Page 157 of 191 FirstFirst ... 57107147153154155156157158159160161167 ... LastLast
Results 4,681 to 4,710 of 5723
  1. #4681
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2021
    Location
    FOOTBALLISLIFE
    Posts
    868
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oldtimer View Post
    So one year, then. Very surprised that MLS FO let this through without a purchase option.
    Quote Originally Posted by leedsandTFC View Post
    Bob Bradley said "starts out as a loan".

    So very likely to be permanent
    Quote Originally Posted by Ultra & Proud View Post
    Have a feeling Forrest kept that option out just in case they go down and need to salary dump.

    MLS FO probably let it go as it's a somewhat marketable player that will be a starter in Qatar. There will be lots of fancy graphics posted by MLS in a couple months showing just how many MLSers are making the trip to the WC.
    Quote Originally Posted by MikeForbes View Post
    Interesting details here. Pretty sure this means Richie is now the highest paid fullback in MLS.

    Despite the latest clarifications and updates involving his move back to TFC.
    IMHO, it makes no sense to engage in this action unless there is some sort of understanding- nudge, nudge, wink, wink, that the intention is he stays.
    It seems like a big favour to RL/CMNT otherwise.
    Is the cost of any allocation charge affected/lessened by there being a 'no buy option'?
    Does this mean TFC now believes they could still squeak into the playoffs and then have a probable deep run kinda /sorta like in 2019?
    Is there a sell-on clause that includes TFC and/or NF?

  2. #4682
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Scarborough
    Posts
    4,301
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    So at best this is a temporary short term signing until next June? If he plays to his level as before I highly doubt TFC will buy him back from Forrest, and as mentioned they could sell him elsewhere.

    Yeah this is a great end of year signing to try and make the playoffs, but we are really just throwing everything at the wall it seems.

  3. #4683
    RPB Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    221
    Posts
    19,493
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    From what was said at the time

    Richie offered 900K

    Chose to go to Notts F (at time stated more money but salary sites are saying equivalent of 600K) - we get Garber $ for that deal.


    Comes back to TFC - on more money then previous offer


    The key element in all this is the bolded bit

    Like, Poz, Richie wanted out

    Now he wants back in but the deal requires us to pay more....


    The bold bit is the ?

    Is RL worth that amount of TAM to this team?

    Probably
    Last edited by OgtheDim; 08-04-2022 at 03:35 PM.

  4. #4684
    RPB Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    781
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by portu View Post
    You have 1.1m in budget for a fullback and 6 months to look. So… you sign the guy that left and you didn’t think was worth 1.1m in the first place and are talking about spending more money to get him back permanently.

    Someone argue that this is competent management.
    Bringing in a top fullback in MLS to complement our other top MLS fullback and top wingers is incredibly savvy.

    It wasn't about the money when he left

  5. #4685
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Scarborough
    Posts
    6,255
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jloome View Post
    plus as it's a loan we don't get fleeced on the allocation order deal.
    I just got through reading a bunch of MLS gibberish and since there is no buy option (I guess) there's no allocation order spot needed.

  6. #4686
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    1,226
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by portu View Post
    Didn’t Manning say to people at Berna press conference we couldn’t get anyone now because of salary cap? Now we have money for Laryea?

    Don’t get me wrong I love Richie, but management is ridiculous. And that salary is absurd. They never even offered him 1.1m to retain him and now they’ve been so shit with their transfer policy that they’re paying him that amount anyway and we didn’t even see the benefit of it for 20+ games.

    Also: Yet another lazy signing. All this shows is that they have the cap room to sign guys and just can’t find players normally and bring them to the goal line.
    During the press conference Manning said they were working on things still, however he apparently told someone that they couldn't acquire Gressel because it couldn't work from a cap perspective. In isolation we had space for Gressel, but maybe the idea was he wasn't worth the cap space given how we play and our other moves (e.g., bringing on Richie).

    We offered Richie $925k, so $1.1M isn't a huge difference. Richie wanted to leave and we let him, and got $1M in GAM out of it. We can see how the end transfer works out (e.g., net difference on re-acquiring an allocation spot, net difference on sale/acquisition price of Richie). But we got the guy we wanted to and honoured his wish of trying out Europe.

    Still I'll agree that our focus on Italians and Canadians is a bit lazy. So far Jesus has been our only non-lazy acquisition and he's been a bit hot/cold.

  7. #4687
    RPB Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    781
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Inbetween View Post
    Despite the latest clarifications and updates involving his move back to TFC.
    IMHO, it makes no sense to engage in this action unless there is some sort of understanding- nudge, nudge, wink, wink, that the intention is he stays.
    It seems like a big favour to RL/CMNT otherwise.
    Is the cost of any allocation charge affected/lessened by there being a 'no buy option'?
    Does this mean TFC now believes they could still squeak into the playoffs and then have a probable deep run kinda /sorta like in 2019?
    Is there a sell-on clause that includes TFC and/or NF?
    If forest stay up they'll sell him, I'd imagine there's a buy clause for that possibility

  8. #4688
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    4,507
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    This is really really hard to apologize on behalf of the club for.

