https://www.fourfourtwo.com/features/danish-superliga-club-lyngby-could-lose-their-entire-squad-week https://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/914845/Aston-Villa-invest-Danish-football-club-Lyngby-BK https://politiken.dk/sport/fodbold/superligaen/art6329844/Klubben-er-sat-til-salg-for-20-millioner 20 million bucks for a top-flight Danish team? Aston Villa swooping in?? If Chelsea-Man City- and Aston Villa can do it, ....why not MLS??? If I was MLS commish, I would strongly encourage MLS to find "sister" clubs like this and BUY. A perfect place to send surplus but promising players to develop.....the same way the EPL does it. Face it USL isn't a "shop window"....bigger clubs aren't buying USL players. But they would buy a player who shows well in Denmark. Also, MLS seems to lose promising players every year....or not give enough playing time to promising players....this type of initiative could make sure MLS doesn't lose out on players like Poku who was just sold to the Russian premier league from the NASL.....or EPB....or etc etc players who are not wanted by their MLS teams...but still have potential....are currently a weak spot in MLS' business model.....this plan would aim to fix that problem...while also helping the players MLS employs. win-win-win.......
Would you rather MLS spend $20 million on buying and then however much on operating a Danish team or would you rather they spend it on infrastructure like youth academies and such?
rather they spend 20 million of the 150$ million expansion fee on a danish team and use the other 130 million for "development" and "infrastructure"...... man city did it with NYCFC....if an MLS team can be a "farm team" for a big club....why cant MLS have "farm team" too??? .not really an outlandish proposition, imo....plenty of money for both....not an either/or scenario. also, i dont think it would necessarily have to be the case that a "sister club" would operate at a loss.....the team could sell players every year and replenish them from MLS every year.....all the while giving those players in MLS that want to be in europe a chance WHILE MONETIZING THE TRANSFERS instead of watching them leave for free......
You're suggesting MLS by one team? I thought you meant that MLS teams should each buy a team. But if all of MLS has one team how do you prioritize development so every team benefits? There's only 11 starting spots on the roster and 24 (and growing) teams.
Man City is a club. MLS is a league. If "MLS" buys another team, who is it supposed to benefit? There are 23 teams in the league. How do they decide which team gets to send its players over there to get playing time? And if a player signs with that team, and then decides to move to MLS, what MLS team gets him? Do we really need ANOTHER double-secret draft/allocation list/whatever? And if you're talking about one MLS club buying a sister club, then they don't have $150M, they have 1/23 of $150M.
players sign contracts with MLS not with clubs....MLS is more a club than it is a league, imo. (but that's irrelevant) just because MLS markets itself and endears itself to fans as different clubs....doesnt mean I have to buy that charade....(not that that matters here). if MLS had one sister club, say in Denmark, it would benefit players who arent playing in MLS - on an as-needed basis - at the discretion of the sister club - in consultation with MLS front office staff. so a player like Miles Robinson - the 2nd pick in last year's draft - who played almost zero minutes last season might be a candidate. Or EPB - who was stuck on the bench his whole MLS career. or Saad Abdul salaam. or Tabla -who transferred to barcelona and clearly wanted to move to europe but didn't play that much for MTL. or manneh etc etc etc.... bascially, it could be a way for MLS teams to give some of their players european exposure without reliquinshing their rights to that player. On top of that, it could benefit MLS as a whole. say a player like manneh...who wants to leave MLS goes to the sister club - performs well -earns a transfer. MLS then gets to make money off a player wanting out of MLS instead of the current dynamic which harms the players (blackballed for watning out of MLS) and MLS (no transfer $ from players who leave on frees). Also, some players might actually develop and go on to help their MLS clubs.....instead of the current model where MLS hasnt really shown it can develop players who are not playing in MLS. It could aslo rally help raise the profile of MLS as a whole if the bench players of MLS did well enough to earn transfers and did well afterwards....all of a sudden the entire profile of MLS would be raised by extension. i don't really see the 23 teams vs 1 sister club as a problem....who cares what happens to players who want to leave MLS or players who are barely playing (or not playing in MLS)??? To me, there wouldnt have to be a mandate that EVERY team or NO team must have a "sister" club.....I mean, some teams have had USL affiliates and some havent over recent history and it hasnt been an issue. besides, if NYCFC and NYRB can tap into and benefit from being owned by parent clubs and being part of a pyramid of teams....I don't understand how anyone could object to this idea on the basis of fairness. The NY teams clearly have a competitive advantage over the rest of MLS as a result of being tied into a global club network....so its not as if adding a few MLS-owned sister clubs would somehow upset any condition of fairness between MLS "clubs". Foreign players who sign with MLS can currently choose which team to sign for...right? (which is messed up, imo that foreigners are more free in MLS than Americans! imagine a german player having less rights in the bundelsiga than an american LOL) So, while I agree that the last thing MLS needs is another allocation list or layer of rules, i dont think it would be an issue that couldnt just be covered by current rules. MLS has plenty of money. almost all of its owners are billionaires. plus the league itself has become very profitable. If they just bought barco for 15 million....they could buy an entire club for 20. to me, it would be better as a matter of opportunity not necessarily part of a systematic mandate.....Oh, there's a first division euro club that's insolvent?...available for 20 million?....let's buy it....and use it as we see fit. with all due respect, these minor objections you raise are akin to making a mountain out of a molehill, imo.
