Well, yes, a lot of this does seem specific to TFC. Some teams have raised the quality.Originally Posted by brad
Also, the NBA and NFL really benefitted from the popularity of their sports at the college level which isn't happening with soccer.
Well, yes, a lot of this does seem specific to TFC. Some teams have raised the quality.
Also, the NBA and NFL really benefitted from the popularity of their sports at the college level which isn't happening with soccer.
Interesting piece concerning Canadian players in the league
http://www.canadiansoccernews.com/in...question-r4977
Did anyone post this yet, regarding the MLS state of the union address and 100 million in losses. Sorry if it's already posted. This is not good news, even if it's part of the CBA posturing.
http://www.sportsnet.ca/soccer/garbe...derperforming/
The league isn't loosing $100 million, this is just typical posturing by the commissioner before any CBA negotiation where the owners cry poor so they don't have pay players more.
Problem being:
1. New TV deal will increase revenue
2. Lineup of individual and ownership groups waiting to buy a team
3 Lineup of teams looking to expand into MLS
4. MLS has to increase salary significantly to make any headway in the NA market, MLS knows this.
There is a backlog of teams waiting to get in MLS, no league that's loosing money would have this much of a demand.
I don't get Garber sometimes. How can you say the league lost $100M when the franchise valuations have tripled over the past 5 years in most cases?
When Don Garber quotes "losses," you have to remember that those figures exclude TV Revenue (which the MLS owner/operators have in a separate company called Soccer United Marketing) and include artificially inflated stadium depreciation costs (used under U.S. tax law to justify tax write-offs). MLS Investors are smart people. They don't compete with one another for the chance to spend $80-100 million dollars in franchise fees plus many millions more in stadium costs just to lose $5 million per year (1/20th of $100 million). The figures are completely bogus, and they should be embarrassed to trot out such stuff!
The players see what teams are spending and they are not stupid enough to believe that the investors in MLS are just doing it out of a sense of largess for the US and Canadian soccer communities.
You see, he is including capital costs here. Remember that when you spend on capital costs, you are obtaining an asset (i.e. a stadium that you can use for more than MLS matches) in return.Garber attributed losses to player acquisitions, stadiums and spending on league infrastructure.
Last edited by Oldtimer; 12-04-2014 at 08:34 AM.
MLS is a tough, physical league, that emphasizes speed, and features plastic fields, grueling travel, extreme weather, and incompetent refs. - NK Toronto
http://www.forbes.com/sites/prishe/2...league-soccer/
read this
“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
this is reads like a Pyrmid scheme. He was nuts announcing the losses, real or fake, because when you talk to dis tractors of the league, one of the concerns, is MLS is in fact run like a Pyrmid scheme and that it can't go on forever, living off expansion fee's. He announces the 100 million in loses, just days after reporting only 2 teams made money in 2014, stupid
Solid piece on the upcoming CBA negotiations by Brian Strauss of SI:
http://www.si.com/planet-futbol/2014...er-free-agency
To each his own. Not that solid for me. Lots of flowery metaphors. Not sure he shed much light on the issues.
All sports labour disputes turn ultimately on owner solidarity. Are the MLS owners going to hang tough, or not?
"There are some people who might have better technique than me, and some may be fitter than me, but the main thing is tactics. With most players, tactics are missing. You can divide tactics into insight, trust, and daring." - Johan Cruyff
Neither side is going to drop any specifics to the press at this point. That will come later.
Sounds like nothing but posturing to me. The picture of the rabid quest for expansion dollars and plenty of owners willing to buy-in makes this $100M story either blatantly false or intentionally misleading.
Hmm, I'm not sure how to respond to the league losing $100 million last year - except to say that if that's indeed the case, then maybe it's time to replace management. And quickly. However, I think it's more a case of losses due to spending on DP players and better facilities across the league. I hope that people now realize how dumb of an idea it is to have DP's vs. a higher salary cap. I thought the idea of the salary cap was to prevent the league from folding like the old NASL, but with DP's you see clubs spending waaaay too much money on individual players. We outspent the entire league, but still couldn't make the play-offs. Imagine if we spent the Defoe money on 10 better foreigners instead. We would have made the play-offs then. I'm sick and tired of rules, regulations, management destroying the game of football that way.
