Seattle Sounders-Philadelphia Union Match Officially Moved To Oct. 8
by Jeremiah Oshan on May 19, 2011 8:24 AM PDT
in Sounders: MLS Regular Season
Email
Print
After a couple days of speculation -- and a confirmation on the Philadelphia Union's side on Wednesday -- the Seattle Sounders officially announced that their July 23 game has been moved to Oct. 8. The move was made to accomodate the Union's desire to host a friendly against Real Madrid at Lincoln Financial Field as part of the World Football Challenge.
"From a competitive standpoint, we are not concerned with this change," Sounders GM Adrian Hanauer told Sounder at Heart. "October may or may not be as congested as July. Hopefully, we will be healthier at that point in the season, and we are likely to have some level of summer reinforcement integrated into the team by that time.
"From a logistical standpoint, we are not happy, but for the overall good of our league, we were willing to compromise and work with our partners and MLS in New York."
With the release of the CONCACAF Champions League draw on Wednesday, there appears to be at least some upside for the Sounders. While it does eliminate one of the two MLS games that would have been played on the temporary grass pitch, the Sounders do have a match in Panama against San Francisco July 26-28. The Sounders will now have almost two weeks off before that match, as opposed to playing as close as three days before and having to fly more than 3,000 miles to Panama. The only potential conflict to the Oct. 8 match would be a potential U.S. Open Cup final which will likely be played on Oct. 4.
40 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Not Happy with this
Now the match will fall outside Seattle’s 2-week rain-free period. Although I agree with AH that we may be in better shape later in the season.
by wmknickers on May 19, 2011 8:41 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Dude
We kicked off last summer with rain. This summer isn’t looking all that great either. Our summers are short, but we deal. Seattle sunshine!
by chrisperry1983 on May 19, 2011 10:12 AM PDT up reply actions
Works for me...
…I would’ve been out of town for the game otherwise.
its one less for me :(
Ill be off at college.
by Sandra_R on May 19, 2011 1:18 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Stepping back...
…if someone asked me two weeks ago if, given all our injuries, we could shift a bunch of matches to later in the season, I’d have absolutely said yes.
Right now, I’m imagining a much more healthy side peaking at just the right time of year with another late-season home game.
by jayw913 on May 19, 2011 8:54 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
What happened to DCU will happen to Seattle.
“From a logistical standpoint, we are not happy, but for the overall good of our league, we were willing to compromise and work with our partners and MLS in New York.”
Hi. DCU fan here. How’s single-entity, forced parody, MLS front office using you as GalaxyRed Bull props working out for you? Hey, atleast you have a sweet stadium deal so you won’t move to Baltimore (or Atlanta).
Guess we'll see
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter
by Jeremiah Oshan on May 19, 2011 9:15 AM PDT up reply actions
I would say it's working out great
We’re averaging almost twice what our overall NASL average attendance was, and the league looks stable and economically viable for years to come.
As a Sounders fan, I enjoyed the chance to see the friendlies with Barcelona and Chelsea, and I look forward to the Manchester United friendly this summer. This move means that Union fans get a similar opportunity. I guess I should be really angry about the Sounders re-arranging their schedule to do some other fans a favor.
I'm not angry at all
More friendlies are good for the league, and as Hanauer said it doesn’t hurt us any competition-wise. In fact it’ll be nice to have that break before heading to Panama.
by Philip Mueller on May 19, 2011 9:58 AM PDT up reply actions
He's saying MLS cares only about those two teams and everyone else are pawns to promote those two big markets
by chrisperry1983 on May 19, 2011 10:19 AM PDT up reply actions
The facts make it hard to argue with him . . .
Right now the NYRB and Galaxy have payrolls that are nearly 4x that of the team with the third-highest payroll. The Yankees’ payroll is only 2x that of the Mariners, and people howl about how unfair that is.
Moreover, the league has a history of making roster rules changes that have conspicuously benefitted NY and LA. Beckham wants to come to LA, but LA needs more cash – voila we have the Beckham rules. NY needs a major influx of talent and Henry needs a job – voila we get an additional DP slot and a 3rd slot that can be bought by teams with cash.
It’s true that the Sounders have taken advantage of the two additional DP slots. But I’ll argue that the driver for the MLS’ rules changes were the needs to prop up the teams in NY and LA.
Given the, apparent*, amount of revenue sharing that is taking place in the MLS, some might argue that Seattle (and Portland) fans who fanatically support their teams are being played for suckers since we are underwriting every other team in the league.
*I don’t know for a fact that Sounders and Timbers revenue is getting pumped to the rest of the league. That’s my understanding. But if true, then I think it is fair to ask why? When can the Sounders faithful, who pay the bills, expect to have a payroll that is equal to that of our competition?
There's nothing preventing the Sounders from running a payroll that large if they chose to do so.
