2017 U20 WC Roster Announced
- Thread starter Midas Mulligan
- Start date
It would actually be a fascinating lawsuit to watch if JS decided to move to LA or NYC to join a different academy and SKC/MLS tried to block it. That would be the straw that breaks the single-entity's back. There's no way the courts would allow geography to dictate a kid's life and future choices.
We could theoretically trade for his rights, which would only help us if he was interested in joining our academy for a year. It's that year that actually makes him HG.
Back to the tournament: I think there's a strong possibility the winner of this match wins the tournament.
I would have put the favorites as France, Uruguay and these two. With Italy doing their weird Italy thing that the senior team can't anymore, France is gone.
So I think it's the winner of our game or Uruguay who takes home the cup.
ETA: all dependent on Tab not being crazy and specifically not putting Aaron Herrera back in the lineup. Damn I hate not having Fossey with us. Such a good player. Glad, CCV, EPB can lock it down. Just keep Herrera out. Acosta sucks, but not as much.
I would have put the favorites as France, Uruguay and these two. With Italy doing their weird Italy thing that the senior team can't anymore, France is gone.
So I think it's the winner of our game or Uruguay who takes home the cup.
ETA: all dependent on Tab not being crazy and specifically not putting Aaron Herrera back in the lineup. Damn I hate not having Fossey with us. Such a good player. Glad, CCV, EPB can lock it down. Just keep Herrera out. Acosta sucks, but not as much.
I'm not sure a court would look at geographic assignment as inherently more legally wrong than a draft. SKC makes a geographic claim and he can't sign with another MLS team. SKC drafts him and he can't sign with another MLS team. A draft seem to be more fair from the perspective of other teams, but from the player's perspective he's bound by forces beyond his control either way. The NBA had a territorial draft from 1950-66 and the USFL also gave its teams territorial rights over players during its short life.
I'd disagree with that. In a draft there is at least a sliding scale of salary for players based on talent level. The #1 overall pick receiving the largest K, while the the lower down in the draft you're picked the smaller the K with the least amount of guarantees. In that system the best players are paid the most, no matter who takes their rights without their permission. In the geographical system, you don't have the same amount of bargaining power because you have not been 'ranked' according to perceived talent level by all the teams in the league. Their only bargaining chip is playing outside the country or temporarily forgoing a professional career for college. Therefore, a player could find themselves paid less than their value dictates as a direct result of the league's monopoly and the rules they enacted.
Fair point, but fixable if they can come up with a method to rate and pay the territorial/homegrown players similar to what happens in a draft. And is it really that much of a difference? Did Keegan Rosenberry get paid more because the Union's HG claim was denied and they had to draft him third overall? I'm asking because I don't know and not because I know and am making some rhetorical point. I do guess that it isn't that much of a difference.
BTW, I read that SKC's claim on Sargent is no stronger than the Union had on Rosenberry, and SKC was one of the teams to file an objection over Rosenberry. But so it goes.
My point was that the kid is having dibs laid on him by a club before he even makes himself eligible or shows interest in the club or MLS. For the draft (NFL, NBA), a player has to actually declare for it. MLB may be different - I don't know. If I was a 16 yo player and RB claimed me because I was in their territory but trained with Random XYZ club, I'd be pissed as hell, whether I had a deal to go to europe or not.
I see that, and even considered it before I wrote but left it out. I still don't see a meaningful difference. In either case your options for once you come of age are constrained and determined by people other than you. In one case they tell you what that single option is when you come of age; in the other they tell you ahead of time. I don't see how the latter is worse. If anything, knowing earlier would be better I think.
Because they lay claim to him but he could still move before turning 18 and join another club's academy. If his family moved to D.C. and he decided he didn't want to join the euro team and instead stay close to home, SKC has just fcked him over and D.C. would have to pay a ransom, which they may or may not do. SKC has taken an option away from the kid without him agree to it.
OK that's an angle I wasn't seeing. I agree that if someone actually moved and challenged the rule might likely fail. If I were a labor lawyer for MLS I would advise them to be flexible on that point. But if someone challenged on a hypothetical basis -- ie this would be unfair if we moved -- I think the challenge might fail.
there shouldn't be a need to be flexible, because then its bending unfair rules.
By flexible I meant build it into the rule, so flexible was maybe a poor word choice. IOW make the rule that the team has an enforceable right only as long as the kid stays there until age [whatever].
What I have determined is the safest way to proceed with non-lawyers, when it comes to explaining the way The Law works, is to only speak to them in absolutes and refuse to opine on their speculation.
I deal with people all the time who "know contracts". They most often certainly do not, even if they have/have had a long and successful career in their field.
(This isn't busting
Ulrich balls. Just pointing out that it's impossible to explain, via message board or otherwise, all of the ways one's understanding of the words in a law, on a contract, whatever, can just turn out to be almost entirely wrong.)
Well, Keith Putnam , you were right. We would have needed a great performance. Or at least equal rest.
I think Venezuela should go all the way.
I think Venezuela should go all the way.
I've often thought that in a tournament, that extra days rest is incredibly helpful to the beneficiary team. A leveler would be to give the other team an extra sub. Still wouldn't make it fully even as one roster is better rested than the other, but an extra set of fresh legs could be enough to close the gap.
Similar threads
