MLS needs to start caring about the USMNT again

Discussion in 'USA Men' started by adam tash, Jun 9, 2019.

  1. a_new_fan

    a_new_fan BigSoccer Yellow Card

    Jul 6, 2006
    fifa claims the clubs operate separate of each other so the thing you talk about can't exist. they dont care about valuation and the long/adams situations prove it.
     
  2. onefineesq

    onefineesq Member+

    Sep 16, 2003
    Laurel, MD
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    So a person who claims that MLS is corrupt is now putting all his eggs in the basket on the word of FIFA (and the owner of the 2 teams in question who have every single motive in the world to be less than truthful)?!?! Yeah, ok. I have now heard it all now and will move on from this discussion.
     
    Grumpy in LA repped this.
  3. a_new_fan

    a_new_fan BigSoccer Yellow Card

    Jul 6, 2006
    facts are simple

    long's agent is complaining about a made up valuation that would magically change to a fraction if the red bulls wanted to move him to another red bulls club.

    I am saying he is correct

    the proof is the valuation they have given is way above his market value and they moved tyler adams for a fraction of his market value...to another red bull club.

    you can argue these facts and pretend that they actually think they are going to get 15 million for him but they aren't and they clearly don't want 15 million either. a guy can also make a claim about 80 million for defenders...who are much better and have better resumes then long and of course that is one guy not not a regular thing like the poster kind of hints it is...but the fact is long's agent is 100% correct. Its a made up valuation just to hinder his transfer and if they wanted to move him within their system his price would be a tiny fraction of what it is.
     
  4. deejay

    deejay Member+

    Feb 14, 2000
    Tarpon Springs, FL
    Club:
    Jorge Wilstermann
    Nat'l Team:
    Bolivia
    UEFA's FFP regulations are a huge reason for RB to deflate Adam's valuation. I don't even know why this is being argued.
     
    adam tash and gogorath repped this.
  5. jaykoz3

    jaykoz3 Member+

    Dec 25, 2010
    Conshohocken, PA
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Proof? So far the only side talking is Long's agent. Has RB come out and stated their valuation of their player? Have any of the reportedly interested teams come out and said they have been rebuffed in their pursuit of the player?
     
  6. Nick79

    Nick79 Member

    May 4, 2015
    Club:
    Olympiakos Piraeus
    I'd want my own team that I root for to have the leverage, because I care more about them winning the league title than being a farm team for the USMNT.
     
    jaykoz3 and DHC1 repped this.
  7. DHC1

    DHC1 Member+

    Jun 3, 2002
    NYC
    That's perfectly understandable but that's not what the USSF should be working towards as it should be its goal to have as good a USMNT as possible and exerting leverage to help that happen.
     
    Marius Tresor repped this.
  8. a_new_fan

    a_new_fan BigSoccer Yellow Card

    Jul 6, 2006
    Because the are not even close to violating it
     
  9. a_new_fan

    a_new_fan BigSoccer Yellow Card

    Jul 6, 2006
    Yes west ham has made multiple bids and no rb doesn't have to tell you but with the agent talking specifics and west ham making bids on top of red bull saying nothing things are clear.
     
  10. EruditeHobo

    EruditeHobo Member+

    Mar 29, 2007
    San Francisco, CA
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    No, you don't.

    "Selling" clubs get every last dime they can when they have an in-demand player. That means sticking to your guns and extracting maximum value in cases where you, as the selling club, are holding all the cards. Like when a player just signed a new deal and is attracting interest from rich leagues, for instance.
     
