Lost in the excitement of the Superdraft was the fine print that no-one in A-league was eligible to be drafted by MLS. Now it appears that there is no current agreement with USL to allow for mid-season callups to MLS teams (when guys go down with injuries or a team has multiple national team commitments--like LA or DC or Metros). I would think that some of the teams with depth problems would find this situation especially ominous.
While there is no agreement between MLS and USL like there has been in the past, that doesn't mean that individual MLS teams can't make agreements with one or more A-League teams to "rent" players or "loan" players for development. I think most of us Fire fans are still expecting that we'll have some sort of working relationship with the Milwaukee Wave (replacing the Rampage).
Dave Kasper (DCU's Technical Director) said that the league notified teams that they should plan on carrying 3 goal keepers b/c there were no callup provisions. I don't know what that means about the Chicago-Milwaukee arrangement or those with any other teams (DCU-Richmond) but it sounds like the league is telling teams that they (or the A-league) will not allow A-league players to be temporarily called up to fill spots from injury or national team callups. Maybe they can still loan them out to A-league teams. But if the league is saying "carry 3 keepers" that seems to me to be saying "you will not be allowed to pull up A-league talent if a keeper gets hurt". Anyone else have anything to add on this situation? Sounds pretty stupid (if my interpretation is true) b/c I think it's been a win-win situation before this for both USL and MLS with the cooperation.
It all comes down to cash. The USL wants more than the MLS is willing to shell out for call ups. Wants going to happen is that an MLS team will strike up an individual agreement with an A-league team.
Hmmm. The concept of an individual MLS team working on it's own behalf is an interesting one- much like moving faster than the speed of light. Let me know when it happens.
I wonder if the League thinks that expanding the Developmental Roster to 6 players is sufficient to meet teams call up needs. If they were willing to pay just a little more to the non-P-40's that might work well but frankly I think most teams are going to have trouble finding MLS quality prospects to take 1K/mo to fill these slots. As was posted above I'm sure this is all about money but I also sense that it's part of a trend that will eventually see teams having their own reserve and developmental system.
I don't see what's so odd about it. Chicago has been doing things on its own in several capacities since day one. I know other clubs have. Before, with the Rampage, there were agreements for long-term loans of Fire players (Capano, Ring, Saavedra, etc. in 2002; Curtin, Ring, others in 2001) and direct, immediate callups to the Fire of Milwaukee players if requested. Indications are somethign similar or, in fact, more binding with the Wave will exist now that the league-to-league agreement has gone away.
But they could maybe find guys to take 1K/month and get an extra $500 a month on loan from an A-League team with the ability to call them back when the MLS team needs them. I think this could develop into the "traditional" English model where the big teams have guys they can loan out, hence the extra developmental slots. And when those guys aren't getting playing time, they can be loaned to smaller teams, who are responsible for some financial compensation, but less than they would be by carrying an extra guy on the roster.
What you are talking about and what Joe is talking about are two different things. See here's where the problem is: You are talking about long-term loans of Fire players, right? Like Curtin in 2001. Regardless of where Curtin was playing in 2001, he was counted as being on the Fire roster. The same goes with the other players you listed: they were all MLS players who were then loaned out. Other MLS teams did the same with their local A-league teams, right? DCU did it with Brian Namoff last year to Richmond and I'm sure we could get examples from other teams. But again that's not what we are talking about here. In the past, MLS teams could request A-league players as emergency backups even though that player was not on their roster. For instance, in 2000 DCU got Ray Goodlett for defensive help from...I can't remember- either Hershey or Richmond- when Llamosa and Agoos were all called up to the Nats and Pope was hurt. At no time was Goodlett on the DCU roster. Other teams have done this at various stages too with probably by far the most common instance being when the starting keeper is either injured or called up and the MLS team then would take an A-league GK for a game or two as insurance. This is what will no longer happen.
Re: Re: No Current USL Agreement I think that there hasn't yet been established a good way for big teams in big leagues to relate to smaller teams in small leagues. The main problem is always as soon as the "minor" league becomes only a holding tank for "major league" prospects then the "minor" league's attendence plummets and the financial viability of the the league comes into question This happened in baseball in the 20s and 30s and is more slowly happening in English soccer today. Because of that I can understand why the USL is very leery of any agreements with MLS.
