Other Team Discussion Thread Part VI: Click here for results

Why aren't you complaining about DC getting the MLS Cup game this year over Colorado who opened their stadium this year or Chicago, they got passed by for the game as well? Where's the outrage for that?!?!?!? It's interesting that Colorado wasn't even in the running for the game next year, it was Frisco, LA and Chicago. So did Colorado not even put their name in the hat?

 

Well, as you said, EJ is probably gone and Ruiz could have been bought down with a partial allocation. He didn't make that much over the league max. The ruling was clearly made to help LA.

Here's the original statement from the league:

http://web.mlsnet.com/news/mls_events_news.jsp?ymd=20061111&content_id=78396&vkey=mlscuppr2006&fext=.jsp

"The salaries of players above the maximum salary budget have been the financial responsibility of the collective group of MLS investors. Players such as Landon Donovan (Los Angeles), Carlos Ruiz (FC Dallas) and Eddie Johnson (Kansas City) will be "grandfathered" for one year after which they, too, will assume Designated Player status."

 

Well I would argue that this change isn't being made at the last minute, but at a regularly scheduled Board of Governor's meeting at the end of one season and well before the start of the next season so that teams can plan for the upcoming transfer window and for next season. Every league makes their rules changes at roughly the same time in their schedule. The fact that the change covers all the teams in the league and not just one gives more justification.

What you didn't argue, and I think would have been a more valid point, is that this change wasn't covered or included, as far as we know, in the CBA. I think that with other leagues (NBA and NFL specifically) a change like this would have to be added into the CBA and then ratified by the union, maybe not, but that might have ben a more valid thing to do. You could argue that by the owners taking this action without union input or vote violates the CBA and in not in the spirit of good corporate relations. I'm pretty sure the union would have voted for this proposal.

 

With a Noon start time dictated by ABC/ESPN because of the NASCAR season finale, there really was no other choice. DC United or NE and NY which have spongy turf and gridiron lines. Noon kickoff is the only reason DC United got the game.

 

I think you will see MLS Cup stay south in perpetuity. The Cup Final is a one-off, TV "event." Can you imagine a Cup Final in Chicago or Denver in late November being played in snow, howling winds or both? Yeah, I know the '96 Final in Foxboro was a classic, but I'm afraid MLS and the TV guys don't want to take a chance on crummy weather spoiling the event.

 

...and the NASCAR schedule was set a year ago. It's not after the fact. It is a fact.

 

I think that's your interpretation. The changed helped LA, but also KC and Dallas. We don't know if Johnson is leaving or that Dallas will keep Denilson. The league has to go by what is reality today not what might happen. The fact that other teams didn't sign players to these larger contracts before the DP rule is immaterial. Just like if the added a second DP people would be complaining that it was done to help LA, but it also helps every other team in the league even if they don't have a DP on the roster. The point is, if the change was only directed for one team (only LA would get another year of grandfathering) then you can cry foul, but the rule affects the whole league. The fact that some teams can take advantage of the change isn't really the point becuase now you are trying to guess the motivation and intent of what other teams were thinking by not signing a player, pre-DP, to a large contract. I guess if every team knew back then that MLS would change the rule then every team would have signed a player to a big contract to take advantage of it.

To me, people complainig about this are akin to people who bought iPhones, when they first came out and were pissed that Apple lowered the price a few months after they introduced the phone and demanded money back.

 

The weather for Nov 23 (this year) is projected to be 39 deg and windy in Chicago and 32 deg and snowy in Denver.

I love soccer in the snow, the yellow balls are cool.

Tim

 

I think it is much more akin to people who bought the X-box that had been rushed to market under great, great fanfare and then complained about it because it didn't work, like at all.

Cheers,
Tim

 

I'm not disagreeing, I was only poking fun because he only mentioned Colorado when Chicago was a vaible candidate as well.

I agree with this as well and almost posted it, but then someone would throw it back that the game was in DC and there would be a big arguement from the Colorado and Chicago folks about average and mean temperatures in Nov. going back the last 100 years as well as snowfall totals and the average day of the first snow in cities all around the US and honestly, I didn't want to open up that can of worms. I might as well suggest that MLS play through the winter like they do in Europe

 

So how you liking your Wii

 

Good point. But its diffcult to make an impact if the coach does not play you. Edu at least had that opportunity. On the otherhand when Rogers did play I would say he did make an impact. It probably cost the Crew some games sitting him in the doghouse. My guess is that if he had been with Toronto with Edu there would have been a battle for Rookie of the year:

http://web.mlsnet.com/media/player/..._id=14371&catCode=top_plays&type=v_free&_mp=1

 

Eh, the documentary was ok, but I'm much more of a fan of the great war.

Cheers,
Tim

 

I'm just going by what the league put out a year ago. That these salaries would be grandfathered for a year. And it helped LA the most because they were the club looking to sign Beckham...you know the Beckham rule.

