NYCFC Players Wanted Thread

Midas Mulligan said:
Why not both? What's the argument against it? If you charge for another DP slot and make it tradable, all sorts of awesomeness is likely to ensue.
Click to expand...

Because sustainable soccer is important. See: NASL past, NASL present, and NASL future.

Also, because the league office has determined that a high level of parity matters, at least for now. There's plenty of debate around this, but I think it's smart for a league that is trying to attract a massive amount of new fans. It would be harder to do so if a small group of teams were always the only annual competitors for trophies.
 
Midas Mulligan said:
It's unlikely to happen so long as their investments are appreciating, no matter how cheap they are, unless someone pays significantly for future growth.

I don't come down on these guys too hard, honestly. They sunk a lot of money into what most thought was a real gamble, and they continued to sink money into it when things were not looking nearly so positive. Without the "early cheap owners", we wouldn't have serious first division soccer. To me, they deserve to make their money.

I'd just hope for increased revenue streams that will cover larger budgets. Also, expansion fees will help a lot. I think all of the teams that submitted a bid will eventually get in (or get a club moved there). Very long term, I don't think they'll stop until we get to 40 (or 40 - the busted/moved franchises).
Click to expand...
Had pretty much this exact conversation with a colleague last night.
Midas Mulligan said:
It's unlikely to happen so long as their investments are appreciating, no matter how cheap they are, unless someone pays significantly for future growth.

I don't come down on these guys too hard, honestly. They sunk a lot of money into what most thought was a real gamble, and they continued to sink money into it when things were not looking nearly so positive. Without the "early cheap owners", we wouldn't have serious first division soccer. To me, they deserve to make their money.

I'd just hope for increased revenue streams that will cover larger budgets. Also, expansion fees will help a lot. I think all of the teams that submitted a bid will eventually get in (or get a club moved there). Very long term, I don't think they'll stop until we get to 40 (or 40 - the busted/moved franchises).
Click to expand...
I said very nearly the exact same thing to a colleague last evening. I'm always put off by the desire to criticize someone else for not spending their money in ways you want, but it's especially egregious when that person already spent tons of money to build something up with significant risk.
 
sbrylski said:
Because sustainable soccer is important. See: NASL past, NASL present, and NASL future.

Also, because the league office has determined that a high level of parity matters, at least for now. There's plenty of debate around this, but I think it's smart for a league that is trying to attract a massive amount of new fans. It would be harder to do so if a small group of teams were always the only annual competitors for trophies.
Click to expand...

But good soccer is more important.

Your 'cons' just described the Premier League which does quite well. In fact, when Serie A started having their issues with mafia influence, gambling and ultra violence, PL took the opportunity to poach all the talent while the league was in disarray. The teams with money created powerhouses. It's the most successful league in the world today. It wasn't always that way, until they started spending money.
 
Last edited:
mgarbowski said:
Had pretty much this exact conversation with a colleague last night.

I said very nearly the exact same thing to a colleague last evening. I'm always put off by the desire to criticize someone else for not spending their money in ways you want, but it's especially egregious when that person already spent tons of money to build something up with significant risk.
Click to expand...
giphy.gif
 
NickA said:
But good soccer is more important.

Your 'cons' just described the Premier League which does quite well.
Click to expand...

Good soccer at all costs leads to massive financial losses, which leads to investors running out of money or getting tired of losing it, which leads to collapse. Good soccer is just one part of an enjoyable experience for the fan, which is why the quality of soccer in MLS has managed growth but there has been focus on other parts of the gameday experience, such as SSS's.

The Premier League exists in an entirely different context than MLS, which I stated in my post.
 
sbrylski said:
Good soccer at all costs leads to massive financial losses, which leads to investors running out of money or getting tired of losing it, which leads to collapse. Good soccer is just one part of an enjoyable experience for the fan, which is why the quality of soccer in MLS has managed growth but there has been focus on other parts of the gameday experience, such as SSS's.

The Premier League exists in an entirely different context than MLS, which I stated in my post.
Click to expand...

Soccer in the U.S. didn't collapse because of lack of parity, it was an inferior product and crap leadership.

I see Major League Soccer's parity tactic as a way to protect owner's pockets first. Have a cap, luxury tax, etc. for real parity. I think while the league is experiencing growth, now is the time to let the teams that want to spend do so. Tax them and it gets spread. But while you have the younger demographic at the door, you have to spend the money NOW to capitalize on that. I'm not saying go crazy, but loosen the restraints a little for the eager. I don't care about protecting the owners that don't give a shit. Which is what the league is trying to do tbh.

I did not see any mention of the Premier League in your post that I replied to. It is a good example though, because league inception is around the same time. They went after the European players, MLS could have done the same with South American players. There's no reason why this "MLS Parity" for the last 20+ years hasn't resulted in getting top South American talent yet.

Since MLS started in 1993 -
11 different teams have won the title.

Since Premier League stared in 1992 -
6 different teams have won the title.

The latest growth of the league has nothing to do with parity to me. America is different now and it's the perfect sport for today's fast paced climate. But that's a whole different debate.
 
NickA said:
Soccer in the U.S. didn't collapse because of lack of parity, it was an inferior product and crap leadership.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that. I said that it collapsed because teams went for quality soccer at all costs, and spent way more than they earned, and the investments collapsed.

