Mikkel "Mix" Diskerud [Midfielder]

[LionNYC]

So we still owe him an additional one year salary for 2018.

He left roughly this time last year, I think it was March. He played with IFK Goteborg for two half-seasons: the end of 2016-17, and the first half of 2017-18. They let him go mid-season, as he is leaving on a free, reportedly. Which means they could not come to terms with either Mix or with CFG/MLS for an extension of the loan. And rather than just pay him one year for doing nothing, or find a new loan destination for one year, CFG/MCFC extended the relationship by 3.5 years. I cannot make sense of this.

NYCFC doesn't want him. IFK Goteborg seemingly doesn't want him, at least not for an agreeable price. But Man City signs him for an additional 3.5 years, because they presumably have interest elsewhere. But if there is solid existing interest, why does Mix extend with CFG and not just wait out the year and deal himself as a free agent, when he can capture the full value instead of sharing it with CFG?

No, MLS and NYCFC do not still owe him for 2018.

NYCFC bought out the contract after 2016. All this did was remove him from our salary budget for the remainder of his contract. He was without an MLS team but his contract was still owned by MLS until the end of the 2018 season and he was to be paid through the 2018 season (as in salary/wages, but not effecting our salary budget). Since no MLS club wanted him at his salary (and salary charge for that matter), he was loaned to Sweden. Sweden was paying a part of his salary. MLS was paying the bulk of it.

With this transfer, Man City bought Mix Diskerud's contract from MLS. When a transfer occurs, a new contract is made and the old one is void. So, now Man City owns Mix Diskerud for the next 4.5 years. They are looking to either sell him or loan him, not to a CFG affiliate club. It's likely much easier to get business done with Man City than it is MLS. Moreover, Man City did MLS a favor so that MLS doesn't have to pay Mix his $750K (and whatever hell else he's making) for the 2018 season.

So, in conclusion. Mix Diskerud is no longer the problem of MLS or NYCFC anymore.

 

[adam]

So we still owe him an additional one year salary for 2018.

He left roughly this time last year, I think it was March. He played with IFK Goteborg for two half-seasons: the end of 2016-17, and the first half of 2017-18. They let him go mid-season, as he is leaving on a free, reportedly. Which means they could not come to terms with either Mix or with CFG/MLS for an extension of the loan. And rather than just pay him one year for doing nothing, or find a new loan destination for one year, CFG/MCFC extended the relationship by 3.5 years. I cannot make sense of this.

NYCFC doesn't want him. IFK Goteborg seemingly doesn't want him, at least not for an agreeable price. But Man City signs him for an additional 3.5 years, because they presumably have interest elsewhere. But if there is solid existing interest, why does Mix extend with CFG and not just wait out the year and deal himself as a free agent, when he can capture the full value instead of sharing it with CFG?

I feel like there’s this ocean’s 11 type scam that PV and Mix are pulling on all of us. And we all can’t figure it out.

 

[LionNYC]

I feel like there’s this ocean’s 11 type scam that PV and Mix are pulling on all of us. And we all can’t figure it out.

150 Million in GAM

 

[mgarbowski]

NYCFC bought out the contract after 2016. All this did was remove him from our salary budget for the remainder of his contract. He was without an MLS team but his contract was still owned by MLS until the end of the 2018 season and he was to be paid through the 2018 season (as in salary/wages, but not effecting our salary budget). Since no MLS club wanted him at his salary (and salary charge for that matter), he was loaned to Sweden. Sweden was paying a part of his salary. MLS was paying the bulk of it.

Set aside the Swedish aspect. Why is MLS paying the salary and not NYCFC? If MLS owes him and not us, then there is no cost to the club to buying him out. That can't be right.

 

[LionNYC]

Set aside the Swedish aspect. Why is MLS paying the salary and not NYCFC? If MLS owes him and not us, then there is no cost to the club to buying him out. That can't be right.

This is where we get into the single entity talk. Clubs in MLS aren't clubs like the rest of the world. MLS owns all the clubs and all the players on those clubs and all those contracts on those players on those clubs. MLS pays David Villa, not NYCFC. MLS pays Diego Valeri, not Portland.

