FC Dallas isn't fielding a team this season- http://www.bigdsoccer.com/2013/12/17/5221628/fc-dallas-will-not-field-a-usl-pro-team-in-2014 I haven't heard anything definitive about LA in a while. I've seen 15 home games thrown in regards to season tickets. If both Dallas and LA are out, and 15 games is accurate, we're going to have an unbalanced schedule. But if LA is in, it should work out ok. 14 teams + 1 MLS reserve team match up like last year. As far as 2015 we're going to see a lot of new teams. So far 2 confirmed plus FC Dallas and NYRB said they want to start a squad. I've also heard rumors of RSL and Seattle fielding a team. Toronto is obviously interested too. Not to mention a large number of MLS clubs haven't stated their intention yet and whatever Orlando does with their franchise. It's going to be a big year.
Haha yeah I know, rumors are totally reliable /s. This SI article from today is pretty confident LA will have a team in 2014. It also mentions RSL and FC Tucson which is new to me. http://soccer.si.com/2013/12/18/mls-usl-pro-tulsa-nielsen-kansas-city-sacramento-oklahoma/ Another interesting part is "One source told SI.com that the league entry fee already has doubled in the past year to $500,000."
Makes sense that 2015 will see rapid expansion. After all, the MLS-USL Pro partnership set a goal of having every team own or affiliated with a USL Pro team by 2015. By 2015, there will be 21 MLS teams, which is considerably more than the current number of USL Pro teams.
Where did you read that? And by 'existing team' do you simply mean the players? Because the FO, colors, and even manager, etc . . . are going to remain the same. It's been said even some of the players on the current squad will likely be on the opening day roster in '15.
It's been discussed in several forums on BS. Here is one thread. It would be the USL franchise that moves. Orlando City still has a spot in USL after they move to MLS, so rather than letting it go to waste, one of the minority owners would buy out the rest and move, then re-brand the team.
Seems like quite the loophole and not sure why USL-Pro would allow such a thing. If the rumors are correct, there is now a half million dollar expansion fee to join the league, so this loophole waves that. What about VSI or Antigua, why didn't someone snatch that opportunity up . . . Or for that matter, does it exist in NASL as well? Did one of the new teams simply relocate the old Impactt?
The difference being that one of the current minority owners is (rumored to be) planning to move the USL franchise to Louisville. I would assume there are some bylaws restricting what circumstances a franchise can be bought and moved, which is why there hasn't been the purchase and relocation of VSI Tampa Bay to Tulsa or Colorado Springs.
Loophole? It's not a loophole. Orlando City's USL Pro franchise is a separate legal entity from its future MLS franchise. The owners of the USL Pro team bought an MLS team. They still own the USL franchise rights, why on earth should they have to pay again for something they already own? Relocation is certainly allowed in USL Pro - note that Orlando City moved from Austin.
I would hope so. They're lucky I'm not the USL Commish. That sh!t wouldn't fly with me. No way would I allow a "minority" owner to just pick up shop and move somewhere else all willy nilly, even if there was some back room alleged deal where he bought the rest of the shares from the majority and other owners. At the very least I assume the location has to meet minimum standards, if not be approved by the league, and the ownership transfer would have to be documented. Maybe charge a hefty relocation fee as well. Of course, I'm simply thinking about money here, not the good of the game so I suppose if it introduces the beautiful game to a new and sustainable market then so be it.
It's not a loophole. Rawlins and company have owned a USL Pro franchise. They can continue that franchise - which they moved from Austin, recall - in another city. What has happened in the other cases where a club has "moved up" to MLS is that their lower-division franchises have simply disappeared. There was noise about Vancouver (and maybe Montreal, can't recall) possibly keeping lower-level franchises as developmental units or something, but no one ever has. Seattle paid an expansion fee to join MLS. Whatever they paid in 1994 to join the APSL had long since been amortized, and they no longer had to pay USL annual fees because they weren't fielding a USL-1 team anymore. Portland paid an expansion fee to join MLS. Whatever they paid in 2000 to join the then-A-League didn't matter by 2011, and they were already announced as an MLS expansion team by the time of the TOA/USL split. Vancouver paid an expansion fee to join MLS. They never played a moment in the NASL proper, as their last year in D2 was in the USSF D2 league (though they had more or less cast their lot with the TOA folks, which was easy to do when they had already been announced as an MLS team prior to the split. And Montreal - which actually did spend a year in the NASL, under whatever terms, but which made sense for them business-wise as they needed a place to play - also paid an MLS expansion fee. All of those teams basically created new franchises in MLS, bought into MLS, LLC and SUM and kept their USL/NASL names. None of those teams kept their USL/NASL franchises active. Orlando may choose to do so. It wouldn't be the way it's usually done, but this is a new scenario here with MLS teams having D3 affiliates. And no, nobody bought the Impact's NASL rights, and it does not appear as though anybody has or will buy the VSI or Antigua rights. The only times I can think of (there may have been others) where someone purchased someone's D2 or D3 franchise rights were the transfer of the Colorado Foxes to San Diego (where they became the Flash) and the sale of Nashville's A-League rights to the people in Hampton Roads who were contractually obligated to deliver an A-League franchise to the Virginia Beach SportsPlex by such-and-such a date. (That franchise - like the one before it - eventually went under. And Nashville's people then established a new PDL franchise under the same name as the old A-League franchise.) So, no, not a loophole.