Yes, it helped them for a year, which is what is was supposed to do. It was to give them a year after the implementation of the Beckham rule to get their shit in order personnel wise.

Denilson has been left unprotected. Dallas was not happy with what they got. I doubt they'll exercise their right to his contract next year.

So other teams were signing players to league mandated salaries that fit under the cap up to a max level? That's immaterial?

How does it help a team to have a second DP if they don't have a first?

The rule only affects LA, KC and Dallas. Unless we can go back and say we really meant to pay Christian Gomez 500K and we'd like that salary grandfathered.

It's MLS that allowed that shenanigans in the first place. Part of the Beckham rule was to codify this type of contract and put a limit on the number of such a team can have.

Which is why the pre-existing contracts were grandfathered...for a year.

I think the semantic similarity in this analogy is weak or non-existent.

 

I don't think MLS chooses anything when it comes to ABC, especially when we're talking about historically microscopic ratings. I think ABC/ESPN chose date and time and MLS chose DC United based on that. I don't think MLS had the power to change the date. If they could have, they would have. It makes no sense at all to have a Noon kickoff. Even 1 p.m. would've be better. But Noon it was.

 

Somewhat related... Does anyone know how long Landy's current contract runs? I think it will be interesting to see how the league handles his resigning. Will we see a second DP then or would Landy accept a salary cut?

Maybe he'll get pregnant and have to take a year or two off.

asitis

 

to me the biggest issue is before the DP rule existed Ruiz, Donovan and Johnson were signed to these contracts that were above the max. salary. Then MLS creates this DP rule and by the definition these three players now are DP's, but MLS gives a one-year grandfather but aren't going to add another DP slot to teams. I see this change as correcting what they should have done initialy was grandfather those players for the duration of their current contract. This would be the fair thing to do because their contract was signed before the DP rule. However if MLS had said that they would add a DP this year, then they wouldn't have ahd a need to grandfather anyone. I don't think it ws fair for the status of the player to have been changed by a rule that wasn't in place when their contract was initially signed. If the DP rule had existed back then, maybe the teams don't sign the players for the same price or who knows what happens. All of the other teams not covered by this grandfather rule had an opportunity to sgn a player to a higher than max. salary. For whatever reason they didn't, just like every team could have signed a DP this year but didn't.

I don't see this change as a big deal or only done to help LA and I don't think it some huge set back as the league tries to move towards greater transparency. To me they are fixing what should have been originally fixed.

 

Is that what it's called? :: I read what they put out a year ago and they changed their mind, other leagues change their rules as well, oh well. It may have helped LA the most, but LA was not the only beneficiary of the change.

It did help them for a year but it should have been in effect for the duration of the current contract of affected players. It is possible that the league realized this. It's also possible that the league thought they might add a second DP to fix it as well

I agree with this, but it's still just speculation on our part so without a firm 100% answer Dallas also benefits from this change. I will say Dallas did a beter job of being prepared in case the rule wasn't change since keeping Denilson was an option for next year, not a guaranteed deal. So yeah to Dallas for being forward thinking.

It's immaterial that they didn't sign players above the max. level which MLS allowed. It's like saying the DP rule is bad for the league based on the fact that not every team signed one. Teams could have signed players to larger than max. salaries before the DP rule. DC elected not to that was there choice. Had they done so that player would have been grandfathered in and DC would have benfitted from the rule change

You don't understand how having 2 of something is usually better than 1 of something?

Huh? We could have signed Gomez for 500K but elected not to becuase we got him for cheaper. We could have signed someone else for more than a max. salary but elected not to. When we signed Gomez the DP wasn't even being discussed. So that point is moot. You can't go back in time to take advantage of a new rule and you can't punish someone for something that was done before a rule was in place

Right for players signed under the DP rule. Donovan, Ruiz and johnson were signed before that rule was in place so why should they be placed under the constraints of something that wasn't in effect when their contracts were signed.

As I said before I think that was a wrong decision, and I think the league realised this and re-visited it. Does it go against what they said a year ago? Sure but circumstances change and I don't begrudge someone or an organization realising this and try to correct the problem. Yes it ends up benefitting LA, but they are not the sole beneficiaries.

Then shoot me

 

I think this discussion focuses on the wrong shenanigans. The real BS move was MLS permitting these "special" deals with Ruiz, Landycakes, EJ and Adu. (I have no idea what type of deals RBNY had with Von Schtupp and Watterus.) There was no rhyme nor reason to any of it, just special pleading by various teams. At least the DP gave every team one "free" salary cap busting player. Just look at Ruiz, et al. as grandfathered variances of the current zoning laws.

 

Well we haven't seen a press release from MLS on this, just the story in SI. If the change is not for the current contract but a permanent exemption, then I will call BS.

I agree with this.