around in the Winter days talking about this being an issue nowdays at Ajax.

    There was also an interesting bit about this in the Alex Ferguson book. He talked about how profitable the academy is - developing those fringe players and selling them off. He said something to the extent that his net transfer spend over his time at United was basically zero, due largely to the money made off these players.

    To be honest, I've often been skeptical about the whole youth academy push in the MLS. Sure, you can raise that talent bar if done right, but I've always wondered if the primary driver is developing players to make a profit off.

  25. #25
    RPB Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Frozen Swampland
    Posts
    17,366
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brad View Post
    You know, in some cases (maybe many cases), this is still true. But in a lot of places, developing players for the first team is now the secondary goal of academies. Developing players to sell to larger clubs at a huge profit is the primary goal. There was an in depth article about Ajax floating around in the Winter days talking about this being an issue nowdays at Ajax.

    There was also an interesting bit about this in the Alex Ferguson book. He talked about how profitable the academy is - developing those fringe players and selling them off. He said something to the extent that his net transfer spend over his time at United was basically zero, due largely to the money made off these players.

    To be honest, I've often been skeptical about the whole youth academy push in the MLS. Sure, you can raise that talent bar if done right, but I've always wondered if the primary driver is developing players to make a profit off.
    This may be true, but MLS is one of the leagues where it's relatively easier for youths to break into first team. With low cap and need for bodies, cheap youth players likely get more chance with an MLS team. So I think MLS is more of a development league than selling league.
    “Years have gone by and I’ve finally learned to accept myself for who I am: a beggar for good football.

    I go about the world, hand outstretched, and in the stadiums I plead: ‘A pretty move, for the love of God.’

    And when good football happens, I give thanks for the miracle and I don’t give a damn which team or country performs it.”

    -Eduardo Galeano

  26. #26
    Registered
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    6,451
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brad View Post
    To be honest, I've often been skeptical about the whole youth academy push in the MLS. Sure, you can raise that talent bar if done right, but I've always wondered if the primary driver is developing players to make a profit off.
    Selling players may be the goal of the big clubs but honestly, MLS teams appear to have a more fundamental goal than that. I'm sure they would like to sell players but labour laws allow players under 18 to leave and sign overseas before MLS can ink them. If a player is good enough, an international team could swoop in and sign the player on its own turns.

    Remember, MLS owns itself. MLS mandated each team have an Academy. Why?

    No one was in the board room but the estimated $200M sponsorship deal with Adidas provides some interesting discussion points:


    • "Both of us are feeling really good about the partnership we have had since the start of the MLS and the first deal that we did. ... We both felt this was the time to talk this deal out for a longer time frame and for spending the money on the youth development of the game in the U.S," Adidas America president Patrik Nilsson said.


    • "The goal will be to make a very direct link between our academies, our reserve league, our youth programs with a lot of the other youth programs going on in this country," Garber said. "Adidas can play a very important role in creating that bridge and solidifying all those ties."


    • Nilsson said he sees a bridge missing between the high school level and professional level and hopes the money included in this new deal will help strengthen that link. "I think that is one area where we need to do more and MLS has acknowledged that," Nilsson said. "That is one of the key reasons why we decided to change this deal now and be able to invest stronger toward investing in that direction."

    http://espn.go.com/sports/soccer/new...rship-contract

    The higher the number of players in MLS' youth system, the bigger the target market. Companies pay fees to access a large target market. Appears to be a pretty fundamental reason why MLS may want its franchises to have a large and robust youth program.

  27. #27
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,368
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    This seems like as good of a place as any for this but: Would doubling the salary cap really be a bad thing for anyone?

    If team owners are working on such slim margins that they can't handle $5m of salaries I think there are other problems other than wages.

    That would allow for the average in-cap salary to be around $165k which is at least livable. Also, bring up the bottom to $65-$70k, these guys are professionals who have been plying their trade for at least 10-12 years before their rookie season (training from age 6)

    I really do feel terribly for these kids, throw them a damn bone.
    WE DID IT!

  28. #28
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Ottawa
    Posts
    3,238
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think MLS doesn't want to artificially inflate the worth of domestic players to the point where you could get better players from abroad than at home for the same price.

    That said, I think the minimum cap for 2015 should be at least $4 million, though I'd be more comfortable with $4.5-5 million cap. Increase the salaries of all the players (including the minimums) by $15,000 each. That would only increase the cap by a maximum of $450K, leaving another $0.5-1 million to pursue better quality players. But that quality will be limited by supply and demand and the number of international slots available. I could see international slots being very coveted after the next CBA.

  29. #29
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,138
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Abou Sky View Post
    This seems like as good of a place as any for this but: Would doubling the salary cap really be a bad thing for anyone?

    If team owners are working on such slim margins that they can't handle $5m of salaries I think there are other problems other than wages.

    That would allow for the average in-cap salary to be around $165k which is at least livable. Also, bring up the bottom to $65-$70k, these guys are professionals who have been plying their trade for at least 10-12 years before their rookie season (training from age 6)

    I really do feel terribly for these kids, throw them a damn bone.
    $5m divided by 20 on cap roster spots = an average in-cap salary of 250k. That should allow teams to bring in more quality players and hold onto players for longer, which will improve the overall quality of play in the league

    Also, I think the maximum cap hit should stay low relative to the total cap to prevent players from being able to demand huge maximum salaries that would still leave little cap space for the rest of the squad. I think more balanced rosters with a higher average quality is needed.
    Last edited by Ajax TFC; 02-25-2014 at 02:28 PM.

  30. #30
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    F5
    Posts
    15,304
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Abou Sky View Post
    I really do feel terribly for these kids, throw them a damn bone.
    I would simply argue greater money is needed to draw greater talents. 45-50k doesn't give you much to work with. I know inflation / lack of talent is a common counterpoint but it's simply chicken and egg. Pay the money, invest in the system, yield the talent.

    Right now you still have holdouts taking the Europe or bust route and people who career switch before even considering putting in the training effort to go pro. Any decent career path that attracts type-A pro sports players will quickly dwarf Entry level MLS comp and has the added bonus of avoiding the dreaded post career switch.

    We will probably look back at these times at some point in the future with a bit of admiration. Players will be better, but they will lose a lot of the real-person qualities they have right now. We'll be talking about more aircheque signers, holdouts, and forced transfers, less guys cleaning pools, taking public transit, or living in the assistant coach's basement.
    Last edited by ag futbol; 02-25-2014 at 02:38 PM.

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •