Isn't it Bendik? Seem to remember that being the case.Originally Posted by Yohan
Isn't it Bendik? Seem to remember that being the case.
Yep it's Bendik.
I am so happy to hear our DP stick up for the collective interests of MLS players though. Living up to Koev's legacy.
Paul Kennedy @pkedit 4m4 minutes ago Probably biggest move on #MLS labor front re: free agency has already been made by owners: insisting on using allocation order. (1/2)
Paul Kennedy @pkedit 1m1 minute ago
On other hand, #MLS owners can live with free agency for existing players as long as they have hard cap: makes free agency 0-sum game. (1/2)
I don't understand at all. How does one thing have to do with another? Outside of cheap owners remaining cheap
I think it would mean the end of Allocation $. Right now with Allocation $ there's effectively a soft cap.
So teams could pay players whatever they want but still have to stay within hard cap limits? Crap if cap is low
Thanks btw
This is the exact point I made earlier in the thread. Unrestricted free agency shouldn't be a point of contention for the league with a salary cap in place. The overall financial implications for the league as a whole would be the same with or without the allocation process.
Players with tenure in the league deserve the right to choose which clubs to sign with at that stage of their careers.
I look at the present scenario and can't help but feel both the MLSPU and ownership have the potential to break but I really feel the union has more guys with very little to lose and that will ultimately be the difference. You can't tell me a club like seattle that's making money hand-over-fist isn't going to be anxious. And the need to launch these new teams on time will also be a weakness for ownership.
I see plenty of cursory evidence out there to suggest MLS has more wealth to spend on players, they might just need their bluff called to put it out on the table. Frankly the league needs to be pushed into doing more, because their pace of change at the current time is unacceptable. Cheapness and restrictive rules are what saved the league more than a decade ago, but it is the wrong strategy in the current environment. The league is now cheap to a fault in the wrong areas while basically burning their money on additional DPs and that's the result of bad management. I think Garber - for all his early success - may have outlived his usefulness.
My quick take is that the league knows the situation (Players have a bit of the advantage this time) and will push negotiations to the brink just to save face or get other items go their way while giving the players the big items, like free agency. Even if they already know they will have to agree to some of these terms, the league won't give in to them right away.
I agree with you that they do have very little to lose, but I don't think that they see it that way. Do you think a 25-27 year old making $60-$80k really wants to lose that? Not much, but it is what they have, it isn't like they will have tons of offers from overseas.
WE DID IT!
I don't think the comparison is overseas, I think it's other areas of the workforce and their career post-MLS. Given that money isn't going to get you far I'm sure it's on their radar anyway.
http://www.si.com/planet-futbol/2015...minimum-salary
Seems the experienced players are going to make the new kids go without pay for a bit so that a few of them 2 years from now can get a bigger piece of the cap pie. And the league wants none of even that.
Ugh.
Union - focus on the minimum wage - supporters understand that.
It's going up. And from some reports already out there it's been agreed to.
To quote from the last NHL lockout free agency is going to be the hill that the players and owners die on. IMO the players have the public opinion and will have the league by the balls over this by the end of Feb/Start of March.
what happens to our players in the case of a strike? can they still go play for another club to keep up fitness? for example could we loan bradley to benfica until the cba comes to pass
I doubt that any team would agree to that. Likely though that a number of players (ones not involved in CBA negotiations) might seek training stints, might be an opportunity for some agents to put some of their clients in the shop window.
What I think is awesome is Bradley saying 'yes, we will strike over free agency'
As it is, it is close to freaking slavery.
WE DID IT!
Umm no not at all.. in no way what so ever.
How can you possible mean making a middle class wage to play a sport isn't close to slave labour? COME ON BRO.
Um, I guess it's all relative. This discussion could decend precipitously towards the "how much should professional althetes get paid?" Personally, I'd like to see a $60K minimum, but we'll see what the owners offer, or if the players are more concerned about Free Agency rather than the Minimum Wage.
I was really just touching on the slavery comparison. 50K is a wage that many, MANY, people in North America make lives out of. (Or less than). They don't get to play football for a living either.
I suppose the idea is to state it's entirely unfair based on the way the financial pie is sliced up? Then again, it's the same world us non athletes live in as well. It's just the way the world works right now. You're either making the money, or you get the crumbs.
Silly comparison none-the-less.
Ya no my response was the the idiotic comparison to Slavery. They work for a company, that they are free to leave at any time and they make a liveable wage that many people don't.
Slavery is making no wage and having no freedoms what so ever in all aspects of your life. If I work in Toronto for a company that also has offices in Vancouver and I know the manager over there and I like him, and the winters are nicer.. I can't contact the Vancouver office and see if they will pay me more.. or tell my boss in Toronto that the Vancouver Office wants me and if you don't pay me more I'm going over there. It doesn't work like that. That is how business work. That isn't Slavery in any way shape or form.. The players are free to go do anything else they want, they are free to play in any league they want... Or they are free not to play at all...
