Originally Posted by OgtheDim
One interesting item multiple sources have mentioned is what's being called the "Super Max Designated Player." The name is something of a misnomer, as it refers to medium-sized DPs whose total maximum outlay (yearly salary plus transfer fee plus anything else) is around $750,000.
"One interesting item multiple sources have mentioned is what's being called the "Super Max Designated Player." The name is something of a misnomer, as it refers to medium-sized DPs whose total maximum outlay (yearly salary plus transfer fee plus anything else) is around $750,000."
Under true parity there should be something to offset the cost of living. Paying rent in NYC vs paying rent in Columbus is going to be very different for example.
Taking a page from the JDG playbookunless a DP wants to show up in his Lamborghini.
And I have no idea what to make of this
Alexi Lalas @AlexiLalas 22s23 seconds ago I’m told part of new #MLSCBA is carve-out for certain players “outperforming” their contract. New FA capped $ increase rules wouldn’t apply.
Alexi Lalas @AlexiLalas 51s52 seconds ago I’m told players “outperforming” their @MLS contract (& 28/8 eligible) would possibly be ID’d by a panel w/ player representation. #MLSCBA
What the?!?!?!
Almost seems like an arbitration panel, except internal (HQ/union joint panel). Dan Gargan was mentioned as example of the kind of situation that would be addressed, he's had a bit of a revival at LAG and his current sal is low. I guess either the player would petition for a salary review or the panel would just do an overall review and identify a pool of players and this panel would have some latitude to adjust by ??? amount if they felt it was justified. It's an interesting development.
I think this is actually designed to deal with my issue with it.. to prevent owners from using the 25/20/15% cap against players who would actually deserve more, and currently would have the ability to get more.
The more I hear about the "free agency" the better I like it. It actually solves most of the problems I have. It prevents players (read agents) using dumb owners from inflating prices, while also working to prevent owners from abusing the wage increase cap to screw players.
Last edited by Kaz; 03-05-2015 at 01:19 PM.
If that is the case, than I'm extremely disappointed (considering the slaray cap was expected to be $4M this year)and this makes a mockery of Garbers claim to be a top-10 league by the 2020s. I can't help but wonder if the player's demand for Free Agency meant that the expected Salary Cap was decreased in compensation. If so, then the players just shot themselves in the foot because there will be less money to go around for the free agents. My only hope is that the first large wave of academy players for the majority of the teams will be coming out of the system by 2019, which might push the overall MLS talent level up to where higher salaries are warranted.
Not to mention the cheapskate Owners are going to make a mint by paying lower than expected salary cap increases.
Last edited by Initial B; 03-05-2015 at 01:16 PM.
They are running a risk here in losing that talent if that's the case. If the talent level goes up there, you are going to have a bunch of kids that could potential make a lot more money playing in the Championship or some lower tiered Euro league.
I recall seeing that the panel would have player representation
Jonathan Tannenwald @thegoalkeeper 14s15 seconds ago
Brian Carroll says that by the end of the CBA in 2019, the league minimum salary will be in the $80,000 range.
Hint: It's more profitable that way.
^ When I worked it out at 5% increase per year, the minimum salary would be $72K. Not bad, definitely better than 2009.
But then I'm peeved when I hear MLS made a deal to televise games with Eurovision. Conveniently right after settling the CBA. Greedy bastards.
The cap could have gone up more even without messing up the underlying economics of the league. I don't understand why (some) investor-operators can't see the value in expanding the cap and increasing the ability to sign higher quality players, and how that affects every part of the business model (tv, merch, butts in seats, etc). It's ridiculous to think as it seems the HQ does, that an incremental growth approach can get MLS into the top tier of leagues.
At some point the balance is going to shift on the MLS board, might be 5-10 years down the road and might not be during Garber's watch, but it will happen. That's why I'm not getting hung up on the details of FA in this particular CBA.
Some of these guys think what works in one setting automatically works in another. Hunt is blinded by his NFL experiences (and he's second generation on both that and the MLS front)
It's a tough call. Maybe they're right. It's not like NASL is attracting a large number of deep-pocket owners.
This is purely speculation on my part. So take it for what it is worth... I'm literally talking out of my ass with rainbow sparkles and cookie dough.
But, One could theorize that some of the owners see the TV Deal as the thing that will allow most of the owners to start seeing a return on investment. It's been 20 years, I suspect some of the owners would prefer not to have to wait to see some greater profit gains. I mean I don't think the owners are all losing as much as they perhaps claim.. but I don't think they are getting rich of the league either.
