Current Entity Status: INACTIVE - Merged Out (Sep 20, 2010) http://appext20.dos.ny.gov/corp_pub...=%&p_search_type=BEGINS&p_srch_results_page=0 I could have sworn we had this conversation a year ago.
Yeah, questions you didn't answer ... now why is that ? They most certainly aren't irrelevant to the point of this discussion. Of course, I can see the WhiteStar, DCU, and MerenguePie coming out of you at this point. That says it all really.
In spirit of fully disclosure, i can not confirm with 100% certainty the exact organizational set up prior to 1975. I can, however, give you a fairly eductaed expalination of what likely occured before 1975. If you recall, in 1970 the New York cosmos where actually started by Ahmet and Nesuhi Ertegun, two high level executives at Warner Communications based in NYC. It was also pretty well known that the team was funded by Steve Ross via his Warner Communications empire. My guess here is that the team had such a minuscule budget and was of relatively little importance to Warner Communications those first few seasons that it was not organized as a separate corporation, instead was just operated like a Warner company division. Why 1975? Well something happened and was happening at the end of '74 and going into '75 that changed the game. The Cosmos were about to land a highly viable commercial property and enter a licensing world of significant proportions by signing Pele. Seems at that time the people owning and running the club had to take the project more seriously from a business standpoint and the consolidated all the Cosmos assets into a newly formed corporation, which has stood as an active entity until 2010, when it was merged into an LLC, a sort of corporate reorganization.
Because the continuity of a sports team does not depend, to most reasonable people, on the continuity of the legal entity that holds the team's assets. To demonstrate this, a hypothetical. Let's say a prominent club in England is in financial trouble, and goes into administration, the UK equivalent of bankruptcy protection, in the offseason. The club's current owners make it clear that they cannot afford to keep the club going. An interested buyer appears, but is not willing to take on the team's existing debts and cannot reach an agreement with the team's creditors. Instead, he buys an unrelated shell company, which has been around for a while unused with no assets and no liabilities. He renames this new company to include the bankrupt team's name. The old team entity is liquidated, and its assets are sold off by the administrator to settle the club's debts. The white knight buys as assets the club's intellectual property, player and manager contracts, and stadium lease. The FA agrees that, as long as creditors get a good deal, the new company can take the old company's place in the Football League for the following season. There is now a new company, which was founded at some point a few years earlier under a different name, operating a team thanks to assets it purchased from the original team entity, which has ceased to exist after being liquidated by the administrator. The question is: is the new team that takes the field the following year "the same team" as the previous year's team that played under the same name, in the same stadium, with the same coach, in front of the same fans? If so, then that continuity has to have come from something other than the corporate registration statements. And that something is how the Cosmos should be judged as well. If not...well, you'll have to explain to Middlesborough fans that their team was founded in 1986, to Charlton Athletic fans that they can't have been fans of the club before 1984, and to Rangers fans that their club is only a couple of years old.
What you described is essentially not much different than a new holding company being formed to acquire and merge the assets of another company which is being discontinued. In that scenario, all that happens contemporaneously, and really is just transferring everything over to the business structure of the new ownership. That is what happened in 2010 with the Cosmos. Would you dispute that Middlesborough, Charlton or Rangers have the legal right to being those clubs, with those histories? Of course not. This who exercise is really just about sentiments. there are some people that simply don't "feel" like the Cosmos are the Cosmos. The "feel" they are two unrelated clubs. They are entitled to feel that way, and i would say they feel that way due to the amount of time that has passed. But, time, in a world of a perpetual business entity is not a factor. They are the New York Cosmos, with all the history, titles and everything that goes with that going back to when the club first ran out on the field in 1971. The owner is different, the era is different, but everything else is the same. Its not really that difficult to grasp, but i think some people just romance the short 7 year period the Cosmos where great and want it to stay in a capsule forever. Either that or they truly just don't understand that a business still lives even if its product line is suspended or discontinued for a while. That is all and well, but it doesn't make those feelings stand up to the light and pressure of scrutiny.