This is a mess. Fix it now. Get rid of the DP rule and lay down the law: you can't spend beyond your means. If you can't keep up financially then you get moved. Simple as that.
I worry about this league.
The U.S. franchises are all owned by larger companies that use them as write-down machines, so their losses can reflect all sorts of costs and expenses actually created by unrelated activity. In other words, they're not really losing that much money. Some of them are definitely losing money, though. The new TV deal is rumored to be massive, however, so that'll cut down the annual red ink for the big spenders, even if one wonders what the hell the networks are thinking. They'll do anything for fresh content these days, it seems.
I guess we can really only speculate. TFC lost a ton of cash last year due to the new contracts with 3 DP's and investing into the stadium, but overall it's obviously been a very healthy business. Also, I'm sure the league wants to play up the "losing money" reality of the league with the pending CBA talks. Either way it's really time to change. The MLS is just too strange for its own good - especially if we want to start to compare ourselves to the rest of the world. We're greatly outspending leagues like the Scandinavian ones, and yet they have better quality football on display. Goes to show how the game can be killed with too much manipulation on the top level.
I don't like the fact that Toronto FC is controlled on how they can spend their money. I understand the league wants parity but this is PREVENTING us from being on par. So frustrating and such a backwards approach. There were rumours we would sign Essien... why? The rules allows us to sign 3 DP'S so lets blow all our money on an over aged DP because that's the 'rule'They could sign 5 good young talents from south America for that type of coin. It's pretty ridiculous rules restraint us from being better. Imagine we used the 100 million on Bradley and Defoe on south american talent? omg. The goal should be to bring up the overall quantity level of talent in the league not bring in over age stars, you don't grow this way
you sure hes including capital costs and not just the depreciation expense on them? If he is , that is some serious Enrol like number fudging.
I think the thing that is different this time is that in 2010 was the threat of league failure (especially contraction). It had happened in the not so distant past (Florida in 2002). When the owners said to the players, "strike if you want, but we don't know if/when the fans will come back, and if they don't we'll shrink down some teams, it's your own funeral", that was credible.
But the investment in so many new stadiums, Dempsey/Bradley/Kaka/Lampard/Keane (and a lot of other guys too, don't forget, there were maybe 7 DPs league wide in 2009, and most were relatively inexpensive), the mega success of Seattle and Portland, all the interest in new teams (in the face of Chivas folding), rising franchise prices, the TV contract, the widening disparity in the union.
90% of the players weren't around in 2010, they weren't part of the tenuous beginnings of this league, all they see is a successful league and 17 year olds leaving academies to avoid becoming MLS chumps ..... I think 90% of these players feel cheated, aren't worried about losing jobs because of contraction, won't buy that line this time.
I wouldn't, anyway.
Last edited by ensco; 12-05-2014 at 02:23 PM.
"There are some people who might have better technique than me, and some may be fitter than me, but the main thing is tactics. With most players, tactics are missing. You can divide tactics into insight, trust, and daring." - Johan Cruyff
I'm with you on this. When we compare ourselves to Denmark, Holland, Belgium, we spend far more than most of their teams, and yet the overall quality of TFC falls short. We have millionaires passing to $40k guys. When we are missing players on the team we can't fix it by signing someone because we always have to work within a very restrictive salary cap. Look at Nelsen's first year. We basically were stuck with bad contracts and had to flush a whole season - just because of the salary cap. That's madness. Definitely not how you grow a sport.I don't like the fact that Toronto FC is controlled on how they can spend their money. I understand the league wants parity but this is PREVENTING us from being on par. So frustrating and such a backwards approach. There were rumours we would sign Essien... why? The rules allows us to sign 3 DP'S so lets blow all our money on an over aged DP because that's the 'rule'
Enough already with spending 90% on 3 guys and 10% on the other 22 guys. It's cartoonish and makes us the laughing stock of the league. No one respects us. Look at the English press. It's well known we're just a retirement league over there. Not exactly the reputation we should want. Instead, sign 10 great foreigners instead of 1 has-been foreigner. Surely that would improve the game and increase our respect around the world?
