Respuesta: Re: NASL News 2009 Part 1 Heck even switching to PRSL would be a better idea for the Islanders than staying with USL!
It may also cause them to favor blowing up both leagues and seeing where the chips land. It may also cause them to favor ponies and rainbows, but we don't know which way it goes until they come down with a decision. If there is a contract in place between USL and the three teams, that would seem to leave USL in the stronger negotiating position here, regardless of them negotiating with the teams or not.
Re: Respuesta: Re: NASL News 2009 Part 1 Considering the post I was responding to, I assumed the alternate was self-evident. Apparently I was wrong.
Maybe yes maybe no. As far as i heard two teams have contracts. The rhinos have a verbal commitment. And verbal commitments are hard to prove in court. What the most USL may get? Money and that may cost them division 2 status. Even if USSF decide on 2 division 2 leagues, the fact that USL filed a lawsuit in US court. FIFA will not be happy about. Another thing what's gonna stop TOA from trying to get NASL sanctioned in division 2 after the USL 2010 season? NASL are in better position then USL is cause they can wait a year then try again after the 2010 season.
I don't think it really matters. At this point USL is just trying to drag this out long enough that they stop NASL from playing next year and give themselves enough time to get 8 teams. Stopping USSF from sanctioning NASL will go a long way to them getting those 8 teams, be it getting the teams back into the fold, even for just a year, or giving new teams that were holding out until the situation is resolved the nudge they need to get in.
It's totally possible that the USSF will base its decision of sanctioning NASL or USL-1 for second division status on the capacities of the selected league to be able to sustain a league in the future.
But is it worth it since their status as division 2 is at stake here. I'm somewhat expecting some sort backlash against USL by USSF.
In your scenario, next year, the TOA teams will want to leave USL-1 again and will form the new league, nothing will stop them. This time, Portland won't be around and every teams will know that the separatists are serious. So, it's possible that teams like Puerto Rico or Austin won't pay their fees and leave, like it's possible that some teams will want to stay with the USL-1. The major difference is that, next year, USSF sanctioning wouldn't have any reason of not happening.
I don't see any kind of ruling coming down from USSF that doesn't involve USL dropping the lawsuits. That was just a bad move by USL. Any disagreements are supposed to be handled within "the family" which means you don't get the US courts involved. The most favorable outcome I think that NuRock can hope for is for USSF to say that they are not going to sanction NASL this year and all NASL clubs, that want to, are to play in USL-1. However, NuRock is to restructure the league in a manner that meets the approval of the team owners (or at least 2/3 of them), and if they can't do this, they will lose USSF sanctioning starting 2011 and the NASL application will be approved. I don't think this will happen, but as I said, I think its the best that NuRock can hope for in that it would at least give them some kind of ownership in Div. II league beyond 2010.
Fortunately for us, we're not the ones to determine whether or not USL's case is strong. You are correct that there is nothing stopping TOA from getting NASL sanctioned after the 2010 season, but yet again, this isn't about the 2011 season, it's about the 2010 season. Prevent NASL from getting sanctioned and some of the break-away teams might come back into the fold because they won't be able to play anywhere else next year. If that happens, they can spend the year looking for new teams to replace the break away teams and hopefully have the replacements lined up for the 2011 season. Of course, all of that being said, the reference to USFL is very appropriate. USL could find themselves winning the lawsuit, but in the end being the ultimate loser.
I realize the "FIFA hates lawsuits" idea is very popular here, and I know about the situation in Chile, but wasn't that because they were suing because the team broke a FIFA rule? FIFA got involved there because they don't want governments to have a say in the rules of the game. This is different. This is a business dispute, not a sport dispute. Just throwing that out there. Also, while it may be fantasy that USL-1 can magically have 8-10 teams materialize in time for next season, it is also a bit of fantasy that 8 NASL teams will be ready by then. I'm looking at you Atlanta, Minnesota, St. Louis and Tampa Bay. Don't forget, none of these teams have players.
DemonJuice, True it maybe a business dispute but it could still be frowned upon by FIFA. The lawsuit alone may be enough for USSF to desanction USL as a division 2 league then USSF can tell them if you want to be a sanction league again drop the lawsuits and reorganize and we will sanction you as a division 3 league.
Completely agree with you here. There's nothing stopping teams from leaving USL1 at the end of the 2010 year, or USSF from sanctioning NASL in 2011. The only positive from the scenario would be that it gives NuRock more time to get things ready for that instead of it blowing up on them immediately after their purchase.
FIFA article 62 and 64 in the FIFA statue. http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/federation/01/24/fifastatuten2009_e.pdf
It was quoted in this thread already. Instead of suing they have to go into arbitration instead. It's a common clause in many contracts, not just those involving FIFA.
Exactly as City Dave said. Any issue involving any FIFA sanctioned league, they have to take it to the FIFA Court of Sports arbitration not civilian court. Only FIFA can force a club back into a certain league.
Well, according to USL, Rochester, Tampa, and CPB are. That's the whole point of their suit, right? So either the USL is suing FIFA-affiliated clubs, which could get them in trouble with the USSF and FIFA; Or they're suing clubs with no affiliation to FIFA, which is in essence admitting that they have no case because those clubs were no longer affiliated with USL-1. Tough needle to thread there, NuRock.
Ahhh, yes. Suing = bad, but then, I'm not sure that's being disagreed with here. But then, FIFA could be mildly annoyed with the NASL teams for breaking off into their own league instead of going into arbitration. Well, the NASL teams that were under contract, verbal or written, with USL. The ones that weren't under contract are free to do what they want. Anyway you look at this, it's a giant cluster, but that doesn't mean USL is the one with the weak hand here, which seems to be the assumption that people are making here.
But USL is a sanctioned FIFA league though. And in legal means one could argue that tampa Baltimore and rhinos are still USL teams even thought they broke away. FIFA could tell USSF to not sanction NASL due to legal contract bounds with 3 teams.