jspice Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 So the USSF has denied sanctioning of either league for 2010, although they have 7 days to come to an agreement. I think that the major stumbling block for the NASL was not having at least 8 viable teams; hopefully in the next week we will see the strong USL holdouts (notably portland) jumping ship to NASL to reach the threshold of 8 viable teams, or some sort of compromise between the leagues. press release: http://www.ussoccer.com/News/Articles/2009/12/US-Soccer-BOD-Votes-to-Not-Sanction-Division-II-League.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marco07 Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 I was about to post the same thing. Crazy news. Will Canada step up and sanction the league now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DigzTFC Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 "U.S. Soccer’s Professional League Task Force is chaired by Flynn, and includes board members Carlos Cordeiro and Mike Edwards.” http://blogs.democratandchronicle.com/devo/2009/12/07/us-soccer-gives-league-dec-9-deadline/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyrus Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 Does a league that operates cross-border actually need approval from both governing bodies? How many cross-federation leagues exist? Australia, Ireland, France, England all come to mind. Enough that it's a fairly common thing. Would just having CSA approval be enough to avoid being listed as a rebel league? Probably not. So it's probably a double-veto between the CSA and USSF. A potential season of no football in Montreal and Vancouver is a BAD BAD thing for the fans. But it may be doable for the owners. After all, if they're not making any money, they also aren't losing any if they lock the doors and wait for the MLS entry draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calgary Boomer Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 Except that many teams are carrying signed players. That's a decent chunk of change for some of the smaller clubs. I just can't see NASL and USL coming to a "comprimise". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 The USSF is playing brinkmanship here. Are they really willing to put a couple of hundred professional players out of work for a year and possibly force yet more clubs to dissolve? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jeffery S. Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Richard The USSF is playing brinkmanship here. Are they really willing to put a couple of hundred professional players out of work for a year and possibly force yet more clubs to dissolve? In my opinion, for the good of the game, it is absolutely the best solution. An agreement between the two entities, amical or not. Two competitive leagues is a disaster, a total absolute disaster for the pro game. And it will lead to the failure of one or the other, the destruction of soccer markets, confusion amongst the fans. I refuse to jump on the Whitecaps bandwagon on this one. And not only because I think them doing it the year before heading off to MLS is pretty damn cynical. Just because you have cause to be annoyed or think you are being mistreated, or have a legal grudge, does not mean you can go out in a seccessionist attitude and expect to be rubber-stamped. On what basis should that happen? On the basis of money, prestige or whatever else you want to throw at the authorities? I don't think so. I don't understand how anyone can really believe that two 2nd tier leagues competing in North America can be a good thing or that there is some sort of moral good in siding with one or the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toronto Ruffrider Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Cyrus Does a league that operates cross-border actually need approval from both governing bodies? How many cross-federation leagues exist? Australia, Ireland, France, England all come to mind. Enough that it's a fairly common thing. Would just having CSA approval be enough to avoid being listed as a rebel league? Probably not. So it's probably a double-veto between the CSA and USSF. A potential season of no football in Montreal and Vancouver is a BAD BAD thing for the fans. But it may be doable for the owners. After all, if they're not making any money, they also aren't losing any if they lock the doors and wait for the MLS entry draft. Couldn't the NASL operate without sanctioning? I thought sanctioning was more in regard to teams playing in CONCACAF or FIFA competitions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmcmurph Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 I thought NASL has more than 8 teams? Have any of these pulled out? A.C. St. Louis Atlanta Silverbacks Carolina RailHawks FC Crystal Palace Baltimore Miami FC Minnesota Thunder Montreal Impact Rochester Rhinos Tampa Bay Rowdies Vancouver Whitecaps I do hope they come to some sort of agreement between NASL & USL. I think the USSF holding both of their feet to the fire is a good thing in that regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trillium Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 [ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jeffery S. Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Trillium [ Couldn't the NASL operate without sanctioning? I thought sanctioning was more in regard to teams playing in CONCACAF or FIFA competitions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winnipeg Fury Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 Here's hoping the CSA step up to the plate and sanction the NASL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmcmurph Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S. You are suggesting the CSA pull out the rug under the USSF's feet? Nice try. We play in US-based leagues as a favour, as a concession, as freaks. Don't forget it, and let's not get cocky. This is Canada. WE have no league of our own and one of the most totally fcked FAs in the known universe. Take what you can get, shut up, and follow the ones who call the shots. Yes we are the pimple on the ass of the USA but we aspire to be so much more! Lets try and be a hemorrhoid [8D] The CSA could do it but like you pointed out our FA would be meat in minutes against the USSF. Lets hope the NASL/USL settle it and quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jeffery S. Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 The CSA cannot sanction US teams. Unless there is a FIFA concession that says that US based teams are playing in a Canadian league, like Varduz does in Switzerland, or Auckland in an Aussie league. Is that going to happen, a majority of US-based teams in a Canadian league? If the CSA makes any move to approve a league against the will of the USSF, that would give them reason to simply shut out all Canadian teams from US soccer leagues, including MLS. The USSF is doing the right thing, and I think there is a hell of a lot of immaturity out there in support of the new league, for reasons that are pure partisan and not properly thought out. The normal and natural thing to do in case of a schism is to cut it at the bud and force it to come to terms with the existing structure. By not sanctioning the USL either, they are forcing them too. Both, with their clubs and fans, have to sit down and come to an agreement. Is that a sacrifice? Agreements between parts that don't see eye to eye always involve sacrifice. Since our only existing pro clubs are going to be in MLS within a short time, so it seems, why the hell should we care whether Vancouver or Montreal have to tough it out in a league they don't like for a year or three? Worse things have happened and the game goes on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free kick Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 Terrible news. So what happens now? we play the Voyageurs cups competition to crown a champion but only one club out of the