Cyle Larin

[Yohan]

One of question that was raised was does the club option benefit the player wage wise.

From MLS players union site

Larin made

2015: 125,000 base salary, 167,000 guaranteed compensation

2016: 135,000 base salary, 177,000 guaranteed compensation

= 8% raise in base salary, 6% raise in guaranteed compensation

2017: 150,000 base salary, 192,000 guaranteed compensation

=11% raise in base salary, 8.5% in guaranteed compensation

Extrapolating from this data and the pattern, I'm guessing Larin's 2018 salary would be 170,000 base salary and 212,000 guaranteed compensation. This means Larin is getting a 11.7% raise in base salary and 10.4% raise in guaranteed compensation.

[Ansem]

1 minute ago, Yohan said:

One of question that was raised was does the club option benefit the player wage wise.

From MLS players union site

Larin made

2015: 125,000 base salary, 167,000 guaranteed compensation

2016: 135,000 base salary, 177,000 guaranteed compensation

= 8% raise in base salary, 6% raise in guaranteed compensation

2017: 150,000 base salary, 192,000 guaranteed compensation

=11% raise in base salary, 8.5% in guaranteed compensation

Extrapolating from this data and the pattern, I'm guessing Larin's 2018 salary would be 170,000 base salary and 212,000 guaranteed compensation. This means Larin is getting a 11.7% raise in base salary and 10.4% raise in guaranteed compensation.

with the kind of numbers he puts in MLS, that's being underpaid. With no mechanism (arbitration) in like in a Restricted Free agency, it's truly abusive that his next contract won't come close to reflect his production.

That may be why Besiktas are fearlessly heading to FIFA over Larin.

[jpg75]

1 hour ago, Ansem said:

Ok, so that would mean that they are still within the 30 days, assuming that Larin did sign with Besiktas at the beginning of January. Then I don't get how else they could get their hands on that temporary ITC

I don't know man, this is the next line in the regs you posted:

6. The former association shall not issue an ITC if a contractual dispute 
has arisen between the former club and the professional. In such 
a case, the professional, the former club and/or the new club are 
entitled to lodge a claim with FIFA in accordance with article 22. FIFA 
shall then decide on the issue of the ITC and on sporting sanctions 
within 60 days. In any case, the decision on sporting sanctions shall 
be taken before the issue of the ITC. The issue of the ITC shall be 
without prejudice to compensation for breach of contract. FIFA may 
take provisional measures in exceptional circumstances.

[Unnamed Trialist]

2 hours ago, jpg75 said:

They can't send an ITC request until the player has signed a contract.

Nor can they send a request outside a transfer window, they have to wait until it opens. So Ansem's theory is not possible, pretty sure, though it seems logical.

They negotiate with a player who has not accepted a type of clause not recognized by FIFA, but only after the contract is over. 

 

[Unnamed Trialist]

Here is a legal opinion, early 2017, from a UCLA law professor on the MLS options with detailed comments on the Camilo case. 

http://americansoccernow.com/articles/here-s-the-deal-major-league-soccer-s-new-cba

I am exerpting below a long section which is interesting and relevant. Then we can summarize:

". . . One of the unique features of the MLS Standard Player Agreement is that it only contains what are called “unilateral options” and it is exclusively a team (actually MLS) option. A typical player’s contract with such a unilateral option is automatically extended unless the team notifies the player some reasonable time prior to the expiration of the original agreement that it will not be exercising its option. 

. . . Unilateral options are quite controversial in the rest of the world. FIFA disfavors them and FIFPro, the umbrella group representing football players associations worldwide, contends that unilateral options are illegal except under special circumstances. According to some rulings in the Court of Arbitration for Sport (“CAS”), they violate the principle of stability of contract, although they were approved in at least one case involving the Greek club Panathinaikos in 2006. . . . 

MLS’ use of unilateral options was recently challenged when Camilo Sanvezzo of the Vancouver Whitecaps, who had won the 2013 Golden Boot the previous season, refused to show up to Vancouver for the 2014 season despite the fact that the team held an option on him. He instead showed up in Mexico, having reportedly signed a deal with Queretaro. Rather than risk a fight with FIFA and the CAS, MLS backed off and hastily arranged a face-saving transfer deal with the Mexican club.

