2018 Roster Discussion

[Midas Mulligan]

There’s yet been an explanation to me why we can’t buy a player from MCFC and then sell him, so both clubs get a profit.

Until proven otherwise, I think it’s viable and potentially profitable.


Sign young guys to MC, loan to NYC. Kicks ass year one, NYC buys. Kicks ass year 2, NYC sells (or not).

Do not really give a shit for now who “buys” the player. Just keep on making good signings intended for us.

 

[Gotham Gator]

That is changing in 2018. Clubs will get 100% of transfer fees so Atlana will get all $20m.

It's not. Teams will get 100% of transfer fees for homegrown players, but there has been no annouced change to allocation limits in transfers.

Teams get two-thirds of transfer fees, but the amount they can use for salary cap relief is capped at $650k. There are also some deductions, including for the original fee paid, so it’s never the full amount.

Why do transfer fees matter? A player that is signed on a free transfer for the same salary and performance is a more economical signing.

We aren't a club that needs to sell young players for a profit to be able to afford signings. League structures prevent clubs from truly benefiting from transfers. Facts are that when Almiron transfer for like 15-20 million, ATL will get the same amount of allocation dollars as Orlando got for Kevin Molino and less allocation dollars than what SKC got for Dom Dwyer.

The salary cap relief is a real thing. Young DPs carry a charge of $150,000 to $200,000. If you buy one, play him for 3 years, and then sell on for a good profit, the resulting GAM will be more than that player’s aggregate budget charge. That means you can have a player of that quality for effectively a negative budget charge.

 

[Gotham Gator]

I’ve often wondered how much we can really get away with having CFG buy a player and loan him to us.

Imagine we had signed him. Herrera’s transfer fee was reported at varying amounts starting at $2 million. This would have put him over the limit for TAM, meaning he would have been a DP last year. If we had instead amortized his acquisition cost, the $500,000 per year plus his salary would have made him a TAM player. Plus, he would have been the only guy we could do that with, because you can only amortize one guy at a time.

I was frankly surprised we were able to get away with this. Sure, we lose the value from selling him on, but the benefit seems much bigger. Can we really expect the league to look the other way if we do this with 3 players? Or 5? What would the reaction of this board be if the Red Bulls used their connections in Europe to stack their roster with 6 players they wouldn’t be permitted to sign on their own.

 

[Kjbert]

I know you like inserting Moralez into the equation, but at least get your facts right since he didn't come on a free, nor is relevant to the discussion. The Lampards/Pirlos are not relevant to the discussion because they were signed for reasons other than sporting value. We signed Callens last year for a free and Tinnerhold this year. Even Victor Vasquez went on a free. These players were not discards.

The point is that Almiron's value is inflated by potential. You can purchase an player that is just as good currently as Almiron with a lesser ceiling for less money. What is the benefit of spending millions more if your only benefit is that you may one a some amount of that back in allocation dollars?

Our wage budget has gone down every year we've been in the league. I didn't know there was a transfer fee for Maxi. What was the amount? We overpaid.

 

[mgarbowski]

Our wage budget has gone down every year we’ve been in the league.

That can’t be true for 2016 over 2015. In 2015 we had Lamps and Pirlo on 1/2 year wages.

 

[Kjbert]

That can’t be true for 2016 over 2015. In 2015 we had Lamps and Pirlo on 1/2 year wages.

Fine. We spent considerably less in 2017 than 2016. Let's see what happens this year

 

[mgarbowski]

I’ve often wondered how much we can really get away with having CFG buy a player and loan him to us.

Imagine we had signed him. Herrera’s transfer fee was reported at varying amounts starting at $2 million. This would have put him over the limit for TAM, meaning he would have been a DP last year. If we had instead amortized his acquisition cost, the $500,000 per year plus his salary would have made him a TAM player. Plus, he would have been the only guy we could do that with, because you can only amortize one guy at a time.

