CBA Thread III: The sneakers don't seem that much cheaper

Re: How do MLS Players decide to Strike?

the union goes on strike, i guess. but players who disagree can cross the picket line as scabs.

 

And you were too. That's what all your car-company analogizing and "labour law" referencing and "no corporation"-this and "any worker"-that was about. Your argument was as generalized as anyone else's, with MLS then specifically applied to that generalized context. That was the whole nature of the discussion and of the point in dispute.

That's right: It turns out they are not -- only because it was explicitly scripted that way.

You're trying to take a victory lap for something you didn't win. I just don't understand why it's so hard for people to say, "I was wrong." It doesn't hurt. And it will make everyone trust you more the next time.

 

I don't blame the players who want to make a good living and not play for peanuts. I blame every fan who was content with parity instead of embracing drastic changes within MLS, especially with the salary cap, you have to remember although it's run like a american league, NFL doesn't have to compete against other leagues.

 

The ability to do something doesn't mean the opportunity actually exists

 

With a greatly increased salary cap, 40% of these guys aren't employed anymore.

 

When they triple the the cap, are you going pay triple the ticket prices?

 

If any players are reading this thread: can I get autographs if you picket the legal headquarters of MLS, LLC in Delaware?

 

I don't have any problem with parity, i gives all teams equal grounds to compete.

Of the 14 MLS cups played so far 8 different teams have won it (7 if you take SJ and houston as one). only 4 of those teams have won it more than once. Remember that parity means equal oportunity, not equal outcome.

Nobody here is saying that the players shouldn't earn a little more money, but i don't know how those "drastic changes" could help the growth of the league and players at the same time

 

Good catch Stan. Honestly, after I first suggested this yesterday I ran scenarios for about an hour this morning and it was pretty clear (to me) that's exactly what they were doing.

I won't belabor this with all the math again, but for those who are curious here's what I think MLS did (and Foose appears to confirm):

First, here's what Foose said in the story you found:

From what we know, in recent years the cap has gone up about $100,000 per team, per year. If they increase the cap at 4.8% over the next five years as Foose says, that works out to about $115,000 per team, per year. To continue that for the 15 current teams over the next five years would require about $1.725 million per team of additional spending -- just under $26 million.

So where does the $60 million figure come from?

Ah, well, recall MLS has committed to staff three more teams during the next five years, one next year and two more the year after that. You have to add in those entire payrolls as new spending, that is, just over $13 million for Philly over five years and about $10.7 million for each of Vancouver and Portland for four years each.

Add it up, and you get to the $60 million. Just over, in fact.

Now, let's pause to let this sink in.

Of that $60 million MLS will "spend on players" in the next five years, if I've tracked this correctly about $34 million of this added spending is simply because they have three more teams and they need additional players to play for them.

For everybody else, it's essentially the status quo -- they plan to boost the cap about $115k per year. Just as they have been doing. That's their big proposal.

I'd still like to see some reporter press Abbott on it to remove all doubt -- ask him what that $60 million will mean for the spending budget of the local team over the next five years -- but again, I'm pretty sure Foose is correct and they did something akin to what I've laid out above.

Bluntly it's incredibly disingenuous of MLS to present this as they did IMO.

MLS proposes status quo adjustments to the cap with three more teams added to the mix, nothing more.

I'm not even disturbed they proposed this really -- the numbers are what the numbers are -- but the fact that they trumpeted it in the media to fans, assuming people were too dumb to figure it out, is too cute by half.

At least for me.

 

Ok. Let's do a little thought experiment with an actual MLS roster shall we. I pick SSFC. They are new but they were by no means the "best" or "most talent" laden franchise last year so should serve nicely. This is under the "what if there was no MLS" scenario, not could these guys find temporary jobs during a strike. and obviously some would make more some less some much less. the 'salaries' are estimates of total comp from the MLSPU site.

JK Hurtado - 37K - 2334 MIN: COL, could play in Columbia

J Riley - 73K - 2334 MIN: USA, equivalent to H Freeman @ IK Start (NOR)

B Evans - 45K - 2294 MIN: USA, better than B Waltrip @ Molde (NOR)

N. Jaqua - 210K - 2287 MIN: USA, better than C Kaslazkus @ Helmond (HOL)

F Montero - 155K - 2217 MIN: COL, already linked to moves to ENG Chmps

P Osvlado - 65K - 2207 MIN: CUB, came from USL could play in USSF D2

T Marshall - 160K - 2166 MIN: JAM, retire? easily as good as others playing in NOR/DEN

S Zakunai - 160K - 1993 MIN: born in ENG obviously could play in LG1 or maybe CHMP

F Ljungberg - 1.3M - 1863 MIN: obviously could play many places in Europe

S Le Toux - 112K - 1457 MIN: has FRA roots could play in FR LG2 or at worst back in USSF D2

S Nayassi - 20K - 305M: GA, played in GAM before MLS could play in GAM

Leo Gonzalez - 48K - 979 MIN: COS, could return to play in Costa Rica

Kasey Keller - 300K - 2594 MIN: USA, played in EPL at worst could play in ENG CHMP

even if we assume that no other of the fringe low income SSFC players could play in USSF D2 that is 13 of 26 players from the 2009-2010 SSFC paid roster (from MLSPU site) that would have easily had work had there been no MLS. that is 50%.

obviously just speculation but with no outlandish or excessive assumptions, all actually erred on the safe side, you get far from the "players would be screwed and have no place to play if there no MLS" trope that seems so popular.

is no MLS a good thing? obviously not. for anyone, even the players. but to act like the MLS if full of players that are so bad that almost none of the could work as pro soccer players if there were no MLS is just dumb and obviously wrong.

