Actually, DVDB wanted out for family reasons. From Osorio's quotes regarding the loss of Dave, it's evident that Osorio didn't want to lose him.If you want to free up roster space for a proven MLS player, why not cut a waste of space that did not help in the MLS Cup run. Cut Rojas.
Because "the great tactician" was not a fan of van den Bergh and wanted him gone at the salary he made. Osorio valued Pietravallo at 200K but not DVDB at 250K.
#1
Posted 07 April 2009 - 10:50 AM
(Formerly JonnyG)
"In church, they say that suffering is good for the soul. I like to view my love for this team as being a spiritual exercise." - Steve B2
#2
Posted 07 April 2009 - 10:57 AM
This is wrong. All the information pasted here has been gleaned from the Red Bull PR cover. It is based in partial truth only.Actually, DVDB wanted out for family reasons. From Osorio's quotes regarding the loss of Dave, it's evident that Osorio didn't want to lose him.
The reality of what went down is simple:
Dave’s contract expired.
Dave wanted to be paid the same amount that he was paid the year before.
Dave asked for a one year contract.
Osorio said that Dave isn’t worth that money. Agoos negotiated from that point.
Dave said, “Well if you aren’t going to pay me, then I would appreciate it if you traded my rights to someone that would.”
The team finally relented and gave Dave the contract. It was signed and the two parties had the one year contract at the previous value.
Osorio, not happy with allocating so much money to a player that he benched during the season, continued to call on Agoos to trade him.
Agoos worked the phones with Dallas.
Dallas made several awful offers until the Oduro & picks for Dave & picks option. Osorio preferred to have Oduro, so he took him.
RBNY then decided to play it up in the press about Dave wanting out for family reasons so that they would have cover when the fans start asking questions like, “Who is that fucking stupid as to trade their best player?”
End.
#RedBullOut
Thursday, November 27, 2008 -
After another Hatch shank over the crossbar...
"And Hatch wonders why nobody is covering him." - Tony Meola
#3
Posted 07 April 2009 - 11:01 AM
This is wrong. All the information pasted here has been gleaned from the Red Bull PR cover. It is based in partial truth only.
The reality of what went down is simple:
Dave’s contract expired.
Dave wanted to be paid the same amount that he was paid the year before.
Dave asked for a one year contract.
Osorio said that Dave isn’t worth that money. Agoos negotiated from that point.
Dave said, “Well if you aren’t going to pay me, then I would appreciate it if you traded my rights to someone that would.”
The team finally relented and gave Dave the contract. It was signed and the two parties had the one year contract at the previous value.
Osorio, not happy with allocating so much money to a player that he benched during the season, continued to call on Agoos to trade him.
Agoos worked the phones with Dallas.
Dallas made several awful offers until the Oduro & picks for Dave & picks option. Osorio preferred to have Oduro, so he took him.
RBNY then decided to play it up in the press about Dave wanting out for family reasons so that they would have cover when the fans start asking questions like, “Who is that fucking stupid as to trade their best player?”
End.
And you know this how?
For a season as bad as DCU has had, the USOC title is whipped cream on shit ~~ VOR II
#4
Posted 07 April 2009 - 11:07 AM
Brian Lewis, Michael Lewis and Ives all reported stories to this effect. Van den Bergh said to one of them - I don't remember which - that he wanted to stay in NY for 2009, and was ready to sign a contract until RBFO pulled it back.And you know this how?
I'm not going to dig to find the articles, but according to our local media people Pebble's story is 100% correct.
#5
Posted 07 April 2009 - 11:18 AM
My only contention is that I had it first! Though I don't have a blog because that requires daily updating.Brian Lewis, Michael Lewis and Ives all reported stories to this effect. Van den Bergh said to one of them - I don't remember which - that he wanted to stay in NY for 2009, and was ready to sign a contract until RBFO pulled it back.
I'm not going to dig to find the articles, but according to our local media people Pebble's story is 100% correct.
#RedBullOut
Thursday, November 27, 2008 -
After another Hatch shank over the crossbar...
"And Hatch wonders why nobody is covering him." - Tony Meola
#6
Posted 07 April 2009 - 11:47 AM
DVB was re-signed by the MLS/NYRB. JCO decided he could aquire more players of his liking with the DVB trade. It was a gamble, time (results) will tell.
