Its important because we are debating if there is any reason for nyrb to sell long and if their playoff position is a reason not to. It's easy to agree to a buy clause when nobody wants you then u play well and realize that is dumb .its the same idea when s baseball player agrees to any club option. The red bulls sold him midseason I just haven't seen an argument that justifies saying they cant do the same with long.
At this point I'm just going to assume you don't know what you're talking about. He signed his contract in February..... AFTER he had just been named MLS player of the year and AFTER he had been capped 4 times by the national team. Pretty sure the Red Bulls weren't the only ones that wanted him, which is why he was given a multi-year contract with a reported average annual value of $900K. The Red Bulls did not move Adams midseason. It's a simple as that. They entered into an agreement to move him at the conclusion of the season because they wanted him to remain with them because they felt it gave them a better chance to win. In the same way keeping Long absolutely gives the Red Bulls a better chance of winning. To argue otherwise is asinine. Your argument seems to be, "Who cares, it's the Red Bulls, they won't win anyway." Well, I'd argue the Red Bulls care. I suppose they could enter into an agreement now to sell Long at the end of the season as they did with Adams, but at this point the only concrete offer we know of is from West Ham, who apparently can't complete the move because he is unable to obtain a work permit. So that is moot anyway. Again, if any other team wants him they can have him during this window, they just have to meet the release clause. A value that was set by both NYRB and Long less than six months ago.
Red Bull didn't really sell Adams -- they promoted him. Whether we're talking about transfer fee or "letting him go" it's important to note that the decision makers were the same on both sides of the team front. The transfer fee was just enough to mollify MLS corporate, and there was not concern about letting go, because he was staying with Red Bull. They kept him for the season, made a run at the Cup, didn't and moved him on. Easy decision making.
I think players should generally expect to be bound by the terms of their contracts. If you sign a contract, you can't really expect your team to release you just because you see a potential better opportunity across the pond. If some other team wants you, they need to be willing to make an offer to your current team that is better for your current team than the status quo. It's not unreasonable or unfair for a team to turn down an offer for a high quality player if they need that player for the season.
Agreed. The USMNT has an interest in having its players play at the highest level possible and hopefully all above MLS/B2/Championship. To that end, where they can help create leverage is at the point of signing contracts so that players have as much leverage to sign shorter contracted with reasonable buyout clauses (and I think $5m is reasonable). There are multiple ways that the USSF can assist players to be in better negotiating positioning with their club teams (not just MLS) but I’m guessing that MLS would fight tooth and nail as it’s in their interest to have as much leverage as possible, particularly with youth players.
nah players have a short and small window to make moves to bigger and better clubs. As a player if you have a chance and would like to make a move you should do what you can to make that move.
Well, sure. But if you've signed a contract, you should expect to live by it. You shouldn't assume your MLS team is going to let you go just for the sake of doing you a solid.
tyler adams moving to germany was mentioned in like may there is no way within the single org that they waited until the season was over with and then though..oh lets start figuring out a tyler adams transfer to germany. It isn't they can agree to it now and make it official at the end of the season; they can do it now and loan him for the rest of the mls season there are a bunch of reasons why they don't need to wait. If long wants out what benefit is it to the team to keep him there.
its very good business to sell a player before their contract runs out. If I told you that you had to choices...three million dollars now or nothing in 6 or 12 months...which is a better deal? chelsea sold hazard before his contract was up...do you view that as a mistake they should've just held onto him and passed on all of that cash? How about Dortmund with pulisic? They sold him with a year and a half left and they loaned him back for the second half of the year. Was that bad business by Dortmund should they just held onto him until his contract ran out and got nothing? Oh and by the way look what they did with that money and tell that isn't brilliant business by them.
Yeah, I’m aware. Never suggested the agreement to move Adams wasn’t in place during the season. Simply that the move didn’t actually take place until after the season because the NYRB didn’t want to let him go midseason. As for Long, if you know of someone willing to pay for Long now and loan him back to NYRB for the remainder of the season, then please provide a link because i’ve seen nothing to indicate that. Otherwise, the price to force a move (assuming Long agrees) is $5 mln. I don’t think NYRB should sell him for less. Not midseason and not when he just signed a new contract that runs for several more years so they are in no danger of losing him in 6-12 months for nothing.
