NYCFC Players Wanted Thread
- Thread starter NYCFC_Dan
- Start date
Another centerback? Why?
I get it if we hadn't signed Chanot already, but we now have Brillant, Chanot, Mena, Hernandez, and both White and Bravo can play back there as well.
Thanks guys, and Adam, that is a great resource.
In order to really understand what we are doing with TAM, one has to know how big the transfer fees were for some of the new players. In the press releases for the acquisitions of both Matarrita and Brillant, the Club stated that "targeted allocation money was used" to acquire the player. This is strange since both of those guys make less than the league's maximum salary of $457K (Brillant makes $300K and Matarrita makes $175K), and TAM can only be used on players that make more than the league max. This means that the transfer fees for those guys had to be high enough that, when amortized over the length of the contract, they bring the total annual cost above the league max.
Accordingly, it's not possible to really estimate how much TAM we have used without knowing the terms of the transfers. This is now also true of Chanot, as the same language was included in the press release for his acquisition.
Thank you. So if I have you right, it's possible that the transfer fee for Matarrita was close to $600k assuming a two year deal? And the fee for Brillant could have been $300k assuming a two year deal? Does that make sense?
Oh I can help there, the transfer fee was $300k for Matarrita (with a sell on clause). adam feel free to put that on your spreadsheet.
If that's the case, then they should not have been able to use TAM on Matarrita.
TAM can be used purely on acquisition costs. Using it to buy down a cap hit is only one application.
No. Read that part again (repeated below with the important part underlined). The combined amount still must be more than the maximum salary budget, which is $457K. Matarrita's is not more and that's true whether you add to the $150K salary all of the $300K in acquisition costs or amortize them over the term of his contract.
Clubs may use the funds to sign a new player provided his salary and acquisition costs are more than the maximum salary budget.
The only thing I could think of, is they were to somehow value the sell-on clause as a potential future liability, and "add" it to the value of his transfer fee and salary amount to bring him over the maximum salary budget.
Oh, I just assumed that combined, they would have added up to more than the maximum budget charge.
Right. I had assumed so as well. I think this either means there is something else going on with the comp, or we can't believe everything we read in the press releases (probably the later).
Bentaleb and Pirlo would be unfair - in just about any league in the world. That would be an absolute sick double pivot.
Following up on Orlando Berrio... NYCFC's initial offer for him back in June was rejected. Haven't heard anything since then and now he was offered to Racing Club in Argentina. Safe to say Berrio won't be in MLS anytime soon.
http://www.ole.com.ar/racing/berrio-racing_0_1619238213.html
http://www.ole.com.ar/racing/berrio-racing_0_1619238213.html
Ugh. Then again, Tommy is such an unsung hero that had we signed Barrio, I'd almost rather have sat Lampard and moved Tommy to CAM. He could have at least boxed-to-boxed better than Lampard, and he's such a cerebral player that his positioning at any attacking position is excellent. And we know that wouldn't have happened.
Lampard has made a bigger impact than McNamara. But your point is fair than Barrios would not have cracked the Starting 11.
We are seriously lacking some offensive punch off the bench. Tony Taylor, Khiry Shelton, Steven Mendoza - these guys aren't scaring anyone.
Nothing about this is surprising. We clearly over paid considerably for him and his value way lower now.
Perhaps not at the price MLS is requiring....
What kills me about the situation is Mix could have been a huge help in the two recent losses. Lampard wasn't mobile in either the SKC or RB match and a fully rested Mix could have meant we were playing with 3 in the midfield rather than only two when defending. I know the Front Office doesn't want to damage the "goods" before a trade and PV is trying to prove a disciplinary point, but cutting off your nose to spite your face is problematic when a high energy guy was available for a low energy midfield.
Last edited:
Similar threads
