Correct. Most of these owners are incredibly cheap. Most of our posters overestimate the amount of money other clubs spend. We spend more on salary than other clubs spend on their entire operation.
2017 Roster Discussion
- Thread starter NYCFCfan
- Start date
Correct. Most of these owners are incredibly cheap. Most of our posters overestimate the amount of money other clubs spend. We spend more on salary than other clubs spend on their entire operation.
And that is why it's taken the league so long to expand into a watchable product. I don't begrudge the original owners for being miserly after the league closed down TB and Miami and Chivas, because they were just trying to survive, but they are now some of the worst offenders (save for LA) when it comes to ponying up money to advance the Quality of play. If it wasn't for the newest owners (NYCFC, Toronto, Seattle) pushing the max/boundaries of the Cap, the league would still be a mediocre display on the field. Just as there's a top end cap, there should be a minimum amount every team has to spend (not the total of x20 $60k salaries) so that teams aren't simply in it to be fodder with a rising club valuation. And if that means more scouting - hell, require each team to have minimum x1 scout - then make it happen. For a league to grow and make money, it has to spend money (on the cap). Also to grow, it needs to unearth talent/gems, that too requires money. Time for the old boys club to put up or get out and make way for new blood itching to get into the game.
I like what Twellman suggested on Wahl's podcast: why not flip the "last is first" drafts/picks status quo of American pro leagues. Essentially, you would starve out the cheapskates.
Um, no it isn't. The teams below MLS are spending a fraction of a fraction of what the cheap MLS owners are spending. I disagree with what the original MLS owners spend, but I'm not on the bandwagon to relegate them from a league they kept afloat while their clubs' values tank. Do I want them to put up or sell, yes. Do I want them to get screwed by a new club that hasn't paid their dues to grow the sport, no.
Or possibly award extra TAM based on league position? Obviously you want to avoid making teams a mess of debt, like European clubs were headed for before FFP - much as I am loathe to say it - forced clubs to be so commercialism-savvy that they could avoid running up debts, but essentially the key to a competitive league competition is to encourage the struggling clubs to spend extra money in order to catch up to a place where they can reap the benefits, not just let teams sit back on their present earnings. If you widen the gap just a little more than it already is then most teams should respond by racing to catch back up to the leading pack.
I agree there should be a method of reward that helps the roster and is based on finish, but I like the idea
Midas Mulligan mentioned Twellmen talking about. Give the top team the #1 draft pick and work it downward from there. Yes it's rewarding the rich so they get richer, but it's also enticing the best prospects to want to join the league. In other sports, many times the top player gets wasted on a team so bad that it can stunt their growth: like an NFL team that drafts a QB #1 but doesn't have the linemen to protect him so he either gets killed each game or stagnates because he has nobody to work with. With MLS, if the best prospects felt they'd end up on a good team where they could excel, they may not decide to head to Europe. The bad teams can then spend to get better or continue to spiral; but they shouldn't be rewarded with the top pick simply because they're bad.I agree there should be a method of reward that helps the roster and is based on finish, but I like the idea
I could buy into that. What happens if the draft gets canned in the next few seasons, though?
At that point go with the gobs of extra TAM/GAM for top spots trickling down to last place. I just don't think that any team should get to skirt by and get better simply because they were so bad to begin with which is what the current draft format allows.
I'm sure MLS offers free medical care. Otherwise, we wouldn't be keeping Connor Brandt on our team.
True to some extent. But they've also pocketed franchise fees from NYCFC, Orlando, Atlanta, Minnesota and LA. That's probably $400 Million spread across 18 teams pre 2015. $20 Million per squad. You can't tell me that the Krafts aren't whole by now.
No excuses for them to be incredibly cheap now.
No question they probably are "whole," but that doesn't mean I think it's right for the valuation of their team to tank because they get relegated (they deserve a hefty profit for creating this market) while another club's value skyrockets just because it won a crappier than crappy league with an arbitrary League 2 designation attached to it. The physical setup/differences between MLS and NASL/USL are so vastly different that a jump up is worth more than winning the multi-state jackpot. That's just not right in a sports league.
I am surprised the league hasn't established some kind of pooled scouting organization with a group of teams splitting the cost and getting a common set of reports.
As for Twellman's idea to reward the trophy winners with extra GAM, it is completely ridiculous. There is already enough incentive to finish high up the table, and it just makes the rich get richer. It's like the Dennis Moore sketch from Monty Python.
As for Twellman's idea to reward the trophy winners with extra GAM, it is completely ridiculous. There is already enough incentive to finish high up the table, and it just makes the rich get richer. It's like the Dennis Moore sketch from Monty Python.
Every other major football league around the world rewards final placement. MLS is the outlier, so maybe that makes MLS the ridiculous one.
Is it though? When you can have owners that only do the bare minimum knowing that they can win the proverbial lottery of the top 1-3 draft spots.... I'd wager that the draft pool would be better every single year if the players weren't worried about getting stuck on the crappiest of teams - keep the best young (non-HG) players stateside and we won't be in a situation of overpaying the Grabavoys, Saunders, and Hernandez of the league.
Ulrich - I am not arguing for Pro-Rel. I'm just saying the Krafts can't cry poverty on this one anymore.Disagree. NFL has parity. Outside of a couple of franchises, they all spend a lot of money. How is it parity when Frank Lampard makes more money than the entire squad from Vancouver, San Jose, New England, Real Salt Lake, NJRB, Philly, Houston, Chicago, Columbus, DC and Dallas?
How many draft-eligible non-HG players are skipping the draft right now? What's their next best option?
I'd be surprised if the delta between MLS bottom-feeder and MLS perennial fave is bigger than the delta between the opportunity to play in Europe and MLS bottom-feeder. IOW, I'm not sure that anyone who is good enough to play in Europe would stay for the opportunity to play for a top MLS club.
I tried Teh Google to substantiate what either of us are saying but didn't have much luck. Articles like this mostly: https://www.google.com/amp/www.goal...s-draft-taking-shape-but-could-be-without-top
Seems like most players skipping the draft find their way in through homegrown contracts (i.e. they stay in the country anyway) or end up in lesser European leagues (Scandinavia mostly) for and then bounce back to MLS. A few names that came up from past years as possible draft-skippers: Charlie Davies, Darren Mattocks, Mike Grella.
Like K Kjbert I'm not arguing for pro/rel. It was an offhand statement about having some punishment for those who refuse to spend.
But your response is still just wrong. An MLS team today that moves to NASL/USL loses massive value because there is no way for them to control their return to MLS. In a pro/rel system there shouldn't be a huge value difference between a Div 1 bottom feeder and a Div 2 top team. The market, knowing that either of those teams could flip leagues at the end of the year, bakes those possibilities into the prices of the teams.
Is there really any huge difference between the purchase price today of Swansea City (#20 in PL) and Newcastle (#1 in Championship)? I suspect not. Anyone out there know where to find that data?
The difference in your example is that Newcastle is a perennial EPL club and typically spends like it because they are the only show in town - their drop was against the norm and they inherently have more value than another Championship team that is the equivalent of Edmonton/Cosmos/whomever that has invested so much less, by multiple magnitudes, than any Upper tier team.
Similar threads
