Calling the USSF about CBA being fixed

[bunge]

So perhaps the recent large support of SSS projects can, in contrast, be seen by some as laundering.

The size of the donation isn't as big of a deal as the fact that it didn't add value to the projects. The projects were finalized and the dollars already accounted for prior to the donations. So, instead of the USSF money going to support something like...youth fields that weren't already part of the project, the dollars allowed the MLS owners to reduce their investments in the projects. THAT'S why the money is seen as a gift rather than good hearted soccer growth. The money is going to go straight into the pockets of the owners rather than into a project.

If they were smart and had done this in a different order, no one would notice. The Dallas play could have excluded 10 fields (or whatever) and then the USSF could have swooped in and saved the day by adding 10 extra fields! Instead this basically a money laundering scheme.

[Ten Shirt]

The size of the donation isn't as big of a deal as the fact that it didn't add value to the projects. The projects were finalized and the dollars already accounted for prior to the donations. So, instead of the USSF money going to support something like...youth fields that weren't already part of the project, the dollars allowed the MLS owners to reduce their investments in the projects. THAT'S why the money is seen as a gift rather than good hearted soccer growth. The money is going to go straight into the pockets of the owners rather than into a project.

I'm pretty certain, unless we have high-level MLS, AEG or HSG employees reading these boards, that no one on here knows anything about the financing of these stadiums as it relates to chronologically securing funds, decision-making, etc.

Bunge, if, for the sake of argument, the USSF contribution did, in fact, influence the ultimate decision to build the NTC/HDC, was that money well spent, in your opinion?

[TriHutch]

1. Let me ask this, in the USSF's take it or leave it offer (the one slightly more than inflation) does it include retroactivity?

No.

[voros]

I'm pretty certain, unless we have high-level MLS, AEG or HSG employees reading these boards, that no one on here knows anything about the financing of these stadiums as it relates to chronologically securing funds, decision-making, etc.
The money was for the ubiquitous "cost overruns."

[bunge]

Bunge, if, for the sake of argument, the USSF contribution did, in fact, influence the ultimate decision to build the NTC/HDC, was that money well spent, in your opinion?

I posted this in a different thread:

I'm not even adverse to [USSF] money for MLS stadiums because that is also for the good of soccer in this country. But, the players should certainly be getting a bigger cut of the pie if MLS is going to get anything from the USSF.

I also try and say this when I said this in my previous post in this thread: If [the USSF and MLS] were smart and had done this in a different order, no one would notice. The Dallas pla[n] could have excluded 10 fields (or whatever) and then the USSF could have swooped in and saved the day by adding 10 extra fields!"

When I said that I really did mean that it would be OK in my book if the deal had been publicized as such.

I do believe though, that if the USSF is going to openly support a for profit entity (especially one that is in charge of most USMNT PA player salaries) the PA should get more than the raise that they are asking for now. With the kind of under the table agreement the USSF and MLS apparently has, I don't think the current raise the PA wants is out of line at all.

[divingheader]

TriHutch, thank you very much for your time and info. MLSNHTOWN, keep up the good line of questioning. This is the most informative repatee in the whole damn series of threads...

********
Originally Posted by MLSNHTOWN
"1. Let me ask this, in the USSF's take it or leave it offer (the one slightly more than inflation) does it include retroactivity?"

TriHutch:
"No."

This seems to be at odds with what Jim Moorehouse told me. He stated that all the deals discussed before included retroactivity. Perhaps I misunderstood him, it was a phone call not a written comminication so I am going on my memory.

[divingheader]

TriHutch, thank you very much for your time and info. MLSNHTOWN, keep up the good line of questioning. This is the most informative repatee in the whole damn series of threads...

********
Originally Posted by MLSNHTOWN
"1. Let me ask this, in the USSF's take it or leave it offer (the one slightly more than inflation) does it include retroactivity?"

TriHutch:
"No."