Sorry Super, MLS teams only have 8 foreign player slots per team.
Perhaps they will bargain away a DP slot to raise the cap by an extra $1.2 Million above the $4 million we've been hearing about? There are only 11 DPs in the league that make more than that amount anyways. Imagine what sort of players we could get with a $5.2 Million dollar cap but only 2 DPs...
Those 8 foreigners would be much better if we had the funds to invest in higher salaries, so of course that's the most important step forward. The league will find a way to still manage all teams and that's sad (for me) but unfortunately the way things work in North America. I'm not a fan of it, but it is what it is. I'd much rather adopt a "spend within your means" system. There are lots of cities wanting to join the MLS, so I say let's kick out the teams with no funds or support and replace them with teams in better markets. The league is being held back to keep small clubs alive. Not sure we need to do that when we have so many teams waiting to join. At the end of the day we as fans should care about the on-field quality, and right now we're not seeing a lot of that unfortunately. Sure, there are great individual performances, but there's still way too many foreigners in this league who should be swapped with better (and more expensive) guys who can help improve the quality of play.
Just for comparison's sake, take a look at the salaries of the top 200 players in MLS right now:
http://www.spotrac.com/rankings/mls/limit-200/
I look at all the high-quality defenders who are paid less than Steven Caldwell and I have to shake my head. Either TFC is vastly overpaying for talent or the majority of MLS talent is vastly underpaid. It just reinforces to me that we have to turn away from our European fixation and focus on Carribean, South and Central American talent. And here I thought Bez was a capologist...
Last edited by Initial B; 12-05-2014 at 03:32 PM.
Remember that first year Caldwell was playing for Toronto, he was playing for like 90k. I think his contract was structured that he was on for cheap first year, then at his current rate for year 2 and 3. So on average, Caldwell's contract would be on par with MLS defenders of similar calibre.
“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
The issue of TFC's barbell strategy under the cap is only relevant insofar as it reinforces ownership's resolve to NOT increaase the cap, because what TFC did needs to be stopped because it causes wage inflation and doesn't work.
"There are some people who might have better technique than me, and some may be fitter than me, but the main thing is tactics. With most players, tactics are missing. You can divide tactics into insight, trust, and daring." - Johan Cruyff
Lots of cities, sure, but are there really lots of ownership groups willing to put up the money for stadiums and willing to get into bidding wars for players?
The idea of MLS restricting foreign players was to develop American players - of course the quality would lag. But I think you're right, that isn't going to work. Unfortunately, I also don't think a soccer league full of foreign players can compete with the other sports in America and will either go the way of the old NASL or be very small-time.
A lot will likely hinge on the new team in NY and Miami. If they fail they will probably take a lot of the league down with them.
I think we all want the MLS to one day be a top 5 league in the world - or at least Don Garber made a statement to that effect. Or did he say top 10? Regardless, we won't be a top 20 league until we get rid of the salary cap. Or raise it to $10 mil or so. Simple as that. You can't compete on the world stage with salary caps - unless it's so big (like the NHL, NFL, NBA) that it's greater than all of their competitors anyway. Problem is that the salary cap has a very unfortunate effect on the makeup of a team. MLS teams look odd on the surface, and that's because of the money juggling. Penny pinching on 23 players and then blow the bank on 1 who gets paid more than all of the rest. That's a result of the salary cap and DP rule. So they have to eventually look at that. They can raise the salary cap to 5 mil or whatever, but we still won't have top 10 league football on display.
As far as your point on foreign players, I definitely think we'll be able to compete with BETTER players, period. Doesn't matter where they are from. Most Americans figure soccer is foreign anywayLook at NHL. It's a Canadian sport, so of course it's populated mainly by Canadian players.