    The facts are you were in strong salary cap and roster management position with time to find a replacement when Richie left, now you are actually going to be worse off than before because you suck at finding and signing players.

    On the pitch, this will be amazing, but it will come at the unnecessary cost of re-acquisition and unnecessarily missed opportunities to improve the rest of the squad (which is by the way a shitshow).

  9. #4689
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,364
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    So at best this is a temporary short term signing until next June? If he plays to his level as before I highly doubt TFC will buy him back from Forrest, and as mentioned they could sell him elsewhere.

    Yeah this is a great end of year signing to try and make the playoffs, but we are really just throwing everything at the wall it seems.
    if they can't get the full time rb signing they wanted
    what harm is renting Richie for a
    year?

    Again we got a substantial fee for him, he's a top rb I this league...


    What am I not seeing here? I can't understand why anyone would see this on balance as a negative.

    Factor in the transfer fee and he's basically playing for free for us for six months past what would have been the end of his old deal.

    again, he wanted to go. We either let him go when he wanted or we risked getting nothing out of it.

  10. #4690
    RPB Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    221
    Posts
    19,493
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    As importantly...

    WE HAVE THE KING OF THE CONCACAF DARK ARTS BACK


    Like, anybody watching that Vancouver game saw them get all goonish on us - imagine Richie & Kaye putting up with that shit.



    I still think we got a problem at CB & keeper but this defence just got much better.

  11. #4691
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Scarborough
    Posts
    6,255
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noxx98 View Post
    During the press conference Manning said they were working on things still, however he apparently told someone that they couldn't acquire Gressel because it couldn't work from a cap perspective. In isolation we had space for Gressel, but maybe the idea was he wasn't worth the cap space given how we play and our other moves (e.g., bringing on Richie).
    Also Gressel from everything he said since leaving, sounds as if he is gone when his deal is done. If so then VWC is out the GAM plus his salary and so far, he hasn't exactly looked interested in being there. He chose DC for a reason after Atlanta. I'll take motivated Richie and save the GAM rather than take a shot at Gressel and have him be unhappy and bail afterwards.

  12. #4692
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2021
    Location
    FOOTBALLISLIFE
    Posts
    868
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ultra & Proud View Post
    I just got through reading a bunch of MLS gibberish and since there is no buy option (I guess) there's no allocation order spot needed.
    So does this mean at the end of the loan deal, it can be simply extended; all parties approving, for whatever period of time?
    Then if so, possibly till the end of his contract; if it is a 3YR or 2Yr(2+1, where there is a team option decline) and TFC would sign him on a free?
    Last edited by Mr. Inbetween; 08-04-2022 at 03:49 PM.

  13. #4693
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,364
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OgtheDim View Post
    From what was said at the time

    Richie offered 900K

    Chose to go to Notts F (at time stated more money but salary sites are saying equivalent of 600K) - we get Garber $ for that deal.


    Comes back to TFC - on more money then previous offer


    The key element in all this is the bolded bit

    Like, Poz, Richie wanted out

    Now he wants back in but the deal requires us to pay more....


    The bold bit is the ?

    Is RL worth that amount of TAM to this team?

    Probably
    Pedantic intervention: it's Notts County. It's NEVER Notts Forest.
    Easiest way to piss off a Nottingham Forest fan.

  14. #4694
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    3,977
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jloome View Post
    if they can't get the full time rb signing they wanted
    what harm is renting Richie for a
    year?

    Again we got a substantial fee for him, he's a top rb I this league...


    What am I not seeing here? I can't understand why anyone would see this on balance as a negative.

    Factor in the transfer fee and he's basically playing for free for us for six months past what would have been the end of his old deal.

    again, he wanted to go. We either let him go when he wanted or we risked getting nothing out of it.
    We are now paying him 1.1 million dollars and need to secure a deal to move up the allocation order to ensure he plays for us. He isn't exactly playing for free. And Oso also wanted to go and we are on the verge of losing him for free. Everything about this situation is weird and until we find out the fine details we are all (myself included) just kind of leaping to conclusions.

  15. #4695
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,364
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ultra & Proud View Post
    Also Gressel from everything he said since leaving, sounds as if he is gone when his deal is done. If so then VWC is out the GAM plus his salary and so far, he hasn't exactly looked interested in being there. He chose DC for a reason after Atlanta. I'll take motivated Richie and save the GAM rather than take a shot at Gressel and have him be unhappy and bail afterwards.
    Richie is stronger in both directions. Gressel is a great crosser but as other have pointed out to me, not a good defender.

  16. #4696
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Scarborough
    Posts
    6,255
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OgtheDim View Post
    I still think we got a problem at CB & keeper but this defence just got much better.
    These need to addressed but both are clearly winter moves. Bradley already said that about the defense. If talking about bad management, how bad would it be to have 4 GKs on board at probably $1.5M if we scored a good one?

    As for the CBs, the additions up front and even having JMR over Kosi made the CBs we have look far more adequate. Richie will help that even more and they managed this with Bono behind them too.

