Islanders Jump to NASL

[rico]

http://www.nasl.com/article/puerto-rico-islanders-join-nasl

[TFCRegina]

The last nail in the coffin of the USL.

[rico]

now only Austin is part of the USL-1

[jloome]

Under the new div 2 guidelines, this means Edmonton doesn't have a team in NASL next year unless Montreal drops out or they can find four more American teams.

Puerto Rico isn't part of the USSF, and under the new rules, 75% of teams in the league must come from the U.S. That only leaves two spaces for non-U.S. teams, and Montreal is in until 2012.

Something to be worked out.

[Richard]

I understood that 25% rule has always been there but has been ignored so there is hope yet for Edmonton. Puerto Rico is a US protectorate so the opportunity is there to bend the rules a bit.

[jloome]

I understood that 25% rule has always been there but has been ignored so there is hope yet for Edmonton. Puerto Rico is a US protectorate so the opportunity is there to bend the rules a bit.

Nope, it's a hard rule now instead of a general guideline according to USSF, so I don't expect they'll ignore it. More likely, Puerto Rico will be out for a year while it lines up ownership that meets the money guidelines; OR Edmonton will be out for a year, then take Montreal's slot in 2012.

[Lord Bob]

If Edmonton gets their 2011 franchise pulled, how many millions of dollars are the USSF and NASL going to get sued for? I'm hoping quite a few millions of dollars.

[Blue and White Army]

Nope, it's a hard rule now instead of a general guideline according to USSF, so I don't expect they'll ignore it.

They'll ignore it. Or at least, current clubs will be "grandfathered" in.

[Smapti]

Nope, it's a hard rule now instead of a general guideline according to USSF, so I don't expect they'll ignore it. More likely, Puerto Rico will be out for a year while it lines up ownership that meets the money guidelines; OR Edmonton will be out for a year, then take Montreal's slot in 2012.

The NASL has 10 teams including Montreal, Edmonton and PR. All they need is 2 more teams and there were rumors of applications from Michigan, San Diego and Arizona. Maybe Austin moves over? I think the other stipulations like $20 million majority owner, soccer specific stadium with minimum? capacity will be more of a problem for some of these clubs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Soccer_League_%282010%29#Proposed_teams_for_2011

[jasonm]

Edmonton FC can apply for a waiver to play, I believe.

[tmcmurph]

Any bets on Austin leaving as well? They are the only thing left out west next year and are actually closer to most of the eastern teams than anything else. Ah the good old USL gong show continues. Why didn't they just do Futsal for their indoor game? Why didn't they just sell to the owners? Why why why?

[BringBackTheBlizzard]

Edmonton FC can apply for a waiver to play, I believe.

From what I've read based on comments by one of the Railhawks owners, it is actually Puerto Rico who will be applying for a waiver given they lack an investor with a personal net worth of $20 million and Edmonton are one of the core six franchises that meet all the requirements:

http://blogs.newsobserver.com/swakesports/nasl-to-submit-its-bid-for-league-this-week

Ten teams make up the proposed NASL: Carolina, Puerto Rico, Montreal, FC Tampa Bay, Miami FC, Rochester, NSC Minnesota, Crystal Palace Baltimore, AC St. Louis and expansion franchise FC Edmonton.

"There are six of us who meet all of the standards, so we're two short," Wellman said. "The candidates [who do not meet all of the standards] would be St. Louis, Baltimore, Puerto Rico and Minnesota, who are not in the core six."

...Puerto Rico, which was aligned with the USL before signing on with NASL this week, doesn't meet the owner requirement. But the Islanders have been around since 2004 and recently defeated the LA Galaxy 4-1 in the prestigious CONCACAF Champions League.

"They've never done anything but play at a high level and represent our league at a high level," Wellman said. "Trying to get a waiver for them we think would not be that difficult."

...

[jedinathan]

Thanks again for all the information guys.. I was crazy excited about FCE starting next year, and hearing that we may get kicked out of the NASL because of the 75% US requirement was more than a little disheartening.

I also find it a little funny that out of the 6 that meet the requirements, 2 are Canadian... Good to see owners standing behind their organizations up here.

[jloome]

The NASL has 10 teams including Montreal, Edmonton and PR. All they need is 2 more teams and there were rumors of applications from Michigan, San Diego and Arizona. Maybe Austin moves over? I think the other stipulations like $20 million majority owner, soccer specific stadium with minimum? capacity will be more of a problem for some of these clubs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Soccer_League_%282010%29#Proposed_teams_for_2011

Nope. St. Louis, Minnesota, Baltimore all don't meet the new guidelines and right now are unlikely to play next year, according to most of the reports out of the league meetings so far.

So there are only eight. And no, there is no "waiver" right now, except on the length of time to develop a stadium. Originally, the rule was that there had to be 5,000 seats. Now, it's that the club must have a place to play and a plan for a stadium with at least 5,000 seats; that was probably a concession to keep Edmonton in, so that's positive, with respect to where the league sees its priorities.

But there are serious politics involved here; several other owners are apparently concerned about the travel costs of coming up here. It's interesting.

[jloome]

From what I've read based on comments by one of the Railhawks owners, it is actually Puerto Rico who will be applying for a waiver given they lack an investor with a personal net worth of $20 million and Edmonton are one of the core six franchises that meet all the requirements:

http://blogs.newsobserver.com/swakesports/nasl-to-submit-its-bid-for-league-this-week

Ten teams make up the proposed NASL: Carolina, Puerto Rico, Montreal, FC Tampa Bay, Miami FC, Rochester, NSC Minnesota, Crystal Palace Baltimore, AC St. Louis and expansion franchise FC Edmonton.