 

Since the salary cap is not part of the contract, doesn't any announced increase apply to the minimum salary figure? As a percentage that would be considerably higher than 4.8%. And IIRC, the percentage increase in minimum salary in the last CBA was quite handsome, especially considering the economy.

 

because i wasn't wrong. i was arguing in general that the players were not under some totalitarian contract to the MLS that precluded them from playing even if the MLS stopped having games. because labour law and contracts in general do not work that way, because people aren't ********ing morons and take things like circumstances into account before writing/signing a CBA or contract. which as it turns out is not only generally true but specifically true in the case of the MLS.

 

Agree. Maybe they were trumpeting the recession card (incrementing costs as an investment in a Bad economy), however, those numbers doesn't make anyone write their mother about it

 

Lets.

Where is Columbia? He could play in Colombia, provided someone would sign him.

Riley going abroad? Not likely, not protected in what two successive expansion drafts, foul prone and not very good with the ball at his feet.

If he's better, then why isn't he there?

Isn't Kas a defender? If so, I doubt Nate (whom I have a signed jersey from) ain't a better defender.

I guess Seattle was just to get him acclimated to the weather. So far, a poor man's Carlos Ruiz

And who cares..

Marshall would not adapt easily to the refereeing standards of pretty much any European league.

LG2/LG1

He could. Being an EU citizen helps him, his endurance at this point is highly questionable.

And again, who cares

There's a reason he's not

Hasta la Gonorrhea

Horseshit - almost singlehandedly got Fulham relegated, got Borussia Munchendonkeycock relegated

 

i mean does the league think that the best way to capture the huge wave of excitement and buzz and interest that the SSFC and TFC teams have shown is there and possible for the MLS is to, over the next five years, go from each time spending 2.7M per team to 3.2M? i mean that is 100K ish per year for 5 years right? 500K higher salary cap 5 years from now? that is going to be enough to increase the quality of each team and the whole league? to the level befitting zeitgeist that SSFC/TFC and hopefully PHI/VAN/POR/MON embody?

wow. that just strikes me as wanting to stay 3rd rate for the next 5 years and not wanting to get solidly to 2nd tier league challenging for admittance to the bottom of the first tier (7-10 in the world).

and the fans should be and stay excited about this?

 

I understand the principle behind this statement but I don't think it holds water given the USSF wants Americans developed and won't allow too many more foreign players.

So unless an increase cap lets more US players in Europe come home - and I think it would for some, especially those playing in Scandanavia - I don't think too many would get replaced.

 

Abbott is welcome to confirm that's exactly what they propose -- that the $60 million is only the beginning and given their generosity the actual cap number may be double that. I'm sure fans would love to hear him on the subject. Heck, I bet Goff would take his call tonight.

Personally, I'm not holding my breath.

They aren't bending an inch, IMO.

 

Unfortunately, most people are

 

OleGunnar20, you made that excercise with a playoff team, with dubious results as posted by Warmth, plase make the same exercise with last year's NYRB or Colorado or San Jose.

The situation it much much dire.

 

you say potato i say potato. obviously you hate the MLS and think it and the players in it are incredibly inferiour to even those playing in such illustrious leagues as DEN, NOR, FIN, and the 2nd and 3rd levels of ENG, FRA and GER. fair enough. i think the MLS and it's players are better than that. you are entitled to your opinion, even if i think it is stupid.

 

They should be excited that there is still a functioning league in the US despite all the problems it has.

You are correlating that a greater expense on players will increase the quality of each team without doubt, and that fans all over America will become suddenly MLS fans, and that my friend isn't true in the short - mid term league wide.

 

I don't believe that that is the purview of the USSF and I stand corrected if wrong, but a function of the wishes of the BoG with associated limits/loopholes allowed by US Labor Law (Green card holders).

I think we would see an influx of US born Mexican Americans into MLS (Paul Gardener creams his jeans) and the BoG relaxing said foreigner restrictions by one or two to pick up more Central/South Americans who like their checks to cash.

There are two functions to the Scandinavia/EuroFeeder problem:

It wouldn't take a whole lot to bring some of them back because of the higher taxes issue - OTC, however, w/o some movement on player movement, some players are going to be done with MLS no matter what (Rolfe) because they don't want to spend their entire career as the poacher forward converted to RW.

Players such as Segares wanted to go to Europe while they still had the chance and nothing short of a raise beyond their talent level was going to keep them.

Thank God Reyna finally retired because with a a tripled cap, the league would have wasted even more on his broke ass.

 

i picked a new team, who's overall player value according to transfrmkt.co.uk is in the middle of MLS and who while making the play offs last year were not the 'best' or 'most talent laden' team in the league. sure NYRB would be worse and maybe HOU would have been better. the point is dipshits like Mr. Warmth, as shown by his nitpicking of some very conservative projections, are obviously predisposed to believing that the MLS and the talent therein absolutely suck and that the players playing there are so terrible that without the MLS they would be "fryolating". which is typical internet overcompensation from arrogant aging rec league soccer dabblers who could never have even made a PDL teams in their lives. i couldn't have either mind you, but then it didn't make me a bitter husk who has nothing for hate for those who have the talent to play professionally in the MLS. i am all for even better players and better teams in the MLS but i just happen to think that about 50% or more of the players in the MLS are good enough to find other jobs playing soccer even if it is in a lesser league.

 

this is the money shot, the increment on the cap and additional expenses won't signify an improved quality for the fans, and that means that the owners will increment costs without incrementing revenue.