Tommy Smyth says the sides are 7 million apart,can this be true.

[red lass]

Tommy Smyth on ESPNews said that the US Fed and the players are 7 million dollars apart. I think he must be misinformed. The way he quoted it was that last WC the players were paid around 10 mil. This time the offer is 14 mil and the players want 21 mil. That is outrages that they want that kind of money. Smyth also talked about the Fed having 30 mil in the bank but he seemed to give credit to Fed chief Dan Flynn for putting it there. How much money would the Nats have put into the 30 mil. If the players want 21 mil then there would be little left for anything else.

Smyth was also rambling about 11 Youth team programs that had to be supported. What are they and are they not self supporting.

Listening to Smyth he raised lots of questions that nobody else seems to talk about. Does anybody know exactly the way this is going down. Yes I know there are lots of threads on the subject. I just wanted to get it straight. Smyth did not come out in support of anybody. It seemed like from the things he was quoting that the Fed have a good story. He also said that he felt Yes they would put out a replacment team if needed. Something he said I totally disagree with, he seemed to think that there were pleny of players who would be willing to wear a Nats shirt. I thought all members of MLS were in the PA . Smyth said he felt some MLS player would play if approached.

I think the whole issue is confusing. I just wish it was all over and done with. I keep looking at the Hockey and hope Soccer does not go the same way.

[jmeissen0]

we don't know how the numbers would work, but we would still expect an excess


which would mean more than the 30 million they have now...


screw ussf... these spanks don't do ******** for national team games... bunch of ********ing morons who have no reason to be working in sports

[DutchFootballRulez]

I believe only players who were ever called up (to the MNT, didn't have to be capped) are in the USSF.

[texgator]

According to several sources the USMNT only contributed around $1.5 million of the $30 million surplus. A larger part of the USSF's revenue is youth player dues and corporate sponsorships. Now, one could argue that the corporate sponsorships would have been a lot less if the US didn't qualify and perform well in the last few WC's. But the impact on youth league fees is minimal at best.

[texgator]

I believe only players who were ever called up (to the MNT, didn't have to be capped) are in the USSF.
Players covered by the union include anyone ever called into a senior Men's or Womens' team camp. Not just those capped.

[DutchFootballRulez]

Players covered by the union include anyone ever called into a senior Men's or Womens' team camp. Not just those capped.Its too early in the morning.

That is what I meant, I just said USSF instead of PA. But yes, called up players are in.

I just thought of something. The WNT and MNT players are paid exactly the same right?

[Father Ted]

Here are the players who are in the union:
http://www.ussoccerplayers.com/players/

[FabFiveFigo]

Here are the players who are in the union:
http://www.ussoccerplayers.com/players/
One shocking thing to come out of a review of this list is that Billy Walsh is the Head Coach at Manhattan.

[Casper]

Here are the players who are in the union:
http://www.ussoccerplayers.com/players/
Everyone on that list is in the union, but not everyone in the union is on that list.

[Father Ted]

One shocking thing to come out of a review of this list is that Billy Walsh is the Head Coach at Manhattan.

Not any more I think.

[JimmieLivealot]

According to several sources the USMNT only contributed around $1.5 million of the $30 million surplus....

I still think there has to be some creative accounting involved to reach that number. Other reports note that the USSF made $1 million just off the U.S - Mexico friendly in Houston in '03. For both numbers to be right the fed would have had to take home only $500K from the Confed and Gold Cups plus a big friendly against Argentina.

[NJPsycho]

One thing to keep in mind is that the Womens side just had a farewell tour for Mia and whoever-those-girls-names-are. I wouldn't be suprised if most of the USSF money came from the Womens side.


Then again, the USSF could do what most companies do and just pay the women less. That'll solve everything! :p

[texgator]

I still think there has to be some creative accounting involved to reach that number. Other reports note that the USSF made $1 million just off the U.S - Mexico friendly in Houston in '03. For both numbers to be right the fed would have had to take home only $500K from the Confed and Gold Cups plus a big friendly against Argentina.
I believe the $1 million is gross revenue, before expenses. The number quoted regarding the USMNT's contribution over the last 4 years was after expenses......which makes more sense in this example.

[bigfranz]

.

