Poll: Cut Mix or Josh (If It Comes to That)

If neither Josh nor Mix finds a new club, on whom should NYCFC use its uncharged waiver?

  • Josh

    Votes: 17 25.0%
  • Mix

    Votes: 51 75.0%

  • Total voters
    68
  • Poll closed .
All the cut him talk supposes the team cares more about our salary cap than dropping 1.5 million dollars with no chance of lessening that cost. Since our owners presumably care about 1.5 million dollars, it behooves them to keep him on the team until they can find someone to pay some acceptable portion of that cost.

It's a sunk cost, we are spending it either way. You probably cut him even if you don't replace him, just for the flexibility.
 
Transfer to a Norwegian club is the best case scenario (zero cost to Club). Loan to a Norwegian Club is second best scenario (we pay difference between Norwegian Club payments to Mix and contract amount). Buyout is worst case scenario.
 
Transfer to a Norwegian club is the best case scenario (zero cost to Club). Loan to a Norwegian Club is second best scenario (we pay difference between Norwegian Club payments to Mix and contract amount). Buyout is worst case scenario.

You going to change that description under your name when he's gone?
 
the remaining contract isn't a sunk cost. If we find someone to take him, we reduce that expenditure.

#notanaccountant

Oh I see what you were saying. Hang onto him for a year and try to dump him again next year for a $750k savings of the $1.5 million cost it would take to cut him now.

If we can't dump him now though, what are the chances we dump him a year from now, after another presumably underutilized season on our roster?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kjbert
Transfer to a Norwegian club is the best case scenario (zero cost to Club). Loan to a Norwegian Club is second best scenario (we pay difference between Norwegian Club payments to Mix and contract amount). Buyout is worst case scenario.

Actually, it's a little different. Selling him is #1. Buyout is #2 (no cap hit). Loaning him and paying the difference is #3 (we pay the cap hit).

From a Cap perspective, there is no difference in buying him out or letting him go away. Unless we get a dollar more than his contract value, we don't receive any GAM. This is what happened with Omar Gonzales. He was making $1 Mil, was sold for less than that, and MLS kept all the money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: adam
Actually, it's a little different. Selling him is #1. Buyout is #2 (no cap hit). Loaning him and paying the difference is #3 (we pay the cap hit).

From a Cap perspective, there is no difference in buying him out or letting him go away. Unless we get a dollar more than his contract value, we don't receive any GAM. This is what happened with Omar Gonzales. He was making $1 Mil, was sold for less than that, and MLS kept all the money.
I do not believe that the team's Cap is charged for a player's team-covered portion of salary when Loaned out.
 
Here's the way to do it. Let's say that he finds a club who will take him at $400K less per season than he is making now. We buy him out for a total of $800K ($400K x 2), and he signs the new agreement. He gets the same amount of money. The new club gets the right price. We get a cheaper buy out and have him off the books.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SoupInNYC and adam
Here's the way to do it. Let's say that he finds a club who will take him at $400K less per season than he is making now. We buy him out for a total of $800K ($400K x 2), and he signs the new agreement. He gets the same amount of money. The new club gets the right price. We get a cheaper buy out and have him off the books.

How can you buy someone else for less than the contract is worth? There's probably a buyout clause in the contract indicating that he has to be paid in full, or maybe even more. Like a buyout bonus. Mix has the greatest contract in MLS for a player.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ulrich
Here's the way to do it. Let's say that he finds a club who will take him at $400K less per season than he is making now. We buy him out for a total of $800K ($400K x 2), and he signs the new agreement. He gets the same amount of money. The new club gets the right price. We get a cheaper buy out and have him off the books.
I doubt it works that way, what you're describing is essentially how a Loan works. No team will pay a transfer fee for him, so Mix will have to be bought out in full to go away. The new team would get him on a free transfer. Mix will then have a new contract plus his severance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SoupInNYC
If we loan Mix out and he has a great season and has transfer value after he is on the pitch we can get a piece of transfer fee. Same reasons we want to end the loan for Mata.

I did assume Mix doesn't have a sell-on transfer value right now. That is certainly the best case scenario for the team.
 
If we loan Mix out and he has a great season and has transfer value after he is on the pitch we can get a piece of transfer fee. Same reasons we want to end the loan for Mata.

I did assume Mix doesn't have a sell-on transfer value right now. That is certainly the best case scenario for the team.
Agreed the value will be all over the place but it would just take him getting a trial at a few clubs abroad in the here and now (not tape) for 1 coach to decide he wants him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sabo
It's a sunk cost, we are spending it either way.
Other argument against sunk cost. If the team is NOT planning on spending the Mix savings on more players and if they pay Mix off, then the team doesn't really reap any benefit while Mix gets to get paid in full and then double dip by signing another contract on his own. If there is animosity there as we believer there to be, that might not sit well with the team.

Related question, does the buyout have to happen during preseason? Or could they bide their time and then do this during the year to regain the remaining cap space?
 
Other argument against sunk cost. If the team is NOT planning on spending the Mix savings on more players and if they pay Mix off, then the team doesn't really reap any benefit while Mix gets to get paid in full and then double dip by signing another contract on his own. If there is animosity there as we believer there to be, that might not sit well with the team.

Related question, does the buyout have to happen during preseason? Or could they bide their time and then do this during the year to regain the remaining cap space?
Has to be during the offseason to save the cap space.
 
Related question, does the buyout have to happen during preseason? Or could they bide their time and then do this during the year to regain the remaining cap space?
I believe, to get the cap benefit, it needs to happen prior to the season. As with all MLS rules, I could be wrong!
 
  • Like
Reactions: FootyLovin