Euro rapes MLS again. Bend over boys! How can the league office keep letting the best of our league to slip away with out a single dime for these impact players. Seems like we are getting screwed. Can someone please explain this to me or is Commish Garber caught again with his pants down?
Re: Euro rapes MLS again. Bend over boys! Well, they just haven't figured out how this works. Look at Beasley and Mathis as the first example: they could've been sold when they were hot (right after WC 2002), but the League dicked around too much. This offseason has shown what happens when they don't offer long enough contracts or extension clauses. These are the growing pains of MLS and hopefully they'll learn from what happened to Boca, Mathis, and Thornton and try to find a median between the two.
Re: Euro rapes MLS again. Bend over boys! Jesus Christ. This turnover happens in every league everywhere, including the biggest ones. Relax a bit, now, huh?
Re: Re: Euro rapes MLS again. Bend over boys! HALA? CAN'T YOU SEE THE SKY IS FALLING??? /chicken little
The smart players won't go to Europe until their MLS conracts are up, then they can get the money the european teams would have to give MLS as transfer fees.
It doesn't work exactly like that. Plus, Players typically get a percentage of any transfer fee. Basically, if Fulham didn't have to pay 2 million dollars to sign Carlos Bocanegra, that doesn't mean Carlos is getting paid 2 million more than he would otherwise.
Re: Euro rapes MLS again. Bend over boys! I don't know how long you've followed the league, but this is basically why the MLSPA lost it's lawsuit against the league, because they are free to play overseas, therefore no monopoly for MLS. Despite MLS not getting paid for most of the exiting players, this is still good for MLS. Foreign teams have come in before and "lowballed" MLS transer fees for top players. So they decided to keep the players rather than set the low standard for future transfer fees. So you see, maybe they were offered $500,000 for Bocanegra last year, when clearly Bocanegra is worth at least $2 million. In that example, they lost the $500,000 this time because he was free, but for "the next Bocanegra", they may get the big payday for the player & for MLS. As long as we keep producing top talent, the market for our players will go up. How long is the Adu deal? 6 years. So if Adu is all he's cracked up to be, foreign teams arent going to wait 6 years for him, they'll pay MLS nicely for him before the deal is done. That is, if players like Bocanegra, McBride, Mathis & Howard continue to show that MLS players are capable of playing at the highest levels. In the long run, grand scheme of things, It's win/win for MLS and it's players should those players "want" to go overseas. James
Re: Re: Euro rapes MLS again. Bend over boys! sure, turnover happens; but i don't think that's what we're talking about here. the issue is whether or not the league is going to allow it's better players to play out their contracts. i've read comments from the management of numerous european clubs which have (since the bosman ruling) stated simply, 'players will either re-sign, or they'll be sold. we're not going to invest heavily in a player, only for him to walk away on a free'. generally, when a club let's one get away (like spurs with sol), they end up red-faced and having to explain why they neither re-signed nor sold. the reason is that failing to do either is generally - though certainly not always - foolish. without proposing the answer, dcrpoop's question is perfectly valid, in my opinion. i know nothing of the contract signings, nor later negotiations, between MLS and either thornton or bocanegra. but with regard to brian mcbride, MLS clearly got it right - re-sign, even if an upcoming transfer is presumed. perhaps the league is learning how the game works - mathis and the other january exits aside. now if beasley walks away on a bosman next year, i'll be asking the same question that started this thread.
having said that, i certainly agree with jamesf24's assertion that it can be better to let a player play out his contract than to sell him at well below what the league considers his value. now, i don't know how heavily bocanegra was shopped, but clearly part of the equasion is to begin the process before you get so late in the existing contract that this contract is of little value to the buying club. you wait until six months before the contract expires, and lowball offers are all you're likely to get. this is why i would like to see the league move sooner, rather than later, with regard to demarcus' situation (and maybe they are). i'm not trying to hang the league out on this; but while a trend of MLS's best players going to europe can be viewed in a positive light, having them do so for free is a little less easily digested.
Am I wrong... To me, it seems like it would be to the advantage of the player to still be under contract if he can get a reasonable piece of the transfer fee. For instance, let's say DMB signs a four-year deal with MLS, but with the agreement that he gets 40% of any transfer fee. Let's say that the transfer fee is $2 million. DMB gets $800,000 cash upfront in addition to his new salary. Everybody comes out a winner. There's no way MLS is going to be able to stop players from going overseas. And the last four haven't exactly looked bad, so there's going to be more demand. Maybe the league needs to start getting more creative.
Re: Am I wrong... That is an idea i have also thought about, but no one has been able to say on these boards how viable it could be... Does anyone here know an agent/player representative?
Re: Am I wrong... Except for the European team that doesn't want to put down 2 mil on "an American," and would rather wait until they can get them for free in two years and take the 2 million now and spend it on someone who has a EU passport.
Re: Re: Am I wrong... I think most EPL teams know by now that American players can adapt to their style, and IIRC, it was mentioned that they do not have that whole EU player limit, only that 75% NT requirement.... I think (like I am sure most here do ) the next players to move on will be DMB and Convey, and more than likely they will go to England (at least one of the two, who might look at it as a challenge for having been turned down before)..... So i think the idea that was presented by denver_mugwamp needs some consideration
Re: Re: Am I wrong... of course it's viable. if i'm MLS, and one of our stars' contract is going to expire at the end of 2004, i'm on the phone to his agent tomorrow. i say, "does your man want to stay or go?" if he wants to stay, ok - you negotiate a new contract. if he wants to go, you say "it's your choice. we can start shopping your contract around tomorrow..." now, if you value his contract at $2m and (as jeffgmc suggests) NOT A SINGLE CLUB in europe values it at more than $500k, then you have a basic overevaluation of his worth. but, then, you're probably going to pay him more salary than anybody else, too. agents respond to this. "...OR you can re-sign with us with an understanding that your contract being longer-term will make it significantly more marketable, and we can get you a transfer from which we will both benefit." or maybe not. what the hell do i know? but i am pretty sure that if there are options that can (responsibly) avoid losing players on bosmans, they should be explored.
I think players leaving for europe will be good for american soccer in the long haul. Sure, it looks lie MLS has lost now. But as players succeed in europe coming straight from MLS, people will begin to realize that MLS is a good league....and more importantly getting better. This means that more players, US born and foreign, will look to MLS for many different types of opportunities. As time passes and MLS makes some money, salary will gp up, making the league an even more attractive option.
what about the fact ...that this is largely up to the player and his agent? MLS does have a "salary cap" that impedes the league's ability to negotiate contracts, and nothing stops a player from just deciding to play out his contract in spite of being offered a significant raise. and while it may be true that players receive a percentage of their transfer fee, it is also plausible that moving on a free allows the club signing a given player more flexibility in negotiating the player's salary - 40% of a transfer fee may be less attractive than a higher salary over the length of the contract, higher performance bonuses, release clauses, etc. you can't force a player to sign a contract if he's willing to gamble on getting better offers overseas. m