Actually, I would. Do those clubs have the legal right to use the same intellectual property as the previous entities? Yes. Do they have a legal right to claim those clubs' history? No, they don't, because there's no such thing as a "legal right" to claim a hundred-year-old season as "your" season--as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's intellectual property. It has nothing to do with the continuation of a particular corporation--as long as someone is maintaining the trademarks. Whether they get to send out an email saying that this is their 116th season instead of their 3rd isn't a legal issue, so the question of "legal rights" just isn't relevant. It isn't an objective issue, so pretending that other people rejecting those claims are objectively wrong is just silly. It's what their marketing lets them get away with. You clearly buy the marketing. Other people don't. That doesn't make them wrong.
And it doesn't make them right... So both sides have a subjective viewpoint. What are they getting away with? The way you frame it is that these folks are a bunch of flim-flam artist or carnival hucksters... Which applies not only to the Cosmos but also the Earthquakes, Timbers, Whitecaps, Rowdies..etc. If by some strange twist of business fate the MLS and NASL merged and this new entity built primarily on MLS infrascturture decided that they wanted to become NASL INC and integrate all the history from NPSL/USA 1967 until the present day MLS and NASL would that further divide US Soccer factions? Would it be a violation of trust for MLS defenders? I know it's hypothetical but the point of the question is what is the point of all the anomosity regarding teams claiming history? You spoke about rights but as far as I know there's no infringement of any rights by claiming a club history as long as it doesn't infringe on intellectual property rights as you stated earlier. In the Cosmos example the new ownership balked at giving up their intellectual property rights to MLS on top of an expansion fee... That was a business decision. Regardless if folks think it was a smart decision or not only time will tell. However for the teams in MLS like the Earthquakes I don't see MLS putting any asterix on their history timeline saying that it doesn't count. If anything MLS encourages they highlight it. This isn't a static display... Modern Soccer is fluid and we aren't close to the end game. I just think all of this back and forth is nothing more than a straw-man built for all the wrong reasons.
You do realize that what you just stated is a massive contradiction, right? All that history is intellectual property, which as a legal term is extremely broad. Respectfully disagree, being able to say who you are and make those claims is very much a legal issue, as is almost everything that deals with the rights and obligations of a business. It is very much an objective issue, it has to be otherwise anyone in the world could claim they are the Cosmos or parade around the 70's Cosmos achievements as their own. Trying to claim this is just some marketing trick may give you some peace of mind personally, but outside your own head the reality of it is much different.
Intellectual property is actually a fairly well-defined bundle of fairly specific rights. Anyone in the world could not "claim they are the Cosmos," not because of any "continuity," but because using that name in connection with a soccer team would infringe on the rights of the current holder of U.S. trademark no. 77618772. That would be the case whether they bought the trademark from the original Cosmos, or the original Cosmos trademark died and they filed a new application later. If, on the other hand, the Red Bulls wanted to add five stars to their crest to signal that they are the real continuation of the original Cosmos tradition? I would make fun of them--but would the new Cosmos win a lawsuit based on that? I doubt it. Again: the idea that there is a single, correct, "legal" answer to a question of "legitimacy" is silly. I think that has more to do with your reading than my writing. All I'm saying is that it isn't an issue for the courts, it's a marketing issue. (Most of soccer, ultimately, is a marketing issue). Of course. But nobody is saying the Cosmos shouldn't use the Cosmos name. Here is what the Earthquakes say about the Earthquakes name on the history page of their web site (which starts in 1994): There is also a separate "History of the Earthquakes Name" section, which says: Compare this to the Cosmos page, which has six championship stars on the masthead and a club "heritage" timeline that starts in 1968. The Quakes are saying, "We want you to think of us as part of a tradition of top-flight soccer teams in the Bay Area, which started with the original Quakes." The Cosmos are saying--or at least Onionsack is saying and the Cosmos are strongly implying--"This is the team Pele played for. It's back!" These are two different claims. The Cosmos claim is more of a reach, and therefore fewer people will buy into it. That's how marketing works.