I understand what you mean. There's no reason why that still can't happen. It's just Chicago will pay the fees to Milwaukee directly to call up players (and they still likely won't be counted on the roster) or they could establish an exclusive agreement between them (so that they will no longer have the affiliations with Indiana or Minnesota, for example) instead of MLS paying USL before the season begins for them to partition out to individual clubs as they choose. In Chicago's case there is every indication that this is exactly what will happen.
I think what Skip is saying is that it is impossible for the Chicago Fire to pay fees directly to Milwaukee since the Chicago Fire does not exist as a contracting entity, at least not from a player personnel standpoint. The only entity with such a contracting relationship at the MLS level is Major League Soccer, LLC. Now, if you're suggesting that MLS is about to change its contracting entities to allow the individual franchises to enter player personnel contracts of this type, that would be signficant news. Essentially it would be the end of Single Entity as we know it.
You are right that only MLS can hold contracts. However, when players come up from the A-league on short term loans (or sent down from MLS) their contracts stay in the same place. The original team continues to pay their salary. The fee payed is a direct monetary sum paid to the club in question. (Crudely) It'd be no different than the office manager for the Fire going out and renting a couple cars for the team's use. The actual ownership would not change. They would just be rented in the name of 'Anschutz Chicago Soccer, LLC'.
It's important to make the distinction here between the term "team" and the term "organization". As far as I know, at the MLS level, MLS pays ALL salaries, regardless of team. If a player is contracted as a member of Chicago Fire's roster, his salary is paid by MLS. I'm not sure what happens under a loan callup from the A-League, but based on MLS's public statements of their inner workings, I would think that MLS would pay since it was a player personnel move. Are you taking a wild guess as to how this would work or do you have some information that we don't? What you're describing is anathema to the Single Entity player personnel structure of MLS. Under a league-wide arrangement, perhaps your suggestion makes sense and could be justified, assuming there were rules about when and how teams could make such loan deals. But without such a deal, this would allow the individual clubs far more leeway than they have ever been allowed in the past and would suggest a significant move away from Single Entity. I would love that, but I don't see it happening.
HalaMadrid, could you provide more details on this? You say all indications say Milwaukee and Chicago will continue. You've seen something from Wilt saying "the MLS mandate doesn't apply to us?" or Milwaukee saying the same for USL's position? My understanding is that this absence of contract may be driven as much by the A-league as it is MLS. MLS wants to pay less (for players), A-league wants more money (for teams when players are called up). It isn't clear to me that MLS is saying "okay teams, you're on our own here." Instead, there was no agreement by the A-league to allow any of there players to be eligible in the draft. And it looks like it's USL policy not to loan players out. From what little I've heard and read, it appears as if Milwaukee's or Chicago's preferences don't matter on this (and for what it's worth, there are plenty of teams that have had very good relationships with their USL feeder: NE and Boston--they even loaned Nicol's so he could replace Zenga at the end of a season, DC and Richmond). I don't doubt that the A-league will allow MLS players to play for them--the A-league allows loans (so players from MISL or foreign leagues will play A-league). But it appears that this is a "joint" result (by both MLS and USL) that the relationships either encouraged or even tolerated in the past, are not to be allowed this year. Afterall, MLS' instructions to all teams were not that there wasn't an agreement. The instructions were: that no A-league players were eligible to be drafted, perhaps there would be an agreement for a draft later but apparently not (no further word on that). And that teams won't be able to callup A-league talent in case of injuries or national team commitments. Obviously, that could change (and I hope it does). But maybe this provides the impetus for reserve teams.
http://www.topdrawersoccer.com/TrainingGround/1042945272/view Far be it from me to introduce facts into a discussion. "As it stands, individual clubs in each league are free to work out player-sharing agreements with one another, similar to what clubs in Europe and South America have traditionally done."
Well, that seems to resolve this question then--as long as the MLS club has a good relationship with a nearby A-league team (Chicago-Milwaukee, DC-Richmond).
Well, that's very interesting. Certainly, from the A-League side of things this matches what I've always heard - that the top A-League clubs are steamed that they're getting no transfer fees when their players move to MLS (regardless of the frequency with which that happens.) I hate to sound like a true blue skeptic, but I'm concerned about the lack of source given for the section quoted. If this came from the A-League guy, it means less, as he could very well say that individual A-League clubs have the right to enter loan contracts with individual MLS clubs, while the MLS people would say "uh, no, that's not the way we operate." Whereas if it comes from an MLS spokesperson, it would suggest a significant shift in their player personnel operation. I'm willing to take it at face value, though, and watch what happens this year. I suspect we won't see any loans this year.