How many players are we allowed to loan out and still retain the rights to? I'm assuming loaned players wouldn't count against our 30 man limit, correct? Details on this whole affiliate thing are fuzzy to me. We have 32 guys in camp right now, so I'd say at least two at the moment.
The rule seems to be that we can either loan players for the whole season or on an indefinite basis subject to recall. The guys loaned the whole year shouldn't count on our roster while the guys we can recall will count.
I am not sure who we send. My guess is Walker, Friedman, Baiden, and Bedell. We will end up cutting Sloan, Stuver, and Schoenfeld.
Did you read this anywhere or are you basing this on common sense? I ask because Jardy indicated that season-long loans would still count against the roster, though it seems like nobody is really sure about this.
That seems to be how it was handled last year. Dom Dwyer went back and forth between SKC and Orlando so he was on SKC's roster the whole year. I think Philly had some guys at Harrisburg and DC at Richmond the whole season who didn't count on their roster. We had to count Horton on the roster because we were paying him while Wiet didn't count at Dayton even though we'd signed him (or maybe only designated him) as a homegrown.
Hm... still don't know. Again, going off Jardy: They do. RT @cjdubbya: Hey @AdamJardy - if a player is on season-long loan to Dayton, do they count against the 30-man roster?— Adam Jardy (@AdamJardy) January 14, 2014 Unless he's was misinformed. Or maybe this is one of those MLS rules that will change as necessary. Your scenario would make sense, though.
I'm wondering if he's misinformed. I can't imagine how these partnerships would be beneficial to the MLS sides if it didn't reduce the strain on roster or cap for the teams.
It's MLS. Where anything is possible. I'm sure TFC, Seattle, LA and NYC will all be able to loan out players to obtain relief - all other, tough shit.
I'm inclined to believe Jardy so I'm sure they've changed the rule. I kind of feel like they've changed it in preparation of the upcoming CBA; no reason to give on more roster spots before the negotiations start.
The rumblings say LA is fielding a team this year. I am just guessing, but that means they could potentially have upwards of 50 guys in the loop with both rosters combined. Since Jardy's tweet specifically mentions players on loan, not players on an MLS teams own USL team. So teams without their own team will be at a significant developmental disadvantage if they do not field their own USL team in the near future.
And, of course, teams with more cash are at a huge advantage if they can pay to field a separate minor league team. I doubt many teams would commit to doing that right now.
A number of MLS teams already have USL sides--just one level down. Chicago and Portland are two. It would not take much for us to move into that level given the youth program already in place. The killer cost is travel.
I read something about trying to make it more regional with few big trips to safe on travel. Could be remembering wrong.
The old USISL (which became the USL) started as a regional league and they always had that as their model until they got big and wanted to play at a higher division level (about the time the Xoggz were here). Even there, they had a regional divisional model--but then the number of teams that had the financial ability to play at the higher level began to shrink as they did so, eventually leading to the current state where the USL dropped back to essentially a division 3 (but still pro) model for their top level, leaving the 2nd division spot to the NASL. But everyone almost went bankrupt before that happened (and the NASL may still go belly-up). Very few of the teams that predate MLS that tried to go higher are still around as such, excepting those who did get into MLS. Some survived by dropping back down to D3 or lower (Richmond Kickers). Some (like Michigan Bucks) never went that high.
If all the players are making at least MLS minimum salary, payroll would get pretty expensive. You're looking at $500k+ per year.
Some of that would be written off as expenses for the USL team itself--these teams *do* charge admission, so it would be different from the current reserve team model, which doesn't. And I would not expect them to get MLS level salaries.