Printable View
I sped through the read yesterday because I was trying to get on the road. Anyway, so his point is that our pros lack professionalism and that those with the ability to play in europe can't get sold because of the MLS schedule and other petty reasons for keeping them in MLS?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilmer17
Those are the results of the problems, not the problems.
We have idiots and thieves running USSOCCER. THATS the problem.
I really couldn't understand 90% of that article, (sounded like incoherent rambling by Wynalda) but one area struck me was about the schedule. In other countries, there is no such thing as the NFL or MLB. The NFL dominates the schedule from August until February. Baseball has their showcase in October and opening day in April. Other countries schedule (EPL for example) go from August until June. We don't have the kind of fanbase like Germany (to use a cold weather example) for people to sit outdoors to watch soccer in the middle of January when it's 20 degrees out and snowing. Unfortunately Americans assiociate soccer with warm weather. It's just the way it is. It would be the death of MLS to have the season start at the same time as the NFL and end when baseball is gearing up. Add in the NBA during the winter months and I just don't see where you would get the fan support outside of the diehards.
2 points.Quote:
Originally Posted by pjfootballer
1- If they dont change, the product will not get better in either MLS or the MNT. So arguing to remain at the status quo is an argument to continue to fail.
2- The research shows a different story.
MLS fans are not the same as NFL fans. Or any of the big 3. Which is why the move towards smaller soccer specific stadiums has been a boom for the league. Take a look at the second tier leagues in England and Germany. Those sides draw less than 15k per match regularly. In fact, the lower half of the EPL draw less than 30k a game. Waldo does a decent job of explaining the basic financial problem with your argument.
IF MLS played a concurrent schedule, and drew less, they would STILL make many times more money in transfer fees alone.
Further, the league ALREADY plays at the start of MLB and the beginning of the NFL season. The issue would be taking the summer off like the rest of the world instead of Dec Jan and Feb.
Could be. I'm not as astute with soccer as you are, but I have noticed MLS soccer only stadiums being built with 20K about the average size. Baseball seems to being going back to the smaller, more intimate stadiums lately. Like I said in my post, the diehard soccer fans will be there no matter what, it depends on if MLS wants to bring in the casual fan to the sport. I like soccer and enjoy watching EPL on Saturday mornings, but I'll be damned if I'll sit outside in 20 degree weather to root for DC United. I barely want to sit in the cold for Redskin games.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilmer17
Let me ask you. If MLS played the same schedule, would it be easier for them as far as the transfer fees go? With playing an off schedule is that harder for players to be transferred? I'm asking because I don't know.
Absolutely. International Club soccer is an intricate and frustrating thing to grasp. But the simple answer is, USsoccer would make more money, MLS would make more money, Players would make more money AND (THE BIG PART) our players would get better.Quote:
Originally Posted by pjfootballer
Further, the league ALREADY plays at the start of MLB and the beginning of the NFL season. The issue would be taking the summer off like the rest of the world instead of Dec Jan and Feb.
And BTW, I adopted Totenham Hotspur as my EPL team about 4 years ago to go against the Yankees...er Manchester United.
Great night.
The 2nd most successful club in English soccer history (although if we're talking the REAL big ones, the League and European Cup; then 18+5> Utd's 19+3 :D); are back in their first domestic final for 6 years.
After going to the original Wembley more times than any other club; then the second most appearances at Cardiff whilst Wembley was rebuilt; Liverpool Football Club are finally starting their odyssey at the new Wembley on the 26th of next month as we look to add to our record 7 League Cups. All in the first full season of King Kenny's second go-around in the midst of a complete rebuild.
Another proud night to be a born and bred Liverpudlian. Roll on 4 weeks time and a return to Anfield South.
Hail.
Surely you must be talking about the noisy neighbors (Manchester City) or Chelsea, because the belief that United just outspends everyone is a common misconception.Quote:
Originally Posted by pjfootballer
In the past three years, for example, United has a net spending LOWER than those of Hull City, Blackpool and Burnley . . .
