2016 General Mls Transfer Rumors

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks for this. Really great analysis. It seems that a team with 3 DPs is destined to lose in these arrangements. What would happen if a team who sold a player above a certain threshold - let's say $5M - was given an extra DP slot for some number of years?

They would still lose money on the deal. But they could increase their competitiveness (if they were willing to spend) and theoretically have some or all of that expense come back in revenue on the new player's merch and impact to the team (CCL, etc).

Or is this crazy talk?
It appears that the $650k GAM was written when MLS was thinking the normal transfer would be in the $500-2M range. Having $10M on the table is new territory and likely not the outlier any longer with young players like Larin, Harrison, and Morris coming into the picture. After a certain threshold, the GAM should be a percentage of the transfer - that would be a real incentive to the teams.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FootyLovin and adam
Been thinking about the potential Larin -> Benfica for $10M rumor.... a sale like this makes *zero* sense for the club while a lot of sense for the league.

1. Since Larin was drafted within the previous 3 years, the rules applying to him are different than the normal 2/3 payout of a "regular" squad player signed during a transfer window:

Since we're halfway through the 2nd season, let's say Orlando gets 2/5 of the transfer. That would end up being $4M total of which $650K could be GAM.

2. As a newly drafted player, Larin's salary for 2016 is $135K - well below a DP/TAM level and not taking one of the spots while arguably being just as effective.

3. To replace Larin, Orlando would have to pay a minimum of $200K+ and likely closer to $400-700K for a guy that effective and young. To do this would use up all of the GAM received in the transfer. The alternative would be to make his replacement a DP, to keep the Cap hit low, but Orlando already has (3) DPs in Kaka, Rivas (youth), Rochez (youth) - so this doesn't work (for them).

4. If Larin is replaced with a player of comparable ability, they could theoretically cover the CAP hit this year with the GAM, but then the following years would be dicey - whereas Larin would still be operating under his sustainable initial contract for likely 2-3 more years.

5. The club would still have the remainder of the $4M transfer surplus ($3.35M), so they would have fuller coffers, but is that worth the headache of replacing Larin?

6. MLS reaps $6M from the transfer..... they WIN with the deal.

7. What is interesting, is the paragraph that states what the club's ($3.35M) surplus can be used for:

I have always assume the 2nd bullet point - misc club operating/infrastructure expenses (not payroll) - but the first bullet point is interesting a little ambiguous. what exactly are the "costs" they are referring to: paid transfer fee, salary (above the max Cap Hit $ MLS pays), etc. If transfer fee, that's a nice point since MLS hates to fork over $$ for that and instead opts for out-of-contract players.

As a side note, everything written above also applies to the potential transfer of Harrison. NYCFC would get the short end of the stick to let him go and try to replace him. Their strategy should be to resign him, when this contract expires, as a youth DP for at least 1 year to keep the Cap hit at $150K. After that, depending on his salary he'd either remain a DP or be a TAM player.

Unless MLS changes the rules so that more than $650K can be used as GAM, it doesn't make sense for any team to ever give up a GA/HG/Drafted player while they're still in the middle of their first contract. Never ever.
Agree with Footy this is quite useful research. Regarding your closing, you make it sound like the team has a choice. My understanding is that if the player wants to move and the league is willing, the team has very little say, correct?

Another note is that the team compensation formula is arguably backwards. I get the logic of it, in that by increasing over time and provides more of a reward to teams that nurture a player instead of just catching lightning in a bottle. But, as your analysis shows, this really hurts teams who draft the best players. Then, having spent a limited resource -- and maybe even traded other scarce valuables to get that spot -- to get that player, they lose him quickly and get little in return. It almost is enough to make it better to draft a solid but unspectacular player over the true shining stars. You cannot always tell who's who in advance, but it's still backwards.
 
Been thinking about the potential Larin -> Benfica for $10M rumor.... a sale like this makes *zero* sense for the club while a lot of sense for the league.

1. Since Larin was drafted within the previous 3 years, the rules applying to him are different than the normal 2/3 payout of a "regular" squad player signed during a transfer window:

Since we're halfway through the 2nd season, let's say Orlando gets 2/5 of the transfer. That would end up being $4M total of which $650K could be GAM.

2. As a newly drafted player, Larin's salary for 2016 is $135K - well below a DP/TAM level and not taking one of the spots while arguably being just as effective.

3. To replace Larin, Orlando would have to pay a minimum of $200K+ and likely closer to $400-700K for a guy that effective and young. To do this would use up all of the GAM received in the transfer. The alternative would be to make his replacement a DP, to keep the Cap hit low, but Orlando already has (3) DPs in Kaka, Rivas (youth), Rochez (youth) - so this doesn't work (for them).

4. If Larin is replaced with a player of comparable ability, they could theoretically cover the CAP hit this year with the GAM, but then the following years would be dicey - whereas Larin would still be operating under his sustainable initial contract for likely 2-3 more years.

5. The club would still have the remainder of the $4M transfer surplus ($3.35M), so they would have fuller coffers, but is that worth the headache of replacing Larin?

6. MLS reaps $6M from the transfer..... they WIN with the deal.

7. What is interesting, is the paragraph that states what the club's ($3.35M) surplus can be used for:

I have always assume the 2nd bullet point - misc club operating/infrastructure expenses (not payroll) - but the first bullet point is interesting a little ambiguous. what exactly are the "costs" they are referring to: paid transfer fee, salary (above the max Cap Hit $ MLS pays), etc. If transfer fee, that's a nice point since MLS hates to fork over $$ for that and instead opts for out-of-contract players.

As a side note, everything written above also applies to the potential transfer of Harrison. NYCFC would get the short end of the stick to let him go and try to replace him. Their strategy should be to resign him, when this contract expires, as a youth DP for at least 1 year to keep the Cap hit at $150K. After that, depending on his salary he'd either remain a DP or be a TAM player.

Unless MLS changes the rules so that more than $650K can be used as GAM, it doesn't make sense for any team to ever give up a GA/HG/Drafted player while they're still in the middle of their first contract. Never ever.

Kreis just needs the money / cap space to bring in Grabavoy and Wingert.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paul and SoupInNYC
It appears that the $650k GAM was written when MLS was thinking the normal transfer would be in the $500-2M range. Having $10M on the table is new territory and likely not the outlier any longer with young players like Larin, Harrison, and Morris coming into the picture. After a certain threshold, the GAM should be a percentage of the transfer - that would be a real incentive to the teams.
Agree with your solution but wonder about the history. If they assumed the transfers would be in the $500k to $2mm range, they wouldn't need the threshold. The $650k ceiling was written by someone who did anticipate higher transfer fees.. I think they just didn't want selling a player like that to become like winning PowerBall that makes the team ridiculously more able to spend than the rest of the league.
 
Agree with Footy this is quite useful research. Regarding your closing, you make it sound like the team has a choice. My understanding is that if the player wants to move and the league is willing, the team has very little say, correct?

Another note is that the team compensation formula is arguably backwards. I get the logic of it, in that by increasing over time and provides more of a reward to teams that nurture a player instead of just catching lightning in a bottle. But, as your analysis shows, this really hurts teams who draft the best players. Then, having spent a limited resource -- and maybe even traded other scarce valuables to get that spot -- to get that player, they lose him quickly and get little in return. It almost is enough to make it better to draft a solid but unspectacular player over the true shining stars. You cannot always tell who's who in advance, but it's still backwards.
I'm sure the club has a say in the matter - while the contract is with the league, the league is financed by the teams pooling resources. Deep pockets like CFG will tell them to Fck-off, and the other deep pocketed owners will agree knowing that the same fiasco-sale of a player could happen to them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: adam
Status
Not open for further replies.