Puerto Rico FC - Bad News for NASL Expansion in Canada

[Drillers81]

The NASL's announcement of it's 13th franchise being awarded to Puerto Rico FC, under the ownership of NBA star Carmelo Anthony, is a bad news story all around for Canada's two NASL teams and the potential for additional clubs in Canada.

 

For Edmonton and Ottawa, their travel bill just got bigger.  Puerto Rico last played in the NASL in 2011, the Islanders went on hiatus following that season, originally planning a fall 2012 return then 2013, before eventually going belly up.  The current structure of the league (Spring and Fall Schedules) is not amenable to having teams play twice on a trip to Puerto Rico, as they currently only play once versus each opponent in the spring (either home or away) and twice (once home, once away) in the fall.  This means that every trip to Puerto Rico will be for one game only.

 

Secondly, as a non-American team, Puerto Rico counts against the maximum of 25% of teams that can be based outside the US, reducing the potential for additional Canadian teams.  This would mean to get one more Canadian team, the league must also add two more American teams (a 16-team league).

 

For the vast majority of US-based teams, in particular the four Florida-based teams, Puerto Rico is a welcome addition as the trip to San Juan is shorter, and more direct than their annual (and sometimes twice annual) trips to Edmonton.  For the owners of FC Edmonton, being in the NASL just got a little more expensive.

[shamrock]

Yet they agreed to get them on board. NASL does really lean towards the southeast ATM though. 

[Jason]

Should be interesting to see if that makes FCE and/or the Fury be more interested in the rumoured Canadian league.

 

Jason

[CDNFootballer]

The NASL's announcement of it's 13th franchise being awarded to Puerto Rico FC, under the ownership of NBA star Carmelo Anthony, is a bad news story all around for Canada's two NASL teams and the potential for additional clubs in Canada.

 

For Edmonton and Ottawa, their travel bill just got bigger.  Puerto Rico last played in the NASL in 2011, the Islanders went on hiatus following that season, originally planning a fall 2012 return then 2013, before eventually going belly up.  The current structure of the league (Spring and Fall Schedules) is not amenable to having teams play twice on a trip to Puerto Rico, as they currently only play once versus each opponent in the spring (either home or away) and twice (once home, once away) in the fall.  This means that every trip to Puerto Rico will be for one game only.

 

Secondly, as a non-American team, Puerto Rico counts against the maximum of 25% of teams that can be based outside the US, reducing the potential for additional Canadian teams.  This would mean to get one more Canadian team, the league must also add two more American teams (a 16-team league).

 

For the vast majority of US-based teams, in particular the four Florida-based teams, Puerto Rico is a welcome addition as the trip to San Juan is shorter, and more direct than their annual (and sometimes twice annual) trips to Edmonton.  For the owners of FC Edmonton, being in the NASL just got a little more expensive.

 

Puerto Rico last played in the NASL in the 2012 season.

 

Hamilton can still join the league with a waiver from USSF which wouldn't be that hard to get so no real impediment there (would be 14 clubs with 10 US so 71% instead of 75% US, even more (73%) with Hartford City added (2017) which should be coming up very soon). USSF wants to maintain a strong D2 and Hamilton's entry would strengthen the league, they're not going to be arbitrarily strict on a few percent.

 

Edmonton gets a cut of expansion fees for each club added to NASL so that will help with the added travel costs for a game or two and then some.

[Blackdude]

Hamilton can still join the league with a waiver from USSF which wouldn't be that hard to get so no real impediment there (would be 14 clubs with 10 US so 71% instead of 75% US, even more (73%) with Hartford City added (2017) which should be coming up very soon). USSF wants to maintain a strong D2 and Hamilton's entry would strengthen the league, they're not going to be arbitrarily strict on a few percent.

Why would USSF grant a waiver to NASL if USL fits all the rigt boxes of a US Division 2 when NASL doesn't?

[shamrock]

Cause USL doesn't fit all the right boxes. Far from it.

[CDNFootballer]

And NASL is the most stable D2 there's ever been in North America and they are improving each year.

 

USSF is not going to take sanctioning away from the best D2 league they've had and give it to a lesser league which Usl will still be even if they received D2 sanctioning. Usl is a minor farm team development league and NASL a Pro Independant league.

 

Regardless of numeric level things will be much the same as they are now with the two league's having different purposes, business models, and quality.

[madmonte]

What kind of quality?  I mean USL teams just wiped the floor with NASL teams in US Open Cup play.  

[CDNFootballer]

What kind of quality?  I mean USL teams just wiped the floor with NASL teams in US Open Cup play.  

