Jump to content


Photo

LEAGUE CBA THREAD


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
97 replies to this topic

Poll: CBA poll (57 member(s) have cast votes)

So who do you thing is in the right when it comes to the gap in negotiating the new CBA

  1. Players Union (13 votes [22.81%])

    Percentage of vote: 22.81%

  2. Owners (15 votes [26.32%])

    Percentage of vote: 26.32%

  3. Both (29 votes [50.88%])

    Percentage of vote: 50.88%

Vote

#31 Saeyddthe

Saeyddthe

    Player/Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,395 posts

Posted 22 February 2010 - 12:46 AM

$60 mil over five years. 60 divided by 5=12 mil a year average across five years. 12 $mil divided by 18ish teams (16 in 2010, 18 in 2011, 19 in 2012, 20 after Beckham retires). Figuring that that cash starts smaller and builds over the five years, it's a rough average of $666,000 a year, per team.
That's crawling past a $3 mil calary cap over the next few years.

Meh.

Meh indeed... It's pretty much exactly the traditional 5% increases of recent years past.


Modify, not do away with (though a salary cap makes concern over free agency a red herring), free agency and let's get the season started already.


I don't care about free agency as it's usually modeled...but a player should own their own rights when out-of-contract.

(Has it crossed anyone elses mind that keeping the current CBA would be the leagues wet dream?)


Not 100%...as I believe whatever the result of future agreements will possibly be retroactive.

What it definitely is, is a lame, transparent way of throwing the hot-potato back in the players' laps.

#32 jjayg

jjayg

    Player/Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,676 posts
  • Supports:Chicago Fire

Posted 22 February 2010 - 10:31 AM

It's so easy to support the players. We love them. We want the best for them. We want better players and that means more money. It's really, simple to jump on their side. The fact is, though, that the money has to come from somewhere. The league is not profitable. Most teams are not profitable. I agree some changes should be made to give players who are out of contract or who have been 'waived' control on where they can go, that seems like a no brainer and I'm not sure what the leagues issue is with this. But as far as money is concerned, the owners have been bank rolling the league at a loss for a long time, I think they should do what's right for them and the league as far as money is concerned or we wont have a league anymore.

Often labor negotiations are split up into a good guy and a bad guy and usually the workers are the good guys. In this case I don't think it's at all so cut and dry. I think there is a lot of 50-50 that needs to happen here, lots of honest compromise. Not entirely sure the players are seeing it that way yet, but there is no way for any of us to tell since we aren't in on the negotiations.

#33 drgnsFIRE

drgnsFIRE

    First Team

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 640 posts
  • Supports:Chicago Fire

Posted 22 February 2010 - 12:37 PM

Goff weighing in with a letter to Anschutz. Really good read: Soccer Insider's letter to Mr. Anschutz

#34 radmonkey

radmonkey

    First Team

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,644 posts

Posted 22 February 2010 - 01:47 PM


It's so easy to support the players. We love them. We want the best for them. We want better players and that means more money. It's really, simple to jump on their side. The fact is, though, that the money has to come from somewhere. The league is not profitable. Most teams are not profitable.
I agree some changes should be made to give players who are out of contract or who have been 'waived' control on where they can go, that seems like a no brainer and I'm not sure what the leagues issue is with this. But as far as money is concerned, the owners have been bank rolling the league at a loss for a long time, I think they should do what's right for them and the league as far as money is concerned or we wont have a league anymore.

Often labor negotiations are split up into a good guy and a bad guy and usually the workers are the good guys. In this case I don't think it's at all so cut and dry. I think there is a lot of 50-50 that needs to happen here, lots of honest compromise. Not entirely sure the players are seeing it that way yet, but there is no way for any of us to tell since we aren't in on the negotiations.

Based on what? the owners saying so?

Did you see the documents presented to the city of portland? Basically, they said even in a worst case scenario of a team drawing 12-13k the whoke year at prices averaging $15-20. A team would be profitable. The league as a whole is averaging 16k plus change. Not including it's most profitable arm, Soccer United Marketing.
It's owned by MLS and splits the profits to the owners of MLS teams.
They market friendlies by touring teams, the USNT and Mexican national team. You're telling me that everytime Mexico sells out reliant or the rose bowl, SUM is somehow losing money? Even after Mexico's cut?
The last contract was made before a lot of national deals, last time around........MLS was paying ESPN to show it's games. Now it has three national tv contracts plus the adidas deal. While teams have started to sell shirt space.

If so many teams were truly hemorrhaging money, I don't think you'd someone like Saputo desperate to join the league.