If there was ever a time for the Player’s Union to fight back against the inclusion of unilateral options in the Standard Player Agreement, this would have been the time. During a CBA negotiation where free agency was at the heart of the impasse, the Players Union could have argued that such options unfairly tie a player to a team situation that might be less than ideal for them. This might have been a painless way for MLS to remove one of the obstacles to player movement, while still deferring free agency until the player had reached the age and years of service requirements.

Instead, MLS stood its ground on unilateral options. Perhaps the only concession to the Sanvezzo situation is that MLS will now require that players sign a form acknowledging the existence of the specific number of unilateral options in the player’s contract. This is redundant since players already sign their contracts, but it operates like having the players initial a provision in the contract to make sure they really have read it when MLS tries to enforce it.

Why might the Players Union not have fought particularly hard against the unilateral option (although it did secure some modifications to them and protections against their abuse)? One possible reason is that they are mostly problematic for a player like Sanvezzo who has international options. If you are an MLS player who is going to stay in MLS, the unilateral option is mostly symbolic of a greater problem. Until you are eligible for free agency, you can’t choose your team anyway. Thus, for most members of the Players Union, the bigger issue is pay raises under the options, not the options themselves.

If they were mostly a symbolic problem for players, why wouldn’t MLS just get rid of them? 

Two reasons: First, in the case of foreign players, they give MLS the upside potential without the downside risk. If the player can’t adapt to the league, then MLS can decline the option. Second, in the case of all players, the unilateral options delay free agency even if a player has become eligible under the age and service requirements. This is just one more way that the free agency the players bargained so hard to achieve is undercut."

 

 

[mpg_29]

@Unnamed Trialist yeah if anything reading that legal opinion makes me less convinced Fifa would rule in MLS favour...it's exactly the type of centralised top down power control over player contracts of what you'd expect in a single entity league. Advantageous to the league but not necessarily to the player. The players union's indifference to it isn't inspiring either...

The main problem in all this is MLS and the Players Union are operating like other North American leagues where they think they are in vacuum. But that isn't the case with soccer.  Top players do have other options. MLS and the Players Union are going to have to start operating like they are in a world where players are going to be coming and going and they are not the only fish in the sea.

[Watchmen]

13 hours ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

Actually, if you follow what I have posted from some legal analyses, MLS does NOT want to fight like hell to defend these rulings. Otherwise they would have taken it to FIFA before. It is just the opposite. They know they risk the entire concept and its mass application across MLS if they try to defend it as a general principle, so they prefer to let it be and apply the option clauses, then go to individual cases and fight them out, scrambling for an a posteriori compensation. 

Why else would a team with a player on contract, so they say, with 2 years left, start seriously negotiating with another club only AFTER the player has announced he's leaving?

I should clarify, as I don't think I'm disagreeing with you.  What I mean is that MLS likely knows it's a losing case, but they also have the financial resources to drag any case out for a while.  So they'll put on a massive show of being prepared to do just that, while working to move the player and actually avoid it.  At the same time, the club outside MLS has to decide if it's actually worth the hassle of challenging the MLS clause.  In the case of Larin, I don't think they think it is.  So they'll either work with MLS to agree on a transfer fee, or move on from him (even as they also put on a show of having him there training).

Edited January 24, 2018 by Watchmen

[GuillermoDelQuarto]

I saw something on twitter saying Larin was now practicing with Besiktas.  Real or bs?

[BuzzAndSting]

12 minutes ago, GuillermoDelQuarto said:

I saw something on twitter saying Larin was now practicing with Besiktas.  Real or bs?

Scroll up for video.

[Stryker911]

Interesting article on mlssoccer website about how the league is excited to have young South Americans come to the league and the there is several quotes from these players about using MLS as stepping stone to Europe. 

If this is the something the league is trying to promote then they need to make it easier for players to leave and more beneficial to the teams.

[shamrock]

5 hours ago, mpg_29 said:

The main problem in all this is MLS and the Players Union are operating like other North American leagues where they think they are in vacuum. But that isn't the case with soccer.  Top players do have other options. MLS and the Players Union are going to have to start operating like they are in a world where players are going to be coming and going and they are not the only fish in the sea.

THIS! 

[PhillyCanuck]

This article from Turkey states that Besiktas is working on securing a temporary license from FIFA and plans to have Larin appear in the match against Bursaspor, which is scheduled for next Friday.

https://www.kartalbakisi.com/futbol/larin-ve-tore-gelismesi-h21149.html

 

[shamrock]

Some player should stand up against the rules, like Bosman. Why not Larin? Make that Larin-arrest happen!

