OK, so I'm watching the MLS game on espn2 and they mention that Tony Sanneh is getting ready to come back to MLS and will end up with Columbus. Wasn't he ours before he left for Germany? Why aren't we allowed to have him back? Could really help our defense and midfield. I don't understand why Columbus would get him.
They also played at the same college (University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee). Besides DC shouldn't complain too much about getting players, they got Adu.
Seen nothing official, but I don't think teams hold player rights for more than 2 years. SJ kept Barret's rights for a while (still probably have-left ~early 2003, not sure how long they'd hold his rights - I read someone from SJ writing that MLS promised this since no allocation was given). Jordan left early 2003 and I don't think CLB gave DAL any compensation ("Teams could have used an allocation on Jordan, but there were no takers. He then went into a draft, with clubs at the bottom of the 2003 standings having the first chance at him. Dallas passed before the Crew selected him"). Sanneh left so long ago (?99) that it's most definitely not an issue of DC having any claim under league policy.
According to this article on yanks-abroad.com from the 21st, Tony felt dissed by MLS's offer; so, he's headed back to Europe.
I'm almost positive the two year thing is for rights to a draft pick, not a player who left. Columbus didn't have to give Dallas anything for Jordan because Dallas said he could go to the Crew for free (it was in one of the articles). Allocation or not, if Sanneh comes to MLS and signs with Columbus, they need to trade for his rights with DCU.
I loved Sanneh when he played here many moons ago, but you don't want to put big money in a mid-30's player, especially someone coming off back surgery. Now that Convey is off to Reading, DCU needs a playmaker who will be around for 3-4 years, followed by resolution of the Nelsen issue and then, a target forward.
We need to let the Nelsen issue go. Its very likey that a Euro club will come in for him. And he'll be gone. We're thin in the back. If a blue-chip 'prospect defender' comes up, we may end up shipping Stokes and another P-40 elsewhere. We can't hold P-40s who suck, just because and then missout on better P-40s when they come along and can contribute and won't deny going to Richmond.
Who wants to break it to the SJ fans that they don't hold the rights to Wade Barret? And why did COL have to trade SJ to get the rights to Cannon (1 year rule?). After waiving players like Hendrickson, Reyes - teams held rights.
What are you talking about? Colorado had to trade for Cannon because he wasn't replaced with an allocation when he left SJ and he wasn't waived (thus SJ still owned his rights). Hendrickson wasn't waived, his option just wasn't picked up. Dallas thought he was too expensive, so they didn't pick up the option and he was free to sign outside of the league. Dallas still held his league rights. Reyes was waived, but nobody picked him up at his DC salary. When he went through waivers, his rights reverted back to DC. He was free to sign outside of the league, but if another team (like Dallas) in MLS wanted him at a lower salary, they had to get his rights from DC. This information is out there. Please get it before ranting about "who's going to tell SJ" anything.
You said "I'm almost positive the two year thing is for rights to a draft pick, not a player who left." This implied teams don't hold rights for players who left. Thus my response. I missed your statement that Dallas told CLB they could have him free - so it sounded like you were saying DAL or any team losing a player overseas wouldn't retain his rights (my bad on reading over that). We both agree teams do retain rights, but my question is for how long (to address the Sanneh question here)? A newspaper (CLB dispatch) article clearly stated Jordan went into a dispersal draft. "Teams could have used an allocation on Jordan, but there were no takers. He then went into a draft, with clubs at the bottom of the 2003 standings having the first chance at him. Dallas passed before the Crew selected him" I don't have a copy of the official MLS statement cause of the web changeover. So I haven't heard of anything official about CLB telling DAL they could have him (renouncing his rights? or trading for nothing?). I saw no mention of this in the CLB release - http://scn.matchnight.com/scn-show.cfm?article=757 Any source for the missing late 2003, early 2004 mlsnet press releases would really help me out (I've sourced most other MLS transactions).