IMO, you're suggesting that a league that's only recently become financially solvent spend $20M on an overseas investment. That's not a molehill. You have such a boner for trying to find ways to get young players minutes that you think we should be telling them "well, you're not playing against Seattle next week, so here's a plane ticket to Denmark." And I don't think many people are going to appreciate the idea of MLS using a top-flight club in Europe as a glorified practice squad. And the investment would instantly be de-valued the moment that constantly changing squad of 22-26 year-old Americans gets relegated because they're playing against actual teams, with actual players under actual contracts with actual clubs, as opposed to MLS players who weren't good enough to crack MLS lineups. Seriously -- you're trying way, way too hard.
Not to mention that if this were a successful idea, wouldn't AEG have already done this with LA and the Swedish(?) club they own?
you're coming from such a negative place. i'm not commited to anything i've said here...these are SUGGESTIONS.......IDEAS.....you're trying to nail me down...so you can pick apart everything i've said. you are ATTACKING my BRAINSTORMS...b/c you dont like me. yet all the problems you raise HAVE SOLUTIONS. Manchester city uses NYCFC as a glorified practice squad. How many players have already gone back and forth between man city and nycfc? a lot.....NYRB is required to play the way that red bull wants them to.....and they send players to mls all the time. it's not as if some MLS clubs are not subordinate to their overlords......if MLS clubs can be minor league teams for bigger clubs than why cant MLS have minor league clubs as well?? you have not addressed that. If every owner in MLS put up 1 million that would be enough for the team.....actually each would have to put up less than a mil...cuz there's more than 20 teams. money is not the issue here. at all. it could be a team with 5-10 americans...doesnt have to be a whole squad of them. also it isnt "youre not playing vs seattle"....it's more like you are only playing a handful of games ALL season.....let's get you onto a decent team where you will actually play" your solution to prospects not getting enough playing time in MLS....is....what exactly???? you don't have one.
Red Bulls fans have complained that Red Bull doesn't care enough about New York relative to Leipzig and Salzburg.
i agree that red bull treats NYRB worse than the other clubs....salzburg and Leipzig don't really look at NYRB as a place to look for players - which i wish wasn't the case....but NYRB has gotten a bunch of players throughout the years from the Leipzig and salzburg....so, in that sense, yes NYRB benefits from the relationship. Plus, jesse marsch has been given his mandate from the RB on how to play...so NYRB got their whole system and tactics - which have been pretty successful - from RB. it's a competitive advantage for Marsch to be able to fly to europe and be trained by the parent club, no doubt.
NYCFC have to/from City - loaned 3 players in - loaned 1 player out (Lampard) - sold Jack Harrison - acquired a third choice goalie I'm not sure that counts as a farm team. Most, if not all, current non-EU NYCFC players wouldn't be able to play in England due to their stringent overseas player rule, which is based on international caps. Other relationships Red Bull RB Leipzig & New York Red Bulls Jason Levien Swansea City & DC United Stan Kroenke Arsenal & Colorado Rapids
What you seem to be talking about, buying, funding, forming partnerships with clubs to use as a shop window or training ground for your own players, has been tried before. Saudi is doing something similar with La Liga to prepare it's national team for the WC (this is a summer tourney that some nations appear to qualify for). Cuba did this with Bonner, a fourth division club in Germany. These attempts aren't succesful and really can't be if the club is seen as a feeder organization only.. A Danish club costs money to run, and if the team is composed entirely of young US players, it is unlikely that the club will have much in the way of revenue to help cover costs. Small town Danish fans are not likely to turn out to see a bunch of US kids play at the club the foreign league took over. The team would instead have to be, essentially, a Danish club, with a few players here and there that could benefit the club, to really work, but that defeats the idea behind your proposal. What CFG does is not that different from what you want, but they see their place being to augment local clubs with local talent that CFG can bring in, and outside talent that will help the club advance. Even their 4th tier Uraguyan club is local players first. The CFG goal appears to be succesful everywhere, not simply to develop players for Man City, but to develop players for the clubs for whom they are signed. Selling players is a focus, but it's local players they look to build and sell.
This is too often overlooked. The solution is there. Also overlooked is that playing for a lower division club in Germany or Denmark or Turkey is not necessarily better preparation than playing for a USL side. Players can develop there, and there is an audience, and a market. The primary customers may well be MLS, but if there is talent, football will find it. I think we'd be surprised at how closely watched USL clubs are by the richest European clubs.
yeah i mean 5-10 (give or take) players from mls at any one time would be fine too....never said it had to be entirely MLS players...or even entirely american mls players........to me, its a no-brainer.....but it would take astute management...and creative problem solving.....traits mls hasnt exactly shown in spades.....
Everything about MLS is about creative problem solving. They created a viable league in a place where the game was not only not popular but reviled. They've turned around total failures in places such as KC where success looked impossible just a decade ago. They've adjusted and readjusted their management philosphy on a constant basis. They created a type of league that hadn't existed before MLS has problems, but creative problem solving is not one of them. This difference in opinions reflects two camps of MLS watchers. One, like me, remember the soccer desert of the 1980s and early 90s very clearly, and are amazed at the progress that we've seen in the game since. To us, it's been zero to 60 in 3 seconds. The trajectory amazes us. Your camp instead sees what is now elsewhere and asks why MLS can't also be there already. You want punctuated evolutionary leaps, not gradual change. And, like Veruca, you want it now. It is good to have both camps. I'm too easily wowed when I attend a match in 2017 and remember MLS games in 1996, and worse in 2002. I probably give the league too much leeway for what is not right because of what is. I'd suggest you have the opposite problem, you give too little credit. In this case, MLS only really made youth devo a priority a couple years ago. So, yes, MLS should be better with youth devo, but, come on, they are a ton better than they were.
Get Klinsman on the line! He can run the team with a squad of dual nationals. Guy has experience with that.