[Unnamed Trialist]

19 hours ago, PhillyCanuck said:

This article from Turkey states that Besiktas is working on securing a temporary license from FIFA and plans to have Larin appear in the match against Bursaspor, which is scheduled for next Friday.

https://www.kartalbakisi.com/futbol/larin-ve-tore-gelismesi-h21149.html

 

That can only happen I think if Fifa forces US SOCCER to emit an International Transfer Certificate. ..and that usually involves the parties having already argued their cases.

[Yohan]

lol. Tabla's contract with Barca has options on it. Yeah, don't know what the details are but still lol

[WheatsheafSK]

8 hours ago, shamrock said:

Some player should stand up against the rules, like Bosman. Why not Larin? Make that Larin-arrest happen!

Yeah...because that really worked out for Bosman.  You should look up what the fallout for him was. I would hate to see Larin as a what-could-have-been but for legal proceedings and negative press.

Edited January 25, 2018 by WheatsheafSK

[to70]

1 hour ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

That can only happen I think if Fifa forces US SOCCER to emit an International Transfer Certificate. ..and that usually involves the parties having already argued their cases.

A few years ago when I was coaching at youth level trying to get an ITC from USSF was quite an ordeal. At the end I received the temporary one from the CSA signed by Victor

[Unnamed Trialist]

1 hour ago, to70 said:

A few years ago when I was coaching at youth level trying to get an ITC from USSF was quite an ordeal. At the end I received the temporary one from the CSA signed by Victor

I'm not surprised, years back when my kid was at Catalonia, a club in BCN, they told me they were waiting on an international transfer for  German teammate who'd moved with his family, from the German federation. At 12 years old. I was shocked, did not realize it was just like with the pros.

But I wonder how they resolve cases like this. I mean, what if US Soccer feels it has a just case, what do you do? I understand you have to try the case, and that could take a long time.  I suppose the principle must be that you can't allow a federation to stonewall, or let administrative incompetence  block a player from pursuing what he or she wants to do, pro or not. At least not after a certain period of time.

But I really do not know what the specific legal justification is for Larin playing, if he really does.

[Ansem]

Doesn't sound like a front office on top of things

[shamrock]

2 hours ago, WheatsheafSK said:

Yeah...because that really worked out for Bosman.  You should look up what the fallout for him was. I would hate to see Larin as a what-could-have-been but for legal proceedings and negative press.

Yeah I know. But somebody needs to take it to court and force a change or it will never happen. 

[mpg_29]

I wonder if Besiktas will deliberately play him more to use as evidence that he wants to be there/he's part of the team and thus he ends up getting more playing time than he otherwise would have. 

I can't see him get loaned out (if that's the plan) until it gets sorted out. And not playing him at all might not look good in their favour either. 

Edited January 25, 2018 by mpg_29

[masster]

On 1/22/2018 at 5:24 AM, Unnamed Trialist said:

I don't get what folks find so odd in the online translation, it is perfectly logical.

Actors were called players traditionally and still are, for eg, in amateur theatre. Players who participate in a play. In TO itself there are more than a dozen such groups. 

 

@dsqpr @Unnamed Trialist

Nothing to do with Cyle Larin, but this article I read totally fits with the Player/Actor discussion you were having that I had to post it:

https://amp.theguardian.com/football/these-football-times/2018/jan/25/italian-football-premier-league-serie-a-language?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Tweet&__twitter_impression=true

[AvroArrow]

I would think that if Larin steps on the field in a league match for Besiktas that they know they have all their ducks in a row.  You don't risk a forfeit due to using an illegal player, especially an unproven one.

[Obinna]

57 minutes ago, mpg_29 said:

I wonder if Besiktas will deliberately play him more to use as evidence that he wants to be there/he's part of the team and thus he ends up getting more playing time than he otherwise would have. 

I can't see him get loaned out (if that's the plan) until it gets sorted out. And not playing him at all might not look good in their favour either. 

If this results in Larin playing first team minutes for Besiktas I am happy.

What he ultimately needs to do (and can do, I believe) is score in the chances he's given. It was getting the chances at Besiktas that always concerned me....

[jpg75]

1 hour ago, Ansem said:

Doesn't sound like a front office on top of things

Why would they? ITC papers go to the USSF.