I understand. But let's say we receive $667,000. That doesn't allow us to replace a player of his caliber. Look at Seattle, LA and RBNY right now. They all sold on the player. Their replacements (Van Damme, Collin specifically) are markedly worse than who they replaced. If you sell this kid from $5 Million and MLS keeps $2.5 Million. We get $667,000. Maybe that allows us to buy down a guy of Diskerud's quality. But you're not replacing a $5 Million rated player with $667,000 of allocation money. Just not happening.
Matarrita happy at NYCFC but doesn't hide intentions to go to Europe
- Thread starter NYCFCfan
- Start date
I understand. But let's say we receive $667,000. That doesn't allow us to replace a player of his caliber. Look at Seattle, LA and RBNY right now. They all sold on the player. Their replacements (Van Damme, Collin specifically) are markedly worse than who they replaced. If you sell this kid from $5 Million and MLS keeps $2.5 Million. We get $667,000. Maybe that allows us to buy down a guy of Diskerud's quality. But you're not replacing a $5 Million rated player with $667,000 of allocation money. Just not happening.
You haven't watched much Sunderland this year if you think that is the case. Yedlin has been excellent at RB for the past 10-15 games and has been a huge part of Sunderland not being relegated again.
I do think Matarrita could surpass Yedlin at some point, but Yedlin is still superior for now.
Well, you're correct here. But it gives us a chance to sign another Matarrita, if our scouting is good and pays off.
Lets put it this way. If we lose Mata to Europe in the above example and receive $667,000 of GAM. And our scouting is solid on another LB from Central America, we could in essence resign us another Mata and have additional money to spend elsewhere.
Now I understand that we would be signing another player and their success on our team would not be a given, so it is definitely a risk, but as
Gotham Gator is pointing out, there could be quite a benefit coming from it.
To give us a negotiating advantage we should agree to a sel
If we get 2/3rd up to $1 million we should offer a sell on clause during all negotiations with a players pervious club as a deal sweetener. If the player gets transferred NYCFC get everything up to $1 million, if he goes for anything more than $1 million the previous club can have it. We get our player the league gets screwed for having stupid rules.
If we get 2/3rd up to $1 million we should offer a sell on clause during all negotiations with a players pervious club as a deal sweetener. If the player gets transferred NYCFC get everything up to $1 million, if he goes for anything more than $1 million the previous club can have it. We get our player the league gets screwed for having stupid rules.
I've watched a ton of Sunderland. What Sam Allardyce has done with Yedlin the past 5 months is nothing short of miraculous. He's a legitimate Premier League player. Maybe he never plays for Spurs or another club who can compete in Europe - but to me, he's now every bit the sure thing that a guy like Geoff Cameron is.
Matarrita is already a better defensive player than Yedlin and has an excellent left foot. Maybe I shouldn't have used Yedlin as the example but figured he was a player everyone knows.
Matarrita is better than a handful of LBs in the Prem - including his country mate Bryan Oviedo.
Except he's the worst ball watcher I've ever seen. It's incredible how often he lets someone run by him.
Good luck persuading MLS to agree to waive all that income. Remember, too, that sell-on clauses are not just optional bolt-on additions. If you want a sell-on clause the only way you get it is by agreeing to reduce the player's asking price. Would MLS really agree to sell a player cheaper in order to let one of their teams take a load of money without having to share with the rest of the league?
This wouldn't be as big of an issue if there was a legit free agency mechanism in place with MLS.
The present concept of hoping your older DP still cares/won't get hurt, mixed in with rolling the dice on younger players doesn't work with trying to be a top league. The current set up produces low risk investments for the 'league owned' teams and doesn't necessarily lend towards building a top league 'player wise'.
He should leave. It could very well be just as valuable having players go through the system and ending up on big clubs as it would them staying in MLS. The perception is MLS doesn't have talent/skill...so best way to change that is to put the that talent into better competition.
The obstacle of not having our season coincide with Europe hurts MLS not being in the loan in/out game.
Bottom line is he's a good player, he should go if given the opportunity.