This seems to be at odds with what Jim Moorehouse told me. He stated that all the deals discussed before included retroactivity. Perhaps I misunderstood him, it was a phone call not a written comminication so I am going on my memory.

*****
It is a little wierd that the players belong to different unions who negotiate different CBAs for the same product. The 2 sets of management (USSF and MLS) are even somewhat in competition with each other for the players time. Does the MLS CBA state that the USSF CBA has to be honored, and vice versa? Hard to believe when they are not negotiated at the same time and one doesn't know what the other will allow...
Anyway, since the players are in two unions I expect that those of us who were suprised and disgusted to find that the boards of MLS and the USSF shared some members can cease to be amazed. Looks like both sides have split alliegances.

*****
Who are the players who serve as reps for the PA? Surely their identities are not secret? Since TriHutch is big enough to stand up and be counted, why can't they?

*****
So the USSF employs Bruce Arena as head coach of the USMNT. He is a representative of the USSF, and an employee. He goes and gets the players, who he is responsible for selecting, to agree on a plan. And the USSF says "No"? This does not bode well for the coach's long term involvement. I hope and pray that having his employer slap him in the face like that in front of the players does not weaken his position or encourage him to move on.

I agree with the sentiment expressed above, get Arena and the PA to agree a deal and publicize that. If the USSF fails to accept it, bang. They become the bad guy whether or not they were bad to begin with.

Coach Arena's job is clearly on the line during WC qualifying. Dr Bob and friends should understand that so is thiers. Come next March if we have failed to excell in WC qualifying I for one will not rest from laying the blame at the USSF's doorstep, and will do whatever I can to get new officers elected.

[TriHutch]

TriHutch:
"No."

1. This seems to be at odds with what Jim Moorehouse told me. He stated that all the deals discussed before included retroactivity. Perhaps I misunderstood him, it was a phone call not a written comminication so I am going on my memory.

*****
2. It is a little wierd that the players belong to different unions who negotiate different CBAs for the same product. The 2 sets of management (USSF and MLS) are even somewhat in competition with each other for the players time. Does the MLS CBA state that the USSF CBA has to be honored, and vice versa? Hard to believe when they are not negotiated at the same time and one doesn't know what the other will allow...
Anyway, since the players are in two unions I expect that those of us who were suprised and disgusted to find that the boards of MLS and the USSF shared some members can cease to be amazed. Looks like both sides have split alliegances.

*****
3. Who are the players who serve as reps for the PA? Surely their identities are not secret? Since TriHutch is big enough to stand up and be counted, why can't they?

*****
4. So the USSF employs Bruce Arena as head coach of the USMNT. He is a representative of the USSF, and an employee. He goes and gets the players, who he is responsible for selecting, to agree on a plan. And the USSF says "No"? This does not bode well for the coach's long term involvement. I hope and pray that having his employer slap him in the face like that in front of the players does not weaken his position or encourage him to move on.

I agree with the sentiment expressed above, get Arena and the PA to agree a deal and publicize that. If the USSF fails to accept it, bang. They become the bad guy whether or not they were bad to begin with.

Coach Arena's job is clearly on the line during WC qualifying. Dr Bob and friends should understand that so is thiers. Come next March if we have failed to excell in WC qualifying I for one will not rest from laying the blame at the USSF's doorstep, and will do whatever I can to get new officers elected.

1. I'm assuming there was a misunderstanding. Following the meeting with the players at Key Bridge Marriot in DC where they expressed their issues and rationales for increases directly to Dr. Bob, the Fed promised us a substantive response. Their response was to revoke the retroactive part of our current deal and set a late Nov deadline. there have been several negotiating sessions since then, and at each point it was reaffirmed that the Fed has taken the retroactive clause off the table.

2. I don't think the players see it that way.

3. I'm not authorized to tell you who the reps are and the traditional understanding that the reps remain confidential is still in place.

