Revs 2014 Roster Thread

So ignoring your utter lack of empathy for those less fortunate than you, just so I'm reading you correctly, as a general rule, you're asking why it should be seen as an issue if an organization not following through on an agreement they signed causes problems for the other organization in the agreement? Teams, organizations, people shouldn't be expected to be held accountable for keeping up their side of a bargain? Does this view of yours go both ways, such that if the Revs had some agreement with another team about players or money, with one of the players or some of the money coming later, and the other team were to decide that it just didn't want to give up that player or money, you'd say that's fair, teams should only do what's in their best interests? Or are you saying that the Revs should be seen as a special team, chosen by God I suppose, and that the rules that apply to other teams and businesses shouldn't have to apply to them?

And not to bring up another conversation that I'd tired of, but how in the world do you say this, and then say that you can't stand how Beckham did things that he thought at the time was in his best interest, either getting rid of a coach on a team that wasn't playing well, or trying to get tax breaks and public support for his team's stadium? I'm struggling to find a hint, a shred, of logical consistency here: Beckham is a slimy guy for doing things that he deems are in his best interest, but it's great when the Revs do things deemed to be in their best interest, they should not be questioned. I'm very curious if some consistency could be found without some major goal post relocation.

 

If i understand correctly, the agreement was that the Revs would loan out at least four players to Rochester this season, not the Revs will send at least four players on SEASON long loan? If this is the case then it's impossible for Revs to be in violation of their agreement since the season is not over yet.

Also, in most any partnership or exchange there is normally an on going dialog as to what both parties except to happen. So it pretty likely Rochester as an idea of when to expect the player loaned out.

 

That's not the understanding I had, and doesn't seem to be how it worked last year. It would seem an odd agreement to say that you just need to send 4 different players at some point over the course of a season, which would mean that the "parent" MLS club could just send 4 different players for a single game, or they could send 4 down for a while and then pull all 4 back part way through the season. I'm not sure what the minor team would get out of that kind of arrangement, as they would never be sure how many they might need to fill the roster over the course of a year, and their roster could end up being short or over depending on what the "parent" MLS team wanted, as opposed to knowing that 4 slots will be filled by the parent club and they just need to have the rest filled, but I will grant MLS rules are strange enough that it's possible.

Either way, that wasn't the assumption we were working under when we started the conversation, and I'm now more curious about this idea being floated that the teams/people - or is it just the Revs? - shouldn't have to follow any agreement they signed if they later decide they don't want to, except that when certain people do such things, it makes them slimy or whatever.

 

Everyone will "try" to keep 4 players at Rochester at all times during the season.

But Rochester keeps learning more and more about how malleable the definition of the word "try" can be.

That's my guess.

 

I posted it earlier.

Since the USL PRO regular season has started, they are in violation, according to their own website.

But, as was pointed out, so are SKC and TOR.

 

SKC also has an open roster spot. TFC has two. I'm guessing that there's some loophole that if you're not carrying a full 30, the open spot can be considered as your USL Pro loan.

So really, since we have three open spots, we only need to send one to Rochester. We've sent three, so we are making a 300% effort.

 

Well, you're not really ignoring it, since you just threw it out there.

1) you know almost nothing about me or my level of empathy
2) is the Rhinos organization among those less fortunate than me?

I thought I'd already explained, but here goes: I don't think either the Revs or the Rhinos (or MLS or USL) see it as such a rigid arrangement. I think it's pretty likely that all those involved expect it to be a much more flexible arrangement. The Revs loanees aren't going to be the core of the Rhinos team and they wouldn't want them to be. They're a supplement. As I've said, there's no reason to think that the Rhinos are concerned at all with the way it is going. If they were to have a run of injuries, maybe they'd get on the phone to Burns and ask for more bodies, but as I said, for the most part, I think they'd rather be playing their own guys anyway.

Again, I said and repeated already, I don't criticize Beckham for seeking tax breaks - I criticize him for doing so while also saying that he's not going to seek public help.

As for his behavior in LA, I suggest reading Wahl's book, if you haven't already (it's a quick read). It's a little more insidious than just serving his own interest or getting rid of a coach he wasn't happy with.

But, again, you think I have an issue with living up to obligations, but I don't think the Rochester situation is really about that. It's an arrangement that can only work well if there's flexibility on both sides - and what we're seeing now is that flexibility and cooperation, not the Revs telling the Rhinos to screw off.

Once more, who says Rochester is even concerned at all?

Seriously, how many pro athletes really expect their club to pay them more than their contract says they should?

He's using the Rev fanbase as negotiating leverage and those who are buying his sob story are just getting suckered. He's a pro and he almost certainly hired a qualified agent to work out his contract. He was fortunate to play better than he expected and now he wants to cash in more if he can.

It's hard to say if he played better than the Revs expected, since for what he was/is getting paid, the Revs should pretty much expect one of the top 3 defenders in the league.

Exactly. Except that explanation fails to trash the Revs.

 

Actually, as it was stated a few posts upstream, IRGuy was incorrect in his assumption. The Revs are supposed to have 4 guys in Rochester all year.

But you are correct that it isn't an issue unless the Rhinos have a problem. Since they aren't goingto go public with it if it was, we don't have much to go on. Maybe they have called Burns and asked for another player, or maybe not. No one is going to say anything one way or another right now.

If they 1) have an issue, 2) have contacted Burns to resolve it, 3) are still waiting several weeks after their season started and are not getting a satisfactory response, then we may hear about it. But that will only be at the end of the season when someone leaks this to a reporter when they decide to terminate the relationship.

 

If this actually works, we should try it!

 

Thanks for pointing me down stream, however, i don't see anything that makes my assumption incorrect. All I see is that they need to send at least four players on long-term loan. Long-term does not mean it needs to be a full season loan. It also says the players can be recalled at any time and the loans are flexible.

So there is clearly nothing that says they have to be in Rochester all year.

 

so did we ever find out who the trialist was in camp last week?

 

Yeah, but it's not complaining about the Revs.

 

He's not saying the Revs mislead him:

Bengtson: "My agent, thank God I end my relationship with him in June, did several things I did not understand very well."​

 

It doesn't matter Monty, there will always be people willing to defend the FO no matter how blatant the evidence is.

 

Just as there will always be people willing to trash the team no matter what.

This sounds like a problem between Bengtson and his (former?) agent, not between Bengtson and the Revs.

 

Fair enough, touche I guess. But we keep seeing situations with our FO crop up over and over again - the Goncalves drama, Bengtson telling us he doesn't speak much with Heaps (never a good sign given he's the DP) and the Mauricio Castro injury situation a few years back. It makes you (well, maybe not you ) wonder if revs players have shitty agents or there is an issue with communication and how the Revs treat players. Where there's smoke there's fire.

 

Maybe I am looking at the wrong posts, but that is not what it says.

"Club affiliations between MLS and USL Pro sides will be tailored to the needs of each specific team, and will include at least four MLS players going out on a long-term loan to their USL affiliate."

http://www.mlssoccer.com/news/article/2013/01/23/mls-usl-pro-reach-deal-restructured-reserve-league

It does not state anything about needing to have at least four players there all the time or all season. It just says at least 4 players need to go on long term during the season.

 

OK, I'll quote it a third time.

 

It should be noted that 2 of the Revs loanees are on the bench today, with one (Sundly) starting. But, maybe they want more anyway?

 

All I did was quote what the agreement was between the Revs and Rochester, from the Revs own website. IR Guy asked where it was stated, and I showed him. Your reply has nothing to do with that.