If the Red Bulls tried to market the Cosmos history as their own, you can bet they would be sued (after a cease and desist) and they would lose to the only one out there with standing to bring the claim...the New York Cosmos, the owners of that history. I would suggest abandoning this line of reasoning, its leading you down a rabbit-hole you cant return from. That is exactly what i am saying, and Pele seems to agree with me, as do pretty much every former player or person involved with the Cosmos past and present.
I got it but what's the end result of all this? If we are all being subjective why all the dissertations? I don't see anything to be gained by either side. Arguing for the sake of arguing is meaningless and futile or is the victory in the details?
Wait .... you mean to tell me yesteryear is a popular latching on point ? NO WAAAAAY No shit they're going to play it up and live out any limelight they can get out of it. Yes they are going to try and pretend in every way imaginable that this is the club of Pele's greatness .... otherwise, what was the point of re-birthing the damned thing ? I mean really, you're honestly using Pele (at this point, let's be real about him) as a method of reasoning here ?
So when are we going to actually talk about what the thread title is? "NASL legitimacy thread" This is not just about the Cosmos. With out the NASL there is no Cosmos. I am actually wondering if the NASL plays it right and continues to build, if in fact it has a better set up than MLS. I am not sure how having a "salary cap" that teams are able to go over is good for the long term of the league. When you have players getting paid more than some teams are paying. To me that raises big flags, and I wonder if the Scorpions would be better off growing with the NASL, instead of jumping to MLS.
Then why haven't the Cosmos rightsholders sued them already? What do you think the Red Bulls' 2006 "Tribute to New York Soccer Night," featuring Pele and Beckenbauer was, if it wasn't an attempt to connect the Red Bulls to the Cosmos legacy without using the Cosmos intellectual property? Things in the real world aren't as cut and dried as you seem to think, and real-world answers are rarely absolute. You're starting to sound like those people who claim that they don't have to pay taxes because the government didn't capitalize their names properly, or because there's an "illegal" fringe on the flag in the courthouse. Take a step back. The new Cosmos are the new Cosmos, and whether they are considered the "same" team is for the fans to decide. You've decided they are, and that's fine--but other people get to decide as well. There is no absolute right or wrong answer, and pretending there is one is not making you any converts, especially when you try to apply hypertechnical legal argument to a subject that is ultimately about perception, not the law.
Players getting paid more than other teams in their league happens all over the world. Star players get paid more than a group of average players. Sharing revenue is something that makes owners that can't afford a Dempsey/Bradley comfortable with having them a part of the league on another team rather than not having them in the league at all! You may hear gripes from fans, but I don't think you'll hear it from any owners/presidents/coach's. Not like you have seen from the San Antonio group. Portland wanted Dempsey in Seattle because it was for the good of the league ... not sure how that is a red flag that doesn't exist in a non capped league. But I'll admit I don't know all of the NASL rules regarding revenue sharing and things like that. I like that the NASL is uncapped btw ... it gives a different test case in what it might be like if the MLS ever went more open market ... which I think needs to happen before we can be one of the top leagues in the world. I think NASL is legitimate ... just likely not a legitimate competitor to MLS at this time.
Without a salary cap, you could have a team where every player on a team's first eleven is getting paid more than some other entire teams' payrolls. I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case now, for example, in Scotland and Spain. The salary cap keeps that kind of imbalance down; it doesn't enhance it. That's one way the cap helps the team's long-term prospects. The NASL growing would certainly be good for the sport, but if the NASL can grow its revenues, that means people are interested in domestic soccer--and that will ultimately grow MLS's revenues as well, which in turn will raise the salary cap. It's good for the NASL to be ambitious, but if they're aiming at MLS, they need to remember that it's a moving target. For example: my guess is that most current NASL teams are spending less than the original 1996 MLS salary cap of $1.135 million (about $1.65 million in 2014 dollars). And that number didn't include a number of assigned superstars, the DP equivalents of the first few years of MLS. If the NASL ever gets to the point where more than one of its clubs are spending a million and a half on salaries....they'll only be twenty years behind MLS. Just as one other measurement of how far the NASL has to go...the all-time season low for an MLS team's average attendance, back in the bad old days when the league was on much shakier ground, was set by the 2000 Miami Fusion, with an average of 7,460 fans a game. Last year, not a single NASL team--not even the Cosmos--hit that average. The only NASL teams ever to draw more in a season than the 2000 Fusion were the 2012 Scorpions and the 2011 Montreal Impact. I'm not saying the NASL won't or can't get there...but right now, the NASL has a long way to grow, and if they're growing, it's a good bet that MLS--the league with higher revenues, better players, higher attendance, and much higher visibility--will be growing just as fast.