4. I can't speak for Coach Arena other than to say we respected what he tried to do, demonstrated by proposing his short-term compremise without any caveats. For instance, we didn't say we'd do it but only if the Fed reinstated the retroactive clause. We were told during the last negotiating session that we shouldn't talk to Coach Arena. Given the multiple contacts that have been made with our players, we cited Goose v. Gander and left it at that.

[Brushes Sand]

The fact is, if a scab side is used in qualifiers, then both sides are to blame. Nobody wins in that situation. Nobody.

Not exactly....

In a fitting bout of karmic injustice, WarnerCo wins bigtime.

-bs

[Delta Blues]

A scab team could beat T & T. It would be mutilated in Mexico, and if it still played against Guatemala would be beaten again, although probably competitive. IMO, the USSF is truly the villian in this case. I admit I've never been impressed with the organization, but this is simply ludicrous. It's simply suicide with a slow poison if something isn't done quickly. FIFA, as useless as they are need to get involved in some fashion.

[GIO17]

Has anyone checked the US Soccer website? Not once since I have been on there, they haven't talked about the current issue at hand, nor have they even made any attempts to say something like this.

"We thank every US Soccer Supporter for calling us and e-mailing us about the current situation with the labor negotiations. We are doing our best to come to an agreement and restart the camps to qualify for the 2006 World Cup. Thank You for your support."

Not one paragraph or section of the US Soccer Web Site they are talking about the CBA, or thanking us the supporters that we do care about this.

I don't want to lose any precious points to any team in the final round regardless if it's the Toughest in Mexico to the weakest in Grenada. This has to come to a resolve now.

[voros]

Delaying this is a bad idea. If they declare a truce for Trinidad, then we're right back where we started with a late March deadline...and at stake then will be a Mexico road game and our first home game. In other words, serious games. I'd much rather play chicken over T&T.
Well, I don't know about that. Yes it's often helpful to work under strict deadlines meaning that the pressure is really going to mount as this month wears on.

On the other hand this is an infinitely solvable problem since it's mostly just money (the NHL and MLB labor troubles have been about severe philosophical differences about the way things ought to be structured).

They should come up with a dollar figure they both can live with and move on. The NHL and MLB wish their issues were that easy.

[divingheader]

TriHutch:
"2. I don't think the players see it that way."

**But maybe the "owners" do and now maybe some of the fans do too. I'm not saying its wrong or illegal, just wierd. Maybe it's my view of what a union is, but I think you should only be a member of one union. You can belong to several clubs and organizations, but Unions have a special legal status and are not for recreation.
I remember a story from Jim Bouton's Ball Four about a labour issue in the 1960's. Yazstremski apparently tried to form a seperate union of stars to negotiate on thier own, and it didn't work. I think the flavor of that passage was sour, and the idea that the stars would get a different deal than the scrubs was unpopular.
But then again, this is for a different competition. Does each youth national team have a union? Why is the USWNT a different union?
On second thought, lets just solve the labour crisis and then, in our spare time between qualifiers we are winning, we can restructure the whole national team labour picture, if required. Hello? Dr Bob? Are you listening?

"3. I'm not authorized to tell you who the reps are and the traditional understanding that the reps remain confidential is still in place."

**This I do not understand. In other professional sports a player has stepped forward as the face of the union. I remember Gene Upshaw and Patrick Ewing specifically. This is another 'Win the PR War' trick. True you'd have a problem if your Player Rep lived overseas for the last 10 years, he would be less likely to be seen as an average american trying to get a fair shake. And while your arguments have definitely swayed me toward the players side, I find the failure of whatever player, or group of players, in charge of this process to step up and be counted disappointing at the least. At the worst it is cowardly.

Thanks again TriHutch. I hope to see you at a qualifier sometime and buy you a tasty and refreshing beverage.

[The Lieutenant]

Has anyone checked the US Soccer website? Not once since I have been on there, they haven't talked about the current issue at hand, nor have they even made any attempts to say something like this.

"We thank every US Soccer Supporter for calling us and e-mailing us about the current situation with the labor negotiations. We are doing our best to come to an agreement and restart the camps to qualify for the 2006 World Cup. Thank You for your support."

