As suggestion from one of my fellows, I thought I'd make a post about a unconfirmed bid for McBride. http://www.ussocceruk.com/modules.p...le=article&sid=38&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0 Albion has a great defense, but poor front line finishing. I'd like to see McBride fill that gap this year.
Unfortunately Diablo, because of Board rules, I cannot reply to PM's until my account gets a bit older. To answer your question. Snottsdale.
Heh, just want my boy growing up in the right atmosphere. He needs a strong neighborhood if he is going to be MLS's next big thing.
Man Brian really wants this Engalnd opportunity. The league should give him a 3 month loan and go from there.
This actually makes a ton of sense. Brian gets to play at a high level. It's low risk for everyone. If he's playing well for WBA and they think keeping Brian will keep them up, he's worth millions, so MLS gets a fat check. If Brian is just "OK," or if WBA is hopeless, then he comes back in time for the MLS season. If Brian is good and WBA is hopeless anyway, another EPL team will buy him. And Brian gets his chance to prove himself, but if it doesn't work out, MLS gets to keep the marquee player for its marquee franchise. (I'm referring to the stadium, season ticket sales, and profitability.) To me, this is a win for MLS, a win for Bake, and a win for WBA.
I am all for this. I agree with Superdave that this is a win win win situation for everyone. WBA made the big show, and I hope with McBride, they can at least make a decent run at it.
I'm pretty sure Brian's conract is up Dec.31st, 2002. Fortunately for MLS that means they'll at least be able to loan him until the contract is up. I don't know what #'s we're talking here but it can't be that significant if it's for a three month loan with his contract expiring with MLS at the end of the loan. So, either way, Brian's gone after this season whether it's through the loan and then sigining a contract after it's expir. or waiting til Jan.1st, 2003 to sign with someone.
It would make no sense whatsoever to loan McBride to Albion for three months, especially if his MLS contract runs out in December of this year.. If MLS was smart, they go ahead and sell McBride outright to Albion so they can at least make SOME money off of Brian.. If McBride is loaned out and his contract runs out with MLS, MLS is S.O.L. and will make no money (outside of a paltry amount for a 3 month loan)..
Fid, a column of Merz's from days of yore. http://www.dispatch.com/news/sports99/CREW99/crew0922.html
doohhh... figures i listen to the television and dont research the man who would really know what he is talking about on the subject here in the columbus media... thanks for correcting me.
I disagree Dave. If WB wants him, then step up to the table and buy him. I'm sick of the loaning situation. Do you know how bad that is hurting DC right now (they are forced by MLS rules to keep a roster spot for Olsen, and are paying his medical bills). You either like the player or you don't. No more test drives, his WC performance, and form since then should show them enough. If he goes there, and for whatever reason, they don't keep him at the end of the loan, the perception here would be that he failed, regardless of the actual facts involved. James
I totally disagree. There is more to loaning a player than "is that player good, or does he suck". Does this player contribute enough to make me offer X amount of pounds/dollars? Does this player fit in with the club? Is this player fit? Or will he be an injury problem? There is more than black and white when loaning a player. I think it's a great way to find/procure talent. If I buy a $40,000 car, I am sure as hell going to test drive it. I'd like the same option if I am going to buy a $2,000,000 Forward. This move doesn't hinder anyone. MLS, McBride, Columbus, or WBA. I say give him a shot. It's probably his best bet anyway. To make an impression in a newly promoted Premiership team.
If you were selling your 20,000$ car, and someone wanted to buy it from you, and they wrecked it while on that test drive, would you like to have to foot the bills, and then be unable to sell the car?
If your you are in the business of car dealing (as clubs do wheel and deal players), that is a noticed and insaured precaution that both sides will cover for. It is just part of any legal contractual obligation. It is nothing new or shocking, it is more or less a standard legal procedure.
Correct me if I am wrong...but doesn't WBA still have to pay a fee to MLS for McBride's temporary services?? Another point...a reason this is probably happening (correct me if I am wrong once again), but can't you obtain someone on loan after the transfer window closes?? If that is the case, I would expect to see quite a few Nats on loan spells this year. Especially someone like Wolff, who has already trained with Blackburn...or DMB. Also, considering that Olsen's freak injury would have probably happened here as well...I don't really blame NF. And he is back playing, I don't know if you missed that.
we are not some freakin bargain basement. If you want an MLS player, make a good offer. otherwise, don't bother.
I don't agree that it's a win-win deal for everyone, because if he blows out a knee and never plays pro ball again, MLS looses a strikeforce member and marketing tool for a three month loan fee that's probably less than 100 grand. I think he should go, but it's not a deal without risk. And Buff's link doesn't really explain what the option is. It says that one exists, but it doesn't say if it's an MLS only option, a McBride only option or a mutual agreement option. And while it's nice for us to act like Bruce S and suggest that WBA throw money at MLS, consider reality for a moment. They are a D1 team playing their first year in the premiership (meaning they don't have last year's premiership TV money in the bank). Money is tight (they are currently fighting with their players in a decision over bonuses- not a sign of a team in great financial shape http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/w/west_bromwich_albion/2155886.stm) and their chairman was outsted in May. They are a team in a bit of dischord. Why throw MLS money for a guy they might be able to have for free in 4 months? Even in the premiership a team like West Brom will have to watch the pennies. They have no assurance of being there next year, and facing a premiership budget with a First division bank account in the off season is a dire circumstance. Again, until MLS tells us what the option is (which they won't) we won't know what the deal is. If MLS is the only one with the option, the should excercise it and loan him. I have a feeling if they were, they would have done this already- agreeing to let him go once the MLS season is over. McBride doesn't seem too thrilled with MLS at the moment, so I really don't see him signing another contract with MLS unless there is no team in Europe that will take him.
MLS Contracts It's pretty clear that MLS "options" on contract extensions are exercised ONLY at MLS' request. Player "options" are NOT negotiated (which is one of Bishop's points in his lawsuit, IIRC), which means that MLS can pretty much jettison each player who ends up being useless a few years earlier than they can keep a well-performing player under contract. (If you want to use that fact to argue that MLS players should unionize, go ahead -- others have, but that's not the point of this thread.) Furthermore, we know that most MLS player contracts are not really "guaranteed" at all, hence the waiver date that recently came and passed after which MLS contracts for THIS season became "guaranteed" through the end of the season! What's unclear from the Merz article, is whether there is one two-year option or two one-year options. Usually, if there is one option, the writer will use the singular: "the team holds an option for a further two years." Merz, however, uses the plural: "the team holds options for two years." That, IMO, is the source of the ambiguity. Factually, though, there isn't much difference. If WB wants McBride NOW (or in January), whether MLS exercises one or both options is largely irrelevant...
Buff, In Cbus the word is that MLS has McBride locked up until end of 2003 season. He has been pissed at Garber and the rest of the chimps running the league that it is holding him for ransom concerning a transfer fee. The Columbus paper (Merz) reported that talks at All-Star Game between McBride and the chimps regarding this matter did not go well. Apparently Merz got the details of the contract directly from McBride instead of the "accurate" ramblings from a league chimp.
With all due respect, James, you're thinking like a fan, not a businessman. Businessmen who take hard'n'fast moral positions usually aren't good businessmen. And that's because being a good businessman involves having empathy and understanding for the other guy. And that goes for the other people who disagreed with me. You have to think of this as a negotiation between 3 parties, each of whom have some power in the deal. Nobody has the power to roll over anyone else.