Listening to Smyth he raised lots of questions that nobody else seems to talk about. Does anybody know exactly the way this is going down. Yes I know there are lots of threads on the subject. I just wanted to get it straight. Smyth did not come out in support of anybody. It seemed like from the things he was quoting that the Fed have a good story. He also said that he felt Yes they would put out a replacment team if needed. Something he said I totally disagree with, he seemed to think that there were pleny of players who would be willing to wear a Nats shirt. I thought all members of MLS were in the PA . Smyth said he felt some MLS player would play if approached.

=======================================================
I felt that Smyth did come down on the side of US Soccer. He really did not say anything which would help out the players. If you were asking questions Smyth answered from the point of view of Moorehouse and Flynn. I am not at all making a suggesting that Smyth has an axe to grind with the players. It just seemed to me that his figure were saying that the players were wrong.
In Germany the players get paid very little for the World Cup in fact they may not get anything for the WCQ. If they do its very little. I guess 21 million dollars is a lot of money. Keep in mind this money comes on top of their club wages.
The big loser in all of this will be again the soccer fans. The US need to get to Germany. If they dont all the good work of the past couple of world cups is wasted.

[ugaaccountant]

One thing to keep in mind is that the Womens side just had a farewell tour for Mia and whoever-those-girls-names-are. I wouldn't be suprised if most of the USSF money came from the Womens side.



right b/c that was well attended. The women, if they were ever profitable, will no longer be so b/c all promotion, ever, has centered on retired players. The "team" was an afterthought, any players younger than 35 were portrayed as second class players.

[MLSNHTOWN]

.
Does anybody know exactly the way this is going down. Yes I know there are lots of threads on the subject. I just wanted to get it straight. Smyth did not come out in support of anybody. It seemed like from the things he was quoting that the Fed have a good story. He also said that he felt Yes they would put out a replacment team if needed. Something he said I totally disagree with, he seemed to think that there were pleny of players who would be willing to wear a Nats shirt. I thought all members of MLS were in the PA . Smyth said he felt some MLS player would play if approached.


the way this pretty much went down is, old agreement expired. Both sides agree to play under the terms of the old agreement until a new agreement is signed as long as the players don't strike and so long as the terms of the new agreement will apply retroactively to the players. Useless negotiations. About April of this year, players discuss informally striking for the Poland game and the Mexico game, they obviously don't. Useless negotiations. USSF wants sit down with players, which is done in October. Sit down, players explain case, USSF says, here is the deal, take it or leave it, let me know by November. Players reject november deal, counter offer #1. USSF plans December camp. According to CBA, union is to be noticed of camp. No notice sent. Players don't show up, despite the fact that the players have shown up in the past for camps that were not techincally noticed properly. USSF says, damn players striking, we lock out on February 1 and will get replacements, Final offer (which is less than before and no longer includes retroactive pay agreed upon above). PA says no, and offers counter offer #2. USSF says no, but doesn't issue "counter". Instead says, your offer v. our offer, binding arbitration, one choice, no "splitting the baby". PA says no, not interested let's just negotiate, even though negotiations are going nowhere because we are not making new offers to "bid against" ourselves and you are not making new offers because you stand by your February 1 deadline offer. PA says arbitration bad because of "take it or leave it" arbitration offer included 1.5 year term when the PA wanted it to last at least through 2010 (5 -6 years) so there was not another set of negotiations in a year and a half.. Since then, crickets are chirping........

With regards to the "union" and replacement players, the PA includes solely the players that have been called into a camp and/or who have a cap. As a result, there are many MLS players who don't fit into that category. So, if the lockout occurs, the USSF will send out notices to several players including MLS scrubs never called into camp before, A-league superstars, and youth team players (ala a Whitbread, a Jemal Johnson, a Karbyassion, etc.) who will all have to make their own decision regarding whether they will attend the camp or not. If they attend the camp, they will be crossing the picket line and will earn the ire of the players in the players association. The MLSPA will most likely pressure its players not to cross the picket line, but there is no guarantee that they will get involved.