Not suggesting that it is a good thing or a bad thing.. but I think a possible answer is that the owners may want to horde the TV deal as money to put in their pocket after a generation of loses. It could be something totally different, it could also be a decision that if the players want free agency or they are going to strike... why offer a major cap increase. It could also be a side issue of if free agency is there, better keep the cap low until they see how it works.
I'm sure if the players had gone in there with Cap as the major talking point rather than a threat to strike over something that in the end affects what 40 players? (of which how many are really worth more than they are paid?) we may have seen a 4 million cap this year.
So my butt says - Owners looking to actually have a little return on investment that is greater than it has been. A Screw you to the players. A conciliation for getting the limited free agency. A combination of all three.
My butt is fairly wise particularly with Rainbow Sparkles and Cookie Dough but I don't know for sure, too many variables.
Last edited by Kaz; 03-05-2015 at 06:16 PM.
Simple compromise would have been to reduce the DP cap hit to zero! That way, a penny pinching cheap a$$ owner (sorry, I meant to say a respectable owner that just happens to be in a small market that needs to get a return on his investment) who doesn't utilize any DP's has an excuse not to spend any more than he would anyway because it wouldn't have any effect on his roster. On the other hand, a team that was either able or willing to spend more could sign their three DP's and spend an extra million filling out the rest of their roster. Having someone making $6 or 7 million a year counting $370k ish against the cap is a little stupid. Would have been the best of both worlds if you ask me.
I was wondering the same thing. There's been 20 years of promises built up about how some day the league will bring in substantial commercial support.
Again speculation but it is about parity.
You are bring in a single (or three) players that take up enough cap space to pick up 2 decent players.. (or at least 1 decent and 1 average player for the league) so it means you want to go after the best player you think you can. if you removed the Cap hit on DPs meaning they are free players against the Cap. That brings in room to have a starting 11 all making over 200k and the remaining 19 players all making between 60-140k. Basically giving teams with 3 DPs not only 3 DPs but 1 million in extra cap space. While teams without a DP have a lower cap. So it is double damning to those clubs. As such TFC, LA, Seattle etc would potentially dominate... while smaller clubs would suffer greatly unless they bought in the DPS.
Some descriptions of process coming out now.
http://www.espnfc.com/major-league-s...oided-a-strike
Jeff Carlisle of ESPN FC really crushed the CBA coverage.
More inside view coverage. Looks like it was the league that pulled back on the stick at the last moment, players were ready to walk.
http://www.si.com/planet-futbol/2015...-todd-dunivant
^ Foose and Dunivant have their version. Would not be suprised if owners came back to the table... But wow a lot of guys seem unhappy out of this and I'd expect more strife behind the scenes on the players side.
Any mention of the treatment of Canadian players across the league?
The CSA was pressing for some commitment by the MLS to Canadian soccer, whether it was a 2 Canadian players spots per team (therefore not counting as foreign), or opening up the league treat both Americans and Canadians as domestic.
The 2015 Roster Rules have now been released. Key highlights are:
- each team gets a minimum of $150,000.00 in allocation funds
- the maximum number of designated players allowed for each team remains at 3
- each designated player counts $436,250.00 towards the cap (over the age of 23)
- Canadian players on US based teams still counts as an international player. As well, the minimum number of Canadians that Canadian teams must have remains at 3
http://pressbox.mlssoccer.com/conten...nd-regulations
Im surprised the DP hit isn't 436,250.78
I'm really disappointed that the salary cap is $3,490,000 for the first 18-20 spots on the roster. There must be a majority of owners that either really want to nickel and dime this league into irrelevancy or simply can't afford a major increase in the salary cap, which worries me that this entire league is built on a house of cards.
http://www.mlsplayers.org/images/Col...01,%202015.pdf
the new CBA doc released
“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 allocation money stuff is very interesting. I can't make head nor tail out of this. Does it mean 2m goes to each team at the end of the year or there is a pool of 2m to be distributed to teams?
Section 10.17 End of Season Allocation: The “End of the Season” allocation amounts shall be aminimum of $250,000 multiplied by the number of Teams that do not make the Post-Season in suchyear. MLS retains the discretion to distribute the total in different allocation amounts among eachTeam (whether or not such Team makes the Post-Season) provided the amounts are distributedamong a number of Teams equal to at least two less than the number of Teams that do not make thePost-Season. MLS may increase its spend on such allocations in its sole discretion. In the eventMLS increases its spend on such allocations, the increased spend will not be locked-in as a newrequired minimum spend.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote