Thats a lie. Everyone else has been claiming it would be spread around and you have been claiming otherwise. If you had been claiming it would be spread around no one would have been responding.
Its difficult to insult something that is conspicuous by its absence. Thats a lie. You didn't PROVIDE any such evidence you seemed completely unaware of the phenomenon so other people brought it to your attention. Then you went out and searched for other examples. That is not providing information. That is getting one's ignorance shattered by brute force. And it is this very ignorance of the factors that affect both systems coupled with the your inability to grasp some of the concepts that surround those factors that leads to you being ridiculed. You don't have the level of understanding necessary to draw the conclusions you do.
This is why it so hard to treat you with any type of respect. You are just not bright enough. You are trying to say that if free agency was the Norm teams would have wait until players contracts run out before they can acquire them. Thats just dumb. Free agency is the norm in the US and players leave teams before their contracts run out all time. So basically that idea just got blown up. This is just a dumb dumb dumb statement that can only be made by people who do not grasp the whole picture. The transfer system is perfect for players because that is the main way they get bigger raises. Do you think Robinho would have been better off staying in Brazil until his contract runs out. That would have meant 2 more years in his prime making a quarter of what he could have made at Real Madrid. Do you think he wanted to saty in Brazil after his mother was kidnapped? The same goes for all the players who are good enough to play in the better leagues but were developed by smaller league teams. You are also being very dishonest because you have once again gone back to you claim that the money saved on transfers would go to the elite players. You keep claiming the same thing and then back off when you get reamed for the stupidity only to return to the same claims later. This is a spectacularly dumb claim to make. The length of time a player must play in MLB before he can become a free agent has absolutely no bearing on what the soccer players in Europe go through. Do you want to know why? Because in MLB free agency starts 6 or so years after you make your MLB debut. In professional soccer you can sign with nay damn team you want as soon as you turn 18 (see Gerald Pique, Guiseppe Rossi etc). The teams that signs you only has to pay a small fee to the team that developed you to cover your training expenses. That means that professional soccer players experience free agency in many cases ten years earlier than players in MLB thus rendering your point. Dumb Dumb Dumb When in doubt repeat the same thing over and over and over.
Thats a lie. You have continually stated that then you always go on to claim that is the reason he was paid 8.67 million dollars instead of the whatever much larger figure you think he could get. You clear point all through this thread has been all the money saved on transfers would be spent on salaries for top players. https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12929524&postcount=43 Not only do you say that but you also support your viewpoint by saying you believe the process works both ways. https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12677024&postcount=33 Stop lying. You made no mention of "spreading around" until you were getting reamed for the idiocy.
I don't need to prove anything. You do. Thank you captain obvious. You didn't provide anything. This is not a part of your argument since you were clearly unaware of this reality until it was pointed out to you. Furthermore this reality cripples your argument not support it. This is not a fact. This is a muddled incoherent thought filled with inferences that you are try to pass off as fact. Soccer teams make more thats a fact. The rest is all conjecture. People have already explained to you why baseball players make more. Stop repeating the same thing over and over.
If it is a lie, please find where I claimed it would NOT be spread around. Give me that quote. Spread around: Everyone gets their fair share. For example, top 4 players at Manchester United gets around 30% of the total wages. In the hypothetical situation of $40 million saving due to free transfer, these top 4 players would get their fair share (~30%) of that $40 million. I have stated that the current system is a PERFECT SYSTEM for ALL THE CLUBS involved. They won't change it. It's up to the players. I provided evidence that in 2007, the Premiership as a whole spent $840 million in net transfers. If all players were on a free, each team would have on average $42 million more. This $42 million saving would be spread around to ALL PLAYERS (not just the elite players alone). PRO-RATE it for elite player and average player: $10 mil salary player / $100 mil total salary x $42 mil = $4.2 mil a year more $3 mil salary player / $100 mil total salary x $42 mil = $1.26 mil a year more This is assuming on average, EPL club payroll is $100 mil a year and spend $42 million on net transfer.
