Yeah this was discussed a few days ago. I do however find it funny when people make these kinds of remarks when they leave a team as if this is some brand new information that was not available before.
Maybe she thought she will be able to manage it before but after experiencing it she changed her mind.
Well next year is obviously a special case with the Olympics. In a normal year 5 months is a long time. But if they do know behind the scenes that Krieger is going to retire after the Olympics, then I can see being separated next year as not being a big deal. I don't think it's terrible at all. I also don't think it would be a big deal if she continues to support an Orlando MLS team while on the Spirit. It's not like the Spirit and DC United are the same organization or something where the Spirit could really get upset about it.
Word on the street (and by that I mean twitter) is that the draft rules will be pretty similar to 2014 rules. So I think most of our speculation above holds true.
Well yeah, but there have been roster changes since, and there will be some more before the roster freeze. =-)
Sounds like at least some of our informed speculation is getting confirmed by insider sources: So sounds like Spirit not planning to play hard ball. Keeper situation going to be interesting around #NWSL #USWNT https://t.co/v3x3fW67c4— Dan Lauletta (@TheDanLauletta) October 20, 2015
So with the news that in all likelihood Orlando is selecting Harris and Kling, who do you think the other teams will protect. For me, what will be interesting is: Will FCKC leave all their allocated players unprotected and further screw Orlando? How many discovery players will be protected which should give us a hint of how many quality players will be joining the league.
Vlatko doesn't seem the type to play dirty to me. Also, Houston got a gimme allocation to start off while Orlando doesn't seem like it will, so I'm guessing Orlando gets to pick up to 3 US allocations instead of 2. FCKC wouldn't be smart to leave everyone on the table if that were the case. I think the other question is how many of the previously protected discovery players actually made it into the league... =edit= WOW the formatting screwed up on that one.... lemme try to fix that... this may take a while Okay, fixed!
Good point that Orlando may be allowed to take 3 allocated players. But if I were them, I will take just two. Because remember you want to get two players from FCKC if you can and selecting an allocated player from them will prevent that.
I don't think Orlando will be able to pick 3 just because they didn't get allocated one. Houston was allocated one because there were multiple USWNT players returning to the NWSL that would be allocated without removing any other allocations. This year, rather than an influx of returning USWNT, we have seen a reduction of allocations (due to players retiring or just becoming unallocated in Mewis' case). So it seems to me that there will just be the expectation of less allocated players per team. If Orlando were to get 3, then there should be 30 total allocated USWNT players, IMHO... 3 for each team.
Some USWNT players have retired, but even more have been called up recently. I would bet on total allocations increasing.
I'm not convinced all the players getting a call up (or even any) will be allocated. And certainly not 30, which would be 3 per team.
Well we don't know for sure. At the start of the 2015 season there were 25. But then Wambach didn't play, so down to 24. But then Morgan and presumably Chalupny were add (However I never saw any confirmation of this, unlike what we got with Dunn and Kristie Mewis, so it's just assumption). Bringing it up to 26. But then Boxx, Holiday, and Buehler are retiring, so down to 23. And Mewis is presumably unallocated now, which is why Boston signed her to a contract, so down to 22. And we aren't sure if Chalupny is coming back next season... And if Mewis was dropped, then logically Barnhart should be dropped too, so it could be down to 20... So like I said, we don't know for sure. Either way, it's a long way to go to get up to 30; at least 8 new allocations would be needed. And rather unfair to Boston if they take away one of their allocations and didn't give them the #1 pick and then go and give Orlando 3 allocations and the #1 pick... seriously if I were Boston I'd be doing this: (mac and cheese is metaphorical here) But they're probably too busying resigning players like Katie Schoepfer and looking for Biancas to draft to complain. And somehow I've gotten way off topic and turned this into a rant about Boston...
If new players will be added, I expect Boston might get a bone thrown at them with Steph McCaffrey being allocated.
On this subject of the number of allocations that was in another thread after Mewis was signed by Boston, I wrote that dropping Mewis could be part of an initially planned long term strategy of after several seasons of reducing or even eventually eliminating the USSF subsidy (via allocations) to the clubs?
I mean, yes it'll have to go away at some point, since USSF would be silly to three or even two players per club if the league expands to, say, 16 teams. That said, as long as USSF CAN support two or three players per team, I don't see why they wouldn't. It's definitely the case that the smaller, independent teams still probably need the help. I don't see year 4 as the start for weaning off the teat just yet, not with just 10 teams and 7 of them without MLS backing.
