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.
NYCFC Speaker Series - 2018
- Thread starter LionNYC
- Start date
I honestly find playing coed to be really fun, way more fun than all men.
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...
People like to use men vs women as a comp for men + women vs. men + women.
It's not a good comp.
Mixed doubles is a good comp and the Hopman Cup is a vastly entertaining tournament that seems to be popular amongst elite players.
:Thinking_face:
Jack Harrison was a Generation Adidas player. It says "any transaction involving a Generation Adidas Player."
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.
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.
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.
NYCFC did not acquire Harrison through the draft. They got him via a trade. How do you not see that?
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.
A. What exactly is a passively written clause?
B. The league does not acquire players via the draft. You are conflating two different ideas.
C. His status DID change, because if he was always considered a GA player, then he would never count towards the salary cap. The logic you’re using regarding his status as a GA never changing is fundamentally flawed.
D. Saying it is “proper to assume” is also flawed - when dealing with written rules, one cannot simply assume something that isn’t written down.
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....
"Player Acquisition Mechanisms
Clubs may acquire players and add them to their rosters via the following mechanisms:"
I think it's very fair to assume on the way that the rules are written, that we can consider NYCFC did not acquire Harrison via the draft. Either way, I think the below is a ridiculous statement considering the ambiguity on 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.
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 have you an explanation before the fact. It turned out I was right. I don’t know what more you want.
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
Seconded. Why can’t we see how each team is cap compliant.
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.
Curious and it would make the off-season and transfer rumors more interesting but it doesn't affect my enjoyment of the team.
For sure it would add enjoyment to following the club and the league as a whole. I like to see how teams maneuver around a cap in football, hockey and basketball. I like predicting the moves the teams will be forced to make because of the cap and who may become available. It adds so much more depth to the offseason and makes following the club more of a year round experience.
You even state it will make the offseason more interesting, how does that not increase enjoyment? I assume you don’t follow the club to bore you. Then again, with all the stadium & injury news we hear from them...
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 just think that suggesting that its ridiculous that people still aren't getting this when the decision appears to go against published (publicly) rules, and that the question should be asked to MLS officials is a bit of an overreaction.
Similar threads
