NASL and USL denied

[Gordon]

It seems to me that the USSF is telling the two parties to get their act together and figure out how to work with each other. And I think they are following the proper course. Why would you want two "Division 2s" or to have to choose between a long running entity that provides the bulk of the non USSF run soccer "pyramid" in the US or a new entity with a lot "big" teams, money, know how and influence (but no track record, questions about some of the participants long term, no "pyramid" to speak off). Frankly, telling them to figure it out is exactly the right decision and absolutely in teh best interest of soccer in the US. By with holding the sanctioning of both leagues, they both have motivation to reach an agreement to work together.

Edit note: Hmmn...re-reading this thread, I suppose I should have simply wrote "I agree with Jeffrey" as it appears I simply plagerized him!

[jspice]

^ I agree, its in the best interest of all parties to work together to sort this out. It would be a shame to effectively chop the top off of the current USL pyramid (such as it is) by choosing NASL over USL-1. Ideally concessions will be made by both sides in order to retain the current pyramid structure, but also allowing for the implementation of the proposed TOA improvements at the top level

[Richard]

quote:Originally posted by Cheeta

Empty threat not worth the toilet paper it's written on.

There isn't a country in the western hemisphere where the labour laws would up hold such a arbitrary punishment.

FIFA by-laws & practices have taken a nice pounding in the courts and will continue to when it's odvious they're complete rubbish.

There really is no call to be coarse and don't underestimate the power of FIFA when it comes to the international game.

[Calgary Boomer]

I think the most interesting thing about the decision is that NASL doesn't have the 8 clubs needed. Not sure if that is because the Whitecaps are going MLS 2011, and are not counted, or whether the two clubs being sued (Baltimore and Tampa) don't count either. I also have read that Atlanta wouldn't be able to compete if the league was approved anyway.

As for the Voyaguers Cup...I don't think you can have any teams participate in CCL qualifying that aren't members of a sanctioned league. So, that competition would be scrapped as well.

[Guest Jeffery S.]

What irks me about this is that everywhere in the world teams have to put up with FAs that are run badly and even corrupt, as well as leagues where a lot of dubious things happen. Club owners the world over, in dozens of leagues, are irate and outraged with practices going on in the leagues they participate in. Fans too.

But there is normally absolutely no margin for being schismatic, for breaking the existing structure entirely and starting something new and separate and on its own. It is not done, at least not without the support of the existing FA itself. In other sports it may happen (the basketball Euroleague is a break off from European FIBA), but it does not happen in soccer. Problem is we are used to breaking all the damn rules in North American, mostly because FIFA is desperate for the most powerful economic market in the world to grow firmly attached to the beautiful game, so FIFA puts up with ridiculous inventions and BS from MLS, accepting the argument that "here we have to do things differently", as if we were talking about Bhutan or Mongolia or somewhere totally off-centre and hybird.

The fact that the NASL clubs thought they could do what they wanted, break off from an existing league, that is partly the fault of the weird structures we allow in North America. But it is also totally unprecedented in world football for something like that to be allowed. Okay, we have no promotion-relegation, we win leagues after playoffs, we don't have a single table, we have an oddball draft, clubs don't have youth academies in most cases, we don't respect the FIFA calendar, we play on two consecutive days on road trips to save money, owners control more than one team, franchises come and go, we play on crap fields with US football lines, fans have to put up with dumbsheet half time shows and cheesy promotional gimmicks.

So fine, since it is all nutty, let's just keep going and get all nutty together and come up with anything we damn well want, win the nutty league is what we are trying to do, because FIFA threw up its hands so long ago with North America that they won't say anything this time either. We are so used to being soccer freaks and FIFA so used to letting us be freaks that we have totally lost any sense of perspective about what is right and wrong.

I say gratuitous schisms are wrong. And what the USSF is trying to stand by is right. What NASL is trying to do, force USL's hand, well they surely have their reasons. But in the context of North American soccer it is also pure brinkmanship, and, as I said, from a Canadian perspective where the only two pro clubs will be moving on in a year or two, terribly cynical and opportunist.

[SthMelbRed]

^In no other place in the world is there a league owned and administered by for-profit 3rd party with zero input from the clubs. In no other place in the world can a league be sold by one for-profit 3rd-party to another for-profit 3rd-party against the wishes of the clubs that make up that league. In every other place in the world, a club plays in a league where they know how many teams will participate year on year and the exact criteria upon which participation is granted.