"There are six of us who meet all of the standards, so we're two short," Wellman said. "The candidates [who do not meet all of the standards] would be St. Louis, Baltimore, Puerto Rico and Minnesota, who are not in the core six."

...Puerto Rico, which was aligned with the USL before signing on with NASL this week, doesn't meet the owner requirement. But the Islanders have been around since 2004 and recently defeated the LA Galaxy 4-1 in the prestigious CONCACAF Champions League.

"They've never done anything but play at a high level and represent our league at a high level," Wellman said. "Trying to get a waiver for them we think would not be that difficult."

...

But if Puerto Rico gets a waiver, it's a waiver from meeting the ownership wealth guidelines, not from being in the USSF. So that still leaves the problem of having more than two clubs outside the U.S. in an eight-team league.

I'd also point out that USL is gearing up for a fight to be the sole second division, and while people who aren't following both leagues may not realize it, Austin and Rochester, though the only two Div. 2's left, are stronger organizations, by far, that anyone in NASL. In fact, if you've been following the various insider reporters on NASL ownership, I would not be that confident.

It's interesting, to be sure. I've talked to Edmonton's owner a few times and he's certainly committed to making it work.

[jedinathan]

I'd also point out that USL is gearing up for a fight to be the sole second division, and while people who aren't following both leagues may not realize it, Austin and Rochester, though the only two Div. 2's left, are stronger organizations, by far, that anyone in NASL.

Isn't Rochester already into the NASL? With the USL only having Austin, it makes it a little difficult to see them seriously challenging for D2 status (as far as I can see it, which isn't far. I mostly rely on these boards to find out the latest news...).

Good to hear about how committed the Edmonton owners are. I had my concerns, but everything everyone has said about the owners has been awesome.

[BringBackTheBlizzard]

Rochester are definitely part of the NASL's sanctioning bid. See the link I posted above. Only Austin are sticking with USL at this point. Think some dubious assertions have been made in this thread by people who want to see the NASL fail to get off the ground. We'll find out soon enough how this all pans out and to what extent the USSF actually plan to stick rigidly to their D2 sanctioning requirements.

[L.T.]

Think some dubious assertions have been made in this thread by people who want to see the NASL fail to get off the ground.

One poster made one assertion. Every other post is anti-USL or neutral... Do you have to make up things to be condescending about now?

[bettermirror]

Quite surprised Austin isn't moving over as well to be honest - they seem so much more ambitious than remaining with basically a D3.

[BringBackTheBlizzard]

There are rumours on other boards that Austin may still try to join the NASL if they receive sanctioning and there's even a recent quote in the Austin Chronicle attributed to their chief executive officer that appears to back that up:

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Sports/Blogs/index.html/objID1077108/blogID/

But Aztex Chief Executive Officer Djorn Buchholz says he's happy with the Aztex’s position; Rawlins has kept all the team's options open, and “as we’ve said all along … we’ll be playing second division soccer next year,” wherever that turns out to be.

Rawlins clarified a bit later in a written statement: “Austin Aztex are not an NASL affiliated club and as such will not be participating in their proposal. The NASL bid fails to meet several of the criteria laid down as ‘mandatory’ for sanctioning by the USSF.”

If Rawlins is right, and the USSF does turn down the NASL bid, the feds will likely run the league directly again as the “USSF Division 2.” If they by some chance accept the NASL proposal – and most of its members do meet the USSF’s new viability standards – then I expect the Aztex will join almost immediately, and be warmly welcomed.

[RJB]

With Montreal leaving to MLS in 2012, I don't see this being an issue for Edmonton.

That said, these are are the things that happen when we are piggy-backing on an American league. A rule that requires 75% of the teams being American basically puts a cap on Canadian profession clubs. I see it extremely unlikely that any Canadian city could get a new MLS team ahead of American cities now, and how many second division clubs can we expect? Three?

[Tuscan]

Edmonton will be in, Puerto Rico just declared their willingness to adhere to USSF's D2 standards by making the jump, and surely either Ottawa or Hamilton will have a franchise in the next few years. Just remember, with Montreal jumping to MLS, there'll be room for a second Canadian side in two years.

[BringBackTheBlizzard]

That said, these are are the things that happen when we are piggy-backing on an American league. A rule that requires 75% of the teams being American basically puts a cap on Canadian profession clubs. I see it extremely unlikely that any Canadian city could get a new MLS team ahead of American cities now, and how many second division clubs can we expect? Three?

According to some people, who appear to be in the know, the 75% rule has always been there so nothing really changed in that regard. Prior to this season people were tying themselves in knots speculating about what would happen at the D2 level with all kinds of dire scenarios being discussed but a common sense solution was arrived at by the USSF and all of the clubs that wanted to be involved at D2 level in 2010 were involved. Best to wait to see what the USSF actually does over sanctioning the NASL before jumping to conclusions over what might happen in 2011 and beyond. I suspect the USSF's agenda in recent weeks has been to ensure that only one league eventually winds up getting sanctioned at D2 level and that using a few waivers to reach the number of clubs required for sanctioning a single league will be seen as better than having no D2 level league at all next summer.

[jpg75]

^ Exactly. Why would the USSF go out of it's way to make sure D2 doesn't happen? They'll bend some of their own rules and make sure there are atleast 8 teams to have a viable league...