Richard Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 USL Sues Rochester Rhinos, Tampa Bay and Baltimore For Breach of Contract - Kartik Report Florida court documents filed on Tuesday indicate that the United Soccer Leagues have sued the Rochester Rhinos and two other clubs for breach of contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keano Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Hard to believe they'd split if they weren't confident they could win a court case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Keano Hard to believe they'd split if they weren't confident they could win a court case. Yep, I was wondering about how CP Baltimore and Tampa Bay felt so confident as to walk away from USL. Now it seems Rochester may have consented to staying in USL before changing its mind. In hindsight maybe all three should have stayed in USL and demanded the league show it could play in 2010 or let them go. I suspect this is why Portland have not left the fold. Regardless, USL's new owners must have some considerable finances and could tie everything up in court including granting division 2 status to the NASL. Can the USSF grant the NASL Division 3 status just to get the league going for 2010? What would the implications be? As others have suggested, maybe the NASL will have to buy out NuRock to make this all go away. The USSF should be looking at this as a contingency with a mediator in mind. Never a dull moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted December 9, 2009 Author Share Posted December 9, 2009 Unless this is resolved in short order I foresee FIFA issuing a warning to the USSF as they did with the Chilean FA when one of the Chilean clubs sued their league/association. I am quite sure the USSF is well aware of that likelihood as is everybody else in this drama. This is a game of high stakes chicken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeta Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Wee!!! Pretty sure the clubs concerned are going to make the argument that the USL 1st Division they'd contractually commited to wasn't something USL could actually provide in any way, shape, or fashion. That in effect it was the USL's inability to provide a professional vessel (as promised) for their teams to participate in which ended this business relationship. I'm not sure how much this effects a NASL launch if at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJB Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Portland hasn't bailed on USL, because they don't really care about this season. They're off to MLS in 2011, and so they'll play out the string in USL. There have been many rumblings on these boards that Vancouver wants to maintain ownership/partnership with a club in this new league, so that could explain their vested interest, despite it only being for one year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoachRich Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Won't part of USL issues be that they got rid of Carolina, Miami and Minnesota who later joined the NASL? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trillium Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Richard Unless this is resolved in short order I foresee FIFA issuing a warning to the USSF as they did with the Chilean FA when one of the Chilean clubs sued their league/association. I am quite sure the USSF is well aware of that likelihood as is everybody else in this drama. This is a game of high stakes chicken. Richard the important difference is that in Chile it was a suit regarding a decision by the FA to impose a penalty under the FA rules. What is going on here is a business dispute, and is not based on any rule or regulation of the USSF, thus I doubt USSF or FIFA will become involved the suits are not naming a soccer governing body. Leagues remember are not governing bodies and only exercise delegated authoritys of associations the commercial dispute to me seems to be well outside the interest of FIFA, or indeed the USSF unless the USL is silly enough to to sue USSF when the USSF allows the clubs to be in a new league designated a div 2 loop and sanctioned by USSF. NuRock is making a desperate move and it shows the new ownership does not have the best interests of soccer in NA in its view. They better be carefull or they could lose the real money makers of the youth clubs. Interesting times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted December 10, 2009 Author Share Posted December 10, 2009 ^ I did appreciate the difference when I posted but FIFA is concerned about anything that brings the game into disrepute and this kind of legal action most certainly doesn't help the reputation of the game in the USA. Without doubt the USSF appreciates the public relations angle all too well and will do all in its power to quell the fuss. My bet is that if the USL does not yield to pressure the TOA will offer a financial settlement to make the USL go away and let the TOA get on with what they have set out to achieve. The USL is a for profit enterprise that exists first and foremost for the good of its shareholders. If that were not the case there would be no reason not to let the TOA run thier First Division just the way they wanted to under the USL umbrella. Interesting times as you say nevertheless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jeffery S. Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Richard ^ I did appreciate the difference when I posted but FIFA is concerned about anything that brings the game into disrepute and this kind of legal action most certainly doesn't help the reputation of the game in the USA. Without doubt the USSF appreciates the public relations angle all too well and will do all in its power to quell the fuss. My bet is that if the USL does not yield to pressure the TOA will offer a financial settlement to make the USL go away and let the TOA get on with what they have set out to achieve. The USL is a for profit enterprise that exists first and foremost for the good of its shareholders. If that were not the case there would be no reason not to let the TOA run thier First Division just the way they wanted to under the USL umbrella. Interesting times as you say nevertheless. Fifa does not let a club in an official league under the auspices of the national FA to go to regular justice for questions related to soccer justice. The sport is internally judged. I am not sure this suit has anything to do with soccer justice, though, it is a contractual question. If Nurock has a document from a club saying they are committed to play and then the club pulls out, for whatever reason, they have reason to sue. The club can counter, obviously, claiming that Nurock of the USL did not fulfill their contractual obligations. What I find incoherent in all this is that the USL has been famous for constant changes in clubs in all divisions. Some pull out, others take a leave of absence, others appear and disappear in a year, teams fold, there are constant alterations and changes that would technically represent breach of contract. And I don't think the USL has ever taken such an aggressive position in terms of litigation as they are now under Nurock. Mind you, so many exceptions are made for the US that it is a bit hard to follow, as far as I am concerned FIFA should just tell the US and Canada to do what the rest of the world does and stop screwing around (single tables and pro-releg federated soccer). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted December 10, 2009 Author Share Posted December 10, 2009 I read somewhere that the USL demands a $500k bond from its USL-1 clubs. The purpose of a bond is to reduce the exposure of the league to costs/losses in the event the member club does not fulfil its contractual obligations. On what basis can the USL then sue clubs who willingly forfeit this bond and move elsewhere? This whole saga is an embarrassment to the game and the relevant national associations. That alone is probably enough for a stern phonecall from Sepp Blatter at the very least. Considering the vigorous lengths to which FIFA goes to protect its brands and the reputation of the game internationally I can't see FIFA tolerating this affair being fought out in the US courts. All it would take would be a warning to the USSF that failure to resolve the matter promptly could jeopardise USA participation the the 2010 World Cup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jeffery S. Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 In the best interests of the game I think FIFA should step in, for sure. And ask the bickering parts to come to an agreement about a single 2nd tier of soccer in North America. It would be rather outrageous for the USSF or even the CSA to be giving the green light to any and all leagues that happen to be created for whatever reason in whatever region under any old pretexts. It does not happen anywhere else int he world, I see no reason for it to happen here. Would the USSF and the CSA approve, with FIFA backing, a rival league to MLS? If not there, then not here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnnie Monster Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 Can't help but wonder if this has more to do with the fact that NuRock can't possibly afford to sue Nike for pulling a bait & switch... this is their next best and only option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted December 10, 2009 Author Share Posted December 10, 2009 Surely NuRock was aware when they made their bid to buy the majority shareholding in USL that negotiations between USL/Nike and the TOA about retsructuring USL-1 were ongoing, that according to Bob lennarduzzi had been ongoing for a couple of years prior. If not then they should be going after Nike for witholding critical information that could and did materially affect the value of the asset they were bidding to buy. USL without their elite first division is worth considerably less than a USL with a 15 team thriving first division, even if they have a plethora of busy youth leagues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S. It would be rather outrageous for the USSF or even the CSA to be giving the green light to any and all leagues that happen to be created for whatever reason in whatever region under any old pretexts. It does not happen anywhere else in the world, I see no reason for it to happen here. If it doesn't happen any where in the world.....get ready, because it might happen here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Impact Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 Looks like some teams are going to be declarong Bankruptcy, and opening shop under a different entity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.