The thing is, the USSF pay the the USNT players anyway. The NWSL just gives them additional training, playing opportunities and dollars. The real question is how much more do the players get for also playing in the NWSL, and it doesn't seem to be all that much.
I am concerned with the cancerous effect it has on each team and the league. It is creating "Prima Donnas" and the sooner it is gone, the better. Unfortunately, as long as the league is in the shadows of US Soccer, it is going to be a problem. The league needs strong ownerships. That is what the MLS backed teams will bring to the league. With enough of them, they can give the league some backbone in dealing with US Soccer.
Be careful what you wish for. It is one of the major things that has allowed NWSL to survive and be relatively stable as compared to other leagues. If you remove the allocations next year or maybe 2 years after even then it would put a hefty financial burden on all teams. If the allocations are removed too soon it could result in heavily financial instability.
I think the allocations should continue for the foreseeable future. It's true there can be a prima donna effect, but it doesn't apply to all the allocated players. I'm thinking of two I've heard about, in particular. One is a pd problem, the other isn't. Anyone who thinks the survival of the league, for the foreseeable future, isn't dependent on the allocations hasn't been following professional women's soccer in the US for very long.
Not sure that would have made any difference if Portland hadn't been included in the original eight teams. Due to Portland's success and the addition of Houston and now Orlando, all solid well financed soccer ownerships that know what they are doing, gives me the confidence that the league is heading in the right direction. I will feel even more confident if they sign one or two more in 2017. I was glad to see Seattle expand their seating for next season, but was disappointed they couldn't sell-out more games, especially with the kind of product they put on the field. If Portland would have had that kind of team this year, they probably would have sold out most of their games. For Seattle is it the marketplace or is it the ownership, I don't know, but I do know that Houston, with a team that spent the season at the bottom of the standings, manages to average 6400. I will be more encouraged about Seattle if their attendance can reach an average of 5000 or 6000 next year. Washington shows potential and could probably average 5000-6000 next year, but my concern is where can they play that would allow them to handle those kind of numbers. As far as the other teams I just shake my head. I am not sure about any of them. For most, they have stadium issues. Chicago plays at a terrible facility and I have heard it is really hard to find a designed for soccer, that where there is enough capacity to allow for growth. It would be nice if they could play at Toyota Park, but right now they can't come close to drawing numbers, attendance wise, to make it profitable. Boston probably fits in the same category. Kansas City I am not quite sure what they are doing, like Seattle, great product on the field, but from a business standpoint. (shaking my head) Great crowd opening day this last season at Sporting Park, but it seems that if you have to rent one of the state of the art soccer facilities from a MLS team, you will pay a heavy price. So it is back to a small 3500 stadium. WNY has a great facility, but they can't draw anybody. Without a star attraction, they really haven't been able to do well. Last, but not least, Sky Blue.(more shaking the head) What can one say that hasn't already been said. What good will star power do, if the league doesn't seriously address the salary cap issue. If the quality of players drops off due to players seeking to move on to where they can make more, then what. The teams and US Soccer should throw enough money into the kitty so there can be a healthy increase. Oh! there in lies the problem, most of the team owners can not afford to do that.
warh20s raises a hard question. Suppose Portland's attendance stays at least the same, Houston's increases some, and Orlando's is in the range of Houston's this year. None of that seems unlikely. It will establish pretty clearly that joint ownership with MLS teams produces greater attendance -- and, most certainly, financially more stable teams -- and likely profitable teams. That's as distinguished from not having joint ownership with MLS teams, which produces lesser attendance, less financial stability, and likely unprofitable teams. Whether the owners make money or not is not a direct concern to me. But, the salaries of players are a direct concern to me, and thus whether the owners have money -- especially profits -- to pay to players is an indirect concern. So, if things pan out as I've suggested in the preceding paragraph, strictly from a player perspective what should be happening with the ownerships that are not affiliated with the MLS? I'm not dissing the non MLS ownerships, especially those that have stuck it out through thick and thin. I'm rather trying to look at it from a player perspective. Is it fair to ask players to play for the salaries a lot of them currently are receiving in order to preserve ownerships that are not MLS-affiliated? Is it fair to ask owners who are not MLS affiliated to give up their stakes (or, at least, part of them) in order to enable higher compensation for the players? My friend, MRAD12, has gotten me to see the value of what the non-MLS-affiliated owners have contributed to the development of professional women's soccer. That's why this is a hard question. My best skill in my professional career was in working through complex negotiations. How do we do the best for the players and, at the same time, give proper recognition and value to those who have financed professional women's soccer through hard times? There's a way to do it, I'm sure, but it isn't going to be easy.