Joe Roth weighs in on the strike.

by Perrinbar on Mar 16, 2010 12:14 PM PDT Comment 17 comments

Here. It looks like the ownership has been told that they are free to comment it up. I happen to also really hope this doesn't get to the stage of a strike as I suspect it will be bad for everyone involved. He makes some arguments that make sense. Of course, he's an owner so he clearly has a serious stake in things being looked at from his point of view. I do think it is potentially hopeful that he points out that both sides will have to lose something to get a new deal hammered out. Unfortunately it seems pretty clear that the free agency thing is what players want and also what the owners won't allow. Uggh. The whole thing is just a mess.

Update: More here.

It's really hard to judge everyone's place on this one, but I will say that it looks like the owners might have a bit of a point in terms of revenue. The problem is the players also have a good point with the free agency thing. There must be some sort of compromise in there somewhere, even if it is just free agency for veteran players.

FanPosts only represent the opinions of the poster, not of Sounder at Heart.

0 recs | Comment 17 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Adding Roth discussion to Frontpage

He’s the Sounders owner.

Also this club made serious money, but they likely saved many others last season.

I am not a Supporter
I am not a Fan
I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart

by Dave Clark on Mar 16, 2010 12:19 PM PDT reply actions

“In a World Cup year the attention on the sport will be very high in the country and MLS is gaining traction, so the timing is bad.”

Bad for the owners to not give something up to avoid a strike. So far even their own propaganda numbers are essentially telling the players to ‘go suck on it’ with a little happy spin.

“Said with Seattle’s facilities and the money around and in the club, he can’t imagine a Sounders FC player thinking they’ve been treated unfairly.”

See van den Bergh, Dave. I know you are being held hostage and all, but we have this really snazzy weight room so what’s is the big deal? Really?

by brokejumper on Mar 16, 2010 12:32 PM PDT reply actions

Well.

I think he’s trying to cloud the judgment of Sounders fans. Our players have been treated well, but that doesn’t mean it extends league wide. Van den Bergh being a great example.

by Perrinbar on Mar 16, 2010 12:41 PM PDT up reply actions

Really?

I like DVDB, enough that I have had conversations with RSL’s president about trying to get him hear, but nobody wants to pay 1/4 million dollars for a 34 year old midfielder who rarely plays defense. I am sure if someone were to offer FC Dallas a 3rd round draft pick for his rights, similar to what FCD did (2nd round) for Hartman’s rights, they would take it.

It is the salary of $227,000 that scares them away, Heck only two players on the Sounders made more than him. It is that which is preventing him from getting a new team, not the lack of free agency.

by denz on Mar 16, 2010 2:20 PM PDT up reply actions

I’m not sure why you are so sure of that. We have no idea what people have or haven’t been offering for him. The point is, he has to not only worry about his salary, but also what Dallas wants in return for him as well. The point is that if Dallas doesn’t want him, why shouldn’t he be able to sign with someone else?

by Perrinbar on Mar 16, 2010 2:30 PM PDT up reply actions

He can

He’s free to sign with any other team in the ENTIRE WORLD. As long as that team isn’t in MLS. England, Canada, USA, Holland, Japan, Australia… they all have leagues that would probably welcome someone like DVDB. Not really sure why that’s such an issue for the players that they are willing to kill the league because of it.

by foreleft on Mar 16, 2010 2:52 PM PDT up reply actions

Actually can't sign everywhere

visa issues exist

I am not a Supporter
I am not a Fan
I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart

by Dave Clark on Mar 16, 2010 3:15 PM PDT up reply actions

Besides which

isn’t it possible to likely that someone his age wants to stay in the league and country he’s been in rather than moving to a new country? Regardless, it seems shitty that the system works like it does.

by Perrinbar on Mar 16, 2010 3:36 PM PDT up reply actions

I thought I saw a Keller quote

I think on Gas the other night Keller said something to the effect that the Sounders have been treated pretty well by Roth etc. and that they don’t harbor the same sorts of grudges that other players hold.

We’re looking at you Kraft.

by blakec on Mar 16, 2010 3:34 PM PDT up reply actions

OK, Joe...

… so negotiate. Last time I check no-one is negotiating, and by “no one” that includes the owners.

&%$#-ing get on with it!!!!!!!

...that's MISTER Keller to you!!!

by malcontentjake on Mar 16, 2010 12:33 PM PDT reply actions

Where are you getting no-one’s negotiating last i heard the talks will continue on through this week. Rather or not they continue on after that is yet to remain seen.

by gstommylee on Mar 16, 2010 12:45 PM PDT up reply actions

true

you may be correct, but I’m reading between the lines. The two sides had agreed to continue to meet “in secret” and there was an understanding that both sides would keep their mouths shut to the public.

The recent rash of public statements is a clear indicator of what is (or isn’t happening) in that room. They may very well be meeting, but all indications are that no progress is being made. I don’t consider that “negotiating.”

It would be far better to be hearing NOTHING, as that would be a indication that they are getting about the business of hammering out an agreement.

...that's MISTER Keller to you!!!

by malcontentjake on Mar 16, 2010 1:39 PM PDT reply actions

I think it’s a good sign that Roth at least said that he’d like to have the situation resolved by binding arbitration. I tend to not think that either side would go for that overall, but that might be the only way to get it done without a strike at this stage. I’d love to see an arbitrator brought in who forces both sides to compromise a little.

by Nevtelen on Mar 16, 2010 3:23 PM PDT reply actions

One week, and one day.

If these players want to keep getting paid to play football, they need to compromise.
And if the owners want to see any money from this season, they need to compromise.

Will they? Likely not. And that’s a shame, because Roth is right: A strike right now is the end of the league. Any momentum MLS has gained will be flushed away, and we’re going to have to start again.

The players seriously need to remember that they are playing in a lower-level league and that perhaps they don’t get all the benefits that come from playing in Europe. Does it suck? Of course. But then again, it sucks when people working at minimum wage jobs don’t get a pay raise they asked for. This league is in its infancy and people need to remember that. In order to become a true international competitor, they will likely have to change the rules. But first it has to grow and establish itself more, and that just won’t happen if the players don’t show up to work.

7500 to Holte - American footy fans are slightly unprepared

by Kirsten Schlewitz on Mar 17, 2010 1:49 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs

Binding Arb

IF either side was for that, don’t you think they would be trumpeting that ?
They should.
Setting up the binding arbitration might be hard….for example the league says fine but the first rule has to be MLS as a Single Entity has to be viable in your decision.
Do the players agree ?

by Charles J on Mar 17, 2010 7:43 AM PDT reply actions