Peter Wilt has a compromise solution

by Jeremiah Oshan on Mar 17, 2010 11:17 AM PDT Comment 20 comments

The former general manager of the Chicago Fire and an active commentator on all things soccer, Peter Wilt has some detailed solutions to the current CBA mess. I have a feeling the owners would probably go for this, I am less sure the players would.

For players, he suggests granting free agency to MLS players, but only after seven years in the league, raising minimum salaries and boosting the salary cap. Status quo would continue in areas such as contract negotiations being left to the league and players not receiving a cut of transfer fees.

My proposal calls for free agency after seven years in MLS and compensation from the signing team to the team losing the player in the form of a SuperDraft pick. For example, if a player finished his second MLS contract (a four year and a three year contract), he could sign with any team in the League. The higher his new salary, the better the compensation pick the new team would provide the former team. Perhaps compensation of a first round pick for a player who signs for more than $200,000, a 2nd round pick if the contract is for more than $100,000 and a 3rd round pick for a player who signs for less than $100,000.

In other strike-related news, Soccer Insider Steven Goff says player reps are meeting to discuss possible actions and that the two sides have returned to their respective corners for the time being. Ives is reporting the non-bombshell that the union is preparing its players to walk out on March 22, a whole day earlier than previously announced. Also, here's the complete Joe Roth interview story from Don Ruiz. Money quote: "I think they’d have a hard time waiting out a billionaire. I just don’t see how it profits anybody, a work stoppage."

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

0 recs | Comment 20 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I like Wilt's proposal

It’s not perfect, but at least it’s something to consider. I think he got the waived player thing wrong though. The example he gave of Hartman was incorrect. Hartman and KC couldn’t agree on a contract. He wasn’t waived. That’s what prevented him from moving to another team. Not that that makes it right, but just sayin’

by chrisperry1983 on Mar 17, 2010 11:55 AM PDT reply actions

Didn't notice that

You’re right, if Hartman had been waived none of this would have been an issue. He would have been exposed to the waiver draft and any team could have claimed him if they wanted. Of course, they also would have been on the hook for absorbing his contract.

by Jeremiah Oshan on Mar 17, 2010 11:58 AM PDT up reply actions

Was Hartman's contract up?

by Cornchops on Mar 17, 2010 12:53 PM PDT up reply actions

Old CBA limited salary reductions for veterans

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

by Dave Clark on Mar 17, 2010 1:06 PM PDT up reply actions

Yep

by chrisperry1983 on Mar 17, 2010 1:26 PM PDT up reply actions

Third owner speaks

This time, it’s the Earthquakes Lew Wolff, who coincidentally just got approval on land for his team’s new stadium.

by Jeremiah Oshan on Mar 17, 2010 12:31 PM PDT reply actions

Better Quakes story

This is from Center Line and has quotes from Wolff about the stadium.

by Jeremiah Oshan on Mar 17, 2010 1:41 PM PDT up reply actions

It's reasonable,

and similar to MLB. Though it’s not exactly the same, MLB players do not have the opportunity for free agency until their seventh year. And teams who lose players to free agency receive compensatory picks between the first and second rounds, based on the designated level of the player (Type A, Type B, etc.).

Graham can correct me if I’m wrong about any of that.

by Cornchops on Mar 17, 2010 12:51 PM PDT reply actions

Hopefully if this plan is used the free agent rankings won't be as broken as the system used in MLB.

by BrianL on Mar 17, 2010 1:25 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs

Essentially you are correct

Once a players clock starts by being on the major league roster, the team has control for six seasons. The seventh year is the free agent season. So, all that has been correct. The difference is that if a team loses a Type A free agent, they get the signing teams first round pick, plus a compensatory pick between the first and second round.

A team that loses a Type B free agent, receives only a compensatory pick.