When a player comes to NYCFC, they aren't coming to NYCFC like they would be for Man City or Barcelona. They sign with MLS and are assigned to a team.

The single use per offseason contract buyout is a mechanism for clubs to terminate a player from their roster so their budget charge is no longer part of the club's salary budget. It is not a true buyout where the player is relieved from their contract. MLS still is paying the salary a player is due per his contract.

 

[adam]

Set aside the Swedish aspect. Why is MLS paying the salary and not NYCFC? If MLS owes him and not us, then there is no cost to the club to buying him out. That can't be right.

I think you’re getting to the answer.

I thought the team had to buy out the player. So NYCFC paid the remainder of Mix’s salary to MLS. MLS took mix off NYC’s books for cap purposes (he was always on an MLS contract).

So presently Mix is being paid by MLS with NYC (CFG) money. That’s lessened by any fees paid by the Swedish team.

So, the question becomes: Does NYC/CFG get any financial benefit if MLS works out a loan for Mix? If not, then it would behoove CFG to purchase Mix away from MLS (have what’s left of the buyout funds returned to them) and then loan him out or sell him on themselves.

That’s the only way it makes any sense to me.

 

[mgarbowski]

This is where we get into the single entity talk. Clubs in MLS aren't clubs like the rest of the world. MLS owns all the clubs and all the players on those clubs and all those contracts on those players on those clubs. MLS pays David Villa, not NYCFC. MLS pays Diego Valeri, not Portland.

When a player comes to NYCFC, they aren't coming to NYCFC like they would be for Man City or Barcelona. They sign with MLS and are assigned to a team.

The single use per offseason contract buyout is a mechanism for clubs to terminate a player from their roster so their budget charge is no longer part of the club's salary budget. It is not a true buyout where the player is relieved from their contract. MLS still is paying the salary a player is due per his contract.

I know that. I know the salary is "cost-free" to the club while the player is under normal circumstances (excluding voluntary/discretionary TAM and DP salaries above the max charge). You're missing my point, so I will try to be more clear. If MLS continues to pay the salary after a buyout, then the buyout is cost-free to the club. It's not a buyout. The buyout process only makes sense if the club takes on the salary obligation.

Let's use made-up round numbers. Assume the salary cap is $5 million, and the max charge per player is $500k.
Player X makes $400k per year guaranteed for 4 years. MLS pays all of that as part of the $5 million.
After 2 years, the club buys him out. His $400k no longer counts against the cap, which only makes sense if the club takes responsibility for it, so the league is still paying a total of $5M per year. If the league continues to pay X's salary, then the league is paying $5.4 million for that club's salary, the buyout is free to the club, and we would see a lot more buyouts.

 

[LionNYC]

I know that. I know the salary is "cost-free" to the club while the player is under normal circumstances (excluding voluntary/discretionary TAM and DP salaries above the max charge). You're missing my point, so I will try to be more clear. If MLS continues to pay the salary after a buyout, then the buyout is cost-free to the club. It's not a buyout. The buyout process only makes sense if the club takes on the salary obligation.

Let's use made-up round numbers. Assume the salary cap is $5 million, and the max charge per player is $500k.
Player X makes $400k per year guaranteed for 4 years. MLS pays all of that as part of the $5 million.
After 2 years, the club buys him out. His $400k no longer counts against the cap, which only makes sense if the club takes responsibility for it, so the league is still paying a total of $5M per year. If the league continues to pay X's salary, then the league is paying $5.4 million for that club's salary, the buyout is free to the club, and we would see a lot more buyouts.

The buyout is cost-free to the club's salary budget, but it's not cost free to the club's payroll, which is the league's payroll.

And why we don't see a lot more buyouts, is likely because if there were many, many buyouts, MLS wouldn't seem attractive to players. It used in very uncommon circumstances.

Sure, we'd love to buy Maxi out and sign a better DP. I'm sure a lot of teams would have like to have done that over the years.