I think it does matter to Americans. But yes, I would like to see the salary cap and single-entity eliminated. Let the teams find their own level. I don't think it would be one of the top 20 leagues in the world, it would be on about the level of AA baseball here, but that would be fine, tickets would be cheapI think we all want the MLS to one day be a top 5 league in the world - or at least Don Garber made a statement to that effect. Or did he say top 10? Regardless, we won't be a top 20 league until we get rid of the salary cap. Or raise it to $10 mil or so. Simple as that. You can't compete on the world stage with salary caps - unless it's so big (like the NHL, NFL, NBA) that it's greater than all of their competitors anyway. Problem is that the salary cap has a very unfortunate effect on the makeup of a team. MLS teams look odd on the surface, and that's because of the money juggling. Penny pinching on 23 players and then blow the bank on 1 who gets paid more than all of the rest. That's a result of the salary cap and DP rule. So they have to eventually look at that. They can raise the salary cap to 5 mil or whatever, but we still won't have top 10 league football on display.
As far as your point on foreign players, I definitely think we'll be able to compete with BETTER players, period. Doesn't matter where they are from. Most Americans figure soccer is foreign anyway
Aye but steps have to be taken to get there. Until this league generates serious TV monies, this can't/won't happen. There has been a lot of investment into MLS, not to sure these investors have gotten their returns just yet.I think we all want the MLS to one day be a top 5 league in the world - or at least Don Garber made a statement to that effect. Or did he say top 10? Regardless, we won't be a top 20 league until we get rid of the salary cap. Or raise it to $10 mil or so. Simple as that. You can't compete on the world stage with salary caps - unless it's so big (like the NHL, NFL, NBA) that it's greater than all of their competitors anyway. Problem is that the salary cap has a very unfortunate effect on the makeup of a team. MLS teams look odd on the surface, and that's because of the money juggling. Penny pinching on 23 players and then blow the bank on 1 who gets paid more than all of the rest. That's a result of the salary cap and DP rule. So they have to eventually look at that. They can raise the salary cap to 5 mil or whatever, but we still won't have top 10 league football on display.
As far as your point on foreign players, I definitely think we'll be able to compete with BETTER players, period. Doesn't matter where they are from. Most Americans figure soccer is foreign anyway
Then again, to help open up the TV market, they need players we want to watch. Bit of a catch 22.
I don't think getting rid of the cap completely is necessary. I do think changing the structure to allow for better quality across the board is required. Bundesliga has a cap, it's based on revenues earned in the prior year. Doesn't get much attention and isn't all that restrictive.I think we all want the MLS to one day be a top 5 league in the world - or at least Don Garber made a statement to that effect. Or did he say top 10? Regardless, we won't be a top 20 league until we get rid of the salary cap. Or raise it to $10 mil or so. Simple as that. You can't compete on the world stage with salary caps - unless it's so big (like the NHL, NFL, NBA) that it's greater than all of their competitors anyway. Problem is that the salary cap has a very unfortunate effect on the makeup of a team. MLS teams look odd on the surface, and that's because of the money juggling. Penny pinching on 23 players and then blow the bank on 1 who gets paid more than all of the rest. That's a result of the salary cap and DP rule. So they have to eventually look at that. They can raise the salary cap to 5 mil or whatever, but we still won't have top 10 league football on display.
As far as your point on foreign players, I definitely think we'll be able to compete with BETTER players, period. Doesn't matter where they are from. Most Americans figure soccer is foreign anyway
A more accurate statement would be: as long as MLS clings to single entity and it's private rules (which nobody understands) it will never be a top league.
This CBA will tell us a lot about what the ambition level is of ownership. Talking a big game like Garber does is easy, yet to see any concrete evidence they have the business plan to back up their talk.
^ I'd restate that as the owners' need for investment protection (single entity) may at some point be overcome by the desire for increased revenue growth (bigger name players, bigger stadiums, more latitude to compete with other teams, all resulting in bigger tv deals, etc.).
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote