My argument is that if they refuse to play him then they have to cut him. If they do not cut him, they have to play him - he is definitely one of the most talented players on the team, that is not even debatable.
2017 Roster Discussion
- Thread starter NYCFCfan
- Start date
I think he can wear 10. Apparently no one else is using it this season.
If it is true, only thing I can think of is they have no plans to add any player at this point till the summer(would be a dp). Therefore making cap space at this point is irrelevant and trying to keep the upper-hand in not playing him until he breaks(figuratively and litterally with the contract) because his playing days are withering away each day that passes.
This could make sense.
As frustrating as it is, let's not assume our management is incompetent when we know next to nothing about the situation. In fact, I'm impressed with how well they are suppressing information, which is definitely an organizational skill.
Each day he doesn't play his value lowers, so if you don't want to straight up cut him, then play him to increase his value so you can dump him on another team who might see some use from him. Because now, everyone knows we're desperately trying to get rid of him and they can just lowball us. And if he stays without playing we're burning a ridiculous amount in a low salary capped league. Man City could afford to do that with Yaya Toure. We can't.
Btw, if somehow you still didn't know Araos is a red bull fan working for RB central EoS. Is his tone towards NYCFC fans really that surprising to people here?
Btw, if somehow you still didn't know Araos is a red bull fan working for RB central EoS. Is his tone towards NYCFC fans really that surprising to people here?
People are saying it's because of family. But at the same time why would he fly back here for no reason but to visit family? Especially if he's searching for a new team to play for.
There's no assuming about it. The bottom line is, if you're responsible for this at the highest level, you've already proved your incompetence. This story is THE STORY about our team, everywhere (not controlled by NYC/CFG FO, that is).
Aren't there cactus in San Antonio?
Saw what Glenn Crooks said yesterday.
Him rejoining the team is what I've been told. (Again, because they haven't been able to find a buyer) Had no idea about him never playing again. I mean, yeah it's implied but like others have pointed out giving someone $750k to just sit there is bizarre.
Maybe they're trying to put pressure on him to drop his no trade clause or take a pay cut so he can be shipped somewhere. <--- I'm just speculating here.
Him rejoining the team is what I've been told. (Again, because they haven't been able to find a buyer) Had no idea about him never playing again. I mean, yeah it's implied but like others have pointed out giving someone $750k to just sit there is bizarre.
Maybe they're trying to put pressure on him to drop his no trade clause or take a pay cut so he can be shipped somewhere. <--- I'm just speculating here.
Lots here speculating that they are waiting until summer to cut him so they can bring in a DP at that time. This won't work, because if they buy him out in season, the full cost of the buyout is charged against the salary cap.
But they can bring in a summer DP and minimize cost. The whole Mix thing also may be why we may be dependent on Man City this year with the Herrera loan
That doesn't make sense. Like
Gotham Gator says, we have to execute the buyout (or inform the league?) before the season starts. Otherwise, there's no cap benefit for this year. I keep thinking about the premise of others that we lose the allocation money portion/some cap workaround mechanism that we would recoup some or part of if we work out a sale. I was almost convinced that must be true, until I considered that the whole purpose of the buyout is to not have that contract impact your salary budget constraints. The dispositive element here would be whether the buyout only relieves salary cap impact or any salary budget charges, including cap relief mechanisms. Now, the latter seems to me to be the case because it's the most reasonable interpretation of the intent, but a strictly text-based ruling could possibly support the former, depending on the definition of salary cap and whether cap relief mechanisms fall under that or are a separate set of rules altogether. At least I think that's my best argument.
Now, I would counter that position by saying that it still must relieve any cap avoidance mechanisms, otherwise the adverse consequences still flow down to the salary cap itself in this instance.
Summarizing, I am comfortable that a buyout would relieve all of Mix's salary budget impact and free it for use elsewhere. But then again I'm not because if that's right, I don't understand what the end game is for our FO.
Posting back to back so this point doesn't get lost:
Has anyone actually asked PV or CR if they are considering using the relief/buyout clause? And if they are, why not do it already and if not, why not?
Is access to the team so constricted and the subject matter open for questioning so limited that it's verboten? Otherwise, there are a lot of reporters not doing their jobs. Well, that's the case either way, because if it is that bad, someone should write the story on that shit.
Has anyone actually asked PV or CR if they are considering using the relief/buyout clause? And if they are, why not do it already and if not, why not?
Is access to the team so constricted and the subject matter open for questioning so limited that it's verboten? Otherwise, there are a lot of reporters not doing their jobs. Well, that's the case either way, because if it is that bad, someone should write the story on that shit.
Similar threads