 

[mgarbowski]

The buyout is cost-free to the club's salary budget, but it's not cost free to the club's payroll, which is the league's payroll.

And why we don't see a lot more buyouts, is likely because if there were many, many buyouts, MLS wouldn't seem attractive to players. It used in very uncommon circumstances.

Sure, we'd love to buy Maxi out and sign a better DP. I'm sure a lot of teams would have like to have done that over the years.

So when NYCFC bought out Mix's contract, it cost NYCFC only its proportional share of his salary, and the other 20 or so MLS clubs are paying most of it? Do you know this? I mean really know it from a reliable report? Or are you figuring it makes the most sense the way I'm figuring the opposite?

 

[LionNYC]

So when NYCFC bought out Mix's contract, it cost NYCFC only its proportional share of his salary, and the other 20 or so MLS clubs are paying most of it? Do you know this? I mean really know it from a reliable report? Or are you figuring it makes the most sense the way I'm figuring the opposite?

Well, we actually know nothing since it's MLS.

But I think the club (i.e. investor-operator, investor in MLS, operator of NYCFC) is responsible for the salary after the buyout. So while CFG/Yankees (the investor-operator ownership group) are fitting the bill, they pass the money through MLS.

Buyout of Guaranteed Contract
A club may buy out one player who has a Guaranteed Contract (including a DP's) during the offseason and free up the corresponding budget space. Such a buyout is at the MLS club's expense.

 

[Ulrich]

I think you’re getting to the answer.

I thought the team had to buy out the player. So NYCFC paid the remainder of Mix’s salary to MLS. MLS took mix off NYC’s books for cap purposes (he was always on an MLS contract).

So presently Mix is being paid by MLS with NYC (CFG) money. That’s lessened by any fees paid by the Swedish team.

So, the question becomes: Does NYC/CFG get any financial benefit if MLS works out a loan for Mix? If not, then it would behoove CFG to purchase Mix away from MLS (have what’s left of the buyout funds returned to them) and then loan him out or sell him on themselves.

That’s the only way it makes any sense to me.

I wonder if somebody at CFG is trying to make it up to Mix for PV basically torpedoing his career? CFG didn’t want to interfere with PV’s coaching, but they also couldn’t be happy there was a visible dispute going on with a marquee player.

That, it this 4.5 year contract buys silence so Mix can’t twll all.

 

[adam]

I wonder if somebody at CFG is trying to make it up to Mix for PV basically torpedoing his career? CFG didn’t want to interfere with PV’s coaching, but they also couldn’t be happy there was a visible dispute going on with a marquee player.

That, it this 4.5 year contract buys silence so Mix can’t twll all.

Didn’t think of that. Hush money. Maybe there’s a manuscript somewhere.

 

[LionNYC]

I wonder if somebody at CFG is trying to make it up to Mix for PV basically torpedoing his career? CFG didn’t want to interfere with PV’s coaching, but they also couldn’t be happy there was a visible dispute going on with a marquee player.

That, it this 4.5 year contract buys silence so Mix can’t twll all.

- Increased annual salary
- Small share in Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund
- Lifetime payment on New York (or any city of choice) rent

- A non-disclosure agreement to regarding his time during the 2016 season under Patrick Vieira

 

[Gotham Gator]

I’ve never believed for a second that Mix’s salary after the buyout was anyone’s responsibility other than NYCFC. It didn’t count against our salary budget, but the team had to pay it.

 

[LeeNYCFC]

Let's use made-up round numbers. Assume the salary cap is $5 million, and the max charge per player is $500k. Player X makes $400k per year guaranteed for 4 years. MLS pays all of that as part of the $5 million. After 2 years, the club buys him out. His $400k no longer counts against the cap, which only makes sense if the club takes responsibility for it, so the league is still paying a total of $5M per year. If the league continues to pay X's salary, then the league is paying $5.4 million for that club's salary, the buyout is free to the club, and we would see a lot more buyouts.

