Except that isn't necessarily true. I'm sure the league has minimum amounts that each team has to contribute to the kitty. That might not be the full cap amount, but I doubt CUSA's total contribution to the league is $1.5 million.
no the pool of money the league pays the players from ostensibly comes from the owners by ticket revenue sharing (and cash calls); the cap money to pay players isn't coming from magic fairlyland it is coming from the individual clubs themselves ... so spending $7M on a DP directly or kicking in $7M more to the kitty is still $7M spent by the club ... one gets you ONE player, the other might get you $2M more in cap space to buy a dozen better $400K players than the dozen sub $100K players you have now. and every team has DPs almost ... and almost every team has overpaid for some guy who isn't contributing as much individually as would have his salary equivalent spread over the entire team (via the circuitous route of kicking into the league kitty and the cap going up). i'd be happy if NOBODY in MLS made more than $1M and all of those DPs that were paid more than that never came to MLS and all of the money spent on them had instead gone to more cap space ... the teams and the league would be in a much better place in regards to overall squad strength and competitiveness globally and regionally. and you also are forgetting that with the extra money the teams that have spent big on DPs have wasted they could have pushed for a different kind of cap altogether ... where there is a min and a max ... everybody gets at least 3M (for their 30%, whether or not that covers the 3M or way more) and then a max of up to 5M (that the teams have to kick in to recieve dollar for dollar) ... again ... that would have been a better way to advocate and fight to spend that 7M than on Dempsey ... which is all i am saying.
why do you doubt that ... i've never seen anything, anywhere that says there is a minimum ... in any of the proposals that outline the contributions of teams to the league. nor a maximum for that matter.
There is a cash call independent of the revenue sharing . . . hence a minimum that can shift each year.
You mean other than the $3 million per team annual cash call? So, you're argument is that instead of sending $7 million to the league the Sounders should be sending $16 million? LOL.
sorry, we were talking about ticket revenue contributions, i thought that was established and i didn't need to specify that in my comment. for all we know the cash calls fluctuate to cover whatever the 30% ticket revenue share plus direct league revenues don't cover of the league salaries and other operating expenses. i'd be interested to know if that cash call is a set thing no matter how well the shared ticket revenue and the league's direct revenues do to cover the central costs or not ...
what i am saying is if you are the Sounders (or RBNY or LAG or ____) and have $7M to blow on Dempsey (or $5M to blow on Marquez or ______ to blow on _____) you'd be much better off finding a better way of spending that money to help the WHOLE team from top to bottom. if that means advocating for a raise to the cap for every team of $2M and you have to pay 2 to 1 to get that to happen (so between the haves and have nots the league can afford that) than that is still a better way to spend the money, or if you can get a cap that lets the teams that can and want go some amount dollar for dollar above the cap as long as they cover it even better. but anything is better than spending that much money on ONE guy.
What the heck do you think I meant when I said that I doubt the $1.5 million was the only contribution that Chivas made to the kitty.. Man.. You're just being purposefully obtuse at this point.
every team kicks in 30% and $3M ... the fact that CUSA's 30% is much lower than SSFC's does not mean they have to kick in the $3M cash call and SSFC does not or that their cash call is more than $3M ... there is no evidence for this, the only evidence we have is that each team kicks in $3M + 30% and if that is more or less for some teams that is just how it is ... MLS is SE afterall ... so you have no point. again if you've seen or heard or have some information other than what the standard understanding has been for years now ($3m cash call + 30%) please let me know ... i'd love to hear that some 30% or $xM minimum has been put in place as i think that is far fairer (or even some 30% up to $xM max) ... because i've always thought the disparity between what CUSA (with their 8k and dirt cheap tickets) kicks in at 30% and what SSFC (with their 44K and high ticket average price) kicks in at 30% was unfair.
Yes, things would be different if teams never signed bad contracts. Not sure what broader point you're trying to make.
Sixty. Six. Thousand. RT @WeAreECS Sounders vs. Portland on August 25th is sold out. Scattered singles only available. 66,800 sold.— Major League Soccer (@MLS) August 6, 2013 Yikes.
This was going to happen regardless of the Dempsey signing. It just sold out a whole lot sooner cause of Dempsey.
Well this is a first for the Sounders. Standing-room only tickets being sold: Joshua Mayers @joshuamayers 7mThis is the first time the team has opened additional upper-level seats (bleachers, standing room only). 6,000 tix sold after Dempsey signed
Jason Greenwood @GangbangUnicorn "As an employee of Dell Loy Hansen and RSL I think it's a bit suspect league went out of their way to place a player on certain team" -Kreis
Yes, that is certainly true. They didn't get to 66k+ until a couple of days before the game last year, if I recall. Of course, see my other post. Standing-room only. They may be trying to get to 68-72k (EDITED), if that is even possible.
Well they already are opening up the standing room only. Stadium was designed to go to max of 72k if they host the superbowl
Look I appreciate everyone is concerned about transparency, but let's be realistic Dempsey didn't want to play anywhere else but Seattle, TFC and LA. So what's the problem? He's a DP. The league handles the contracts. I'm sure the league made each party aware when Clint made his intentions known.
The problem isn't what happened, it's how it happened. Various aspects of the deal, such as the bypassing of the allocation process and MLS covering the transfer fee have brought about an air of inconsistency suggesting that MLS favors the big money clubs. People outside of those big money clubs don't like the idea of potentially being hung out to dry.
Honest question. If after MLS Cup last year it came out that the league was going to help fund big money (either MLS announced it or Wahl broke the story) moves would you (or anyone else) be upset? I ask this because most of the important decisions are made at the board of governors meetings which typically happen at MLS Cup and the All-Star game. So if the decision was made at the all-star game to go forward with this plan it is just looks bad because the signing happened straight after it. Or, if you look at it another way, people have no issue with LA signing Beckham as a DP. However, what would it have looked like if they signed him a day after a board of governors meeting and they hadn't announced the DP rule yet? Would look shady as hell wouldn't it? Sometimes timing is everything and without us knowing when/if the board made the decision to allow the league to supplement acquisition costs we are just arguing of something is right or wrong without having the most important piece of information.
Yes, this bit of the Wahl story is the most interesting to me if true. But if it's all just a misunderstanding because the payment came from the league in the sense that their name was on the check/contract as with all contracts, I guess it's a big "nevermind."