That's funny. You know commissioners let franchises move, right? If it's in the best interests of the league? What happened to the Denver Bears when the Colorado Rockies were born, exactly? What is a "back room alleged deal" where you buy out your partners? Do you know how business works? No, you do not, actually. If someone legally owns an entity and follows the franchise agreement, you can pull your Ruling by Fiat bullshit all you want. Just have lawyers on retainer.
You have some concepts right, but some are a little fuzzy. You do know that Vancouver had a franchise right in the NASL (purchased in 2009) and it was honored in 2010 when they represented the NASL in the USSF D2.
Imagine if Orlando City hadn't moved from Austin, but its owners still bought an MLS team in Orlando. Would USL have the right to forcibly disband their Austin squad or make them pay a new franchise fee because they have a team in another league? No. Of course not. Orlando City's owners already bought into USL pro. They paid for the right to operate a franchise. Other teams that have moved up didn't want to operate a lower division team anymore. With the MLS-USL Pro agreement, Orlando wants to keep a USL Pro team. There's absolutely no reason they shouldn't be allowed to.
Partly right. However, a league can place a stipulation for any future club that would like to purchase a franchise in said league where any previous franchises in separate leagues must be relinquished prior to purchase or at least prior to playing the first game. This of course can happen from a league in a higher position within the soccer pyramid (not likely the other way around). Still, I am not saying that it will be or is being implemented, but it is possible. Regardless, for the most part every club has the right to buy franchises in any of the leagues. Orlando City SC can technically have a franchise in MLS, NASL, USL PRO, NPSL, USL PDL, and anywhere else they'd like. Each of course, following in some hypothetical chain, would represent a different team (men's first team, second, third, fourth, and fifth). Now, what is really tricky is the following. Orlando City SC has a franchise in the USL Pro. Their men's first team represented that franchise since 2011 and will continue to do so until 2014. Orlando City SC has now purchased an MLS franchise. That franchise will be represented by Orlando City SC's men's first team. All the history of the men's first team will continue in MLS. What's interesting, and some may not understand, is that the franchise right of the Orlando City SC is still intact in the USL Pro. In 2015, the club can field a men's second team. The men's second team (or reserves team) can take over the franchising history of the club in the league. Franchising records will continue, but with a separate team. However, the continuous record of the men's first team, which is a separate concept in its entirety, is carried by the men's first team into MLS. Yes and no. Putting it into proper context, previously, most clubs that moved to MLS did not keep the franchises in other leagues because of financial investment and focus on the men's first team. Things were different before. With soccer growing, there is more of a desire to build reserve teams as well.
One this is also true. In order to avoid overlapping with franchise history, USL Pro and Orlando City SC can collaborate with each other and close the franchise within the USL Pro, so its history remains consistent with only that of the men's first team. Then, in the same process, USL Pro can still give Orlando City SC a new franchise in the same location, in which the second team would represent the club in the league. It will simply be exchanging files in one swoop, with franchising fees being waived, so long as Orlando City SC pays for the paper work. Again, both the league and club would have to opt for this path. Either way, good luck to them.
On the contrary, it does completely. When leagues write down history of teams that have played with them, the leagues write down the franchise history. They also write the team history if it moves from one city to another and creates other franchises within the league. The continuous team's logs are also accounted for. It's part of sports history.
Flip, think of the Red Bulls case. Their history as a club is intact since almost 20 years ago. The team is the same (the men's first team), the franchise is the same (within MLS and representing the NY metropolitan area), but the name was rebranded. The franchise logs of the club are written as well as the team. If Red Bulls, hypothetically speaking, decide to move to another city, then a separate franchise account is written for the specific city, while the continuous team history is also included.