Sir Landon Of Donovan

[Jondi10]

Donovan Expects Return – News Archive – News – evertonfc.com – The Official Website of Everton Football Club

I really hope he does when the current loan is up. He can go back to LA after he's done helping us the rest of the season. And then he can come back before next season starts . I know it's going to be hard to out right buy him from the MLS but I hope they'll look and see the impact Donovan will have on US soccer as a whole and not just their personal interest.

 

[Garbaggio]

I really hope he does when the current loan is up. He can go back to LA after he's done helping us the rest of the season. And then he can come back before next season starts . I know it's going to be hard to out right buy him from the MLS but I hope they'll look and see the impact Donovan will have on US soccer as a whole and not just their personal interest.

I've got some prime real estate in Florida you might be interested in.

 

[MLS is not quite EPL]

Klein's blowing smoke. What else can he say?

Frankly, I don't think the players have much leverage here. Sure, they can cut their noses off to spite their faces (i.e. dragging the owners down with them) by going on strike but I think they need to really understand the economics of the league.

The league for their part does need to make some modest raises for the lower and mid tier salary earners.

They need to avoid a strike at all costs though because it really could hurt longer term.

good post, i agree bill

For those that don't know, one of the bigger cases that is being paraded around the MLS on behalf of the players union is that of Kevin Hartmann, the keeper from Kansas City.

KC apparently has released him from the team, but they still own his rights. This means he is not earning a wage from Kansas City, but he cannot shop himself to other teams because he is not a free agent - Kansas City owns his rights. KC basically can charge a king's ransom for him if they want, and keep him from employment elsewhere. Hartmann is claiming he should be a free agent if he is released.

Frankly I agree with him, but this introduces the free agency model into MLS, which they don't want. MLS doesn't want free agency due to losing talent to bigger/better leagues overseas. I can understand that point, too. (ultimately Hartmann will undoubtedly be bought from KC by another club, but the underlying point is there & valid).

So what to do? Apparently this is one of those things that they have been debating; at this point in time there is no compromise there.

In other news, it is looking increasingly like Donovan will ultimately be a blue again, based on words from all parties. I see people discussing it, I don't see anyone shooting it down.

 

[RAFUH]

good post, i agree bill

For those that don't know, one of the bigger cases that is being paraded around the MLS on behalf of the players union is that of Kevin Hartmann, the keeper from Kansas City.

KC apparently has released him from the team, but they still own his rights. This means he is not earning a wage from Kansas City, but he cannot shop himself to other teams because he is not a free agent - Kansas City owns his rights. KC basically can charge a king's ransom for him if they want, and keep him from employment elsewhere. Hartmann is claiming he should be a free agent if he is released.

As I understand it (and I am no expert on MLS), he is a free agent so long as he goes to a non-MLS club. This is how MLS won the court battle for the whole single entity structure. He's a free agent to any other league.
Not that I agree this is fair to players, just how I understand it (which is quite possibly flawed).

 

[MLS is not quite EPL]

As I understand it (and I am no expert on MLS), he is a free agent so long as he goes to a non-MLS club. This is how MLS won the court battle for the whole single entity structure. He's a free agent to any other league.
Not that I agree this is fair to players, just how I understand it (which is quite possibly flawed).

I think you're on the right track, but the opposite. Rights are owned by KC through MLS (MLS actually owns all the players), so the MLS would have to "sell" him to another league if he wanted to go play there.

If Hartmann was free to go play in any other league, i don't think the disputes between the MLS and the players union would reach a zenith of a strike.

 

[Jamo Martinez]

I'm with Sharpy. We should get LD one of those collars that gives him an electric shock if he travels westward

 

[NHRevs]

good post, i agree bill

For those that don't know, one of the bigger cases that is being paraded around the MLS on behalf of the players union is that of Kevin Hartmann, the keeper from Kansas City.

KC apparently has released him from the team, but they still own his rights. This means he is not earning a wage from Kansas City, but he cannot shop himself to other teams because he is not a free agent - Kansas City owns his rights. KC basically can charge a king's ransom for him if they want, and keep him from employment elsewhere. Hartmann is claiming he should be a free agent if he is released.

Frankly I agree with him, but this introduces the free agency model into MLS, which they don't want. MLS doesn't want free agency due to losing talent to bigger/better leagues overseas. I can understand that point, too. (ultimately Hartmann will undoubtedly be bought from KC by another club, but the underlying point is there & valid).

So what to do? Apparently this is one of those things that they have been debating; at this point in time there is no compromise there.

In other news, it is looking increasingly like Donovan will ultimately be a blue again, based on words from all parties. I see people discussing it, I don't see anyone shooting it down.