[Alex_1]

With regards to the "union" and replacement players, the PA includes solely the players that have been called into a camp and/or who have a cap. As a result, there are many MLS players who don't fit into that category. So, if the lockout occurs, the USSF will send out notices to several players including MLS scrubs never called into camp before, A-league superstars, and youth team players (ala a Whitbread, a Jemal Johnson, a Karbyassion, etc.) who will all have to make their own decision regarding whether they will attend the camp or not. If they attend the camp, they will be crossing the picket line and will earn the ire of the players in the players association. The MLSPA will most likely pressure its players not to cross the picket line, but there is no guarantee that they will get involved.

This is what IMO makes it so incredibly complicated for the players that may be invited to play. For some of them, they have to weigh all of the consequences of their actions because no matter what they'd decide, it would be bad according to someone. If they play, then the players and players association will without question be disappointed. Yet if they don't play, exactly who would those fringe players be hurting more - the USSF or themselves, as it may be a shot that could have gotten them closer to their professional goals... while the First Team players that were 'locked out', for the most part, already have lucrative careers and paychecks in football overseas.

And then, that isn't the end of it. If they did play, the caliber of players with most likely wouldn't be at the same level as those that were 'locked out', so exactly how good they'd look with a patchwork team is anyone's guess.

[Bob Morocco]

I hope the players union doesn't discourage players like Simek from playing, I'm sure they want at least a point, and anyway right after the T&T game they become part of the union? Anyway that 1.5 million dollars profit over four years is misleading. 1.5 million = (Gate revenue) - (all USMNT expenses) but the advertising revenue that the fed generates solely on USMNT games for 2004 was around 10 million dollars, that doesn't even take into account the Nike contract where the US is third in compensation behind Brazil and probably Holland.

So right now I'm confused because I thought that the players wanted a bump up from 7% of revenue to 14% of revenue that they generate. I also thought that the fed only would concede that ticket sales counted as revenue. If that is the case then 10 million dollars = 7%, and 100% = 142 million dollars, and 14% = 21 million dollars. So the players want 14% of 142 million dollars that they directly generate but 142 million in gate reciepts seems really high. Where I expect that I'm off is in world cup bonus money.

4,912,500 was what was paid for the last world cup. 5,970,000 is what the fed is offering, a 21% raise. 8,225,000 dollars in bonus money is what the players want, a 67% raise. 5,087,500 was paid to the players for non-world cup games durring the last contract. Durring this cycle the players are looking for 12,775,000 dollars, a 151% raise. The fed would pay 8,030,000 dollars for this cycle, a 56% raise. These numbers are probably off, I think the world cup bonus money is pretty close to being right though.

The players sum total of 21 million dollars is retroactive, I think that the fed's 14 million is but they have had a proposal where their deal isn't retroactive. Also the Fed's proposal covers only until after the 2006 world cup where as the player's deal goes until after the 2010 world cup. I doubt that the 21 million dollars covers until 2010 and like the fed's 14 million goes to the end of 2006. The Fed's bonus money raise is low, 20%, and the players is about fair to me 67%. The non-world cup pay raise by the fed of 56% is pretty close to what I think it should be where as the player's 151% increase is way too high, unless it is on a different payment plan, i.e. 3,000 dollars for making the gameday roster, I would think that somewhere around 75% is reasonable. That would make the contract worth 17.13 million dollars or about halfway between the two proposals, wow it's like a compromise or something.


I used these numbers, the old ones are right, the fed's proposal is close to the current one, and the players numbers are off by at least 12%.

http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showpost.php?p=3919350&postcount=1220

[bigfranz]

I hope the players union doesn't discourage players like Simek from playing, I'm sure they want at least a point, and anyway right after the T&T game they become part of the union? Anyway that 1.5 million
======================================================
This can in no manner be right. You are telling us that after they cross a union picket line they will then be allowed in the union. Cant happen. Would never happen in any union I was involved in.

[Craig P]

I hope the players union doesn't discourage players like Simek from playing, I'm sure they want at least a point, and anyway right after the T&T game they become part of the union? Anyway that 1.5 million
======================================================
This can in no manner be right. You are telling us that after they cross a union picket line they will then be allowed in the union. Cant happen. Would never happen in any union I was involved in.A couple of things:
* It's a lockout, not a strike.
* I believe that a PA rep has said in the omnibus thread that the guys from the last batch of replacement players that became eligible for the PA were accepted (Eddie Lewis is the one that comes to mind).