At least a coed all-star match would be dope.A co-ed League? That would be progressive!
I honestly find playing coed to be really fun, way more fun than all men.
At least a coed all-star match would be dope.A co-ed League? That would be progressive!
At least a coed all-star match would be dope.
I honestly find playing coed to be really fun, way more fun than all men.
I know first-hand that the '96 World Cup winning team was soundly beaten by a Top 20 Connecticut high school team in a non-public match during the run-up to the tournament.Co-ed works on the Sunday league level. At the professionals, or even college game it wouldn't be fun at all.
The USWNT lost 9-0 to a men's college team. The athleticism just shows more of itself the higher the competitive level.
I know first-hand that the '96 World Cup winning team was soundly beaten by a Top 20 Connecticut high school team in a non-public match during the run-up to the tournament.
I exaggerated the first-hand part. It was second-hand from a reliable, contemporaneous source -- a friend of mine who was an assistant coach for the high school team. There was a time in my life when I remembered some of the details, but that time has long since passed...That’s a story I want to hear more of.
People like to use men vs women as a comp for men + women vs. men + women.Co-ed works on the Sunday league level. At the professionals, or even college game it wouldn't be fun at all.
The USWNT lost 9-0 to a men's college team. The athleticism just shows more of itself the higher the competitive level.
Jack Harrison was a Generation Adidas player. It says "any transaction involving a Generation Adidas Player."This.
The rules state "A club shall receive the transfer or loan fee revenue (including agent fees and other expenses) from any transaction involving a Generation adidas Player or player acquired via the MLS SuperDraft based on the number of MLS service years:"
NYCFC ("The club") acquired Harrison via trade and not via the draft. Had they traded up to the 1st pick and then drafted Harrison, then your "How does anyone not get this" would make sense.
The Roster Rules do not address how someone "enters the league". I agree that the intent of the rules were probably to treat Jack as "acquired via the draft" but they are very poorly written.
Pretty sure Jack had graduated from GA status, so he was a senior roster player when transferred. If we’re going by the written rule, his former GA status should have had zero bearing on the transaction.Jack Harrison was a Generation Adidas player. It says "any transaction involving a Generation Adidas Player."
This is MLS. Written rules don't matter.Pretty sure Jack had graduated from GA status, so he was a senior roster player when transferred. If we’re going by the written rule, his former GA status should have had zero bearing on the transaction.
Then why did you originally cite it?This is MLS. Written rules don't matter.
The roster and budget rules that the teams receive state: "“The league reserves the right at any time to modify the Roster and Budget Guidelines, create exceptions to the Roster and Budget Guidelines, and/or rescind the Roster and Budget Guidelines in the League’s sole and absolute discretion.” This gives the league the ability to follow rules as intended rather than rules as written.
Did the league intend for teams that wanted to transfer a GA player or SuperDraft pick to follow that transfer policy? That answer is yes.
Is it bush-league poppycock? You bet. However, parsing word choice and language in a set of rules that the league doesn't have to follow is a pointless endeavor.
NYCFC did not acquire Harrison through the draft. They got him via a trade. How do you not see that? SoupInNYC ’s question is 100% valid.
This.
The rules state "A club shall receive the transfer or loan fee revenue (including agent fees and other expenses) from any transaction involving a Generation adidas Player or player acquired via the MLS SuperDraft based on the number of MLS service years:"
NYCFC ("The club") acquired Harrison via trade and not via the draft. Had they traded up to the 1st pick and then drafted Harrison, then your "How does anyone not get this" would make sense.
The Roster Rules do not address how someone "enters the league". I agree that the intent of the rules were probably to treat Jack as "acquired via the draft" but they are very poorly written.
A. What exactly is a passively written clause?The clause is written in the passive voice. It doesn’t say whose acquisition matters, the league or the team. Since all contracts are with the league, and because it is illogical that a trade after that initial acquisition somehow changes his status, it is proper to assume that the clause refers to the league, not the club. That we know the outcome only suggests it moreso.
You wanted the answer, and I gave you the answer. That you don’t like it is not particularly relevant.
I predicted this outcome before the split on the money was made public based on the above analysis. I was correct, yet some people continue to insist that I was not.
Yes, I find this frustrating.
So in the above, we are making assumptions based on ambiguous language. Assuming that the acquisition being referred to is the league's acquisition even though it doesn't refer to the league at all. Assuming that the trade doesn't affect how the player was acquired. That is quite an assumption, considering earlier in the rules trades is listed under the below category....The clause is written in the passive voice. It doesn’t say whose acquisition matters, the league or the team. Since all contracts are with the league, and because it is illogical that a trade after that initial acquisition somehow changes his status, it is proper to assume that the clause refers to the league, not the club. That we know the outcome only suggests it moreso.
How do people not get this?
Come on Gator. I don't care what NYCFC got. Either way they got the same amount of GAM out of it, everything is after that on a transfer fee of that size isn't changing any spending plans that CFG has for this club.You wanted the answer, and I gave you the answer. That you don’t like it is not particularly relevant.
If you go back, you will also see that I made this prediction as well. I don't think MLS intended the rule to act in that manner, but the way the rule is written, it appears as though NYCFC should have received the 100%. I thought this particular scenario is one that the league would have cleaned up when it updated the roster rules this offseason, but I was surprised that they didn't change it at all.I predicted this outcome before the split on the money was made public based on the above analysis. I was correct, yet some people continue to insist that I was not.
The better question to ask is when is MLS going to be clear and transparent like the other major leagues with their rules, procedures, salary cap info.Then why did you originally cite it?
Edit: and therein lies the reason SoupInNYC ’s question is 100% valid. If MLS changed the rules, then that’s their prerogative but they should clarify that they did.
The better question to ask is when is MLS going to be clear and transparent like the other major leagues with their rules, procedures, salary cap info.
Does it really matter? I'm certainly
Curious and it would make the off-season and transfer rumors more interesting but it doesn't affect my enjoyment of the team.
The better question to ask is when is MLS going to be clear and transparent like the other major leagues with their rules, procedures, salary cap info.
I understand that explanation as it seems plausible. Again, to repeat myself, I provided that same explanation before the decision was made as well.I have you an explanation before the fact. It turned out I was right. I don’t know what more you want.