Trades are frequent in USA free agency. But in a trade, the contract is not EXTENDED. I have stated that in some cases, it is better for players like Robinho to transfer. However, it is not wise for players to transfer from one big club to another big clubs since the salary would be about the same. LOL. I provided that example to show that BASEBALL OWNERS hate free agency. Hence, the restriction on free agency. Sure, I would love to repeat it again. $840 million a year in saving if all Premiership players were on a free. This $840 million would belong to all the players. Spread around. Obviously, the elite players would get a larger share.
Here's my reasoning: $40 million transfer fee saving for elite players: THIS GO TOWARD THE ELITE PLAYERS $8 million transfer fee saving for average players: THIS GO TOWARD THE AVERAGE PLAYERS That's my 'spreading around.' I only used the elite players and ELITE transfer fees to prove my point. It would be the same for average players only in relatively smaller amount. For example, ($8 mil transfer fee saving / 4 years = $2 mil more each year). For the average EPL player who is earning $3 mil a year, earning $2 mil more a year is not bad.
MLS/SUM: European free agency market for star players Maybe I should change the thread title to MLS/SUM: European free agency market for ALL SOCCER players I only concentrated on star players because they are high revenue earners. As an agent of an elite player, you earn 10% of $80 million contract rather than a $12 million contract. Basically, go after the high-end. Elite player: $40 mil transfer fee: $10 mil salary (saving from free transfer ---> elite player) Average player: $8 mil transfer fee: $2-3 mil salary (saving from free transfer ---> average player) Do you understand now what I mean by 'spreading around'????????
Like I have stated, the MAIN OBSTACLE for this to happen is the CLUBS. Buying clubs love transfer system Selling clubs love transfer system Clubs that break even from transfer LOVES the transfer system Major League Soccer loves transfer system (kinda ironic that I suggest that MLS should do something to get rid of the transfer system). MLB, NBA, NFL, NHL would love to have transfer system instead of free agency/trade system. Free agency/trade system favors the PLAYERS. Pure and simple. Transfer system favors the CLUBS. Just ask the Seibu Lions who got $51 million from the Boston RedSox. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Back to topic http://sportsbusinessnews.com/ Alex Rodriquez just opted out of his $91 million 3 years contract just to become a free agent. That's right. He is turning down $30 mil a year to become a free agent. Why? He knows he would get at least $30 mil a year for 6 years. Another question that I keep repeating to prove my point: Would a team be willing to pay Arod $180 mil for 6 years on top of a $80 million in transfer fee? $30 mil a year in salary + $13.3 mil a year in transfer fee? NO.
This is really getting tiresome. You have started two simultaneous threads on the same subject and got hammered in each thread. What is you response to that? You start lying about what your argument really is and keep restating the whole thing over and over and then go off on tangents about baseball and when that gets shot down you bring up something equally irrelevant.. You lack the grasp of issues at hand and as result all your arguments are flawed and everyone reading this thread. My work is done here.
62% agree with me per the poll. I know my theory is correct and can be tested if all Premiership players came and went on free transfers. The average Premiership club spent $42 million in net transfer fee in 2007. (according to BBC) The average Premiership club also spent $62 million in salary in 2007. (according to Soccernet). The total money spent on players (net transfer fee + salary) is $104 million on average per EPL club. However, the EPL players only get $62 million of it. If they all came and went on free, then it would be $104 mil out of $104 mil spent on salary. All I am saying is this: If ALL Premiership players came and went on a free, then they would earn a lot more money (40% or more). However, it will never come true because that is not how the real world work (at least for soccer). Transfer system is the norm for the sport even after the Bosman ruling. It is 'the way things are done.' You can't expect most of Premiership players to come and go on free. All I am arguing for is the 'what if' situation. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6976231.stm http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=435215&cc=5901
Do you ever get tired of saying the same thing over and over? You are wring and ever person who has ripped your ideas to threads can show proof of that. Not that you know enough to grasp what is at play here. Ignorance truly is bliss.