The USL has taken the position that, in order to participate in their league, the clubs must abide by their rules. Like it or leave it. The NASL owners have decided to leave it. They are not trying to force USL's hand. As far as they are concerned they are exercising their right to leave. You seem to be of the opinion that they should accept USL's edicts or cease to exist. I can't comprehend how a reasonable person could take that position.

[Vic]

That was great on the abomination, wish I could read more stuff like that.

Most times you hear a ruling body come out with a statement like the USSF's it means work it out or both suffer. The USL releases have that high and mighty we are dug in tone and I don't smell any interest in working together in them. They have essentially already lost USL1 despite their positioning, so simply denying NASL is a win for them. They may well be half-heartedly putting an eight-team USL1 into play knowing full well it will be the sacrificial lamb to go down alongside the NASL.

[Guest Jeffery S.]

quote:Originally posted by SthMelbRed

^In no other place in the world is there a league owned and administered by for-profit 3rd party with zero input from the clubs. In no other place in the world can a league be sold by one for-profit 3rd-party to another for-profit 3rd-party against the wishes of the clubs that make up that league. In every other place in the world, a club plays in a league where they know how many teams will participate year on year and the exact criteria upon which participation is granted.

The USL has taken the position that, in order to participate in their league, the clubs must abide by their rules. Like it or leave it. The NASL owners have decided to leave it. They are not trying to force USL's hand. As far as they are concerned they are exercising their right to leave. You seem to be of the opinion that they should accept USL's edicts or cease to exist. I can't comprehend how a reasonable person could take that position.

You are forgetting the most important thing: the USL has been the only sanctioned league representing tier 2 and 3 in North America for a long time, and the only one Canadian pro clubs have opted into. The ownership status was the same before as it is now. And the Canadian teams played in it for years, thanks to it we could win USL championships and have the Voyageurs Cup now as the National Cup. Without it, nothing, absolutely nothing.

Jumping on the NASL bandwagon, like some Texas lone star separatist, is charming, but has no basis in reality.

Sorry, but this world-beyond-the-USL argument is like playing fantasy leagues, pick and choose your perfect world, but it is utopia, an ideal world, la-la land, through the looking glass, a fairy tale. So no, you can't go, because there is nowhere to go. The land of fairies does not exist. And rightly the USSF agrees with that principle.

[SthMelbRed]

But the USSF hasn't agreed with that principle. Texas does not have to renew their membership in the Union each year, complete with a cheque for membership dues. The clubs that have chosen to leave USL have fulfilled all legal obligations to USL (except for, perhaps, Rochester, Tampa Bay, and CP Baltimore, who may or may not have made binding commitments for 2010).

USL has never been sanctioned by the USSF with a guarantee that they were to be the only division 2 league to ever again receive such sanctioning. By the USSF's own ruling, the NASL is only a matter of getting enough clubs that the USSF considers to be viable on board away from being sanctioned as a division 2 league (notice I didn't write THE division 2 league).

You seem to think that because the USL has done some good work in the past, and that because we've benefited from that good work, that there should be an interminable period of subservience to that entity as a form of gratitude. I'm of the opinion that past good deeds can be acknowledged and sufficient gratitude can be shown, and still decisions for the future can be taken which may or may not include USL.

[Calgary Boomer]

It did strike me as odd, seeing Don Garber's name on the USSF task force looking into the 2nd division situation. Isn't that slightly a conflict? On one hand, NASL could operate without any salary cap/designated player rule, and become a decent circuit in smaller markets. On the other, NASL could have become MLS2. In either case, I think it's very fishy to the have the MLS commissioner having any say in the matter.

[Guest Jeffery S.]

quote:Originally posted by SthMelbRed

But the USSF hasn't agreed with that principle. Texas does not have to renew their membership in the Union each year, complete with a cheque for membership dues. The clubs that have chosen to leave USL have fulfilled all legal obligations to USL (except for, perhaps, Rochester, Tampa Bay, and CP Baltimore, who may or may not have made binding commitments for 2010).

USL has never been sanctioned by the USSF with a guarantee that they were to be the only division 2 league to ever again receive such sanctioning. By the USSF's own ruling, the NASL is only a matter of getting enough clubs that the USSF considers to be viable on board away from being sanctioned as a division 2 league (notice I didn't write THE division 2 league).

