do they? really? with the wacked-out unbalanced (EXHIBITION!) schedule, that's not true, nor will it ever be true, unless the league goes to true home-and-away fixtures.
Yes. It is true. (or it is certainly more true than untrue.) The majority (or all really) of the league's fans get to see (or have the opportunity to see) all players across a two-year period visit each market/team, afaik. (And yes the MLS scheduling is certainly subject to change in future seasons an become even more unbalanced across this huge geographic footprint of the USA/Canada.) Regardless, the single-entity is trying to improve the league and do things that will benefit all fans of the league. (There's no real/honest arguing against that point, imo.)
Is the transfer fee considered speculation on the financials? If the league paid it, that's an interesting one. I don't know if anyone's aggrieved, but it would be interesting to know who else has received help, and who else can receive help in the future.
the truth is MLS is a Nanny State not a free competition between independent teams. it is designed that way, and apparently the rich guys who own the league like it that way. does it harm the credibility of the league as a truly independent competition? sure, but fans don't seem to care much so why should they. the fact is MLS-HQ shouldn't be acquiring players FOR ANYBODY no matter what the mechanism. just because the contracts are centrally held for SE legal purposes does not necessitate all of the other non-independent interference from league HQ. the league could operate quite nicely with a set of clear and simple roster and cap rules and the teams 100% free to operate as they would within those commonly agreed guidelines. but the owners of MLS (i refuse to buy into their being truly separate teams at this point) and the MLS-HQ guys are micro managing control freaks who cannot and will not trust each other to operate separately for all intents and purposes. in an ideal world MLS-HQ would NEVER step in and say who could or could not be signed by a club or for how much, as long as it met the roster rules and cap rules the club should be free to make whatever mistakes they will. in an ideal world MLS-HQ stoodges would not be out recruiting players to come to MLS and then be put in the situation to favour one team over another by deciding who goes where (or worse yet funding part of the transfer). the whole thing is a disgusting charade that mocks the idea of the top division of soccer in NA as true competition. and all of this is not considering the fact that NOBODY is worth 7M a year in a league with the cap at $3M for palyers 1-18/20. you could get 3DPs who's total salary wasn't 7M a year all of whom individually are better than Clint Dempsey is at 30. the problem with MLS and why its teams are weak in regional and global competition isn't because we don't have a few star players it is because there is NO quality depth from 1 thru 20 ... you can pay 3 DPs but your team is only as strong as the weakest link (there is a new book out about soccer statistics that i've heard on a few podcasts that says soccer is a sport where a team can only be as good as its weakest players). if the league wants to hit their perposterous 2022 goal they need to not spend $9M on dempsey but spend that kind of money raising the overall cap significantly so that teams can build quality depth rosters of guys making in the 500Kish range.
Not sure this is true under SE and the antitrust issues that MLS has faced in the past. Perhaps it is, but the less control MLS has in player acquisitions, the better the argument the player's union has that the SE structure is not legal. The owners - you know, the ones that seem to have all of the information on financials, etc., appear to disagree with you - at least a few of them do. But I do agree that the cap is something that should rise in the future, and I believe it will. But MLS has to dance around the player's union on this issue, and I think the best way to force a raise in the cap is through the collective bargaining process. And there is nothing to say that the league can't to both. This post is somewhat naive because Joe Roth and Adrian Hanauer are the ones - really the only ones, that need to worry about Dempsey's salary, whereas the cap is a league-wide issue, requiring buy-in from all 19 I/Os. You cannot simply say, that the $7mil/year simply should have been applied to raising the cap. It doesn't work that way.
Wait, getting to see a top player playing against the team I'm rooting for (making it more likely that my team will fail to win) is somehow a benefit to me and that's why its OK that I'm helping to fund it? Really? You think that line of crap is going to sell people? Again, I understand why the league did this, but don't try to give me that BS and tell me its caviar.
Single-entity is trying to improve Single-entity. The fans are commodity, not constituent. The league's actions benefit SOME fans of the league, and in the case of several if not a half-dozen franchises, the league's actions have almost always had a negative benefit for the fans of those franchises. Millions of words have now been written on the convolution of MLS "rules" under single-entity over the past 18 years. That's also an unarguable point. And if the utopian view you posit is "true", then why do so many disagree, and why have those millions of words been written?
Be fair to him; that is precisely what happened with Becks and frankly people did enjoy their one visit a year to the stadium to see him play. We have been pointing out on the Houston forum, 90% of fans don't give a crap about any of this. It the small number of us nerds that are all up in arms. Most people don't care. And maybe a few hear Dempsey is coming back and go catch a game for the first time in a few years (I don't think he will be a draw, but hey who knows).
Yeah, but I was actually happier when he (regularly) skipped the trip to Colorado because it made it easier for the Rapids. The same fans who are going to know that MLS (reportedly) paid Dempsey's transfer fee are the same type of fans who are more interested in what helps their team than seeing Dempsey in a one-off. Trying to convince those fans that MLS paying for Dempsey is a benefit to them is a farce because it makes it harder for the team their a fan of to win. For the 90% of the public who aren't die-hard fans, yeah, this makes sense which is why I've consistently said it was a good move by MLS to get him here. But trying to shine up the move as a benefit to fans who are complaining is insulting.
Certainly won't provide the global exposure for MLS like Beckham did. Seems like a lot of money to me but if MLS was convinced that they had to have Demlsey in the league now, it is what they had to pay.
