Yes it's nice to aim high but Daniel is IMO probably equal to Dorman, and DEFINITELY better than an open roster spot. Arturo Vidal is not walking through that door...
Here is the whole league in case people want to sort league wide. From a poster on the MLS NA board https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0AkDw1P8DCfvfdENPVWJ0cmNtN21xQWUwWnJGdzNHb1E&usp=sharing
I don't remember the trade details, but isn't SKC eating some of Teal's salary? What about Kobayashi?
Does a transfer fee have to be spread out over multiple years or could the Revs have chosen to pay off the Bengston transfer fee all at once? Yes I know this is not in their financial best interest since they can basically use the rest of the league to help pay the transfer fee by spreading it out over multiple years. But I was wondering if they could if they wanted to.
I don't think so. I am not sure that would make sense when we know the Revs traded alloc money to get him.
Matthew Doyle @MLS_Analyst 3h MLS: 2006 payroll as per player's union = $27.4M, 2010 = $90.1M, 2014 = $115.2M. Up 420% in 8 yrs. In 2022 would be just shy of $500M
I saw this tweet. It is almost meaningless. The payroll % growth came from % of teams growing. Unless we expect a league of 40 teams in 2022, that growth can not be achieved.
@MLS_Analyst But the increase from 2010 to 2014 is significantly smaller than 2006 to 2010.— Tim Crawford (@RevsTimC) April 10, 2014
Again meaningless. Unless anyone is dumb enough to project a 40+ team league by 2022, those stats are utterly useless. People need to pay attention to the players salary median and the median only, to determine the growth. That will tell you the true growth of the leagues salary, which is basically growing at a snails pace.
I would be interested in seeing the same info for front office and scouting spending. I bet you'd see RSL and SKC near the top. Revs in about the same place.
No one will ever convince me that this is a good look for MLS. ...or any other league, for that matter.
Here are a couple of observations. If Benny were still on the team at his current salary, he'd be the 2nd highest player at $337.K Shalrie is listed at $294K from SEA even though his contract was bought out prior to April 1. Maybe that was the buyout value (What is up with Shalrie anyway? ) I wonder if the players enjoy reading this as much as we do.
Should have been more clear. Even as rich as Manchester City is, they don't have multiple players that earn in the neighborhood of the combined payrolls of Swansea and Wigan.
Just curious, after seeing some replies, when people see a comment like this, do they think the person is literally making a prediction? As the saying goes, the text is a reflection of the reader, but I read that as being as much a literal projection as when you're watching a match where a team scores 3 in the first 9 minutes, and someone says "if they keep this up, they'll score 30 today".
Maybe not to that level, but Rooney (for example) makes $26m a year. Some of the lower end clubs don't spend a lot more than that. There's a huge discrepancy in the EPL salary structure. Swansea spent 35m last year, while the top team (City) spent 202m.
Understood. There's probably a similar discrepancy in Major League Baseball. I'm still in the camp that it's not a good look for the league/sport. I just think in MLS, it has the potential to do serious harm. How'd you like to be a fly on the wall at Chris Wondolowski's next contract negotiation should he manage to outscore Jermain Defoe and Clint Dempsey and Obafemi Martins and Tim Cahill... again.
Its a fairly easy argument. There's value on the pitch and there's value to the business. Wondo has one, not the other.
Also, when big named, big earners were negotiating their deals, they could easily point to other options and how easily they could go elsewhere. How much interest is there elsewhere for a guy who's excelled in MLS but struggles to make it into the US National Team? Wondo just doesn't have the bargaining power they have.
There is basically the big 4 teams who spend like drunken sailors on shore leave (Tor, LA, Sea, NY), then Montreal and Vancouver who are at about $6 million, and then everyone else who all are about a half million apart, range from maybe $4.3 to 3.8 M. There will always be big teams that spend more, and teams that lose money because of this (Red Bulls in the last Forbes report). Of the teams that +/- break even, some spend a ton and bring in a ton of revenue, and others like the Revs, have low revenues and low expenses. It all washes out on the bottom line, but the two break-even teams are very different operations. I would also like to see what the teams spend on non-playing expenses. Some teams pay rent to their stadium, some have bigger non-playing payrolls, some spend more on advertising and marketing. There are definitey cases where spending too little can be worse than spending too much.