I was frankly surprised we were able to get away with this. Sure, we lose the value from selling him on, but the benefit seems much bigger. Can we really expect the league to look the other way if we do this with 3 players? Or 5? What would the reaction of this board be if the Red Bulls used their connections in Europe to stack their roster with 6 players they wouldn’t be permitted to sign on their own.

The Guardian article about CFG that Keith posted said there was an outcry when they did it with Melbourne, and a new rule was created to ban it. That situation was a bit worse because the player was Australian and bought from another A-league team and you can’t pay transfer fees between A-league teams. It’s not clear to me if the new rule applies to that specific circumstance or more broadly to the purchase/loan model.

As for your Red Bull hypothetical, I’m confident saying that the consensus of this board would be that it is fine for RB to do it since we are doing it. But if our owner was unwilling to do it, or lacked the multi-team international resources to do it, the consensus of this board would be that it is an unfair advantage.

 

[mgarbowski]

This Medina kid better be Almoron Part 2. I'm starting to get disgusted with our DP choices. We're 1 for 4 and making MLS 2.0 choices.

Will Parchman talked on Twitter today about how the MLS Salary Cap doesn't matter because only two teams have shown the willingness to blow up the budget - Toronto and Atlanta.

That's an indictment of our Club. And I think he's right.

I’m concerned about this but in a TBD zone for now. I’m also not sure how to count the fees paid by CFG on Herrera type deals. On a regular accounting basis they count for $0, but I’m not sure that’s right or fair. I wouldn’t count them at 100% either, but the owners are spending money on fees that benefit NYCFC in part, and that should count for something.

And a note on TFC and Atlanta: their owners own multiple teams in different sports in one city. They can’t do Herrera type deals but they do have other advantages we lack, like sharing the cost of an owned stadium between a football team and a soccer team.

 

[EganSoccerWords]

Let keep in mind that the ability to get four young players on loan from Man City was reported as being apart of our expansion charter. MLS has consented to this.

 

[EganSoccerWords]

There’s yet been an explanation to me why we can’t buy a player from MCFC and then sell him, so both clubs get a profit.

Until proven otherwise, I think it’s viable and potentially profitable.


Sign young guys to MC, loan to NYC. Kicks ass year one, NYC buys. Kicks ass year 2, NYC sells (or not).

Do not really give a shit for now who “buys” the player. Just keep on making good signings intended for us.

This is actually a good idea, but I would imagine that UEFA would be scrutinize such deals very closely for FFP. Could very easily see this as a way to manipulate FFP by having NYCFC buy players above market value.

 

[SoupInNYC]

Fine. We spent considerably less in 2017 than 2016. Let's see what happens this year

Correct, in 2016 we spent more than the entire league at $21.1m on salaries, 2017 we spent the second most in the league at $17.3m. This dropoff is due to Lampard being on $6m and Maxi on $2m. If you add the $4m difference, then the 2017 team spent more $. Criticize that signing all you want (and I know you don't need encouraging from me to do so), but this team does spend money. That narrative does not exist.

 

[Midas Mulligan]

This is actually a good idea, but I would imagine that UEFA would be scrutinize such deals very closely for FFP. Could very easily see this as a way to manipulate FFP by having NYCFC buy players above market value.

My plan enables both clubs to objectively prove it's not FFP manipulation, though, because in order for it to work well, NYC must sell for more than they paid.

 

[joe]

Correct, in 2016 we spent more than the entire league at $21.1m on salaries, 2017 we spent the second most in the league at $17.3m. This dropoff is due to Lampard being on $6m and Maxi on $2m. If you add the $4m difference, then the 2017 team spent more $. Criticize that signing all you want (and I know you don't need encouraging from me to do so), but this team does spend money. That narrative does not exist.

Thanks for confirming.

 

[LionNYC]

Let keep in mind that the ability to get four young players on loan from Man City was reported as being apart of our expansion charter. MLS has consented to this.

Consent is sexy.

 

[Gazza_55]

Teams get two-thirds of transfer fees, but the amount they can use for salary cap relief is capped at $650k. There are also some deductions, including for the original fee paid, so it’s never the full amount.