Right now, it's a game of chicken between the owners and players -- the players are pushing for complete free agency, the owners want the status quo. It's just a question of how close to the brink things get before they do a deal that cleans up the abusive cases like Hartmann's but keep the current system broadly in place. When? Last minute? After a short strike? I don't know. But that's what the deal will be.

 

[dabes2]

I think you're on the right track, but the opposite. Rights are owned by KC through MLS (MLS actually owns all the players), so the MLS would have to "sell" him to another league if he wanted to go play there.

If Hartmann was free to go play in any other league, i don't think the disputes between the MLS and the players union would reach a zenith of a strike.

I'm pretty sure Hartman is no longer under contract with MLS. I think his contract expired and he failed to reach an extension with Kansas City. He is free to go another league.

Despite him being out of contract, Kansas City owns his MLS rights. And his best option is probably to sign with another MLS team. But the only way he can get a deal with another MLS team is for them to trade with Kansas City for the right to sign him. This, plus the draft, plus the salary cap are the mechanisms for wage collusion between the MLS owners. Non guaranteed contracts and club-only options just pile on the pain.

There are lots of examples of players who were basically forced to sign with foreign clubs in these situations. Matt Pickens and Pat Noonan come to mind. I believe Steve Ralston was also in this situation and chose to go to 2nd division.

MLS owners have basically accepted that they will drive the midlevel player abroad and replace them with dirt cheap college talent. Since all the other owners are in the same boat it doesn't put them at a competitive disadvantage.

 

[TX Bill]

If I'm being honest, I believe that it would be suicide for the league to allow clubs to sign and own the players vs. the league.

Look the most established leagues in the world right now. Many clubs are struggling to stay afloat due to the economics of the wages and transfer fee market.

If clubs with long histories are struggling, you can only imagine how long it would take for one or two teams to get into trouble in the MLS.

Like I said, modest raises across the board and then take it from there.

 

[Tennessee Blue Mike]

If I'm being honest, I believe that it would be suicide for the league to allow clubs to sign and own the players vs. the league.

Look the most established leagues in the world right now. Many clubs are struggling to stay afloat due to the economics of the wages and transfer fee market.

If clubs with long histories are struggling, you can only imagine how long it would take for one or two teams to get into trouble in the MLS.

Like I said, modest raises across the board and then take it from there.

Quite right you only have to look at the old NASL to figure out we couldn't survive with one mega team the NY Cosmos with all their internationals Pele, Beckenbaur and such.

 

[dabes2]

If I'm being honest, I believe that it would be suicide for the league to allow clubs to sign and own the players vs. the league.

Look the most established leagues in the world right now. Many clubs are struggling to stay afloat due to the economics of the wages and transfer fee market.

If clubs with long histories are struggling, you can only imagine how long it would take for one or two teams to get into trouble in the MLS.

Like I said, modest raises across the board and then take it from there.

I agree with your overall point but I don't think this is a fair conclusion from my comment. I'm supportive of the concept of collusion to keep salaries in line. But the players should get a decent share so that the cap goes up if the league profits go up.

Mls could also still own all the player contracts but give the players stronger rights to effect where they play. With the salary cap, I don't think it would drive expenses up. I think it might lead to mls paying up to keep more chris rolfe type guys but then they probably sign fewer darren huckerby type guys.

The situation with hartman isn't right because kansas city can basically keep him out of the league forever without spending a dime. I'm all for the owners maintaining expense control but they shouldn't be able to hold a player hostage like this.
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[Rook]

Tx is right how the MLS owning the contracts is a good thing, so is a salary cap for clubs. Clubs that want to be bigger do have the option of getting a star or 2 in from Europe as well. However the salary cap (2.1M) and minimum wage (12.5k/year) is a joke, the league could survive with a 3M cap and say a 25k/year minimmum salary.

The league also whines that some of its clubs are failing (Kansas City) with the current league structure. Well then if you are doing so awfully then don't expand and move KC to Philly.

Also while I'm not for clubs holding cities for ransom for stadiums fact is sports are the only truly socialist institution in the US. There's always at least one city dumb enough to splash enough cash for a 100+M soccer specific stadium so threaten DC and New England with a no stadium no MLS clause. DC is a great MLS town but Seattle was a great NBA town, and Stern pulled them out just to freak out other cities that if your not going to splash the pork I'm pulling the team. He's smart enough to know that the NBA's future meal ticket is bigger and bigger billion dollar arenas in the future.

Players deserve the freedom to move w/in MLS clubs when their contract is up. Most of those mid level players want to stay in MLS too and would rather not go to Scandiavia et.al.

 

[micknick]

Where is this online petition to keep Landon here?

Sky Sports | Football | Premier League | News | Donovan overwhelmed by support

 

[GrandOldTeam]

Login | Facebook

 

[micknick]

Ahh not on facebook anymore after a few 'incidents'