    Mahtzo1 and jaykoz3 repped this.
  11. Mahtzo1

    Mahtzo1 Member+

    Jan 15, 2007
    So Cal
    The thing to remember is that the mission statement of USSF is far more inclusive than many wish it to be. USSF's mission statement is to support and promote soccer "in all its forms". As such, international competition is a relatively small part of the USSF's supposed focus. I know many suggest USSF should create rules that would support the USMNT at the expense of MLS (not suggesting you are saying this) but the ideal (according to the mission statement) is that USSF maximizes the standing of soccer as a sport in the US. One of the goals should be to have the best USMNT possible but it should (based upon the mission statement) also be trying to maximize the quality/standing of MLS (and USL) in US sports. https://www.ussoccer.com/about

    the only reason that I point this out is that I feel that the "proper" direction of USSF is not so cut and dry. There are a few obvious requirements (in no particular order):
    1. MLS must be viable and able to continue growth. (promoting B1 or EPL is hardly promoting soccer in the US).
    2. The USMNT is a huge source of pride (most years) and the success of the national team is vital to the growth of soccer in the US.
    3. In addition to helping with the success of the USMNT, top US players help grow the sport, regardless of where they play and they are also a source of pride which furthers the status of soccer in the US. In order to maximize their potential, top US players must play at the highest levels....which at the moment are not in the US.

    I could go on and I am sure that everyone on this list can think of several "requirements"...many of which are conflicting. The issue is that conflict.
     
  12. adam tash

    adam tash Member+

    Jul 12, 2013
    this is a fair point.

    sure, I'd love MLS to sell more (any?) domestic players this window....and in the future....but if reasonable valuations aren't met and the offers are lowballs...then it is more than fair for MLS to say no....

    there's a bit of "long-term pissing contest" going on here....EU clubs have a lot to lose if they cave and start paying MLS big bucks for their players as the interest is only likely to increase as the years pass.....

    that said, I think there's a bit of insanity on MLS' part here....Long making 78k or whatever...and then gettting 600 or 800k or whatever from MLS, while refusing to go any higher b/c of what other CBs in the league make ...and then turning around and saying he is worth 15m....is hypocritical at best...and the player has every right to be heated.

    from a business perspective, MLS suppressing salaries whule also attempting to maximize transfers makes "sense" (in a Machiavellian way)...but something tells me that if MLS started paying its players closer to what other top leagues do....they'd start getting a lot higher offers from the bigger leagues for their players....and I'm not quite sure they realize this.

    pretty sure the lowball offers EU clubs make for MLSers has a lot do with the salaries that MLS pays.
     
  13. bsky22

    bsky22 Member+

    Dec 8, 2003
    I think you are describing established and succesful selling clubs. Those teams have a long track record of developing players, creating interest from multiple buyers, selling the players, and significant data on whether the valuations were high or low.

    None of that sounds like MLS. A player of interest pops up now and again. The interest is usually soft and the buyer is looking for a "cheap" player base on the potential they see in them. Deals often dont get done because MLS values their players like they have the track record of the teams described. The results on these deals have been mixed over the years. Can you think of an American player that a team thought they got a great deal on? I can think of many where a team over payed.

    The rest of the world views MLS as a place they might be a able to find cheap, but not completely proven players. That isnt going to change by demanding multiples of what they want to pay. It is only going to change by having more and more Tyler Adam's type of situations. As that happens, there will be more interest in the players and the prices will go up.
     
  14. EruditeHobo

    EruditeHobo Member+

    Mar 29, 2007
    San Francisco, CA
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Then you should use different language, I only responded to what you said.

    Either way, a club owes nothing to a player about moving them on to a greater opportunity. An organization that just gave a player a big raise is under no requirement to be at all reasonable with their player valuation, I'm not sure what you're talking about there. Being unreasonable and in some cases ridiculous is what gets them (selling clubs and leagues) the healthy transfer fees, when they do happen.

    Tyler Adams is not relevant to this situation, as Long isn't owned by an American offshoot of West Ham.
     
    jaykoz3 repped this.
  15. DHC1

    DHC1 Member+

    Jun 3, 2002
    NYC
    Well, team that show no interest in acceding to players wishes get a pretty bad reputation. Quite frankly, I think MLS is learning this lesson in how it treated youth prospects as there is a flood of players heading overseas compared to before and part of that is because of how MLS treated its players historically.

    I’ll again say that it’s doesn't appear that NYRB are playing particularly rough here if they’ve only turned down a $3.5m mid season offer as rumored.
     