  17. #4697
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Scarborough
    Posts
    4,301
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jloome View Post
    if they can't get the full time rb signing they wanted
    what harm is renting Richie for a
    year?

    Again we got a substantial fee for him, he's a top rb I this league...


    What am I not seeing here? I can't understand why anyone would see this on balance as a negative.

    Factor in the transfer fee and he's basically playing for free for us for six months past what would have been the end of his old deal.

    again, he wanted to go. We either let him go when he wanted or we risked getting nothing out of it.
    It is a great signing for on field results, no issues, it fills a huge whole that may just get us into the playoffs.

    My concern with this is will he be with TFC 12 months from now? Should they have used the transfer money in finding a long term replacement instead of trying out the kids this year? If he leaves do we find an equal replacement or are we behind blending in a new player for the position?

  18. #4698
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,364
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeForbes View Post
    We are now paying him 1.1 million dollars and need to secure a deal to move up the allocation order to ensure he plays for us. He isn't exactly playing for free. And Oso also wanted to go and we are on the verge of losing him for free. Everything about this situation is weird and until we find out the fine details we are all (myself included) just kind of leaping to conclusions.
    No we didnt.
    It's a loan without a buy option, allocation doesn't apply.

  19. #4699
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Scarborough
    Posts
    6,255
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeForbes View Post
    need to secure a deal to move up the allocation order to ensure he plays for us.
    I see nothing in the MLS rules that says you need to move up the allocation order for loans without an acquisition clause. It's written nowhere on their site.

  20. #4700
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,364
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    It is a great signing for on field results, no issues, it fills a huge whole that may just get us into the playoffs.

    My concern with this is will he be with TFC 12 months from now? Should they have used the transfer money in finding a long term replacement instead of trying out the kids this year? If he leaves do we find an equal replacement or are we behind blending in a new player for the position?
    By then, deputizing, JMR looks like he might be ready to step in, or
    sold for enough to buy a starter.

  21. #4701
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    3,977
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jloome View Post
    No we didnt.
    It's a loan without a buy option, allocation doesn't apply.
    Allocation does apply. We got a nice chunk of GAM from Red Bulls so that they could get Caden Clark back on a loan.

  22. #4702
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    1,226
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ultra & Proud View Post
    I just got through reading a bunch of MLS gibberish and since there is no buy option (I guess) there's no allocation order spot needed.
    Any chance you could link the source? The NYRB needed to acquire an allocation spot for Caden Clark, but their loan had an option to extend which maybe made it different. Would love to read more about the allocation process.

  23. #4703
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    3,977
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ultra & Proud View Post
    I see nothing in the MLS rules that says you need to move up the allocation order for loans without an acquisition clause. It's written nowhere on their site.
    And the latest information we have is that there is no buy clause.

  24. #4704
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2021
    Location
    FOOTBALLISLIFE
    Posts
    868
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OgtheDim View Post
    As importantly...

    WE HAVE THE KING OF THE CONCACAF DARK ARTS BACK

    Like, anybody watching that Vancouver game saw them get all goonish on us - imagine Richie & Kaye putting up with that shit.

    I still think we got a problem at CB & keeper but this defence just got much better.

    Yes, despite Richie's defensive lapses, the defense, linkage, and offense just got better.
    We need a mischievous Jedi Master of the CONCACAF arts; Leagues Cup also!

  25. #4705
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    3,977
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    My god, MLS rules are stupid.

  26. #4706
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    3,977
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Imagine going on an Arsenal board and having people arguing about allocation orders and shit.

  27. #4707
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Scarborough
    Posts
    6,255
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noxx98 View Post
    Any chance you could link the source? The NYRB needed to acquire an allocation spot for Caden Clark, but their loan had an option to extend which maybe made it different. Would love to read more about the allocation process.
    MLS main website.

    However, a difference in the two loans could be that RB share an owner. That could be seen as a competitive loophole to sell a player upwards to collect GAM and then loan him straight back.

  28. #4708
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,364
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeForbes View Post
    Allocation does apply. We got a nice chunk of GAM from Red Bulls so that they could get Caden Clark back on a loan.
    I stand corrected Mike, apologies. Perhaps it isn't referenced in the regs because until recently loans always had to include a buy option.

    or it might be that Clark was a particular complexity of their arcane rules et, as he was a loan back as a provision of the sale, possible because RB own both clubs,whereas Richie has been gone for six months
    and we have no tie to Forest.

    Perhaps they'll drop that we sent whoever has the spot 250k or something.

  29. #4709
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Scarborough
    Posts
    6,255
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeForbes View Post
    Imagine going on an Arsenal board and having people arguing about allocation orders and shit.
    They can't even understand they're shit after all these years. How would they ever be able to grasp this mess?

  30. #4710
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    3,977
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ultra & Proud View Post
    They can't even understand they're shit after all these years. How would they ever be able to grasp this mess?
    Actually think Arsenal may have finally figured their shit out if Gabriel Jesus keeps banging goals the way he is in preseason. I also understand why MLS isn't more popular with these obscene rules and dozens of work arounds.

 

 

Posting Permissions

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