Depends. Do I still need that player for the rest of the season? Can I replace the player with someone without a downgrade in my roster? And, as has been pointed out to you, Aaron Long isn't going anywhere in " 6-12 months." The primary business of a soccer team is to win soccer games. In the long term, potentially winning MLS Cup is worth more to RBNY than a one-time transfer fee of a few million dollars.
so you are saying that nobody would purchase a player and then loan them back for the rest of that season(which would only be the first half of their season) and I need to provide links for teams that would do that?
not even close the mls cup is a drop in the bucket real profit comes from expansion team fees. rbny lost the the nwsl last week in tv ratings...sorry to break the news they don't have a fanbase they are half a step up from the crew.
Right....let's do some quick math shall we? In 2020 MLS is adding two teams, Miami and Nashville. Nashville paid $150M. $150M divided by 24 teams equals roughly a one time payment of $6.25M per team. Oh, and each team now gets a lower cut of the TV, & Sponsorship money pool......and each investor/operator also has less shares in Soccer United Marketing..... Can we stop with this absolute nonsense that MLS is living off of the expansion fees now???
Right, it’s becoming more and more clear that you have no idea what you’re talking about. I’ll try to use small words. For RBNY, winning an MLS Cup would create buzz and positive PR. Which would attract more fans, and create more revenue over the long term. Now, as a DC fan, I want the Metros to keep face planting. But, I can’t fault them for reaching for the brass ring. The goal of every MLS team is to win MLS Cups. That’s what will make teams financially successful over the long term, not making a few bucks off selling players every once in a while.
no we can't you can't tell me the crew are financially ok with the way they've been run the last five years....there is something that is holding them up...what could it be. teams are losing money but they just keep adding teams and some of those teams don't even try at first. Cinci made no effort to compete this year...none. Minn made no attempt....how could you spend that kind of money to buy a franchise and then say...hey we'll finish in last thats fine. Its all pretty simple.
is it really? You've watched the crew the last 3/4 years do you think they go into seasons aiming for the cup or even thinking about it? Did Cinci start this season thinking about the cup? NE? Houston? Colorado? Orlando? Philly? the idea that every club is trying to win is a fan myth. They are simply looking to make money sorry to break the news to you.
Ah yes, the all these moronic billionaires are willfully entering into a giant Ponzi scheme theory. Man you’ve really cracked the code.
exactly what it is you think billionaires are going to invest in something that bleeds money on a yearly basis if there isn't financial upside? I'll give you the most basic example The flordia/miami marlins purchased in 2002 for 168 million...got a new stadium that came with 370 mill from the county and 130 million from the city but they still had high rent costs which were covered by the 153 in revenue sharing he got over a five year stretch lol. he complained of yearly operating losses(also covered by the revenue sharing) he had four winning seasons in 14 years so I ask you....why? If its about 'winning' how can a guy run the team so poorly how can he just sit there and watch the team lose it makes no sense he even let his best players go on a regular basis for cheap. What is the value in owning the team he wasn't trying to win and just piling up losses yearly it doesn't make sense. oh wait he sold the team last year for 1.2 billion dollars...yeah he made out pretty well if ur confused how that transfers to mls if you are ne and ur costs are fixed(salary cap) and easily done so because you stay away from dp you know that as long as ur 'revenue' is above a certain point...you make money. With every team that is added the value of the single entity goes up. Simply put 10 franchises are worth more then 8 and 35 more then 30. So you get that check for each expansion team and the value of ur team goes up because of the team that is added. This is also why the crew situation was so awkward he wanted to move them but mls would much rather just add a team to increase the value so they gave him a team lol and then just had the new owner pay in for a percentage of the entity.
That isn’t what a Ponzi scheme is, but whatever, I know you’re on a roll now. Costs have been far from fixed. Over the last ten years average and median total per team spending has increased 329% and 390% respectively. Your NE example isn’t exactly timely either considering they’ve signed two DPs in the last six months including spending a reported $6 mln on Bou. In this window alone we’ll likely see multiple eight figure transfer fee outlays and total league wide spending that appears likely to crack nine figures. Stadiums and training facilities continue to be built/planned and unlike your Jeffrey Loria example have been predominantly self financed. Teams continue to add USL teams (up to 13 now with more planned) and academies continue to be built out. All of that is being financed by expansion fees? LOL, OK. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
ponzi scheme....new money in...'profits for the people already there' so you need to keep new money coming in to make 'profits'...which they keep doing. How is that different? If that isn't true why does mls keep adding teams? I mean at some point they should stop right? they have atleast 10 terrible markets right now but they just keep adding teams and raising the fees(more owners to pay off on their 'profits'). Would love to see the details of the spending increase as all mls financial documents are private. Also great trick...going back ten years. Ten years ago 11 of the teams didn't exist and one team that did is now gone. Ten years ago it was a 14 team league it was a different league entirely so saying the league spending increased over ten years...well yeah but that doesn't prove what you say it does. Atlanta by themselves raised the average and mean and median spending that doesn't mean anything. I have to admit I am a little confused what you are even trying to prove. You are saying that teams are spending to try to win(which isn't true) and incurring huge losses but then you say the billionaires wouldn't do that(which I agree they wouldn't and they aren't). So the issue is which is it? Are teams secretly just making money somehow(despite claiming losses) in the manner other then what I said? Where are those gains coming from? I don't think you understand its all about the value of their equity they have that is where the value is. It isn't in day to day operations.