three can play on the Concacaf Champions league? You can bet that TFC wont bother to field a first team squad if that's the case. Or will they even bother with the Voyageurs cup next year. This was actually the competition that I looked fwd to the most. Maybe the earlier point is right and that the USSF decision is a way to force the hand of the two entities to come to terms. No santioning also spells the end of the US Open cup. But that is minor blow compared to what would happened in Canada. This makes it even more imperative for the Montreal Impact to get into MLS by 2011. Even as it stands now, with the potential of a one year hole in the competition, would they still be able to hold on to the major sponsor (Nutralite)? Because, no sponsor means no competition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raven Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 http://www.montrealimpact.com/News/News.aspx?language=EN&ArticleID=1291&Focus=0 Reaction from NASL The North American Soccer League or “NASL” has been advised that its application to the United States Soccer Federation for membership as a Division II professional league was not granted. While disappointed with this outcome, NASL continues to believe that it and its member teams would, if sanctioned, make a significant positive contribution to soccer in the United States and Canada. NASL respects the Federation’s decision and its suggested course of action for obtaining sanctioning in 2010. NASL will continue during the next seven days to work in good faith towards an interim solution with United Soccer Leagues. “We continue to believe in the process and we are still working on a solution with the USSF,” said Impact president Joey Saputo. “There are still discussions going on and we are confident to reach an agreement in the next seven days.” NASL will have no further comment on this matter until a resolution has been reached or the negotiation period has expired. NASL and its 11 member teams are committed to building on their long tradition of providing quality soccer to fans across the United States and in Canada in 2010 and beyond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 I suspect it is NuRock who are refusing to make any concessions as they believe they have the upper hand, even though they only have three clubs left in their first division. The TOA has been trying to negotiate with USL for several years now even though the dispute only went public in 2009 after NuRock became the majority shareholder through some rather reportedly dubious (read bad faith) tactics on the part of the previous USL ownership and management which prompted the breakaway. Interesting that the USSF acknowledges fewer than eight viable teams in TOA while the TOA/NASL response talks about eleven member clubs. Apparently a differenc eof opinion on the viability of some NASL clubs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vic Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 And the USL's: http://www.uslsoccer.com/home/390471.html As Shakespeare and Holmes would say, the game is afoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vic Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 "Although USL is respectful of the need to ensure that decisions being made are in the best interests of soccer and player development in the United States [admitting this caveat would seem to imply that the NASL successfully convinced the USSF that the USL wasn't acting in this manner], it has detailed in its recent USL-1 2010 season re-sanctioning presentation that it is both willing and able to meet all published USSF Division II Men’s Professional League standards, including fielding a minimum of eight teams." Wonder who they are? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 The NASL franchises (especially Vancouver and Montreal) cannot afford to sit out 2010. It would do serious damage to the professional game within their markets and it would be hard to start up again in 2011. If an accommodation with USL is not possible, they have to go ahead and play without sanctioning or see if US div III sanctioning is possible. Meanwhile, the CSA should look at the viability of sanctioning Vancouver and Montreal as Canadian division I or II teams so they can continue to look beyond the Voyageurs Cup to CONCACAF club competition. Looks to me like the USL need to make a deal. If the NASL goes ahead and plays without sanctioning, USL cannot follow suit (based on the information currently available) and their bluff of having enough teams will be called. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeta Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 NASL doesn't need the USSF sanctioning to operate. On the surface the only thing it means is that NASL clubs can't participate in FIFA/CONCACAF competitions. Kick in the gut for all concerned but if you have to give up 2010 you have to give up 2010. Short term pain for long term gain. Besides, if the NASL can reasonably demonstrate they can field a league which meets the USSF past and current criteria I wouldn't want to be in the USSF's shoes. I'm sure there would be a legion of lawyers lining up to protect the American sports consumer from the USSF's predatory practices in collusion with the USL. Like ray wrote above, USL can't field anything reasonably resembling a 1st Division this year, next year or in the foreseeable future. USL has called in what favors they have with their buddies in the USSF to push the issue a bit but that can only get them so far. Don't know the by-laws governing multi national leagues so the CSA sanctioning the league might not accomplish anything outside of the symbolic, except it would probably piss off the USSF. Big deal. Wouldn't worry me one bit. The CSA needs a club competition, why should they sacrifice the extremely popular Voyageur's Cup to reinforce some business relationships in the US footie circles? Look after your own yard first. It'll improve your image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 Per FIFA rules, players can be banned for life from playing in any sanctioned league if they participate in an unsanctioned one. Players who hope to one day (or already do) represent their countries on the international stage could be banned from their national teams. For everyone involved, including owners, coaches, and players, the risk of burning the bridge that connects them with the greater soccer world could be too much to ask. (Quoted from Match Fit USA) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vic Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 Would nine American teams play in a Canadian league? I guess if they had no other choice and were going to lose their investments, but otherwise it would be a last resort. We're like a combination of Mickey Mousetown and the Arctic to them. There was an attempt at a USSF breakaway women's professional league a decade ago that had everyone on board - investors, the biggest name U.S. players like Mia Hamm, and the biggest global sporting brands as sponsors. They knew they could play without USSF sanctioning too, but sponsors pulled the plug on them when they were ultimately denied by the federation and the whole thing collapsed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 Anybody can play anywhere as long as it doesn't break the country's laws but there can and most certainly would be professional consequences for all concerned if the NASL were to play a league season unsanctioned. A series of meaningless exhibition games on the other hand may be a quite different matter but one has to wonder what the fan response would be and what's the point of playing in all but empty stadiums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeta Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Richard Per FIFA rules, players can be banned for life from playing in any sanctioned league if they participate in an unsanctioned one. ... 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.