Ian Joy On Wynalda's Show Tonight
- Thread starter Kjbert
- Start date
NYCFCFan10
Registered
Honestly, MLS rules aren't set in stone but let me put it to you like this.
I can recall a few times the league stepped in and stopped transfers for salary cap/other rules reasons.
There have been a few times where the league has leaned on clubs to get deals done INTRA-league (Robbie Rogers, Drogba, Clint Dempsey) and in those cases the rights to the players were owned by one club but they only wanted to play for another club that wanted them as well. It was never they're actually at the club and then the league just decided, ok, you're out of here.
But I can't recall a situation (in modern MLS times) where the league was ever like "you have a good player, so the rest of the owners have decided we're selling him!" How could a league possibly survive like that?
It's just not happening like that. I'm sure it's on the books somewhere from the old days that MLS could sell a player if in serious financial distress or if not selling the player would be somehow seriously detrimental to the entire league because MLS was all about survival in the beginning.
But those situations deal with clubs having "rights" to the player within MLS, not whether MLS as a league would sign the player, no?
There was a point when all the teams in MLS were owned by three people. The league's culture is collusion, not ganging up on each other. So it has survived under that principle.
Sorry, but your post didn't really offer any proof, just restated that you don't believe it works like that. My simplistic understanding is that the league owns the players, and the teams owns the rights to have that player over other MLS teams. The league may buy/sell players with input from the teams, but ultimately it's the league's decision. Is there any direct evidence contradicting this?
He is ineligible to play for USMNT now because he suited up for Ghanaian senior squad last month.
'twas but a friendly
That's right. Good point.
Damn i hate it when facts get in the way of my informed opinions. Just read rule IIIb instead of going to sleep and the bottom line is if the MLS and the player agree on the transfer it would happen (if the rules were followed strictly) even if the Club objects.
You're the one claiming that the league would sell a player over the team's objections, perhaps you should at least show a single example of this happening before demanding that others attempt to prove a negative.
NYCFCFan10
Registered
Exactly.
When the league gets involved it always comes out.
When the league stopped LA from signing a player last year, Bruce Arena bitched for weeks in the press.
When Toronto was essentially forced to deal Clint Dempsey's rights to Seattle, it came out that Toronto essentially told the league "You owe us for this." I think Tim Leiweke or Bezbechinko (sp?) came out and said that in an interview. Toronto cashed in on that with the Bradley/Defoe deals.
When the league got involved in the Robbie Rogers deal, we know Chicago dug in their heels and said LA is going to have to pay up. Which led to Mike Magee going to Chicago. A deal that was honestly better for Chicago because Magee was the third highest goal-scorer for LA behind Donovan and Keane at that point.
If the league gets involved, you'll hear about it. It really doesn't happen often and never in the capacity you've suggested.
Also Chicago Fire had thought they had acquired Jermaine Jones and then...
Abracadabra!
The league stepped in with some obscure rule and Jones ended up in New England.
If City Football Group wanted to buy a championship, perhaps they should have bought the Cosmos.
Abracadabra!
The league stepped in with some obscure rule and Jones ended up in New England.
If City Football Group wanted to buy a championship, perhaps they should have bought the Cosmos.
As much as I want to keep Poku, selling him for one or two million could give us the allocation money we need to unfuck the rest of our roster.
I'm not sue how the transfer money gets allocated, but do believe we get the benefit of most of it. If so, people need to reconcile themselves to the possibility that this is how things will play out. We have a large surplus of central midfielders. We badly need players elsewhere. In this offseason, we need to turn central mids into defenders or wingers, and it's not likely that shedding Grabavoy and [Johanson][EDIT] Jacobson will get it done. It may take a Mix or a Poku.
Last edited:
MagnusPax
Registered
Grabs & Erik shedding would get you $300k+ cap space and a international slot. Unless Poku wants to go, selling him would be first (?) dumb roster move of the new regime.
beaucoup_movement
Registered
If Poku really has an opportunity to go to Germany/Belgium he should take it. MLS isn't going anywhere.
It's the job of the organization to step back from the emotional attachment to a player. Selling on a player like Poku allows more roster flexibility. If that is what is best for the club, then so be it. But it again points to the clusterfuck that Kreis put together that our most promising asset is to be sold to unravel the Wingert/Grabavoy/Jacobson/Brovsky poo-poo platter that was purchased last year.
Poku has had about 90 good minutes total in MLS. His value is so much lower than it could be with a breakout season here. Any trade overseas would be to sit in their youth team.
His best bet is to get playing time here and really show what he can do, then move.
His best bet is to get playing time here and really show what he can do, then move.