Yes. It will sell to people generally. People want to be entertained. (There are players, across all sports, that transcend the "local team" and folks will come out for and buy a ticket to see. Now, Dempsey is no Michael Jordan, but he could very well be in the years ahead the "Kobe Bryant type" who can/will help drive road ticket sales.) More folks (than normal for United this year) in DC might turn up now for a Sounders game because Dempsey is on their roster (or the next time they come to town). And more folks (than normal) will show up in DC for a Chelsea/Roma match (relative to how many come out for an MLS match) -- because people want to see stars and "top players." You (and the BS type poster here) are an outlier, with refined tastes, clearly. The majority of folks who are buying MLS tickets (and watching the games on tv) likely do not care if Dempsey was a DP signing and not an Allocation order acquisition, of that MLS (and not Seattle) paid his transfer fee.
i read this paragraph and stopped. MLS is a nanny state because it is young and because it still has failing teams. as much as you want to sugar coat it 75% of the teams are not profitable. some are downright in bad shape.
Exactly. It should not be insulting to any fan of MLS, imo. "A good move by MLS" means it is good (by extension) for all teams and all fans. With a longer/bigger view of the league as a whole and their team's rising tide within and as a part of it, local fans (especially those fans of teams that did not sign Dempsey) should/could recognize that their complaints are hollow and short-sighted. For MLS, they don't care which teams win or lose on any given day, or who gets the SS or brings home MLS Cup in any given year. They just want a league that (more) people care about and are interested in. (And of course, they would like their CCL representatives to find/achieve some success in that confederation club competition at some point as well.) None of the "die-hards" are going to walk away from the league because "MLS paid the tranfer fee for the latest DP signing" (or because some owner was confused by the player acquisition method utilized to get Dempsey back to MLS and to Seattle). MLS is going to see a net gain in interest and fans from this signing. (Again, MLS HQ/BoG doesn't care if Seattle's DPs are "better players" on the field than "Colorado's DPs" -- or if Colorado's owners doesn't want to splash the cash to bring in a "lower level" DP, or if Seattle now has a slightly better chance to more regularly beat some/many of their league opponents. They, the BoG, are all just collectively pleased that MLS now has such a marketable/good player in the league, and they're likely trying to find ways to repeat and/or improve that type of signing and player acquisition.) MLS is trying to grow and improve their overall business. And they are kinda being successful at doing that, it would seem.
I don't know, but the owner (Andy) is talking like he paid the transfer fee. The question should be. WHY would he pay a seven figure transfer for Juan Luis Anangono?
This of course assumes that the other league owners (including Kronke) are actually footing any part of the bill. For all we know the league (and owners by extension) took that money they got from selling part of SUM and set it aside for some competition related expenses. As long as these league expenses are available to everyone then it isn't an issue, but it is way too early to know such a thing and really get worked up over it. I know that, as a Rapids fan, you are skeptical of the whole thing and judging from what has happened with your player acquisitions over the past few years I do not blame you. If in another year all we see is that the league helped fund a move for Dempsey then I think it is pitchfork time.
it is a teenager, you don't need a nanny when you are a teenager and when you claim to want to be a "top league" by 2022 ... in less than 10 years. and it is total BS that only 75% of the teams are profitable ... more like 50% or more given the MLS's own data (see SportsMoney program from 2011 that showed the average revenue for an MLS team (including SUM payout) was $1m more than the average expenses for an MLS team (including cash call and ticket revenue share). and this isn't even considering the clever and disingenuous accounting practice common to sports teams owners to claim "poverty" while subsidiary or related business are making the money "off book". and if some teams are in tough shape? tough shite ... that is how sports works, your owner and FO are incompetent your team sucks and maybe goes away ... have less crappy owners or FO.
To try to make his team better, and to make a more interesting (and/or winning) product to attract fans?
On, a NO name player. Great. Trust me this move isn't going get him more interest and attract fans. He could of got MILA, for a hell of lot less and that would of got more interest and would of attracted fans. He doesn't know what the fvck he's doing.
Bullshit. A good move by MLS means its a good move for the majority of the league. There are easily scenarios where its not a good move for some teams or fans though.
Take off your Rapids hat (maybe just for 5 minutes). Agreed. There are (some likely short-term) "scenarios where its not a good move for some teams or fans though" -- but in the big picture and over the long term, this is a good (and has the potential to be a great) move for all associated with MLS, imo.
So you admit that it is possible for this to not be a good move for all teams and all fans? My calling you're statement out had nothing to do with being a Rapids fan. It was just so obviously logically incorrect it had to be pointed out. If one fan throws up his hands and says "Screw this, I'm not spending my money on a rigged league" then it hasn't been good for every team and every fan. That's the concern many of us are pointing out. Now yes, I continue to agree that for the majority of fans and teams this is a good move, which is why I'm glad the league got Dempsey here. But quit trying to claim that this is good for everyone when there are legitimate concerns that should be acknowledged.
When your (or many of you all's) concern moves from the hypothetical to the real (and/or when MLS loses a net number of fans and/or "business" goes down because of this signing), please check back in with us. (I'm just not convinced that any of "the concerns" are truly legitimate or actually worth considering or getting worked over at this point. ymmv. And we're likely unable to convince each other of our own opinions on this, so I'll leave it at that.)