The present concept of hoping your older DP still cares/won't get hurt, mixed in with rolling the dice on younger players doesn't work with trying to be a top league. The current set up produces low risk investments for the 'league owned' teams and doesn't necessarily lend towards building a top league 'player wise'.
He should leave. It could very well be just as valuable having players go through the system and ending up on big clubs as it would them staying in MLS. The perception is MLS doesn't have talent/skill...so best way to change that is to put the that talent into better competition.
The obstacle of not having our season coincide with Europe hurts MLS not being in the loan in/out game.
Bottom line is he's a good player, he should go if given the opportunity.
Stop with the baseball imagery and metaphors.
To be clear, Mata is turning into the quick counterattack goal. As a team, a few of those are good, but we should really strive for the slow & patient possession style buildup goal type, while really trying to stay away from the GK inspired turnover goal in our defensive end.
Clear?
To be clear, the team gets to keep its 2/3 no matter how big the transfer fee is. HOWEVER, it can only use up to $650,000 of that as GAM to increase player salaries. The rest has to be used for other team activities.
What I don't know - and I am kind of interested to find out - is whether the same works when you transfer a player in. Does the team only pay 2/3 of the fee and the league pays the other 1/3.
It is also the case that there are costs deducted from the transfer fee before the 2/3 share is calculated. So, if you sell a player for $2 million, but you paid a $500K transfer fee to get him, and you have to pay 15% in sharing to the original club ($300K), then the net benefit is $1.2 million, and that's what is used to calculate the 2/3.
What I don't know - and I am kind of interested to find out - is whether the same works when you transfer a player in. Does the team only pay 2/3 of the fee and the league pays the other 1/3.
It is also the case that there are costs deducted from the transfer fee before the 2/3 share is calculated. So, if you sell a player for $2 million, but you paid a $500K transfer fee to get him, and you have to pay 15% in sharing to the original club ($300K), then the net benefit is $1.2 million, and that's what is used to calculate the 2/3.
Yes, all "fees" come out before profit is taken. That's documented in the rules and not a gray area.
Which is great. But the point still stands that CFG doesn't need the extra $2 million in money for infrastructure spending. They need it for cap purposes.
It's a system that hurts us and protects Columbus and NYRB.
It's a system that hurts us and protects Columbus and NYRB.
Disagree. It hurts us doubly. We're not necessarily a selling club but are forced to be by the cap restrictions. We can't take our player profit and invest it into the squad.
Exactly. It's working as intended. It is designed to hamper clubs like us. It's the fundamental theory of the league.
Yeah but we can invest it into our academy which I am sure the club is going to be spending millions on. If Mata is able to transfer to a good European club, then we will be able to get a lot of other young players to want to come here especially with our MCFC affiliation. Sucks we can't keep him but thats the where MLS fits into the footballing landscape right now.
It's wonderful that it may create positive vibes about our ability to get more young guys through to Europe. But it hurts our ability to maintain a strong side.
I'm not concerned about investing in our academy. We can never sell a player and they will invest in the academy side. Matarrita going or staying won't be the determinant factor in the success of our academy.
Yeah but every MLS (except the galaxy) have the same constraints. If mata is sold and we get 650k in allocation money that will be a 150k-250k profit. We will be a better team with more assests than before we bought him. Thats not including the value that we got from him actually playing for our teams and the extra operational money we get.
Allocation dollars are also so much more valuable than regular dollars because it allows us to spend over the cap. You take a look at the galaxy and the sounders and one of the reasons they always seem to have talent and depth is because of their use of allocation dollars after transfers.
This does mean that we have to be smart with who we are targeting for young non DP international players. Getting the next Ronaldo that we transfer for 10illion doesnt help us. We need to be targeting guys that we can sell for 1-2 million. This becomes less of an issue if most of our young players are academy products that cost us nothing against the cap.
This isn't exactly the right way to look at it. This is kind of like a pharma company saying they invested $1MM in R&D for a drug that made $100MM. Sounds like great profits. Except that pharma company also spent $70MM in R&D for drugs that never went to market.
In evaluating Mata's cost vs sell price in terms of profit, you also have to factor in all the speculative signings that went nowhere or nearly nowhere. Seba, Nemec, Iraola, etc.