Not one paragraph or section of the US Soccer Web Site they are talking about the CBA, or thanking us the supporters that we do care about this.

I don't want to lose any precious points to any team in the final round regardless if it's the Toughest in Mexico to the weakest in Grenada. This has to come to a resolve now.

Nor have we seen the same on the US Soccer Players website.

[Latin Pride]

A scab team could beat T & T. It would be mutilated in Mexico, and if it still played against Guatemala would be beaten again, although probably competitive. IMO, the USSF is truly the villian in this case. I admit I've never been impressed with the organization, but this is simply ludicrous. It's simply suicide with a slow poison if something isn't done quickly. FIFA, as useless as they are need to get involved in some fashion.

T&T aint as bad as you think, they beat Mexico at the last qualifiers so i wouldnt underestimate them.

[Gary V]

I'm not saying its wrong or illegal, just wierd. Maybe it's my view of what a union is, but I think you should only be a member of one union. You can belong to several clubs and organizations, but Unions have a special legal status and are not for recreation. ... But then again, this is for a different competition. Does each youth national team have a union? Why is the USWNT a different union?You got it right in the portion that I've bolded. Not only is it for a different competition, they are two different sets of players with some overlap. Not everyone in MLS is on the Nats - some of them aren't even eligible because they are/were on other national teams or are not citizens of the US. And not everyone on the Nats is in MLS - some are in Europe, etc.

The WNT has a different union because they again are a different set of players. It's not uncommon for a business to have more than one union representing different sets of employees. USSF itself might (I don't know, but they might) have unions representing the clerical staff, food service workers, etc.

I doubt that the youth teams have unions, as the players are usually amateur status (unless they also work for a pro team).

[TriHutch]

Nor have we seen the same on the US Soccer Players website.

Nor are you likely too. We've never stressed the union side of things on the website at any point. We never wanted that to be the public face of the Association. We felt it's a potential turnoff for the wide range of people we want to reach. I don't think it's reasonable to believe you create fans through a labor dispute no matter how right you might be or you might think you are. Maybe the Fed feels the same.

[HartwickFan]

A scab team could beat T & T. It would be mutilated in Mexico, and if it still played against Guatemala would be beaten again, although probably competitive.

I agree. T&T looks much weaker this cycle than they were last cycle, and really only made it to the hex by virtue of their embarassingly pathetic group in the previous round. I'd say our scabs would be at least as good, if not better, than our team of college boys who qualified for the '90 WC by beating T&T with the shot heard 'round the world. I really really hope that we don't have to find out whether we're right, though.

[chayes]

Nor are you likely too. We've never stressed the union side of things on the website at any point. We never wanted that to be the public face of the Association. We felt it's a potential turnoff for the wide range of people we want to reach. I don't think it's reasonable to believe you create fans through a labor dispute no matter how right you might be or you might think you are. Maybe the Fed feels the same.

WAIT!!!

What was that???

A point of agreement with the Fed.

There is hope!
There is hope!
There is hope!

Sorry... back to your regularly scheduled bickering.

[MLSNHTOWN]

Nor are you likely too. We've never stressed the union side of things on the website at any point. We never wanted that to be the public face of the Association. We felt it's a potential turnoff for the wide range of people we want to reach. I don't think it's reasonable to believe you create fans through a labor dispute no matter how right you might be or you might think you are. Maybe the Fed feels the same.

Well then are you saying that your representatives are afraid of damaging their support within the US soccer fans by being the face of the players' association?

I kind of think this is a little bit of chicken. Let me have Donovan, Keller, Agoos, ABMOD or whoever the hell is the players association come forward and say, I, along with other players, do not believe we are getting paid enough for national team apperances. I understand why they are doing it, they don't want to deal with the venom of those that will just blame them, without reading all of these posts wherein it more than likely appears that the USSF is to blame for most of this fiasco.