Do you really want them spending that much money on David Beckham?
by Aaron Campeau on May 19, 2011 11:13 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
This
Exactly right. There’s nothing stopping us. But do we really want to blow a huge load of cash on one guy? It doesn’t seem to be our FO’s style. Of course, I would be pumped if we signed a big name who scores lots of goals. But I really think that if I were king for a day, I would rather have three great players making a good amount of money rather than one big name making all the money.
by chrisperry1983 on May 19, 2011 11:16 AM PDT up reply actions
And besides
While NY and LA are likely benefiting disproportionately from the redistribution of revenue, I’d rather be subsidizing the rest of the league and giving a bit of extra cash to those who don’t need it than not have a league at all.
How are the benefiting disproportionately?
They are bigger media markets, so likely draw more in local TV revenue, plus LA is second best at the gate (by a wide margin) and NY is doing better than 10 other teams.
I’d argue it is SEA, NYR, and LA that are propping up the league, but are also benefiting the most from the stability and structure that a single-entity league provides.
Something else worth noting
DP salaries are paid by the team, not by the league.
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter
by Jeremiah Oshan on May 19, 2011 1:03 PM PDT up reply actions
Except your timeline is still wrong
and this is the third time you repeated it
NY needs a major influx of talent and Henry needs a job – voila we get an additional DP slot and a 3rd slot that can be bought by teams with cash.
NY already had an empty DP slot before the rule change, and FREDDIE LJUNGBERG was the one who planted the idea.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Again with the erroneous payroll stats
It’s not just the percentages that matter, it’s the raw dollars and the number of players involved. The Yankees spend well more than $100M over league average—that’s a lot different than spending $9-10M over league average. The Yankees’ three highest-paid players make up something like 40% of their payroll. The Galaxy’s three highest-paid players make up 80% of their payroll.
The Yankees’ two highest-paid players make up about 25% of their payroll. The Red Bull’s two highest-paid players make up 76% of their payroll.
Imagine MLB if the Yankees could only spend over a $90M cap on three players. They would always have three designated players, and any time a top free agent hit the market, they would either have to deal a DP to a different team or they would just lose out. Even if they were able to have a $360M payroll under those rules, they would get a lot less bang for their buck, and star players would be distributed around the league much more evenly. That’s where MLS is right now—teams can spend a ton on three players, but three players hardly gives you an all-star lineup.
To be really explicit about this, let’s say the Yankees were spending $360M on payroll right now—4 times a pretty typical $90M MLB payroll—but they were spending 76% of their payroll on two players, Alex Rodriguez and CC Sabathia. A-Rod and Sabathia would each make roughly $137M per year, but there’s only $86.4M left over to field the rest of the team. Under that scenario, the Yankees need to find a way to cut something like $60M from their current payroll.
by ubelmann on May 19, 2011 11:42 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
They're not erroneous, just misleading.
But your point still stands. Though I do question whether LA/NY are outpaying the Sounders 4 to 1. Aren’t they around $12m? Are the Sounders really just at $3m?
Look at median salaries
A better way to look at imbalances in salary, I’d argue, is to look at the median salaries since so much of the Galaxy’s and Red Bulls’ are tied up in 2-3 players. You’ll find far less area for concern:
Philadelphia $125,000.00
Salt Lake $108,675.00
KC $107,531.25
Houston $97,500.00
New York $96,748.00
LA $96,000.00
Seattle $85,050.00
Chicago $80,916.67
Chivas $79,000.00
Portland $74,625.00
Dallas $74,500.00
New England $73,250.00
San Jose $72,000.00
Toronto $71,833.34
DC $71,000.00
Columbus $66,375.00
Vancouver $65,000.00
Colorado $62,081.50
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter
by Jeremiah Oshan on May 19, 2011 1:01 PM PDT up reply actions
I can not WAIT
until we can stop saying “for the good of the league” every time something not-ideal happens in which it will help the league grow or whatever.
by chrisperry1983 on May 19, 2011 10:18 AM PDT up reply actions
Transfer window...
Hanauer: “We are likely to have some level of summer reinforcement integrated into the team by that time.”
Probably a forward, no?
Forlan
I’m going to start the Diego Forlan rumor against for no apparent reason. :)
by Derek Young on May 19, 2011 11:24 AM PDT up reply actions
I was thinking about this the other day
It seems like the summer would be the time to pick up Marcus, if he wants to come, but the Sounders really don’t need him this season. He’d be a godsend next year, if Keller follows through with his plan to retire.
Is Nkufo's DP slot open now?
Or do we have to wait until the end of the season? I know that he didn’t play in a game but wasn’t sure how that might affect our signing someone(s) this summer. Would Hahnemann require a DP slot? I would love to gush over the possibility of Forlan, (or many players for that matter) but the MLS still has more rumors about players like Pires (37) coming stateside as opposed to players like Forlan (32)…key word, rumors. I suppose the transfer market frenzy will hit Europe in a few days and will undoubtedly spread here quickly as well
ZackyRy
Sounders have a DP slot open
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter
by Jeremiah Oshan on May 19, 2011 1:05 PM PDT up reply actions
yes
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter
by Jeremiah Oshan on May 19, 2011 1:25 PM PDT up reply actions
He wouldn't get paid until he joins the team
and he is still eligible to play for his last team
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