Ronnie O? On his game, one of the better mids in the MLS. However, both Dallas & earthquakes had "attitude" problems with him. But hey, a great coach could mange that, couldn't they?
#7
Posted 07 April 2009 - 12:43 PM
wow dude i'm starting to dislike osorio more and more. the whole son/family stuff was just a coverup, and dvdb agreed to play it out like that? i believe u, but this is the first time i'm hearing this. i don't recall reading about it on bas, nypost, or ives.This is wrong. All the information pasted here has been gleaned from the Red Bull PR cover. It is based in partial truth only.
The reality of what went down is simple:
...
(Formerly JonnyG)
"In church, they say that suffering is good for the soul. I like to view my love for this team as being a spiritual exercise." - Steve B2
#8
Posted 07 April 2009 - 12:55 PM
The part about "family" stuff is half true. Dave wants to go to Dallas. He just didn't want to go until next season. He really liked the team here and he thought they had a real chance at a good season (I don't agree, but whatever). Osorio simply didn't like Dave enough to pay him what he was worth. The family stuff was brought to the front as cover as a reason when in reality it played no part in the negotiations.wow dude i'm starting to dislike osorio more and more. the whole son/family stuff was just a coverup, and dvdb agreed to play it out like that? i believe u, but this is the first time i'm hearing this. i don't recall reading about it on bas, nypost, or ives.
#RedBullOut
Thursday, November 27, 2008 -
After another Hatch shank over the crossbar...
"And Hatch wonders why nobody is covering him." - Tony Meola
#9
Posted 07 April 2009 - 08:49 PM
Brian Lewis, Michael Lewis and Ives all reported stories to this effect. Van den Bergh said to one of them - I don't remember which - that he wanted to stay in NY for 2009, and was ready to sign a contract until RBFO pulled it back.
I'm not going to dig to find the articles, but according to our local media people Pebble's story is 100% correct.
OK, well I did go find the articles. There in this website's media archives in January.
According to my reading, this is what they support
"The reality of what went down is simple:
Dave’s contract expired.--True
Dave wanted to be paid the same amount that he was paid the year before. --True
Dave asked for a one year contract.--False M. Lewis 1/13/09 "The Red Bulls were willing to sign van den Bergh to a one-year deal, according to Red Bulls sporting director Jeff Agoos, while Dallas was willing to commit to a multi-year deal. "It was always going to be a one-year extension," van den Bergh said. "I am not getting any younger, unfortunately. I am very confident that I still am in great shape physically. But I know at my age, you can't demand any long-term contracts."
"
Osorio said that Dave isn’t worth that money. Agoos negotiated from that point. --Unsubstantiated
Dave said, “Well if you aren’t going to pay me, then I would appreciate it if you traded my rights to someone that would.” --Unsubstantiated
The team finally relented and gave Dave the contract. It was signed and the two parties had the one year contract at the previous value. --True
Osorio, not happy with allocating so much money to a player that he benched during the season, continued to call on Agoos to trade him. --Unsubstantiated
Agoos worked the phones with Dallas. --Not true, Vandenberg says he requested the right to talk to them M. Lewis 1/13/09 "Van den Bergh asked the club if he could talk to Dallas and team officials granted that wish."
Dallas made several awful offers until the Oduro & picks for Dave & picks option. Osorio preferred to have Oduro, so he took him. --Unsubstantiated
RBNY then decided to play it up in the press about Dave wanting out for family reasons so that they would have cover when the fans start asking questions like, “Who is that fucking stupid as to trade their best player?” --Unsubstantiated. Implies motive
End.
Look, I'm not happy about loosing Vandy either. And no doubt RB played up the humanitarian aspect of it either. Van den Berg himself said family was a secondary factor, and that the primary factor was they were willing to give him a 2 year contract and at his age that was important to him. But don't just make shit up and pass it off as fact.
For a season as bad as DCU has had, the USOC title is whipped cream on shit ~~ VOR II
#10
Posted 08 April 2009 - 07:24 AM
not quite all of itAll the information pasted here has been gleaned from the Red Bull PR cover. End.
"Onionsack- the soccer equivalent of a Jehovah's Witness"
-Thoward18
Now it's the RedBulls fans. they may be even louder than the DC guys who, for reasons beyond imagining, had 50 seats saved for them up front.