  16. bsky22

    bsky22 Member+

    Dec 8, 2003
    Maybe I could have chosen words you liked better but my point was very clear. Teams dont BECOME selling teams by trying to extract every dollar on every transfer.

    I never said they owed the player anything. I said these actions are contrary to their stated goal of becoming a selling league. The league has a reputation of being difficult to deal with and uses every bit of leverage to keep salaries down. They operate as if they have no idea where they fit in the global game. There are definitely correlations between valuations, salaries, and time on remaining contract. MLS ignores all of them. I think in situations like this, they know as little about the business side of things as they do the soccer side. Until the league as a whole changes how they do things, Id prefer all of our talented players avoid the league. They have been successful recently picking up kids under 18 but outside of Pomykal there wasnt much MLS talent on that u20 side.

    I dont think this is true even in your very narrow minded way you are looking at it. If West Ham is the only club interested (thought it was another team), then the player isnt worth $15M. The point that Leipzig and Salzburg arent interested is another sign of that and also one of the ways that Adams is relevant. My point about Adams wasnt about what he sold for, but in retrospect what teams will be thinking about when they look at the next MLS player. The more players that transisition seemlessly from MLS, the more other teams will be wiling to pay.
     
  17. EruditeHobo

    EruditeHobo Member+

    Mar 29, 2007
    San Francisco, CA
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    "Worth" is relative, you don't decide what they are worth, the market does. And a player on a new deal, regardless of the number of bidders, is only "worth" what the parent club is willing to sell them for.

    This is really horrible logic... the more clubs that get decent deals lowballing MLS clubs on their important players that just signed new contracts, the more money there will be for MLS clubs to sell to Europe! No. You're just flat-out wrong.

    You haven't demonstrated you know what it means to be a selling club or a selling league. Selling clubs get every dollar for their in-demand players. Long seems to fit this bill, there's lots of logic behind this argument. Selling him for 3.5M dollars or whatever WHU bid, it's just poor business. So you're not saying they should be a selling league, you're saying they should do business poorly. This is a terrible argument.

    Since they gave him a big extension and huge raise, they are probably more interested in the player actually playing for them... which considering he signed the deal probably has something to do with his wishes, I'd imagine? Oh right, players wishes change with the wind these days.

    Either way, someone can meet their valuation or not. He signed the deal he's on. If he wants to take it to the next level, demand transfer request, sit out, etc, that's up to him. Doesn't seem like that's his gameplan though.

    Couldn't agree more, this is nothing... this is what clubs everywhere do to every other club that wants to sign their important players.
     
  18. bsky22

    bsky22 Member+

    Dec 8, 2003
    Value of something isnt what one person/group thinks it is. It is just silly to say the value of a player is what the parent club is willing to sell for... that isnt the market. The market is where the player clears in an actual transaction.

    It is really just basic economics. The false assumption is that MLS could create a similar player, but if it were met, there would be more demand for the player and price would go up.

    You continue to not get my argument. By your logic, Garber is a moron for saying that they wanted to be a selling league. I continue to say for MLS to BECOME a selling league, they need to develop more/better players and create demand for them. I didnt say they should sell him for whatever offer they got. I said their $15M valuation is absurd and nobody is going to pay it. I think I have written in this thread that if that is their counter then there is no need for further negotiations.

    Your definition of a selling team seems narrow and uniform. Do you think Ajax negotiates the same a bottom half of the table eridivisie side or a Danish side? They can all be selling sides but the dynamics of the quality of player, the buying teams, the selling teams need for cash, etc mean the approaches will be very different.
     
  19. KCbus

    KCbus Moderator
    Staff Member

    United States
    Nov 26, 2000
    Reynoldsburg, OH
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    This whole discussion is getting circular.

    Every league is different, every club is different, and certainly every player is different. For that matter, everyone looking to buy will also be different. To try to slap a one-size-fits-all mold on top of all of them is pointless.

    If NYRB think they have a potential gold mine on their hands, they should demand top dollar. If it turns out they're wrong, that's their problem. But like any business, they're going to have hits and misses. Either way, they shouldn't be making the decision based on whether or not the player's national team career will be advanced.
     