We are definitely only making best guesses here, but in your example if the club lays out $400,000 for a buyout where does it go? If he's bought out for x amount of dollars and he receives it, and then the league still pays his salary he's essentially been paid twice. Is the mechanism perhaps that the club's buy-out is paid to the league who then continues paying the player, or paid to the player who is then not paid going forward. Or if they buyout is only for the amount of the budget charge he would still be paid any excess, presumably by the club.
I tried to find more clarity in the CBA but it basically mirrors the MLS language

https://mlsplayers.org/wp-content/u...tive-Bargaining-Agreement-February-1-2015.pdf

Completely separate but I found the section below interesting. I don't know if Jack would have a different contract, but in theory with the big money offers being bandied around he has a 10% incentive to hold out for a larger fee.

Section 15.3 Except as otherwise provided in this CBA or otherwise agreed at any time in writing between the Player and MLS, the Player shall be entitled to receive from MLS (promptly upon receipt by MLS of such consideration) ten percent (10%) of any consideration received by MLS for any loan or transfer of the Player’s services to a team or league outside of MLS. This Section shall not apply to a loan to a USL Affiliate if the loan fee is used solely as a mechanism to cover the player’s salary.

 

[mgarbowski]

We are definitely only making best guesses here, but in your example if the club lays out $400,000 for a buyout where does it go? If he's bought out for x amount of dollars and he receives it, and then the league still pays his salary he's essentially been paid twice. Is the mechanism perhaps that the club's buy-out is paid to the league who then continues paying the player, or paid to the player who is then not paid going forward. Or if they buyout is only for the amount of the budget charge he would still be paid any excess, presumably by the club.

In my understanding, FWIW, Mix or any such player would definitely not get paid twice. You ID the options, either : (1) NYCFC pays MLS who then continues to pay Mix, or (2) NYCFC starts paying Mix directly. I would guess it is (1) since this avoids any need to assign his employment contract.

 

[adam]

In my understanding, FWIW, Mix or any such player would definitely not get paid twice. You ID the options, either : (1) NYCFC pays MLS who then continues to pay Mix, or (2) NYCFC starts paying Mix directly. I would guess it is (1) since this avoids any need to assign his employment contract.

Exactly. Which begs the question, does MLS reimburse NYCFC for any proceeds from Mix’s loan? If not, this makes sense if CFG is then reimbursed for what’s already been paid to MLS for the original buy out (pro rated). Then they can sell/loan Mix and keep any fees for themselves.

 

[mgarbowski]

Exactly. Which begs the question, does MLS reimburse NYCFC for any proceeds from Mix’s loan? If not, this makes sense if CFG is then reimbursed for what’s already been paid to MLS for the original buy out (pro rated). Then they can sell/loan Mix and keep any fees for themselves.

I think CFG/MCFC must have bought Mix's contract from MLS. The news reports said they got him on a free transfer from IFK Goteborg when the loan ended. But he is, as far as we know, still under contract with MLS. I think MC got him off a mid-contract transfer from MLS. Probably no money changed hands, but who know? I honestly don't know if anything I wrote about this over the weekend is true. It just makes the most sense to me.

 

[Ulrich]

I think CFG/MCFC must have bought Mix's contract from MLS. The news reports said they got him on a free transfer from IFK Goteborg when the loan ended. But he is, as far as we know, still under contract with MLS. I think MC got him off a mid-contract transfer from MLS. Probably no money changed hands, but who know? I honestly don't know if anything I wrote about this over the weekend is true. It just makes the most sense to me.

Pretty sure the Carlisle/ESPN piece mentioned the contract was mutually terminated prior to MCFC signing him. Whether that’s true or speculation by him, IDK.

 

[mgarbowski]

Pretty sure the Carlisle/ESPN piece mentioned the contract was mutually terminated prior to MCFC signing him. Whether that’s true or speculation by him, IDK.

Which I see as a 3-way deal of sorts. Mix agrees to release MLS from their contractual obligations as long as he has a commitment from MCFC. MLS lets Mix go for $0 because he is just costing them money, and effectively MCFC picks him up on a free from MLS, because the convention is to call it a transfer from the previous club even though the contract expired and the player was a free agent.