We get amazing talent when they are young (and relatively cheaper than what the market typically dictates), and then reward them for production. Look at some of the numbers: Wayne Rooney for £25M (a steal at the time considering what he has turned into, while players like Andy Carrol are going for £35M), Chris Smalling for £8M, Phil Jones for £16M, and Nemanja Vidic for just £7M!
I can go on and bore you all with more . . . but the above four players make my point.
Which is the exact opposite of what my beloved Arsenal does. We buy 'em young like Man Utd BUT sell them for a huge profit once they are at their peak. Makes for a good business model, but always a too-young squad. Very frustrating.Quote:
Originally Posted by RunClintonRun26
Yeah I don't know how Arsenal fans do it. My sister actually lives less than a mile from the Emirates and is a huge fan. It seems as if Wenger (and his transfer policies) have finally worn thin on Arsenal supporters. On the plus side, I think Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain will be a star . . . and he might actually stay at Arsenal if Wenger is gone before he can sell him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elessar78
Arsenal always seem to be in a youth movement, which as you mentioned, can affect the squad's performances. And it just seems that the youngsters either never develop into what they could have been (Arshavin) or are sold. RVP will leave this summer IMO, simply because he deserves Champions League football. Jack Wilshere though looks to be a career Gunner. If he can stay healthy then you all have a fantastic central midfielder.
I've seen too many "career Gunners" so pardon my cynicism. Yeah, agreed RVP will most likely leave. In truth, he's always had this talent but never been healthy to show it through a season.
To be perfectly honest, I think we are better this year than in the recent past. It's just unfortunate that we lost all our fullbacks to injury. Not saying it'd make the difference, but it is the difference between finishing fourth or finishing seventh. Nasri was a douche that didn't produce as much as his talent would've let him. Cesc was my favorite player but when a guy's head isn't into something it shows. I think he was ready to move away and it showed in his play. You probably don't watch too many Arsenal matches but the style of play is much more different this year than in years past. The last 2-3 years so us try to pass masterfully in the box for an easy finish—but too often we lost the ball and never got a shot. This year, things are more pragmatic. More crossing, more wide play, and things are more direct.
What I admire about United is just that. They don't worry about "philosophy" like Barca does (which is good in it's own right) but SAF's teams have always been very pragmatic about attacking.
Part of the problem is that Arsenal built a new stadium and a new training ground and the economy turned (they'd built luxury flats where the old stadium used to be). They need to be fiscally sound to recoup that money.
They are stuck on a philosophy that pays ALL their players generally the same. Which is good when you are young and upcoming but once you are established, you don't understand why you are getting paid the same as the 2nd string keeper. And when you get teams like Man ****ty who will triple the salary of a mediocre left back (Gael Clichy) then you're in trouble.
^^^ Injuries (particularly to the defense) have indeed doomed any realistic shot of finishing in the top 4.
You are absolutely right regarding both Nasri and Cesc. Nasri played exceptionally well at times last year, but was never consistent. And Cesc is absolutely incredible . . . but you could see he just wasn't into Arsenal anymore. I'll never forget his "performance" in the second leg against Barca in last year's CL. He was practically a 12th player for them.
I agree with you that Arsenal was too consumed with the whole "Barca-style of play." Hell, Wenger would ***** and complain after every loss, saying how beautiful the team played just like Barcelona yet still couldn't get the result. This year seems to be different. Once Gervinho comes back your attack will be even better in terms of being able to attack from wide positions.
And in the previous three years to the last three you mentioned, Berbatov, Haregreaves and Nani for a combined £68 million. It's true the club didn't reinvest the ridiculous £80 million Madrid stumped up for Ronaldo until this season (only Valencia at£16 million) with De Gea, Jones and Young.Quote:
Originally Posted by RunClintonRun26
I get your point to an extent on Utd's transfer policy, but it's a fallacy to suggest Ferguson hasn't spent major money over the last decade and more, with some of the biggest collective and individual fees paid. And he's had some big money busts along the way. The near £30 million on Veron springs instantly to mind.
Hail.
I was not trying to suggest that Fergie has been frugal and has avoided diving into the lunacy and absurdity that now characterizes the transfer windows. I was merely saying that United's perceived propensity to spend big is overblown.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibbs Hog Heaven