You seem to think that because the USL has done some good work in the past, and that because we've benefited from that good work, that there should be an interminable period of subservience to that entity as a form of gratitude. I'm of the opinion that past good deeds can be acknowledged and sufficient gratitude can be shown, and still decisions for the future can be taken which may or may not include USL.

Last I saw there was a well attended and passionately followed Vancouver-Montreal USL final recently. You call that subservience. Good work on the euphemisms. I thought it was the best competition available up to only a few weeks back. Now it`s the plague. What happened to you naysayers on the NASL schismatic bandwagon on the way to Damascus, what kind of lightning bolt hit you all of a sudden?

[SthMelbRed]

Nowhere did I say that I had a problem with the USL or the standard of play or suggest that the league was like a plague. That's all you. I'm going to support my local club, no matter what league they play in. My use of the word subservience relates to your contention that because USL has been good to Canadian clubs in the past that they should remain loyal to them, come hell or high water. If you don't see any situation where breaking away is justified, I see your position as being that the clubs should remain subservient to USL.

I think that Greg Kerfoot has done enough over the past five or six years for me to trust his judgement. If he feels that he isn't being adequately served by USL, he should do what he has to do. If he's able to come to a compromise with USL to return to the fold, that's fine by me, too. There was no lightning bolt required for me to come to this conclusion. I doubt that anyone else here required one, either.

[Bill Spiers]

quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S.

You are forgetting the most important thing: the USL has been the only sanctioned league representing tier 2 and 3 in North America for a long time, and the only one Canadian pro clubs have opted into. The ownership status was the same before as it is now. And the Canadian teams played in it for years, thanks to it we could win USL championships and have the Voyageurs Cup now as the National Cup. Without it, nothing, absolutely nothing.

While we should perhaps be thankful for having somewhere for Canadian teams to play, I think the US should also be thankful for the support they have received from Canadian teams. Back in 1993, the APSL - the forerunner of the A-League and the USISL and the USL - only survived as the top league in the US with the support of Canadian teams. Of the APSL's seven teams, three were Canadian - Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal.

[Richard]

I think we should all stop worrying. I do not for one minute believe the USSF would allow the situation to deteriorate to the point where there was no div II play in 2010. There will be a settlement soon, of that I am sure. This is supported by Kartik Krishnaiyer who reports that the USL has withdrawn the lawsuits it filed in the Florida courts against three clubs for breach of contract. A very good sign that cooler heads are beginning to prevail.

[Guest Jeffery S.]

quote:Originally posted by Richard

I think we should all stop worrying. I do not for one minute believe the USSF would allow the situation to deteriorate to the point where there was no div II play in 2010. There will be a settlement soon, of that I am sure. This is supported by Kartik Krishnaiyer who reports that the USL has withdrawn the lawsuits it filed in the Florida courts against three clubs for breach of contract. A very good sign that cooler heads are beginning to prevail.

If we end up with a 16 team Div 2, with NuRock ceding to some of the NASL demands and showing some goodwill, but with NASL agreeing to not talk about divorce every chance they get, then we'll be better off: a thirty game schedule perfectly balanced.

[SthMelbRed]

^even if all the teams in the two camps come together, they won't have a sixteen team league. Vancouver, Montreal, Portland, Puerto Rico, Rochester, Miami, St Louis, Tampa Bay, Baltimore, Austin, Carolina, Atlanta, and Minnesota only make thirteen teams. From that bunch, it's looking pretty clear that two (Minnesota and Atlanta) are not going to be ready for 2010 in any case. Long-term, sixteen stable teams playing a balanced home-and-away season would be good (hell eighteen or twenty would be better, still).

[Calgary Boomer]

I'm pretty sure Atlanta's a no go for 2010. If they don't get things sorted soon, I wonder how startups like St Louis and Tampa Bay will manage to hire all their staff, get players...and most importantly, season ticket deposits.

