Ive always thought a maximum of 4, but I know I probably read that bit wrong when the deal between the leagues came out.
I think it was "Goes to the Cosmos if he doesn't earn an MLS contract/roster spot on Vancouver's 30 man roster". Which, he obviously got an MLS contract and was then loaned to Charleston. Yes, technicality maybe, and it's still a very odd situation, but I think that is more accurate than simply "didn't stick in Vancouver".
After reading the article, I think the bigger question is do the 2 players that AREN'T on the Whitecaps 30 man roster count towards the "4 minimum players" loaned to an affiliate? Who are these players under contract with if not on the Vancouver MLS roster (which I don't see that they are). Are they still "amateurs" and Vancouver can loan them out and retain the HG rights to those players? This is very similar to what will happen with Galaxy II when they want acadamy players playing for Galaxy II without a professional contract, but this is the first I've seen of this being done with an affiliate ... and I find it very interesting and noteworthy.
You can't loan an amateur. And a couple of those guys aren't amateurs, despite having played in the PDL.
http://www.mlssoccer.com/news/artic...-arrangement-new-york-cosmos-over-draftee-and I guess what I mean is...Lewis is Vancouver's property, apparently, else they'd be unable to loan him. Which means they wanted to "retain the player," so as of last Saturday, he was either loaned from the Cosmos or transferred from the Cosmos. Unless they came up with some other bizarre option. And unless he's in Vancouver, no, he didn't stick in Vancouver.
That's fair, I just remembered it as he will not play for the Cosmos if he gets an MLS contract and is on the Vancouver roster.
Probably right ... just makes you wonder how many other players they have that are under contract but not on the MLS teams 30 man rosters. Is this why they're still not making money and will argue that point for the next CBA? (That was a joke ... kind of).
we actually have seven on loan, that article doesn't mention Adam Mena and Michael Kafari who have arrived this week. digging a little deeper it seems that their paper work isn't finalized yet and they have not been announced as vancouver players yet (or Vancouver cut them and they came here on trial) here is a good article on the loan situation here in Charleston http://www.chssoccer.net/whitecaps-send-kafari-mena-south/
Little more clarification of the Vancouver players here in Charleston on loan including Lewis. http://www.chssoccer.net/its-cordo-2-0-but-lewis-news-steals-show/
future is bright... http://www.sbnation.com/soccer/2014/3/11/5476982/major-league-soccer-usl-partnership-galaxy-ii
http://blog.thenewstribune.com/socc...or-some-of-the-changes-he-likes-in-24-roster/ I'm guessing Starfire refers to the Starfire Soccer Complex ~12 miles down the road from CenturyLink
http://www.soccernewsday.com/usa/a/1711/q-a-talking-with-rsl-gm-garth-lagerwey-part-1 Possible 1 year affiliation and then San Diego in 2016? Brings up some very interesting points regarding Roster constuction with regards to the CBA.
This could happen with several clubs. having a one off year with a USL Pro side, even if shared, for 2015 and for those who want to own their own GalaxyII type situation they can. This 3rd situation where owning your own USL Pro franchise but placing them in a different market to expand your brand. So in the bigger picture RSL could have a USL Pro Owned club in San Diego and have that club also have a PDL team as well. RSL could also enter a U23 team of their own into the PDL. More games, more stadiums, more regions, all selling your big league club merchandise along side your minor league affiliates. RSL having a traditional final pre season game in San Diego vs their minor League club are things of good marketing.
Yep, that's the only Starfire there is. The USL Sounders played there and the current Sounders have been known to play USOC matches there. The NWSL team played there until this year. As for the Lagerway thing....doesn't that sound like the "Basically Signed Sealed and Delivered" San Diego mantra has been moderated a bit?
Yes, moderated a bit is a good way to put it. I think given his response about determining how the CBA plays out I wonder if RSL didn't like a detail about Galaxy II regarding roster construction or something ... either way, I think RSL will eventually do something more than affiliate. This CBA is happening at the right time for all of this to sort out in a way that everyone agrees. I found it interesting that he mentioned potential for roster sizes to decrease. However not likely, I feel that 30 members for an MLS squad is a bit much, especially if you are going have some dedicated to USL rosters. I could see something along the lines of a 25 man MLS roster and a minimum 5 man USL roster ... for teams choosing to affiliate. And then teams chosing to not affiliate would be a 25 man Roster for each MLS and USL Pro teams with caps associated with each. Very interesting times.
Not when you look at ( a ) squad sizes around the world and ( b ) the number of competitions MLS teams are expected to navigate and make roster decisions for. 30 may sound like a lot, but it's really not when you factor in the inevitable injuries, the continental and Open Cup competitions and national team duty.
I guess I am not looking at it from a broad scope ... I just looking at SKC's roster and see the potential for 4 or 5 to not see any minutes even with Open Cup, CCL (knockout and fall group stages). And you can always make rules that allow teams to use their USL players in Open Cup or international (CCL) competition as well as friendlies. MLS teams are expected to go with 26 players this year (given they abide by the 4 MUST on a USL roster if they're going the affiliate route. Yes, USL starts a bit later and ends a bit earlier, but for most clubs, they're not playing them in early MLS games or late games if they're playing for a seed or playoff birth. It's just interesting that he mentioned it and something I had thought might benefit the pyramid too. Trust me, there are a couple of SKC players that I feel belong in NASL and would excel there. Also ... would be interesting to see the salary cap in MLS be for all 25 players instead of 20 (with 10 off cap) to make things easier to understand. To get 30 players available you could always designate the 5 players under USL contracts as players you can pull up and down in the season without effecting your cap status ... in the form of short term loans (similar to baseball and having guys go from AAA to the Majors when injuries happen).
Ah cool. While it's neat that there's history there, I'm a little bummed that so far MLS teams are keeping the USL team close to home (RSL stuff aside). Looking at past Seattle rumors- while Tacoma isn't exactly that far from Seattle, it's seperate enough where the team could possibly grow into their own. IIRC the Red Bulls are considering having NYRB II just play at their training center. I understand why MLS teams would do this as far as player development goes, but I wish it was a little different.
Could you look at their actual roster from past seasons and see? And even then, that's one team. The history of the league has been that there haven't been enough bodies to reasonably navigate everything teams have to go through. Well....they can always call them back for friendlies. But why you'd want to then deprive those players of playing in the Open Cup for the teams they've been loaned to (except against you, obviously), I don't know. I mean, MLS teams can call back their loaned players any time they want, so it's not a matter of making new rules. But it's unwieldy, and it's kind of unlikely those players would play in a CCL thing anyway. My point was that those competitions strain the existing rosters and put inevitable mileage on the guys on the MLS level. They're more likely to get injured (one reason there's a "competitive match" limit in the CBA). If it's about player development, and not giving lower-level people a shiny new toy, then it makes perfect sense. And this is one of the inherent issues in this...you're going to have a league with some teams that are out to be their own entities and compete and win and sell tickets and some that are just fiefdoms. Whether they're 12 miles away or in the training facility. But if you're making the investment and being told it's to your long-term player development benefit, whether somebody 100 or 200 or 500 miles away gets a new team isn't really your issue.