    Nick79, jaykoz3, Mahtzo1 and 1 other person repped this.
  20. EruditeHobo

    EruditeHobo Member+

    Mar 29, 2007
    San Francisco, CA
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    No one cares about "the market", least of all... selling clubs! Selling clubs very often get well above "market value", all things considered. Because they set their own valuation, and that's the only one that really matters in the end.

    So your definition of how selling clubs should act is based on a false assumption?

    What does this have to do with Long.

    There is only one definition for a "selling club" when it comes to an important player of theirs, that's what you aren't understanding. There is no "path" that needs to be followed to "become" a selling club. When a club has a talent on a long-term deal, and then they have one of the top 20 richest clubs by valuation in the world (and top 25 or so by yearly revenue) coming in to try to buy that important player, they sell for above market value. Especially in today's market.
     
    An Unpaved Road repped this.
  21. An Unpaved Road

    An Unpaved Road Member+

    Mar 22, 2006
    Club:
    --other--
    I think people read too much into that selling league comment by Garber. He actually said "more of a selling league", which is less definitive, and specifically cited the Alphonso Davies transfer as a positive for the league. I don't think he meant to suggest he endorses a league wide policy to always sell at the first offer.
     
  22. DHC1

    DHC1 Member+

    Jun 3, 2002
    NYC
    MLS is a minor league and while players willingly sign there, I’d guess the overwhelming majority want to play at a higher level. It’s usually their skill level that’s the impediment rather than the selling club. I’m trying to think of a B2/Championship team that hordes its better players and doesn’t have a open discussion with players who have a real opportunity to play at a higher level.

    As I said, they don’t have to bend over at any price (particularly mid-season) but there should be an acknowledgement that a reasonable price should make it happen.

    FWIW, I think the “huge raise” point is misleading as he was making peanuts before - I think our U20 players in the Netherlands make more than he did before this contract even though they’re playing for youth teams. The huge raise goes to how poorly we pay the low end of each team’s roster and the corresponding lack of depth.
     
  23. EruditeHobo

    EruditeHobo Member+

    Mar 29, 2007
    San Francisco, CA
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    #548 EruditeHobo, Aug 13, 2019
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2019
    There are a bunch of lower-level players that don't get sent up to the big leagues at the first low bid "just because".

    Arsenal just had to pony up 25M pounds for a young fullback from Celtic. Their first bid was 15M.
    Sessegnon was just signed by Spurs for 25M, which could rise to 30M. Fulham initially said they valued him at 45M.

    Not letting one of your important players go for the first bid isn't "hording" players and not having an open discussion with them.
     
    deejay repped this.
  24. DHC1

    DHC1 Member+

    Jun 3, 2002
    NYC
    I think you’re responding to me - I’ve been pretty clear that I don’t think RBNY is in the wrong here from what’s been leaked but you specifically stated that:

    a club owes nothing to a player about moving them on to a greater opportunity. An organization that just gave a player a big raise is under no requirement to be at all reasonable with their player valuation.

    I disagree with the first sentence entirely and with the intent behind the second (acknowledging that there is no legal requirement).
     
  25. EruditeHobo

    EruditeHobo Member+

    Mar 29, 2007
    San Francisco, CA
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    You also suggested clubs that don't immediately sell players are "hording" them, and said you can't think of examples of Championship players not getting a move when a bid occurs.

    If the guy wanted to move on for 3M he should not have signed the deal he signed, that's really all I'm saying. Play your contract, if the talent is there the bids won't evaporate. The club/league has no requirement to be somehow invested in, let alone pushing for, that player's future transfer just because the player wants it or the club is a big step up. It's just business. Maybe some clubs are invested in making that happen, or maybe some clubs even use it as a recruitment tool... that's great if it works for them. But should Celtic be super happy to take 15M for Tierney because he's fulfilling a lifelong dream by transferring to the prem?

    No. They can be happy for him when Arsenal gets closer to their valuation of the player, which is what happened. That's how these things go, especially when it comes to players that have very little leverage.

    Apart from that I'm not sure what your point is. This happens all the time.
     

Share This Page