 

Don't hold that up as a barometer of quality of play between the league's, it was a handful of games. NASL quality of play on the field is still higher than Usl.

 

If we're going to use a few games to simplistically stretch it to mean that much then FC Edmonton's very nearly beating one of MLS's best teams in this years Voyageurs cup means they and NASL are at nearly the same quality of play as MLS as the Eddies aren't the best team in NASL but still did well vs the Caps with a 1-1 draw in Vancouver and falling in a lucky bounce 96th minute goal by the Caps. NASL also did better vs Usl teams in games earlier this year and in last years USOC. They also did well vs MLS teams in last years USOC with the Cosmos beating NYRB's 3-0 for instance and other NASL clubs knocking out MLS squads.

[Dub Narcotic]

Don't hold that up as a barometer of quality of play between the league's, it was a handful of games. NASL quality of play on the field is still higher than Usl.

 

If we're going to use a few games to simplistically stretch it to mean that much then FC Edmonton's very nearly beating one of MLS's best teams in this years Voyageurs cup means they and NASL are at nearly the same quality of play as MLS as the Eddies aren't the best team in NASL but still did well vs the Caps with a 1-1 draw in Vancouver and falling in a lucky bounce 96th minute goal by the Caps. NASL also did better vs Usl teams in games earlier this year and in last years USOC. They also did well vs MLS teams in last years USOC with the Cosmos beating NYRB's 3-0 for instance and other NASL clubs knocking out MLS squads.

 

OK, so don't use results when they make NASL teams look bad, but do use them when they make NASL teams looks good. Got it.

[madmonte]

I don't see a huge difference in the NASL quality and USL quality from an on-the-field standpoint.  The talent level is pretty similar.  On the field.  I could make a long post about how I'm not basing it off one competition of results, but if I was basing it off one year, USL would be better.  I don't actually think they are better.  I'm saying USL and NASL are roughly equal to me.  End of story.

 

Again, ON THE FIELD quality only is what I'm discussing here.

[Blackdude]

Cause USL doesn't fit all the right boxes. Far from it.

 

Name me where? I'm not pro-USL, but please tell me what boxes aren't filled by USL.

[madmonte]

By all the criteria I read for what a league needs to be granted Div 2 status, USL checks every checkbox.  I've said this before, I honestly think that they may be granted said status after much deliberation...

[ted]

... please tell me what boxes aren't filled by USL.

 

For reference: USSF Div 2 Standards

[shamrock]

1. II. Division II Men’s Outdoor League:
   1. Composition; Play
      1. i.     League must have a minimum of eight teams to apply.  By year three, the league must have a minimum of 10 teams.  By year six, the league must have a minimum of 12 teams.
      2. ii.     U.S.-based teams must participate in all representative CONCACAF competitions for which they are eligible.

1. Markets; Stadia; and Fields
   1. i.     In the first year, U.S.-based teams must be located in at least two different time zones in the continental United States.  By year six, U.S.-based teams must be located in at least three different time zones.
   2. ii.     At least 75 percent of the league’s teams must play in metropolitan markets of at least 750,000 persons.
   3. iii.     League stadiums must have a minimum seating capacity of 5,000.
   4. iv.     Not later than 120 days prior to the start of each season, each team shall have a lease for one full season with its home stadium.

1. Financial Viability
   1. i.     Each team must submit a letter of credit in the amount of $750,000 with the joint beneficiaries being the Federation and the league in a form satisfactory to the Federation on an annual basis.   The letter of credit will be used to cover the costs of the team’s operations (including, without limitation, player and staff salaries and wages, stadium lease commitments and third party vendor obligations in addition to commitments by each team to the league) for a season should that become necessary.  The letters of credit must be submitted 120 days prior to the start of the next season for each team.  Any team that utilizes the letter of credit during the season will be required to replenish the letter of credit at least 120 days prior to the next year.
   2. ii.     Each team ownership group must demonstrate the financial capacity to operate the team for three years.  As part of the process of demonstrating financial capacity, each ownership group must provide detailed financial history, verifiable individual financial net worth statements for each member of its ownership group owning at least a five percent (5%) interest in the team and projections (including a detailed budget) for the team to the Federation in a form satisfactory to the Federation.
   3. iii.     Each team must have and designate one principal owner that owns at least 35% of the team and has authority to bind the team.  Such principal owner must have an individual net worth of at least twenty million US dollars exclusive of the value of his/her ownership in the league or team.
   4. iv.     Any prospective team principal owner must meet with Federation staff regarding the responsibilities of owning a team.  In the case of a new league, each team principal owner in the new league and the senior league personnel must meet with Federation staff on an individual basis, as required by the Federation.
   5. v.     The league will furnish to the Federation prompt written notice of the following (and, in any event, within five business days of the league obtaining knowledge thereof):
      1. any violation of these standards,  specifying the nature and extent thereof and the corrective action (if any) taken or proposed to be taken with respect thereto;
      2. the filing or commencement of, or any written threat or notice of intention of any person to file or commence, any action, suit, litigation or proceeding, whether at law or in equity by or before any governmental authority, against the league or one or more teams in the league that could reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect.
      3. any development that has resulted in, or could reasonably be expected to result in, a Material Adverse Effect.
      4. “Material Adverse Effect” shall mean a material adverse change in or effect on the business, condition (financial or otherwise), results of operations, assets or liabilities of the league and/or its teams, individually or taken as a whole; ( the ability of the league or its teams to perform any of its obligations under these Standards; or © the ability of the league or its teams to meet any of their financial obligations.