I'm not saying the team should raise the cap to 10 million or even 5 million. But a 300k raise? That's Halas/Wirtz thinking right there.
"Dave Checketts and SCP Worldwide partners Dean Howes, Kenneth Munoz, Michael McCarthy and Chris Bevilacqua, chose Real Salt Lake for the team's name because they desired to associate the team with a successful soccer club, and "Fire" was already taken."

#35 jjayg

jjayg

    Player/Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,676 posts
  • Supports:Chicago Fire

Posted 22 February 2010 - 01:51 PM

Based on what? the owners saying so?

Did you see the documents presented to the city of portland? Basically, they said even in a worst case scenario of a team drawing 12-13k the whoke year at prices averaging $15-20. A team would be profitable. The league as a whole is averaging 16k plus change. Not including it's most profitable arm, Soccer United Marketing.
It's owned by MLS and splits the profits to the owners of MLS teams.
They market friendlies by touring teams, the USNT and Mexican national team. You're telling me that everytime Mexico sells out reliant or the rose bowl, SUM is somehow losing money? Even after Mexico's cut?
The last contract was made before a lot of national deals, last time around........MLS was paying ESPN to show it's games. Now it has three national tv contracts plus the adidas deal. While teams have started to sell shirt space.

If so many teams were truly hemorrhaging money, I don't think you'd someone like Saputo desperate to join the league.

I'm not saying the team should raise the cap to 10 million or even 5 million. But a 300k raise? That's Halas/Wirtz thinking right there.

Show me the earning statements of the teams in the league, otherwise your just making crap up. Seriously. I know for a fact the Fire haven't been profitable for years, they are just getting close to making some money. The league may just be starting to turn but they aren't there yet and overzelous spending will kill it for sure. This isn't at all about owners raking in millions of dollars of profit on the back of under paid masses and you know it.

#36 BenBurton

BenBurton

    Dir. of Football Operations

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,904 posts

Posted 22 February 2010 - 01:58 PM

I'm sorry but SUM profits have nothing to do with MLS. It's assinine to expect one business to pay for another. And while it's great that Portland, a team enteringthe league with a soccer specific stadium, can tell the politicians bankrolling the deal that they'll be profitable at a certain level but those numbers are obviously skewed towards encouraging the politicians to give up the dough.

Jason, opening the doors on free agency would potentially reopen the doors to a lawsuit claiming that MLS is not a single entity destroying the league as we know it.

#37 jjayg

jjayg

    Player/Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,676 posts
  • Supports:Chicago Fire

Posted 22 February 2010 - 02:13 PM

.

Jason, opening the doors on free agency would potentially reopen the doors to a lawsuit claiming that MLS is not a single entity destroying the league as we know it.

There's the answer to that one then too. But I think the league mentioned they had methods on the table to deal with released and out of contract players too. I think the players are losing site of the big picture. I really do. And believe me I love the players! I just want the league to continue and get where we all want it to be.

#38 BenBurton

BenBurton

    Dir. of Football Operations

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,904 posts

Posted 22 February 2010 - 03:40 PM

There's the answer to that one then too. But I think the league mentioned they had methods on the table to deal with released and out of contract players too. I think the players are losing site of the big picture. I really do. And believe me I love the players! I just want the league to continue and get where we all want it to be.


I'm 100% pro union but I too fear the players may have lost sight of the big picture. But as I learned from Ms. Candy back in college...sometimes "it's hard to see the picture when you're inside the frame."

To me the biggest issue is with a player like Kevin Hartman. He's stuck with KC but no contract. After his tenure with the league they should be able to find a way to give limited freedom. Something like after 9 years (just more than two typical 4 year deals) you earn the ability to apply for another division within MLS. Let the lawyers word it.

#39 jjayg

jjayg

    Player/Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,676 posts
  • Supports:Chicago Fire

Posted 22 February 2010 - 03:42 PM

I'm 100% pro union but I too fear the players may have lost sight of the big picture. But as I learned from Ms. Candy back in college...sometimes "it's hard to see the picture when you're inside the frame."

To me the biggest issue is with a player like Kevin Hartman. He's stuck with KC but no contract. After his tenure with the league they should be able to find a way to give limited freedom. Something like after 9 years (just more than two typical 4 year deals) you earn the ability to apply for another division within MLS. Let the lawyers word it.

And I'm sure the lawyers will word it out, as soon as the players union realizes that free agency wont happen, not now at least.

#40 Goodtimes

Goodtimes

    Reserve Team

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 236 posts

Posted 22 February 2010 - 04:03 PM

How does the free movement of players within the league open the doors to lawsuits undermining its single-entity status? If anything, it seems the opposite would be true. If each team retains the rights to players even after their contracts expire, then it looks a lot more like each team is its own entity, preventing movement of players within what is supposed to be the over-reaching entity. I'm sure I'm misinterpreting something somewhere, but I honestly don't see how free-agency would weaken the league's single-entity structure. It's sticky, for sure, but I don't follow the league's argument on this one at all.