I see Major League Soccer's parity tactic as a way to protect owner's pockets first. Have a cap, luxury tax, etc. for real parity. I think while the league is experiencing growth, now is the time to let the teams that want to spend do so. Tax them and it gets spread. But while you have the younger demographic at the door, you have to spend the money NOW to capitalize on that. I'm not saying go crazy, but loosen the restraints a little for the eager. I don't care about protecting the owners that don't give a shit. Which is what the league is trying to do tbh.
Click to expand...

As I admitted in my original post on this topic, there is room for debate on whether parity is good or bad and how much is appropriate. I believe the fault in your argument is the assumption that money = good soccer = fans. It's not that black and white. Smart money = good experience = fans.

I did not see any mention of the Premier League in your post that I replied to. It is a good example though, because league inception is around the same time.
Click to expand...

My post mentioned that MLS exists in a context where they are trying to attract massive amounts of new fans. That is extremely different than the Premier League, with massive established fanbases dating back 100+ years. From a business perspective, I don't think they are comparable at all. The geography, demographics, and history are completely different.
 
sbrylski said:
I didn't say that. I said that it collapsed because teams went for quality soccer at all costs, and spent way more than they earned, and the investments collapsed.



As I admitted in my original post on this topic, there is room for debate on whether parity is good or bad and how much is appropriate. I believe the fault in your argument is the assumption that money = good soccer = fans. It's not that black and white. Smart money = good experience = fans.



My post mentioned that MLS exists in a context where they are trying to attract massive amounts of new fans. That is extremely different than the Premier League, with massive established fanbases dating back 100+ years. From a business perspective, I don't think they are comparable at all. The geography, demographics, and history are completely different.
Click to expand...

I'm completely playing devils advocate with you. I think a little more leniency & transparency is needed, but a blank check is not advisable.

The MLS will never compete with any big league. Attendance can be good, but product will always be second division. Our sports are deep rooted at the collegiate level. That's our youth system right now. Soccer is growing but the mountain is huge.
 
NickA said:
I'm completely playing devils advocate with you. I think a little more leniency & transparency is needed, but a blank check is not advisable.

The MLS will never compete with any big league. Attendance can be good, but product will always be second division. Our sports are deep rooted at the collegiate level. That's our youth system right now. Soccer is growing but the mountain is huge.
Click to expand...

I'll chime in on the transparency part. People only appreciate a game if they believe it's fair. That's why leagues/sports get so caught up in gambling and doping, it affects the fairness of the sport. The rules are fine. If they help the league to grow and instill parity that's up for debate (but I think they do). But have all the rules and transactions available to the public. We shouldn't be making comments like Garber will just waive his hand and make it happen. There can be a whole other fan base that's tapped into by transparency and cap dissection. And it will also not turn off the fans that don't want to hear "of course they will it's LA". I think the listing of GAM being traded was a start and maybe a test case. If it got enough good press and mentions on social media (we talk like crazy about it) we can only hope it's another step in that direction.
 
adam said:
We shouldn't be making comments like Garber will just waive his hand and make it happen.
Click to expand...

I feel there's a lot of loose business and loop holes that are easily gone around at the discretion of Garber and friends.

Maybe I'm being too much of a theorist...
 
adam said:
I'll chime in on the transparency part. People only appreciate a game if they believe it's fair. That's why leagues/sports get so caught up in gambling and doping, it affects the fairness of the sport. The rules are fine. If they help the league to grow and instill parity that's up for debate (but I think they do). But have all the rules and transactions available to the public. We shouldn't be making comments like Garber will just waive his hand and make it happen. There can be a whole other fan base that's tapped into by transparency and cap dissection. And it will also not turn off the fans that don't want to hear "of course they will it's LA". I think the listing of GAM being traded was a start and maybe a test case. If it got enough good press and mentions on social media (we talk like crazy about it) we can only hope it's another step in that direction.
Click to expand...

This is a good point, and MLS has been walking a fine line. The good news is that don't think MLS has ever crossed the line and lost trust, and they are trending away from the line towards transparency (with a long way to go).
 
Last edited:
adam said:
I'll chime in on the transparency part. People only appreciate a game if they believe it's fair. That's why leagues/sports get so caught up in gambling and doping, it affects the fairness of the sport. The rules are fine. If they help the league to grow and instill parity that's up for debate (but I think they do). But have all the rules and transactions available to the public. We shouldn't be making comments like Garber will just waive his hand and make it happen. There can be a whole other fan base that's tapped into by transparency and cap dissection. And it will also not turn off the fans that don't want to hear "of course they will it's LA". I think the listing of GAM being traded was a start and maybe a test case. If it got enough good press and mentions on social media (we talk like crazy about it) we can only hope it's another step in that direction.
Click to expand...
I love games where the odds are stacked - sign me up for the Three Card Monty League!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Shwafta
NYCFC Survivor 5 Winner!
Replies
0
Views
388
Shwafta
Shwafta
mgarbowski
NYCFC Season Discussion 2024: The Definition of NYCFC is Doing the Same Thing Over and Over and Getting the Same Result
10 11 12
Replies
226
Views
14,952
gbservis
gbservis
Shwafta
NYCFC Survivor 2023 Winner!
Replies
0
Views
1,442
Shwafta
Shwafta
K
2022 Season Prognostication Thread
Replies
12
Views
3,059
Shwafta
Shwafta
Shwafta
NYCFC 2022 Season Expectations Thread
2
Replies
37
Views
3,312
CCMore
CCMore
Back
Top