Okay, I'm hearing that some voting inside the building is taking place on whatever this latest proposal is. #MLSCBA— Brooke Tunstall (@YesThatBrooke) March 4, 2015 What I cant get anyone to confirm is whether it's just the reps voting or if this is going to go to all the players league-wide. #MLSCBA— Brooke Tunstall (@YesThatBrooke) March 4, 2015
It's MLS. If they've got the American Cristiano Ronaldo on their hands, they'll bend, break or create new rules to make that player happy. Hell, half the fun is reading the process they concoct for "allocating" that kind of player.
If I'm a star prospect I'm a little worried about signing up and hoping Don bends the rules for me. I'll pass and take lower level Euro league and keep my options open. Personally having a more attractive stepping stone for young talent is better then breaking the rules for the ones that do join and breakout. You cast a wider net doing the first, which with youth prospects is key because who the hell knows how he's gonna turn out.
"Founding teams get first dibs" is something I would not be opposed to...again in the "spirit" of negotiations can we get Sac. Republic FC into the carpool lane for becoming a franchise?
The rules of two CBAs ago didn't prevent Michael Bradley and Jozy Altidore from choosing MLS. Playing at home will always have a pull on a player. Each CBA makes the job of getting young players into the league easier than the last. This is a process, there isn't a switch you can just flip and fix everything.
kinda sad that even some of the worst run professional organizations can't compete with congress in terms of incompetency.
It ain't even last call on I wish Cahill was still in MLS. Why didn't the Red Bulls start him, again?
I'd totally sell out the players if it meant getting SRFC into MLS. No, I'm not an entirely virtuous person.
We're talking about a guy with leverage. Don would be bending rules before you signed, to just get you in the door. You're options would remain open because if you have an agent worth his salt, you're dictating terms that keep it that way. Basically, the larger point is that there's no point fretting over league rules limiting such players because they'll always make exceptions. It's not ideal of course and I'd rather they allowed for such things in advance but it is what it is.
The question is would u sell out the players and the entire league right now for DC flipping the script and winning the CCL?
Not at all... Management will often tell the Union that their latest "final" offer should be put to a membership vote...and the Union will sometimes agree...allow the membership to vote it down...and return to the table armed with a clear membership message that management's offer is unacceptable... Typically a vote to approve an offer comes after a tentative agreement is reached between the Union bargaining team and management...not out of the question however that a tentative agreement has been reached with the Union deciding to only release that information to the membership... Could go either way...
To your point about teams not paying transfer fees, that just seems to be a result of not wanting to spend that much money. There's no MLS rule preventing a team from dropping $10 million on a transfer. The competitive balance point makes sense, but I'd argue that's due to the (low) average quality of american players the hypothetical transfers would be playing with.
Still not following you. Teams don't say, hmmm, how much are our costs, now let's set prices. They say, hmmmm, how can we maximize revenue. Same with every product under the sun. They cost what the market will bear. If that product is wildly profitable, the company doesn't cut prices. They take the profits. Then that company gets competitors. I think you don't understand things.
Mucky said: ↑ "No of course not. But any rule needs to also not penalize young talent or deter them from joining MLS. A 16 year old prodigy would be entitled to free agency after 5 or 6 years just s much, perhaps even more than anyone else." Yes that is true, I didn't really state the case very well using an outlier as an example. Sure if the guy is a wonder-kid he is sure to be able to command more than MLS could offer anyway regardless of free agency but what about those young players who fall somewhere in between, the maybes that have tentative offers from Championship level clubs to see if they grow in the reserves? Sure some will be duds but some will turn out to be top level players. What is MLS doing to keep those players coming through from the US youth systems within MLS? Aren't they putting obstacles in their way that don't exist elsewhere with strict denial of free agency for young players? Sure they could leave as free agents earlier if they improve but MLS will have missed out on having them initially and having the chance to keep them in the league if they reach a better level by basically showing they don't value them at all from the off. Wouldn't an American kid coming through MLS and playing for the national team be worth more than foreign big name DP to the league in marketing value? It seems a little short sighted to me.
No, there are seemingly plenty based on comments over the last month or two (Westside Cosmos for one).
That's why Concacaf and Conmebol should merge. Create a new Champions League, a secondary club cup, Copa America........money, money, money, money.....MONEY! Then we'll be able to attract the big players.
No but including it in the cap makes the quality of internationals being brought in a lot lower. If it wasn't included teams could pay 200k-500k transfer fees for some higher quality internationals which would boost the leagues quality without killing the budget or making them a low level DP. I know this was a sticking point for Mario Martinez who wasn't amazing, but well worth the 75K we would have paid him, just not the 200k-300k fee we would have had to pay. Good players aren't often available on a free transfer, time for MLS to get with the program.
Just read that the vote may be on whether to play week one while bargaining continues... This of course is typically when management locks out the players but hopefully both sides are in agreement that bargaining should continue along with week one play... If the speculation about the vote is correct...
My illusions of switch hitting are LONG gone (inevitable after working for a DC-based think tank during the Bush Administration), but I don't think we can use a sports labor dispute as a perfect litmus test here. It's always a tough slog to ask people to pick one side consistently when both sides are people you respect. Especially when the universal principles are not tangible, while the unique particulars of each dispute are. That said, the id comes out sometimes, and I doubt you are incorrect re: your particular assertion.