#41 radmonkey

radmonkey

    First Team

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,644 posts

Posted 22 February 2010 - 04:13 PM

I'm sorry but SUM profits have nothing to do with MLS. It's assinine to expect one business to pay for another. And while it's great that Portland, a team enteringthe league with a soccer specific stadium, can tell the politicians bankrolling the deal that they'll be profitable at a certain level but those numbers are obviously skewed towards encouraging the politicians to give up the dough.

Jason, opening the doors on free agency would potentially reopen the doors to a lawsuit claiming that MLS is not a single entity destroying the league as we know it.

I agree, MLS skews it's numbers when it's convenient for them. But it's likely the numbers they've given the players, are probably just as skewed and they're basically pleading poverty.
But I just don't think they're losing as much money as they say they are. Especially with all the new SSS being built (RBA, SJ and KC). Each year the league is on steadier footing and I don't why some of that couldn't be re-invested to improve the product.
Higher salary cap (3-3.5 million) and a reserve league. Not millions and millions, just enough so that MLS teams stop being humiliated by the likes of Joe Public FC and panamanian sides in our confederation's champion's league. Or maybe enough roster spots so teams don't need to have guest players to hold practices. It's the little things.
The last thing the league needs is for the talent level to stagnate.
"Dave Checketts and SCP Worldwide partners Dean Howes, Kenneth Munoz, Michael McCarthy and Chris Bevilacqua, chose Real Salt Lake for the team's name because they desired to associate the team with a successful soccer club, and "Fire" was already taken."

#42 BenBurton

BenBurton

    Dir. of Football Operations

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,904 posts

Posted 22 February 2010 - 04:25 PM

How does the free movement of players within the league open the doors to lawsuits undermining its single-entity status? If anything, it seems the opposite would be true. If each team retains the rights to players even after their contracts expire, then it looks a lot more like each team is its own entity, preventing movement of players within what is supposed to be the over-reaching entity.


I'm no lawyer and don't really know, I'm just speculating with everyone else. But, we have to remember that MLS is the employer and owns the contracts. As soon as it looks like the individuals and "individual departments" of the overall organization are in control, than the single entity structure is split.

I'm not saying there isn't a way to make it work, but I understand why the owners are being cautious.

But I just don't think they're losing as much money as they say they are.


Me either. Kroenke in Colorado has like 87 businesses making money off of the Rapids and their stadium while the team is "losing money".

Still, there were hundreds of millions of dollars used to start the league and while we're currently seeing good growth in the league, the expansion fees are going to dry up shortly after Montreal joins the league. That's not a steady, reliable stream of income. We would probably need to look at sponsorships and how well they're increasing to get a good feel for the future.

#43 Saeyddthe

Saeyddthe

    Player/Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,395 posts

Posted 22 February 2010 - 07:05 PM

Still, there were hundreds of millions of dollars used to start the league and while we're currently seeing good growth in the league, the expansion fees are going to dry up shortly after Montreal joins the league. That's not a steady, reliable stream of income.


Not for long, it isn't...
But you know what should be?
Selling players.

#44 bkfiv

bkfiv

    Reserve Team

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 352 posts

Posted 23 February 2010 - 12:49 PM

Chris Klein from LA was on Fox Football Fone-in last night and he didn't sound optimistic at all. He stated all the players are behind the union, not just the reps who have the most to gain like old guys like Klein. And they are all ready to sit out if necessary. At this point things do not look good. I'm not picking sides necessarily, as I don't think we are getting enough specific information. On Friday, the Players decided to take this public I can only assume out of desparation and/or frustration. They think they aren't being taken seriously. I don't think the negotiations get prettier from here either. The owners have already put the ball back in the players' court by stating they would be willing to just play this season under the old deal while they worked on a new one.

I don't know if a work stoppage will kill the league or not, but it won't be good. There are a bunch of us on here who will be around after it's over no matter what. But I have to believe there are at least as many who find it hard to believe these guys are getting a rawer deal than they are in their daily lives.

#45 BenBurton

BenBurton

    Dir. of Football Operations

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,904 posts

Posted 23 February 2010 - 12:55 PM

The owners have already put the ball back in the players' court by stating they would be willing to just play this season under the old deal while they worked on a new one.


I believe this language is in the current CBA which is why the owners have consistently stated there will not be a lockout. The CBA is automatically extended one year so a strike at this point is all on the shoulders of the players.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users