However, there is an exclusion for a team losing it’s first round pick. If a team signs a Type A free agent and also happens to be one of the (I think the cutoff is) 15 worse teams in the league, they lose their second round pick instead.`

by Coug1990 on Mar 17, 2010 4:07 PM PDT up reply actions

Not entirely true

A player only accrues service time by being on the 25-man roster, so the clock can be paused at any time.

by Graham on Mar 18, 2010 10:21 AM PDT up reply actions

The only real sticking point is that MLB doesn’t have other, better paying leagues, sucking the best players out of it. Which means that 7 years service time doesn’t mean nearly as much as it does in the MLS. I’m not sure how that really would affect things, but it’s definitely a big difference.

by Perrinbar on Mar 17, 2010 5:03 PM PDT up reply actions

Any compromise should include players getting their 10%

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

by Dave Clark on Mar 17, 2010 1:06 PM PDT reply actions

Definitely an owner-centric compromise

Players seem entitled to their cut, especially if, as Wilt claims, they are sometimes getting it anyway from the buying team. Most of the time, MLS would end up with the same dollar amount, since they would probably just start seeking an extra 10 percent tacked onto the transfer fee.

by Jeremiah Oshan on Mar 17, 2010 1:13 PM PDT up reply actions

Counterpoint

I don’t claim to be an expert on this, but doesn’t that increase player movement?
ie. IF I am a player that commands close to $100 million in transfer fees, I am moving all the time.

Noone in MLS in that catagory, just saying on principal shouldn’t that create more moves. MLS owners would definitely be against that…Landon, maybe 50/50 on moving to Europe, moves because it gets him another $1-1.5 million, or stays with MLS paying him more to compensate.

by Charles J on Mar 17, 2010 1:15 PM PDT up reply actions

I'm not sure I follow

I don’t think MLS is trying to restrict players moving to Europe with this policy. I just think they want to pocket more of the money. Players are still encouraged to move because of the considerably higher base salaries they stand to make overseas.

by Jeremiah Oshan on Mar 17, 2010 1:40 PM PDT up reply actions

Yeah

But developing and selling players could be a very good source of money for the league. You want to get a reputation as a league where you can come, learn and then make the jump to the EPL. That way the talent from below flows to MLS rather then to other lower tier leagues.

Sure eventually you want to be a destination league, but until then, being seen as a league where you can get to Europer is the next best thing.

If we don’t fix the 10% thing, then the talented players will sign with leagues where they get to keep it.

by blakec on Mar 17, 2010 2:45 PM PDT up reply actions

I say not with the current structure

Sorry, I disagree on this one (for now), if a player is out of contract and wants to leave great they get a new team and probably a hefty pay raise. However in season if a player is sold, the team actually deserves a huge chunk of compensation (more than the league) as they are the one losing a player.

I use the case of Yura Movsisyan who signed a deal in July 09 that started when his contract ended in January 2010, his new club thought he would just be released by his current team, but with him being a huge part of the RSL roster it wasn’t going to happen without RSL getting something in return. They had rights to him for several months, and while the negotiations got ugly for a few weeks, what Randers offered was a pittance of what it would have cost to try and replace Yura. Yura leaving early wouldn’t have hurt the league, so while they made the financial investment and should get some type of return, it is the team that is left with a hole in their lineup.

I like Wilt’s list but it is a bit ownercentric, but that is to be expected. I am working on my own version to be up soon.

by denz on Mar 18, 2010 3:32 PM PDT up reply actions

Seriously,

with the Seahawks problems going on, I can’t handle this. I need my Soccer to keep my sports sanity. GET IT DONE PLEASE!

Now with more lemon bars!

by Fear on Mar 17, 2010 3:39 PM PDT reply actions

Well, at least they'll all be in one place

Via Goff:

The union accepted the league’s offer to pay for the players’ flights, a source close to the situation said. The league’s aim is to get everyone together in an attempt to settle matters. In past sessions, only a handful of players attended.

by Jeremiah Oshan on Mar 17, 2010 5:46 PM PDT reply actions