Slavery is someone came into their home told them to pack their bags they are now property of MLS until they are all used up. You will live here, do this, and eat this... now shut up and play.
This has never happened... every player came to MLS of their own free will. Signed a contract of their own free will, and can leave of their own free will...
Comparing MLS to Slavery is idiotic. Particularly as MLS is a Single Entity it has always been a Single Entity and most of the players know it is a Single Entity.. some of the international imports might not understand it fully, but we certainly do.. and playing for MLS is like Working for TD or BMO... you can't just get up and decide you don't like it here and go work in another office. That isn't Slavery that is being employed by a company.
The Players that are saying we will strike unless the entire company breaks it self up...and starts working in a way that the owners with business degrees and law degrees (in some cases) don't feel is profitable.. we will strike... and make it so people really can't feed their families and destroy soccer in North America and undo 20 years of work.
Because that is what a strike is.. and if the players feel that it is Free Agency or bust... then the owners have to decide do they care? They don't play.. many of them see Football as a long term investment. If they decided that Free Agency is the threat to that investment.. well cut the loses and get out.
I think Free Agency in this league at this point is silly... Player wages, The Cap and guarantee contracts are bigger issue to the league and the players... and Free Agency is not something to strike over.. this isn't the NHL the NFL, MLB, or even the NBA. A strike could kill franchises. Particularly a season ending strike.
If there is a strike.. BMO Field becomes home to the Argos...
It's not about how much they get paid, it is about the fact that first, they are owned during their contract (which is so wrong on so many levels) but then, to add insult to injury, they NEVER have free agency.
I don't care how much money you make, you should have a choice in where you want to go.
WE DID IT!
While I do think that slavery as an analogy is a bit of a stretch, I agree completely that having a right to negotiate with whoever after your contract is completed should be guaranteed. How many of us would accept not being allowed to apply for a job at another company after our contract ends without your company's consent? That would be ridiculed in any other field, why should it make a difference just because it's professional sports? There's a reason why it's not allowed anywhere else in the world.
In fact, if it was up to me, I wouldn't even allow trading a player without their consent.
Do you have the ability to decide where you want to go with your job? can you say nope I want to work in Montreal and you employer says sure?
MLS is a single entity like working for any corporation. For Free Agency to happen you have to change the very fabric of MLS's Corporate structure.
This is what they are selling as a story but really.. Is it that, or just a lame attempt to collude to suppress wages? I'd call it the latter.
Examining the behaviour of the individual teams suggests to me this looks a lot more like a cartel and a lot less like different divisions of the same company.
If you are a bit of a nerd, like me, you might find this interesting.
Baseball labor dispute of 1889
http://www.ethanlewis.org/pl/ch1.html
Three main points of contention:
Abolition of the classification system and reimbursement for all losses incurred by players.
No reservation for a salary lower than that of the previous year.
Absolute abolition of the practice of selling players.2
Non compete clauses are actually quite common.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause
Last edited by Red4ever; 01-26-2015 at 08:27 PM.
I wouldn't defend the owners' stance on free agency Kaz.
Look at this quote from their rep:
http://www.si.com/planet-futbol/2015...minimum-salary
“Because we function in an international market and the clubs that we are competing against for players are not subject to our salary budget, to have free agency within the league doesn’t provide us with the certainty that the union says it does,” Abbott explained. “When the union says they can offer cost certainty under free agency, it’s not true because we have to compete against clubs all throughout the world.”
This guy is so full of shit it's coming out of his eyes. The fact players within the league can currently freely move to any soccer club outside of MLS when their contract is up just shows how much the owners are insulting everyone's intelligence with this drivel. They are just concerned players will have negotiating power now between the MLS clubs, who will then have to pay them their actual market value. I would argue that MLS will actually retain more players considering right now a lot of players go abroad once they're contract is up because they don't want to re-sign for the crap salary they're currently getting even though other MLS clubs probably would pay more money to have them.
So Kaz...if you want to support the owners and their system that keeps player wages down, causing a talent drain in the league which prevents the quality from improving dramatically, go a head. However, I and many others certainly won't.
Last edited by Macksam; 01-26-2015 at 09:01 PM.
Everybody is owned during their contract. That's what contract means. The VP at Microsoft can't sign a 10 year contract on January 1st and then on January 2nd say I want to go work for Apple.
I agree the minimum salary needs to be raised and players should be free agents within the league after 5 or 10 years but it's not slavery or anything close. Before signing that first contract in MLS a player can sign a contract for any of the 10,000 clubs around the world. He is FREE to do that.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote