i guess this is news, i though the only trained here during the time allowed by MLS in the past two weeks, I think they get back to training this week no? for the PR game.
http://www.empireofsoccer.com/targeting-demichelis-saunders-42768/
i guess this is news, i though the only trained here during the time allowed by MLS in the past two weeks, I think they get back to training this week no? for the PR game.
Yeah except that we don't own our players...MLS does. If CFG makes unfair above market bids for players on NYCFC, then MLS is going to tell them to gtfo.This is genius. Quick and easy way to add $650k to our salary cap each year.
Send Saunders to MCFC for a $1M transfer fee ($350k to the league, $650k to the team in the form of allocation money), which should be enough to sign a guy like Demichelis or another strong player who's above DP wages.
Yeah except that we don't own our players...MLS does. If CFG makes unfair above market bids for players on NYCFC, then MLS is going to tell them to gtfo.
You would think MLS would be ok with taking more money than a player is worth. The only reason they would choose not to is for competitive balance reasons.
The strategy JGarrettLieb brought up above is so sound, that I'm wondering if that was the plan but the league nixed the deal behind closed doors. There's at least a solid non-zero chance it happened, although it's probably more likely these are just silly season transfer rumors.
Not one to (ever) blindly support MLS, but in this case, the rule was already in place to protect for scenarios where a parent club can use a loan mechanism to usurp the leagues byzantine roster rules. "Blocked" is a strong word in this case. Demichelis has wanted to come to NY for two years now. Makes sense this rumor would be floated. But unless he wants to com in under DP money ... not happening.
I'm OK with MLS rules, and the breaking of the rules for the greater good of the League (i.e. an ownership group actively wants to spend more money than currently is allowed because a quality player actually wants to come), but if MLS doesn't subvert the rules in this case, especially after issuing TAM 2.0 for 2016 because LA blew through theirs like Charlie Sheen on a Tuesday bender, then it's going to cause rifts within even the rich owners when they realize only LA is treated special with new rules.Fuck MLS rules.
Garber's idea of growing the league is increasing the number of teams and cashing the entry fee payment. The problem with increasing the quantity of teams quickly is that the quality of domestic player pool will be diminished. This would not be a problem if more talented foreigners could be brought in, but that's not possible when there are some old guard owners that don't have deep pockets, so they're not in favor of raising the cap.Don Garber says he wants to grow and improve the league. Don Garber is a lier.
Garber works for the owners. As long as the Krafts and Hunts are around and still wield as much power as they do, the league will always be held back.
Also have a feeling we'll find out who's gone tomorrow morning.
I'm curious how much of a factor that would be in their strategy versus other factors like:I think NYCFC is going to wait until announcing roster changes. They need to space out the information during the offseason so that we always have something to talk about. First it was Kreis, then it was Patrick, now it's seat relocation, then MLS Cup, then Puerto Rico, then maybe roster changes.
Not one to (ever) blindly support MLS, but in this case, the rule was already in place to protect for scenarios where a parent club can use a loan mechanism to usurp the leagues byzantine roster rules. "Blocked" is a strong word in this case. Demichelis has wanted to come to NY for two years now. Makes sense this rumor would be floated. But unless he wants to com in under DP money ... not happening.
I find this somewhat surprising. The original owners presumably suffered the greatest operating losses, but they have also pocketed the most expansion fees, which is how the league earns most of its money. Did the original gang lose that much that the cumulative expansion fees have not put them in the black, even a little?Garber does represent the owners. There is a rift between the new owners and the original owners. The original owners are still in the hole. The new owners have profitable franchises that have gone up in value.