Philadelphia: I love you guys, really, but you're getting schooled.
The noise in here is deafening.
-Bill Archer 1.14.10
#11
Posted 08 April 2009 - 07:29 AM
Dan, can we cut and paste the VDB fiasco into the 'Beating the Dead Horse' forum? Thanks.
"What better way for DC United fans to drown their sorrows than with this new beer called 'The Tradition'. A relic name of a bygone era where DCU was relevant." - VfLKirwan
#12
Posted 08 April 2009 - 07:57 AM
Again, My account is correct. If you want to discount it based on who I am, fine. It changes little. What I wrote is what actually occurred.OK, well I did go find the articles. There in this website's media archives in January.
According to my reading, this is what they support
"The reality of what went down is simple:
Dave’s contract expired.--True
Dave wanted to be paid the same amount that he was paid the year before. --True
Dave asked for a one year contract.--False M. Lewis 1/13/09 "The Red Bulls were willing to sign van den Bergh to a one-year deal, according to Red Bulls sporting director Jeff Agoos, while Dallas was willing to commit to a multi-year deal. "It was always going to be a one-year extension," van den Bergh said. "I am not getting any younger, unfortunately. I am very confident that I still am in great shape physically. But I know at my age, you can't demand any long-term contracts."
"
Osorio said that Dave isn’t worth that money. Agoos negotiated from that point. --Unsubstantiated
Dave said, “Well if you aren’t going to pay me, then I would appreciate it if you traded my rights to someone that would.” --Unsubstantiated
The team finally relented and gave Dave the contract. It was signed and the two parties had the one year contract at the previous value. --True
Osorio, not happy with allocating so much money to a player that he benched during the season, continued to call on Agoos to trade him. --Unsubstantiated
Agoos worked the phones with Dallas. --Not true, Vandenberg says he requested the right to talk to them M. Lewis 1/13/09 "Van den Bergh asked the club if he could talk to Dallas and team officials granted that wish."
Dallas made several awful offers until the Oduro & picks for Dave & picks option. Osorio preferred to have Oduro, so he took him. --Unsubstantiated
RBNY then decided to play it up in the press about Dave wanting out for family reasons so that they would have cover when the fans start asking questions like, “Who is that fucking stupid as to trade their best player?” --Unsubstantiated. Implies motive
End.
Look, I'm not happy about loosing Vandy either. And no doubt RB played up the humanitarian aspect of it either. Van den Berg himself said family was a secondary factor, and that the primary factor was they were willing to give him a 2 year contract and at his age that was important to him. But don't just make shit up and pass it off as fact.
This:
Doesn't mean false. The quote is coming from Agoos, who I have no faith in. The deal Dave asked for was one year. They wouldn't give him the same salary for one year. Dave backs this up by saying, "It was always going to be a one year extension." This backs up my statement that he didn't ask for more.Dave asked for a one year contract.--False M. Lewis 1/13/09 "The Red Bulls were willing to sign van den Bergh to a one-year deal, according to Red Bulls sporting director Jeff Agoos, while Dallas was willing to commit to a multi-year deal. "It was always going to be a one-year extension," van den Bergh said. "I am not getting any younger, unfortunately. I am very confident that I still am in great shape physically. But I know at my age, you can't demand any long-term contracts."
"
The Red Bulls wanted to sign him for less money than he was worth. This is fact. This is why he's gone.
#RedBullOut
Thursday, November 27, 2008 -
After another Hatch shank over the crossbar...
"And Hatch wonders why nobody is covering him." - Tony Meola
#13
Posted 08 April 2009 - 08:31 AM
#14
Posted 08 April 2009 - 10:00 AM
5 You got REAMed 5
#15
Posted 08 April 2009 - 12:27 PM
HE IN FACT DID break this VDB resigning story weeks before even our own beat writers did with pretty stark accuracy. So i have to give him the benefit of the doubt in that respect because he obvilously did have some connections here.
As for his quotes about what Agoos and Osorio may have said behind closed doors that is probably just conjure based upon the facts he had heard.
We do know for a fact that RB didnt want to resign him for the money VDB wanted originally and eventualy did but only right around the time they were looking to trade him.
I too think the family story was damage control, while we know it was an issue, it was played out to be a major factor when i doubt it was.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users