That $60m includes Philly, Vancouver, and Portland, along with lowering the raises in contracts from ~5.6% to i think 4.8%. It is a horribly disingenuous representation...
It better be good news. I'm ready for the Crew to hoist the shield and cup this year. This is the only thing in the way.
that's a new quote to me. i thought this wasn't really about rights. why do both sides keep mentioning "rights" and why is the league offering proposals that "provide significantly more rights to the players?"
Except that it does mean something, insofar as "the public mood" plays into the assorted decisions of the assorted parties involved.
Correct, the players could strike at any time. We may see the union hold a strike vote too, but then say they've agreed to hold off to give the owners one more chance. You then see if the owners give anything up, lockout the players, or say we dare you to.
The only way the public will know MLS is on strike will be if Jim Rome picks it up on JRIB tonight *Hi JStu*
I'd be more patient than that and await the triple-dog dare. (or at least double-dog dare the league to lock the players out.) edit: can we please work the phrase "triple-dog dare" into the CBA Thread V title?
Huh? We're the relevant public. We're the ones arguing about the "what is right" and "what should be" that was being remarked upon.
exactly. the thought of the league enticing the union to get their tongue stuck to the frozen flag pole is almost too precise. "Well go on, Smart-ass, and do it!"
That is why MLS pays them more for doing less. Since other markets have various restrictions on US players, MLS is doing what it can to keep their wages down.
The only way the MLSPU wins this is with a Boesky, a Jim Brown, a Miss Daisy, two Jethros and a Leon Spinks, not to mention the biggest Ella Fitzgerald ever.
Has anyone ever figured out who those are supposed to be in Ocean's 11? The two Jethros were the Mormons from Utah, I got that one. The old guy that faked the heartattack would either be Jim Brown or Leon Spinks?
I want to come back to this because I think there's an important thing here that's been forgotten. You're absolutely right, the League's way of putting this in their public statement was disingenous at best. It was so absurd that at first I couldn't believe we were interpreting the statement correctly, because I couldn't believe the League would make a PR error like that. At the same time, though, I think there's a reflex to ignore the new spending associated with the expansion teams; and I think that's a mistake. Through the very process that we as fans don't like -- the dilution of talent in the League that comes from expansion -- the players currently benefit. How? Because players that formerly were bench players, with salaries to match, become or have a chance to become starters on an expansion team with salaries to match. As someone else here (can't remember who) mentioned, consider James Riley at Seattle. Before he went to Seattle, he'd reached the point where he was a bench player. Now, he's a starter for a pretty fair team. Expansion creates opportunities for lower-level players in the League to move up, with salaries to match. Obviously that's not the same as a cap increase; but it's not something that should be completely ignored, either.