I was going to respond to all your baseball inaccuracies But an easier way to prove why your idea is wrong to begin with is that in any sport the only free agents are primarily older players many past there prime. So taking the Bosman transfers from La Liga, EPL and Serie A this summer here are the players you can create your new Championship Real Madrid team from. Goaltenders: Hildebrand (Valencia) Wessels (Everton), Sereni (Torino), De Lucia (Livorno), Dudek (Real Madrid), De Scantis (Sevilla) Defenders: Caceras (Villarreal) Samuel (Bolton), Cacapa (Newcastle), Harte (Sunderland), Distin (Portsmouth), Hreidarsson (Portsmouth) Midfielders: De Ridder (Aston Villa), Parnaby (Birmingham), Sidwell (Chelsea), Salihamidzic (Juventus) Forwards: Pizzaro (Chelsa), Saviola (Real Madrid), Voronin (Liverpol), Viduka (Newcastle), Vieri (Fiorentina) Also American Pro Sports is a controlled business with all franchises run by a head office with some aspect of profit sharing so what the smaller teams don't earn in transfer fees they get in other ways so I don't think any of American Pro sport would want to adapt a transfer system over free agency. Actualy there is nothing forbidding American teams trading money to attain players from a team then other players it just not in thier best interest to do so.
Prepare for a repeat of the exact same point he made months ago. Over and over and...................
LOL. Free agents are primarily older players many past their prime? You're talking about soccer. Not baseball, basketball, hockey. I told you that MLB restrict free agency by only allowing players to become a free agent after 6 years. You retorted that this does not happen in soccer and I agree. There is no restriction to becoming a free agent in soccer after the Bosman Ruling. Why don't more star players become free agents? The only well-known star players who actual did become free agents were Ballack and Beckham. But in soccer, there is no profit sharing. American sports team can't adopt a transfer system over free agency system because the players won't let them. Why? Because the Yankees/RedSox/Dodgers/Mets would have $50 million less each year to spend on salary.
Here's another repeater with FACTS, please listen carefully: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6976231.stm http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/st...435215&cc=5901 £420 million are transfered out of the Premiership each year. If every players came and went as free agents, that £420 million stays. Right now an average Premiership club spent: £31 million in salary a year (per Soccernet link) £21 million in net transfer a year (per BBC link) Hypothetical: All Premiership players came and went on FREE TRANSFERS, the average Premiership salary could increase from £1.1 mil to £1.86 mil (69% increase).
The fact is this: $840 million was transfered out of the Premiership in 2007. What would happen if $1260 mil ($840 mil x 30 MLB teams / 20 EPL teams) was transfered out of Major League Baseball in 2007? Would they be able to pay the players the same salary? No. The only difference is that ALL MLB PLAYERS (with a few Japanese exceptions) came and went as free agents while MANY EPL PLAYERS came and went as transfer target with $6 mil to $50 million price tag. ------------------ I would agree with you that the transfer system is here to stay. It is the norm for the sport of soccer. It helps the sport and it is very benefitial to all clubs (buying and selling). However, I have demonstrated that it is not benefitial for the players in the top leagues.
First how well has Beckham and Ballack done for there new teams if you ask me I would rather pay 8m for Nani and his 3m a year contract then pay 10m for either Beckham or Ballack salery and get them on a free. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosman_rule An addendum to this rule means that a player may move in the final year of a four or five year contract provided he hands in a request to the club no more than 15 days after the end of the previous season. The club would be entitled to compensation, but only equaling the amount of the final year's wages as per the contract, which would be far less than an agreed transfer fee in most cases. In addition, the player would have to move to a club that isn't in the same association as his current club. Wigan were the first club to take advantage of this new ruling as they signed Andy Webster from Hearts, although there is still an ongoing challenge to this ruling by Hearts who believe that the £625,000 either Andy Webster or Wigan must pay them is not adequate compensation. Thats the whole bosman rule with all the legal mumble jumble so you can read that as well since your so interested - http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/c...plus!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=en&numdoc=61993J0415 So you still have to pay the teams some money which you don't mention as well the picking is always going to be weak since you have to grab forign talent at the end of there 4/5 year contract. I also think you killed your point buy saying big teams lose money throuigh transfer market in the first place and it hurts them. The reason top teams don't make money on the transfer window is because they use up the players talent to help themselves win championships and build thier own brand which is far more profitable to the team then a one time sale. Example Arsenal could of sold Henry 4 years ago for a large profit but instead they kept him and the 70 goals he scored made them the most profitable team in football. Another thing that kills your point is most players would not want to be free agent because the pickings in soccer is very weak. Most players will get as much for there current team then if they went to free agency. List the teams in soccer who can pay 8m a year saleries and how much room to they even have.