Modified UEFA Financial Fair Play + Revenue sharing

Really?
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004923.html

Perhaps you mean that they went out like your reading comprehension? Anyway, let me know if you need help understanding guy.

 

Um, where's your reading comprehension? It says "No the in front of pronouncable acronyms", of which MLS is not

 

Exactly, which is what I was trying to point out.

 

I blame the American Revolution for the lack of proper English in this country (USA).

Wait, I am lost what are we talking about?

 

I credit the American Revolution for the lack of English propers in the US

 

I concur. Well played, Sir.

 

Sigh, I'm not rehashing this .... as it is a debate that has already been had on these forums. You can search for it if you need help understanding, fella.

 

Sigh, it seems I'm not the only one that considers a luxury tax a basically good idea, provided that it is implemented in the right way:

http://www.yaleeconomicreview.com/insights/113?start=1

I like these:

Sound familiar, fella?

 

Many things are "basically a good idea", as long as people understand what they are doing with them.

Of course a stronger taxation system (with salary floor) would be a good idea for MLB, if you want to solve "inequity" and "equalize", as your quoted author does. An even better idea for MLB - copy some of MLS features.

 

Yikes, that wasn't even what I was referring to about the "debate" ... I mean wow. Swing and a miss.

Sure does chief ... but you (and your article) also sound quite a bit like other posters on here that shall remain nameless for I don't want the onus of them showing up again on me. Utopia is great, but it doesn't exist.

In this Utopia you dream of, the "small" teams wouldn't need a crutch from the "big" teams in order to get things done. People like you wouldn't think a luxury tax is a good idea because there'd be absolutely no thought of one, let alone a fabricated need.

However, what you quoted actually delves into questions I asked you that for some odd reason you couldn't answer. Sorry buddy, but when you can't answer the questions and have to point in several directions to even make another post on the topic ... yeeeaaahhhhh chief, that's just not good for your take on things.

^ bingo.

Of course the question that still remains unanswered is why, after all of the other measures taken to reign in the "big" guys, is the answer to the issue to simply pop another measure on the "big" guys ? Why not make the "little" guys do something in order to you know, help themselves ?

 

It can't be as simple as getting majority of votes. There are bound to be veto rights, buyout clauses or other mechanisms for something that big.

 

One general thought re revenue sharing.
Keep in mind how the EPL got to that point. When they established that revenue sharing model, it was a win-win for all teams. Until then it was handled by the association, so part of the money went into the lower leagues.
Basically, the EPL teams found an arrangement that benefited all of them at the time by cutting out the lower league teams, and eventually as TV deals got bigger that revenue sharing became what it is today.
It is far more difficult to reach an agreement where you redistribute existing revenue. Unrealistic even, if we are talking about significant difference.

Besides, it's not like MLS teams are wasting money on payroll. So if parking, concession etc revenue has to be shared, and a team like LA has to adjust spending, most of it would have to be in things like marketing, operating staff, stadium expenses, etc, not payroll. That's not necessarily a good thing.

And another thing is that MLS does have rather extensive revenue sharing model. National TV, non-TV SUM revenue, a piece of gate and transfers. In all likelihood, that's ~30% of current MLS income. And if MLS was anything close to the EPL and had big TV deals, they'd be sharing a far bigger % of their revenue than the EPL does, despite leaving local TV rights to individual teams.
But MLS still has to "grow" into their model like the EPL did.

 

In quite a few, in fact. What billionaire signs up to be part of a company without some protection about the way the business is structured? If 17 owners say they want to strip Uncle Phil of all his voting power and give his two teams away to charity, would the votes of LA and HOU be ignored? Of course not.

 

I don't think it's that close a case, honestly.

Discrimination based on national origin is illegal. Courts have struck down multiple "proxies" for national origin, including accent, clothing choices, and appearance. This doesn't even rise to the level of a "proxy."

Under FIFA rules, if your parents or grandparents weren't born in the United States, and you've lived here for less than five years, you would not be eligible for these bonuses under any circumstances. That seems pretty clear-cut to me.

DISCLAIMER: I am not your lawyer, you are not my client. If this post impacts your life in any way, consult with a lawyer licensed to practice in your jurisdiction. Do not take legal advice from strangers on the internet under any circumstances.

 

Almost certainly. But that's a different discussion, a discussion of priorities. It's not directly related to revenue sharing.
Option A: a highly competitive environment with star power in big markets, while other teams are perfectly able to compete at very low cost.
B: a less competitive environment where star power is replaced by roster balance and depth, but top teams have a bigger advantage and are generally better (and might even have a chance in the CCL).
MLS at the moment clearly prefers the first option.

So what you suggest has to go through that discussion first, long before entering revenue sharing. But if you think more revenue sharing is also necessary, it obviously complicates things and makes any changes less likely IMO, for reasons I mentioned.

 

DIE PC4TH ... DIE

Seriously, it's the same exact posting pattern.

 

I don't know he has not started many pols yet, so it may not be PC4th

 

MLS LLC's operating agreement probably has several tiers of member approval. The commissioner is likely authorized to make day-to-day decisions. Then, depending on the importance of the decision, it will require majority, super-majority or unanimous approval. That''s a pretty typical setup for private companies.

 

Private companies like MLS can pretty much structure their operating agreement however they want. There might be a buyout provision which would allow the rest of the league to buyout a troublesome member. If the rest of the owners wanted the league to go in a certain direction and one owner vehemently opposed the decision, it would likely end up with that owner leaving the league.

IIRC, the decision to add expansion teams required unanimous consent. Restructuring the league's financial model might well require agreement from all owners.

 

EXACTLY MY POINT! They can't, so there must be some "veto" system when you're talking about so drastically changing the business model