[the biologist]

quote:Originally posted by SthMelbRed

^even if all the teams in the two camps come together, they won't have a sixteen team league. Vancouver, Montreal, Portland, Puerto Rico, Rochester, Miami, St Louis, Tampa Bay, Baltimore, Austin, Carolina, Atlanta, and Minnesota only make thirteen teams. From that bunch, it's looking pretty clear that two (Minnesota and Atlanta) are not going to be ready for 2010 in any case. Long-term, sixteen stable teams playing a balanced home-and-away season would be good (hell eighteen or twenty would be better, still).

FCNY ?

And don't forget some teams jumped off the ship only when they saw where all of this was going. Some teams like Charleston could easily agree to come back to Div. II level play as soon as in 2011 when all the rules will be clearly set. They can say whatever they want about financial considerations in their press releases, the appeal a 2nd Div. league has compared to a 3rd Div. one will prevail in some owners minds, Cleveland included. Why not ?

Clearly 12 teams seems to be more realistic for this season (minus Atlanta & Minnesota, plus FCNY). But it is realistic as well to think Atlanta and Minny will come back one of these days, let's hope for 2011. If Charleston and Cleveland do the same, that makes 16 clubs. Also, many seem to forget possible expansion clubs in Canada. It's not overoptimistic to believe there's gonna be (at least) two of them, so we're now at 18 for the not-too-far future. I strongly believe that it will happen sooner than many think. I just don't know when, but I bet they will be 12 clubs lined up at the starting line come april.

Imagine for a second, we're in 2016 and we have a 20-club Div. I and a 20-club Div. II as well (here's hoping for both to be single-tabled). A DREAM COME TRUE !!! [:0] ... [8D]

[Vic]

Wheeler leans to MLS2:

http://www.torontosun.com/sports/soccer/2010/01/03/12334946.html

[Impactsupporter]

What if the NASL, MLS, USL1 and 2 were integrated into a "Can-Am Cup", modeled loosely on the Ranji Trophy (cricket in India) ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranji_Trophy

Just a thought.

[Cyrus]

quote:Originally posted by Impactsupporter

What if the NASL, MLS, USL1 and 2 were integrated into a "Can-Am Cup", modeled loosely on the Ranji Trophy (cricket in India) ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranji_Trophy

Just a thought.

Sure, anything could be possible, if the various entities were willing to negotiate with each other, respected each other, got along, weren't sueing each other's pants off etc... But I sense much animosity in the air.

Without sanctioning, anything beyond friendlies/barnstorming is highly unlikely. When was the last true Rebel League in soccer that wasn't quickly destroyed by FIFA pressure? Colombia in the 1950's? FIFA isn't an impotent force like the IIHF. It controls all kinds of levers of power; an unsanctioned 'WHA style' soccer league in North America was always going to be out of reach.

[Alberto7]

My feeling is that the NASL and USL will come to some agreement where the NASL will be the sanctioned Div 2 league and pay USL a major compensation ($20,000 per team or something like that). NASL will field 8-9 teams and USL will run the 3rd Division league (USL Div 2) and all the develepmental leagues (PDL, SuPer 20, Super Y).

There is no way in hell that MLS and the others will get together. MLS is Division 1 and they want to keep it that way.

[SteveBeau]

quote:Originally posted by Alberto7

My feeling is that the NASL and USL will come to some agreement where the NASL will be the sanctioned Div 2 league and pay USL a major compensation ($20,000 per team or something like that). NASL will field 8-9 teams and USL will run the 3rd Division league (USL Div 2) and all the develepmental leagues (PDL, SuPer 20, Super Y).

There is no way in hell that MLS and the others will get together. MLS is Division 1 and they want to keep it that way.

20,000$ per team does not sound like MAJOR compensation, thats kinda like pocket change for some of those owners...

[Havoc88]

quote:Originally posted by Alberto7

There is no way in hell that MLS and the others will get together. MLS is Division 1 and they want to keep it that way.

Yet the NASL general meeting this week is at the same city as the MLS combine? Of all the places?

Not sure though if anyone can answer whether or not the league hinges on sanctioning from USSF or they could they just go ahead and do it regardless? If the CSA is fine with it what does that mean then?

http://www.rednationonline.ca/NASL_No_Strange_Coincidence_jan_5_10_column.shtml

[BringBackTheBlizzard]

I think Jeffrey Loome overlooks the obvious innocuous reason for that. NASL team management would have been there anyway to check out the players in the combine given some of them will eventually either not be drafted or will wind up getting cut at the end of training camps with the MLS teams they get drafted by.