I was reading an article from the WUSA ( "WUSA Suspends Operations" http://soccer.loop48.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=999 ) and I am wondering if the founding players themselves wanted to take a financial risk on the league. Here is a paragraph that is concerning: [QUOTE The league was formed as a unique partnership between the owners and the players, with founding players taking an active role in league management and also an equity stake. Julie Foudy, captain of the San Diego Spirit and U.S. World Cup team and a member of the WUSA Board of Governors, commented, "We appreciate the wonderful commitment that the WUSA owners have made to the players. The impact of the WUSA on women's sports and millions of fans has been extraordinary." [/QUOTE] Did the players not have confidence in their own league? Did the founding players not want to take a financial risk? What kind of "golden parchute" did the "founding players" get by ending the league right now? Did any other WUSA player get any kind of severance pay like the founding players. In this article I get the feeling that they had enough money left to provide all the original US WNT players that committed to the league in the beginning a financial parachute out of the league by folding it now. It would be interesting to find out.
The other concerning thing about this league is it looks like the players had a big influence on how the league was run. They are soccer players, not business people. When you have players run a league all they are concerned about is themselves and that is ultimately why the league failed. They wanted to go "big time" before they even had any solid base for the league.
The "financial risk" was the League Founding Players (LFP) 1/20 stake each player, from Hamm to Ducar, had in the league. It's like the women's professional tennis tour in which each of the nine players were paid a single dollar in 1973. Eventually it became the Sanex WTA Tour. It's too bad there was a "show me the money" mentality in 2000. I would rather have the LFPs take lower salary than the hard-working Grubbs, Tietjens, and Littles the league has given exposure to.
As an old professor of mine used to say, you're taking liberties with the text. If you want to advance your misogynistic agenda, please do a better job of grounding it in reality and not rampant speculation.
Thanks for the information. That is the problem when you get players running the league. Everybody is in it for themselves and not to better the league. I think it would be interesting to see what kind of "golden parachute" the League Founding Players received by folding yesterday.
I just think it raises some questions. I am asking a few questions and I was wondering if anyone can answer them. Did the players not have confidence in their own league? Did the founding players not want to take a financial risk? What kind of "golden parchute" did the "founding players" get by ending the league right now? Did any other WUSA player get any kind of severance pay like the founding players? I think someone has the answers on this board. That is why I threw these questions out.
Why would you think that, in light of them having an equity stake? In what business do the employees take the risk? What risk did the MLS players take? What difference does it make? What is the purpose of the question? What makes you think there is one? What evidence do you have that the founders got severance? No, you want to gloat and cast aspersions on the players. One last thing...have you stopped beating your wife?
I guess you don't have any answers because all you did is ask more questions. The "beating your wife" comment really shows how much class you truly have.
Legitimate questions It is interesting that I raise some questions that would like to be answered and the first response I get on "beating my wife" and the second response I get a picture questioning my manhood. If you don't like the thread you don't have to respond. I just think you need to follow the money trail on this whole WUSA league failure. It would be interesting to know how much the founding players received by folding the league right now instead of hanging in there and trying to make it work.
Re: Legitimate questions The founding players signed GUARANTEED contracts for 5 years, which REQUIRE the investors to pay the salaries even if WUSA were to dissolve. The founding players did agree to a 25% cut, but they never agreed to waive the guarantees when WUSA (COX) demanded the waiver after the 2002 season.
Re: Re: Legitimate questions Da_cfo, thank you for your response. Where did you get your information? I figured they had something good at the end of the tunnel because the players' responses were not very bitter yesterday. I wonder if this was lead by the Founding Players to shut down this week instead of riding out the storm? They will get a lot of bang for their buck by riding the sympathy card through the World Cup and should get a lot more people in the stands. Even though I don't know anyone who is going to be paying $400 to see the finals.
Re: Legitimate questions More directly, the picture is questioning your obsession with the demise of WUSA, which seems to be of unhealthy proportions.
No, dumbass-who-posts-the-same-thing-on-10-threads. I was showing that the questions you asked were, in general, assuming facts not in evidence, and because of that, they're weren't any good answers.
Re: Re: Legitimate questions That makes the timing of the folding announcement really interesting. I wonder if WUSA was pressuring the founding players (FPs) to sign this waiver. Was the folding announcement on the eve of the WWC2003, the WUSA's last ditch attempt to pressure the FPs to waive? Having said that, it is my understanding that the WUSA's board was unanimous in its decision to fold. I though Julie Foudy was the Player's rep on the board. Given that, my theory does nto make any sense. Does anyone else have any information about this?
Another intelligent and classy comment. It is interesting to see that da_cfo answered my question and it doesn't look too good on the league's players. It looks like greed to me. I think this issue needs to be looked in deeper because I have asked some legitimate questions.
It is interesting. You are eating crow right now because of da_cfo's response and all you can do is laugh and call me a newbie just because you have 7800 posts behind your name. Here some other great responses from you on this thread Nice debate. Do you respond to everyone this way when you don't like something or don't have an answer to someone's question?
Why would someone lie about these figures? I know you want to prove me wrong so bad so hopefully da_cfo will show up and tell us where his source is.
In defense of da_cfo, he's usually pretty good with the here and now and things that have happened in the past. It's just that in the area of "things to come," his vision becomes a bit more cloudy. Now, I'm not going to take his "guaranteed contracts until 2005" statement as absolute gospel, but it does have the ring of plausibility to it. After all, the Founders did have a pretty sweet deal in other ways, and if there's one thing that professional players in all sports love, it's guaranteed money.
Ask any vets around here about ollie's track record on women's soccer. Wait a minute...how can someone who wrote be proven "wrong?" A question that's really just a question can't be right or wrong. The only way you could be wrong is if you weren't really just asking questions, but were pushing an agenda. QED.