Yes, people can get to decide whatever they want, but having that ability doesn't make their conclusions correct. There is nothing"hypertechnical" about basic principles of corporations law, its well settled and fundamental. There is a right answer, that is what you seem to be missing here, an obvious right answer. No matter what someone may feel at the end of the day the New York Cosmos are the New York Cosmos, with all the history, assets, trophies, legacy...everything...its the continuation of their story...proven by hard factual evidence that that organization was kept alive and well for years and transferred to the new owners. It is very much a question of law and fact, not some ridiculous subjective feelings theory. If 20 guys on the internets want to feel like this is some completely unrelated team they are free to do so, they just look like a bunch of bitter twats.
Did or did not... The scoobsnacks copy our Cosmos girls? Imitation is the greatest form of flattery... Or in your case irony.
What do you mean by fold? Its not really an official term used in the legal sense. In the general application of the word by lay people it means to cease business operations for some undefined reasons, usually financial. Saying it folded doesn't bolster your potion at all, in fact, its mostly irrelevant. The New York Cosmos ceased fielding a professional soccer team in 1985, due to the fact there existed no organized soccer league in the United States at that time. The business itself, as has been proven over and over, continued to remain active. At no point was Cosmos liquidated, dissolved or otherwise reduced to a non-existent status in the eyes of the state of New York or Federal law. This seems to be the point of merit you continue to miss or is otherwise lost on you. The fact the organization ceased fielding a professional soccer team in 1985 does not mean that it was forever dead and unable to be revived. Businesses, and the New York Cosmos are a duly registered and operated business entity and property, live in perpetuity unless dissolved by operation of law. At any time from 1985 on the Cosmos retained the right to reorganize a their professional soccer club and pick up where they left off...the only reason they did not was because the owner and shareholder of the business didn't have the capital himself to operate it. From 1995 on, MLS on occasion inquired about purchasing Pinton's stake in the Cosmos but no deals ever came about. As soon as that legal entity made the decision to fund and field their professional soccer property, and enter them back into competition the history, titles, everything Cosmos started back up again as if it was 1985...such is the way of a business and how time doesn't have the same effect as it does on a natural person. Lesson over. I trust i wont have to continue to keep on explaining this very basic and core principal of business law to you all. It is getting extremely tiresome.
Deflection is the greatest form of admission. Irrelevant ? Like it is irrelevant that they couldn't meet a certain financial requirement ? You know exactly what I mean by fold ... and this stance/soapbox is exactly why you get the flack that you do. You want to talk down your nose and be a pretentious prick ... and then pretend like the term "fold" isn't clearly defined in the sports sense ? You want to act like this is something that "common" people trope around ? The NY Cosmos Soccer Club ceased to exist. It folded. There was a financial obligation that wasn't met. ... which is flat out not true. The same one they played in the year before existed, as well as at least two more. I know what you're going to say before you say it .... and if it's what you meant, it should have been what you said in the first place. The soccer team didn't have the financial capability to continue, or the Cosmos INC (whatever) didn't have the financial capability to field the team. The team folded. Just like I said. But yes, go on about how that's some "layman's" term or some other BS. Except for the part where that quite clearly isn't the case. This soccer team, is not that soccer team. I highly doubt you'll ever stop your lessons in general jackassery.
We are keeping this thread alive because its still causing discussion, but if it continues to be a brawl, we'll just lock it up. Decide.