“Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain
This right here isn't "parity" and is a disadvantage to those teams that don't make sales. Teams like LAFC and Montreal this coming year (if they take advantage of the extra GAM they'll be getting) have a big advantage over teams who aren't selling players. I just don't know why we keep on saying that in MLS there is "parity" when there really isn't.
It’s his schtick. Insult out of nowhere and claim everyone who disagrees with him is a troll. He likely has you blocked already and this can’t see your response. That said - you are wrong. Violating the rules and gaining advantage from them is cheating. You can discuss potential changes as others have but that doesn’t matter to the actual violation.
This is like saying that Philly or FCD having a top academy makes parity mechanisms pointless. Different strategies. Would it be easier for everyone if the rules were relaxed? Mostly, but cheap owners like the idea of artificially capping cost and not getting totally swallowed by high spenders. Colorado winning the West in 2021 shows parity mechanisms are real even if they aren't as draconian (or effective) as they used to be.
Is winning the West or the East the ultimate goal or winning the MLS Cup the ultimate goal? We can say Montreal this season did what Colorado did last season too but is it not a common theme. Quality players at the end will give you that extra push.
Except for that FACT that Pavon was NOT classified as a Designated Player in 2019. That's where the problem is. LA Galaxy already had 3 DP's on their roster..........They failed to disclose to the league that they were paying a loan fee for Pavon, which would have made him a DP signing and NOT a TAM level signing. They literally broke MLS' salary compliance rules.....
Ultimately, it's a matter of incentives. MLS wants teams to sell players, to boost it's global stature as well as it's profitability. If selling players also gives teams a competitive advantage at roster building, well that aligns MLS' goals with the individual team ambitions (the one's that want to win at least). If that weakens parity because a team doesn't want to align with MLS' goals of joining a global transfer market....that's their prerogative.
I'd like to play 10 fields players and 10 players in goal (stacked head to toe, end to end, on up, blocking the entire goal), every game, while the other teams play a normal 10 in the field and 1 keeper. It's ok since I can sell 9 of the goalies to European leagues and make MLS stronger while never losing because no one can score against my team.
I don't know in what sense you're trying to use the word parity, but the compression of both resources and results in MLS versus top European leagues is pretty obvious and has been a universally and regularly expressed core objective of the league from its inception.
Parity is a communist antifa plot! It's Un-American, and anti-soccer; anti-football even! Why does the league even bother? Just give everyone a participation trophy and leave it at that. /s
Parity means every team has a chance to win MLS Cup. It does NOT mean every team spends the exact same number of dollars.
Liga MX has no salary restrictions, they also have play offs and they also vary in teams winning. Play offs is the great equalizer. Add play offs to La Liga and we aren't sure if it will become a two team league.
He was introduced today and is bringing an assistant coach, trainer, and video analyst with him. Crew paid Montreal some compensation for the package. I'm happy with the hire. Now Montreal gets to hire their new coach.
Not MLS related, but Paulson announced the other day that he was going to sell the Thorns. It was also revealed that current Thorns coach Rhian Wilkinson had resigned after it was revealed she had a relationship with a player.. FFS. Question is, will MLS step in and try to arrange a sale of the Timbers as well? The amount of crap going on in Portland's organization as a whole is nuts and seems to be enough to force Paulson to sell..
Teams, especially that franchise, should have a bright line rule against management having relationships with players. I wouldn't be surprised if there were other teams where players dated other, non-player club employees. But the whole situation is very fraught. Unless Wilkinson's girlfriend complained of being taken advantage of, who is harmed? The other players who weren't hit on? If some team's star player dates a trainer, who has the power in that situation?
I think a coach having a relationship with a player is the equivalent of a manager having a relationship with a direct report. The coach has control over who makes a team, who plays, etc, etc. Even if the coach is the most up and up person in the world and doesn't show favoritism, that's always going to be that concern for the other players on the team. There's also going to be issues for the player if the relationship starts to go sideways and being concerned if they can end the relationship without it blowing back in their face.. As far as where the line is drawn, I would think the players would need to be bubbled off from everyone else in the organization. NYCFC got in trouble when a FO staff member reported that David Villa was making unwanted advances towards her and that she didn't think NYCFC would have done anything about it for fear of losing Villa, but I can also see it going the other way as well. Or, in your example, player and a trainer. Considering a trainer has input on whether a player is ready to play and, depending on the player, they can have input on whether a trainer stays on.. I would think it doesn't matter who has the power, it's just a situation where the team can get in trouble if there are relationships.
This is not entirely accurate. Based on what I read it sounds like the coach and a player had a long text conversation where they expressed feelings for each other. Realizing that such a thing could lead to an inappropriate relationship they self-reported it to the Front Office who had an independent investigation done and found that no wrong-doing had yet occurred. Despite that the coach felt like she had lost the locker room over it and resigned. In the end it was probably the most mature way I've seen this handled, for a public organization in or out of sports, in a long time.
I think it is entirely fair to say that the text conversation was where the feelings for each other were expressed, but the coach and the player had non-romantic relationship outside of that text conversation and that non-romantic relationship, according to Wilkinson, turned into something more. But that is entirely because of how the players and coach behaved, not because of how Paulson and Co behaved. I think it is problematic for Portland to say no wrong doing had happened (yet), particularly given their history of something happening. Given Portland's history, it really shouldn't have been the players telling the coach she needed to resign. Paulson and co should have had that conversation with her and, if necessary, bring the players in on that decision.
Eh, nepotism isn't that different from the favoritism a manager might show a player they are involved with. It's one of the reasons organizations don't like relationships between employees, especially if one supervises the other. There are also practical considerations. The NWSL is gay friendly but lesbians are a relatively small part of the population so their dating pool is limited. It's not unusual for people who spend lots of time together and have common interests to develop feelings and start relationships. A TV network is trying to deal with that currently for their morning show anchors. They don't want to stomp on #LoveWins but also don't like the idea, especially with both parties already married.