1. Team Organization
   1. i.     All of the required positions must be filled by full-time staff during the season.

 

- See more at: http://www.insidemnsoccer.com/2010/08/12/ussf-d-2-professional-league-standards/#sthash.TFSF00Xk.dpuf

[shamrock]

When the NASL teams split off from USL, USSF took the opportunity to improve D2 standards. They didn't do that without good reason. Soccer has been very unstable in the US as we all know. The fact that NASL might not be able to fulfill 1 requirement, doesn't change the fact that they do meet a lot of the other requirements, like the principal owner, or that stadiums need to be 5k plus, or that 75 percent of the league’s teams must play in metropolitan markets of at least 750,000 persons. 

 

USL Pro doesn't meet any of those standards. 

[madmonte]

Well that's one non-checkmarked box...not every team is in a 5000+ stadium.

 

[CDNFootballer]

OK, so don't use results when they make NASL teams look bad, but do use them when they make NASL teams looks good. Got it.

 

lol, read what I wrote again and look for the "if".

 

Don't read too much into and make a stretch by taking a few one off usoc matches OR a home and home NASL vs MLS series to be the gold standard in on field quality of play. MLS>NASL>Usl no matter what the fanboys say.

[CDNFootballer]

Well that's one non-checkmarked box...not every team is in a 5000+ stadium.

 

 

Not all Usl teams have a principle owner worth $20 million either but we're getting off the thread topic.

 

Back on topic, with a waiver which has been given by USSF to league's in the past I don't think it affects a Hamilton NASL club. They may likely be going to the new Canadian league though if it gets off the ground.

 

With regards to the new Puerto Rico FC NASL club, it puts money in FC Edmonton's pockets so it won't nudge them to the Canadian D1A. With the limited number of games in PR I don't think it does for Ottawa either.

[madmonte]

lol, read what I wrote again and look for the "if".

 

Don't read too much into and make a stretch by taking a few one off usoc matches OR a home and home NASL vs MLS series to be the gold standard in on field quality of play. MLS>NASL>Usl no matter what the fanboys say.

 

I am NOT a USL fanboy, far from it.  I just preach what I feel to be the truth.

 

NASL>USL I agree.  Except on the pitch, where they are roughly equal.  No matter what the haters say.

[shamrock]

Not all Usl teams have a principle owner worth $20 million either but we're getting off the thread topic.

 

Back on topic, with a waiver which has been given by USSF to league's in the past I don't think it affects a Hamilton NASL club. They may likely be going to the new Canadian league though if it gets off the ground.

 

With regards to the new Puerto Rico FC NASL club, it puts money in FC Edmonton's pockets so it won't nudge them to the Canadian D1A. With the limited number of games in PR I don't think it does for Ottawa either.

 

Question is why would they be investing in an NASL franchise, only to leave for a new league? Better to wait then no?

 

And as much as I would like to see Edmonton and the Fury in the Canadian D1, I don't know how easy that would be. Do they have a non-compete clause? I know it's a 500.000 dollar exit fee which still is a lot of money...

[CDNFootballer]

Question is why would they be investing in an NASL franchise, only to leave for a new league? Better to wait then no?

 

And as much as I would like to see Edmonton and the Fury in the Canadian D1, I don't know how easy that would be. Do they have a non-compete clause? I know it's a 500.000 dollar exit fee which still is a lot of money...

 

Yup, better to wait if they have plans to join the Canadian D1A in 2017 as expansion clubs are now $3 million in NASL.

 

No non compete that I know of and the exit fee is now $1 million apparently.