The salary cap relief is a real thing. Young DPs carry a charge of $150,000 to $200,000. If you buy one, play him for 3 years, and then sell on for a good profit, the resulting GAM will be more than that player’s aggregate budget charge. That means you can have a player of that quality for effectively a negative budget charge.

That is in 2017. It will change next year.

 

[Gazza_55]

I’ve often wondered how much we can really get away with having CFG buy a player and loan him to us.

Imagine we had signed him. Herrera’s transfer fee was reported at varying amounts starting at $2 million. This would have put him over the limit for TAM, meaning he would have been a DP last year. If we had instead amortized his acquisition cost, the $500,000 per year plus his salary would have made him a TAM player. Plus, he would have been the only guy we could do that with, because you can only amortize one guy at a time.

I was frankly surprised we were able to get away with this. Sure, we lose the value from selling him on, but the benefit seems much bigger. Can we really expect the league to look the other way if we do this with 3 players? Or 5? What would the reaction of this board be if the Red Bulls used their connections in Europe to stack their roster with 6 players they wouldn’t be permitted to sign on their own.

NYCFC was not 'able to get away with this'. We paid the entire amount of the transfer that CFG/MCFC paid at signing plus his entire salary.

An MLS spokesperson clarified that Herrera will not be a Designated Player nor will NYCFC have to use Targeted Allocation Money to pay Herrera’s budget charge. However, NYCFC will be charged the amount that Manchester City is paying Herrera in salary in 2017 as well as transfer payments made to Atletico Venezuela

 

[Gazza_55]

This is the right answer. The 650k of GAM is not a certainty, whereas the cap savings/extra DP slot is a certainty. We also have to realize that CFG is also subsidizing the risk of Yangel & Jesus not panning out and will spend to replace if they don't. That's awesome.

If we sign the right DPs and TAM players to go along with these CFG loanees, that's something other MLS organizations cant compete with. Everyone else, like what LAFC just did with Rossi, would have to sign these players as DPs. With that being said CFG has only had a home run success on 1 out 4 DP signings so far. That has to change.

This is simply not true. Every organization in MLS has the same chance (or better) to compete with NYCFC due to their partnership with MCFC. The rule was put in place years BEFORE NYCFC even came into the league. In fact clubs without affiliates can get loanees cheaper than Colorado/Arsenal, RBNY/RB Salzburg, NYCFC/MCFC etc. Case and point was Toronto FC getting Julio Cesar for pennies on the dollar 3 years ago. Any loan player that comes to NYCFC from MCFC or any CFG club hits NYCFC salary budget at full cost.

 

[EganSoccerWords]

That is in 2017. It will change next year.

ok prove it

 

[EganSoccerWords]

This is simply not true. Every organization in MLS has the same chance (or better) to compete with NYCFC due to their partnership with MCFC. The rule was put in place years BEFORE NYCFC even came into the league. In fact clubs without affiliates can get loanees cheaper than Colorado/Arsenal, RBNY/RB Salzburg, NYCFC/MCFC etc. Case and point was Toronto FC getting Julio Cesar for pennies on the dollar 3 years ago. Any loan player that comes to NYCFC from MCFC or any CFG club hits NYCFC salary budget at full cost.

So CFG pays the transfer fee in full one year, keeps them loaned out to the orginal club for the rest of that year, and then loans them to NYCFC the next year.

 

[LionNYC]

NYCFC was not 'able to get away with this'. We paid the entire amount of the transfer that CFG/MCFC paid at signing plus his entire salary.

An MLS spokesperson clarified that Herrera will not be a Designated Player nor will NYCFC have to use Targeted Allocation Money to pay Herrera’s budget charge. However, NYCFC will be charged the amount that Manchester City is paying Herrera in salary in 2017 as well as transfer payments made to Atletico Venezuela

If it doesn't hit our budget charge, I think the club is fine with it. We only care about budget charges. All that other stuff is just oil money.