In an effort to corral the discussion about Joseph and his very public dispute with the Revs, I am creating this poll and thread to discuss the issue. So the question is..."Who is being the bigger problem here" For the sake of the poll, I'll suggest we divide blame into 1/5's. All you hard drinkers should appreciate that. Apportion blame for the current problem as you see fit Joseph/Revs FO 0/5 - Shalrie is totally right and the Revs are just screwing with him. 1/4 - Shalrie has a legit beef but could be handling it better. 2/3 - Shalrie is maximizing his leverage. 3/2 - The Revs have treated Shalrie harshly, but that's business. 4/1 - Shalrie and his agent made their bed but the Revs could help out. 5/0 - Hey, Shalrie! Can you spell contract! Shut up, play the game or ride the pine and kill what's left of your career. You get the idea. The text is just an example. Feel free to add your own explanation for you vote.
I went with a Shalrie 3/2 Revs FO. I feel terrible for Shalrie, but this is what contracts are all about. He and Dempsey handled their situations differently and ended up with different results. Shalrie has 2 more years on this contract and the Revs are really not obligated to do anything to change that. That they offered him nearly double his salary is not such a terrible thing. OTOH, the Revs are not Barcelona or Man U where they can use reputation and big salaries to attract players. How players are treated by management will have a big impact on future players willing to sign with the team. Anyone who has watched Shalrie play for the Revs knows that he has given absolutely everything to this team. Taking the extra step to keep him happy and in a Revs uniform would be the right thing to do.
well I wish I would've read your explanation before I voted. I guess that's rule #1 of test taking. Read directions. My final $0.02 (and I mean it). I think the offer that has been given to Shalrie, as we know it, is fair. After reading this discussion both here and in MLS: N/A, I agree with those that see 300+ for a DM as bordering on excessive, especially in the overall strata of MLS wages go. I definitely think Shalrie is an outstanding player and a MAJOR part of the Revs setup, but I honestly think if I had to pick between losing Twellman and losing Shalrie, I'd let Shalrie go. of course, that's just my opinion. I don't want to see Shalrie leave, especially under bad terms, but I hope he realizes that 300,000.00 a year plus bonuses is a VERY generous offer coming from MLS. Just because they made the mistake with Armas and Chicago, doesn't mean they should do it again.
I voted 1/4. First, Shalrie/Waxman: negotiating in the papers is never pretty. Additionally, the captain responsibility/transition seems awkward and could negatively impact the team (not smooth when a personal issue impacts the greater good.) Now, Revs FO: with a player of Joseph's caliber and performance over the past few years, they should have either let him go to Celtic or locked him down months ago (especially when they knew Dempsey was gone.) Bickering over $55k in bonuses seems ridiculous. With the season starting in three weeks, they have left themselves with no contingency plan for a worst case scenario. The "do the most with the smallest salary" dynamic can only continue for so long until players would like to get paid, and Joseph was among the most deserving.
Why type out this whole huge response, when you've done it for me already. I concur. If there was a 50/50 slot, that's where I'd have gone, and this is close enough.
i'd like to see "the Revs have made a fair offer, Shalrie and his agent should realize this and try and get back to the table with the FO"
Don't get hung up on the text I provided. Figure out what that means to you in numbers and cast your vote.
Yep. This pretty much sums it up for me. I'd be equally happy if Joseph came back to the table and worked this out so he could finish his career with the Revs, or if he opted to play out his contract at his current salary and check out the transfer prospects in August (if he really wants to go to Europe). I'd truly hate to see him in another MLS uniform. But this is the modern world of sports.
I'm surprised that people would blame Shalrie in full for this situation or blame the FO in full for this. It's never that clear cut ... even with the Revs.
Weird poll. It does take two sides to argue. The Revs FO is responsible for the systematic probems which caused this impass. However, the agent/player's approach and logic is a bit weak. They could demand to transfer overseas if the opportunity ever arises again (Celtic's situation is anything but static, so it's impossible to say. They did sign Hartley, though). The problem is they want to be traded and then expect a raise a few years down the line. Do the math. They could take $300k this year, or wait a year to get 350-400k. Over a few years, the money is the same. If the Dems win in '08, it's very likely the top rates will be more (and retroactive like in 1993 even for the dead). He should take the money and a 3-4 year deal now. I doubt he'll be signed well into his mid-30's for the money he wants. I still said 4/1 Rev's fault due to the systematic cheapness with the way they run things. However, Waxman's logic just seems a little weird. I have to wonder if he's taking this approach as a trial balloon to see if it works? Agents have had little power in MLS compared to other sports. This is something he's probably trying to change.
Somebody's going to have to pay off the Reps debts... Because of Waxman's approach, this has been elevated to crisis mode. That's not the Revs' doing. Let's not forget that he is 2 years into a 4 year contract. Fine, if the player wants to renegotiate, but it's rather naive to think they should get want they want when he's signed for 2 more years. Leverage gradually shifts from ownership to player during the life of the contract. Expecting one party to "do the right thing" ignores the responsibility of the other party to live up to what they agreed to, after they've been cashing the checks.
I just read over some of the stuff I wrote today. Sorry for the political ramblings. I hope to behave better when I get back home.
we can't get a long becaus I'm a commie pinko bastard and chowda is a neo-con fasict. Chowda and I are friends (I think, I don't recall either one of us kicking the other person's dog), and share many beers at Revs games. (I think) we like arguing politics with each other
I'll ask again please ... no more politics. There's a bigsoccer politics board if you're so inclined.
I agree that it's definitely a 50/50 fault in any contract talks. It's business. One side tries to get the product for the least amount...and the other side tries to get the most $$ for a service. However, seeing that I'm totally biased against this front office and ownership for the simple reason that they ________(put in any negative) So I'll lean towards Sharlie..of course. Now granted if Sharlie Joseph's first name had been Manny..Then I'd say show him the exit and don't let the door slam him too hard in the a$$.
I put 1/4, only because it was Shalrie who signed the multiyear contract at the present salary. The Revs have every right to do what they want, since he's still under contract. But this is a great way to entice promising young players to MLS. Sign them to a long term contract at piss wages (by industry standards) for the team's most important player. Refuse to up the wages when performance merits it AND refuse any career advancement opportunities. They have the right to do it but it's a terrible long term strategy for attracting talent.
I don't think that is their strategy at all. They aren't refusing to give Shalrie a raise. They offered him almost doubled his salary. That's an excellent raise in any industry. Joseph declined it over bonus money (easily achievable bonus money). The Revs have done some wrong and probably pissed off their employee but not letting him go to Celtic, but they don't have to make him happy but blowing boat loads of money on him. They offered him a fair contract and Shalrie wants more.
The fact that they're almost doubling his salary doesn't mean it's a great raise. It means that they've been screwing him over. They can't sell him to Celtic (where he'd be earning much more than he will here) because he's too important to the team. Yet he's not in the top 30 in the league salary-wise even though he's one of the best players. The fact that they've been underpaying him is factoring into his decision about how much he wants.