You're all over the place with your examples. Of the original MLS teams, the Galaxy is probably the only one that has been cash flow positive, over its lifetime, for its owners. The idea that MLS owners can just sit around and make money off of occasional expansion fees is nonsense. Taken as a whole, over its entire existence, MLS has lost money. MLS ownership is a long-term proposition, based on increasing team valuation over time as the league grows in popularity. So, taking it back to your point from a few pages ago: selling players at a discount is not a smart business move for MLS teams. For a team like RBNY, winning titles will make the team more popular and bring in much more long-term revenue than a one-off sale for a few million dollars (of which, the team probably only gets to keep around 60%). MLS' long-term success hinges on increasing the quality of play, which will put more butts in seats, and more eyes on screens. Selling players on the cheap in the hopes of improving the USMNT works directly counter to that goal.
Except, the teams that are making money, are the new teams in MLS. Teams like Seattle, Portland, Atlanta, LAFC etc. are the ones generating revenue. It's the legacy teams that are sitting on years of losses. So, no, it's not any type of scheme to fool the new teams. Or, do you think the owners of Atlanta United are sitting in their corporate offices thinking "Crap, MLS ripped us off?" The reason MLS keeps adding teams is because there is demand for additional teams, and the new teams have all been successful. The expansion fees are nice, I'm sure, but they're a fairly minor portion of the financial picture for existing MLS teams.
Ten years ago = the 2010 season when there were sixteen teams. This year there are 24. The figures come from the MLS players union and are published twice a year. They are publicly available on the union’s website. My numbers are 100% accurate and, as I said, are on a PER TEAM basis not a league wide basis. Teams are absolutely increasing spending. This year alone median spending from the end of last season to the beginning of this season increased 10.4% and that is before many of the acquisitions I noted. BTW, Atlanta are barely in the top five in spending. Whether you feel that is teams trying to win or not is whatever, but this league has had 8 different champions during the previous 10 seasons and if LAFC were to win this that would make it 9 over the last 11. I don’t know where you are getting your information that all of the these teams are losing money hand over fist. Some may be unprofitable, others are profitable. The league as a whole is healthy and I expect more change/spending when the next CBA is announced, but the league certainly appears healthy. There are definitely markets that could improve, but 10 terrible markets? That’s not accurate. The US market is vast with many markets that can demonstrably support major sports franchises. Like all other major sports leagues in this country the MLS, to truly cover this market, was always going to have more teams than a European league based in a country far smaller and with far fewer major metro areas. The league is growing because there is a demand for teams. Even in markets that have lagged, such as Columbus, you are seeing a change. Their wage spending is up 40% year over year. They went out and hired both a coach and GM who have won MLS cups and announced a new quarter of billion dollar stadium. Hasn’t translated in the pitch, but that doesn’t mean they are trying. Spending is up for a variety of reasons. Sure, entrance fees help. So does increased TV revenue at both the national and local revenue, improving ticket prices, increased sponsorship revenue, etc and yes the appreciating value of teams also encourages teams to increase spending. It is a quickly growing enterprise and is thus attracting deep pocketed investors who presumably walk in with full knowledge of the books. You clearly aren’t a fan of the league and that’s fine.
entire post can be summed up by one line 'The idea that MLS owners can just sit around and make money off of occasional expansion fees is nonsense.'...the occasional expansion fee is nonsense.. 2006 12 teams 2007 13 2008 14 2009 15 2010 16 2011 18 2012 19 2013 19 2014 19 2015 20 2016 20 2017 22 2018 23 2019 24 2020 26 2021 27 I mean come on...occasional expansion fee? they've added four teams in the last three years and outside of a five year stretch where they added only one team they've added teams every season since 2007. In 2021 they'll have added 7 teams in five years. mls announced in 2015 that they'd stop at 28 teams...little over three years later while on 24 teams...oh we are going to 30. Strange considering the markets already struggling so much.