Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'NASL' started by WhiteStar Warriors, Dec 3, 2009.
But USL is and they are technically suing members of their league.
Ah, good point.
Cause of the lawsuit NASL is in stronger position then USL is.
I wouldn't go that far. USL could say they'll drop the lawsuit if the three teams agree to go into arbitration, which would seem to favor USL at this point.
Which just might be their play. The fact that they didn't file the lawsuits until after that weekend meeting sort of points to that. Big risk.
This whole thing has been nothing but a big pissing match.
The USL's hand is made up of legalistic arguments that are anything but clear at this point. They may prevail in court but that won't put players on the pitch. And even if somehow they do manage to keep Rochester, Tampa, and CPB from playing in NASL in 2010, nobody can seriously expect those teams to stick around in USL for 2011 and beyond.
The NASL's hand is made up of the allegiance of a large majority of D2-level clubs on this continent, including several of the most established and successful (Montreal, Rochester, Vancouver). Let's also not forget the financial and legal firepower at the NASL's disposal in the event of a drawn-out fight of litigation attrition.
As a desperate rear-guard maneuver, USL's suit may succeed in picking off a couple of casualties. But only at the price of permanently poisoning USL's relationship with everyone involved in NASL, and perhaps with USSF and FIFA as well. In other words, it's just as smart as everything else NuRock has done since they bought the league.
The more I think about this, one could as easily argue that as soon as they switched to the NASL they were no longer members of a sanctioned league and, hence, no longer members of FIFA. Therefore it would be perfectly within the USL's rights to sue in civilian court.
And who says FIFA would rule in USL's favor. They claim the 3 teams breached of contract in playing in USL1 in 2010 but the question is who really breached the contract was it the 3 teams or USL obligation to the teams?
I'm sure the 3 teams already talked to their lawyers before jumping ship.
FIFA would have to get involved to determine that. But instead of going to FIFA and asking if they can take this situation into Civilian court they bypassed FIFA CSA.
Actually i am not sure if there are any FIFA regulations that follow this case that would still allow USL to take the case into civilian court. Only that its forbidden unless other wise noted by FIFA. It's a big mess.
Yep that we can agree on.
Ugh, weird things going on with my postings there, sorry.
FIFA is more likely to rule in favor of the league than the teams. What obligation did USL fail?
That was my fault i was in the process of editing when you quoted it. my bad
Beats me. It depends on what the teams are arguing against the USL that caused them to break their contracts. It really depends on how the contracts is written to where the league could be blamed for breach of contract.
Even if USL has a winning case the matter is they filed it in Civilian court instead of FIFA CSA.
I believe you would refer to it as a negotiation ploy. There's enough wrong here that FIFA can come down on anyone and it would be the correct target.
Pretty much. That's why it can backfire on them. USL is putting status as a division 2 league at risk by making this move. USL is still screwed regardless.
And USL doesn't need to file a lawsuit to negotiate with NASL. It wouldn't surprise me if USSF stripes USL-1 at least and maybe USL-2 of their division status cause of the lawsuit.
How are they not involved? Their continual presence in USL-1 is giving that league credence. If they see the writing on the wall, they should have already jumped to NASL. But they haven't.
What do they have to lose? If NASL is sanctioned and Tampa, Baltimore, and Rochester don't come back, USL will lose their D2 status and probably never get it back. Risking it by filing a lawsuit isn't any worse than the risk they take by not suing.
NASL is supposedly putting together an internal schedule for the 2010 season by the end of this week (that would be today), and then releasing it by the end of this month. I am sure they would be so happy to change everything around at the last minute just so they could include a non-supportive team who would only play for one season anyways.
Merritt mention in a radio interview months ago that he bets NASL is not going to happen and they will be coming back to USL. Merritt has other issues to deal with then to get involved this mess between USL and NASL.
Merritt doesn't really care where they play rather it still be USL or NASL it'll only be for 1 season then the jump to MLS.
This is one of the many reasons why USSF is so pissed off. Because clubs that aren't ********ing about are getting screwed by this... UNLESS as Merritt said today, everything will be worked out just fine by the end of the month. He didn't say if it would be USL or NASL, but he knows for certain the Timbers will be playing in a league "mostly made up of teams we are familiar with already". Take that for what it's worth, which is about as much as anything else in this thread over the last few days. Mentioned the number 10 concerning how many clubs will be in said league. Unsure if that includes the Timbers or if they are club 11.
It depends on if USSF wants to punish them further.
Of course, several other clubs have made the jump, so I guess it all comes down to who's better at reading that writing on the wall. I don't see any reason to think Paulson is more clued-in than any other owner.
Do you have a link to his comments?
You can bet on it that they'd fall over backwards to let Portland into the league. They're gonna need the attendance and publicity boost. This is not even a slight concern.