NASL News 2009 Part 1

Agreed. And at the moment Portland is still a USL1 club the question remains will portland jump if NASL is sanction.

 

It was actually Gavin Wilkinson that said that, not Merritt, wasn't it?

 

I think this sums up his stance on anything that isn't related to real estate.

 

Here's a question i still wonder what is merritt gonna do with the USL1 franchise once he makes the jump to MLS.

 

No, what NASL needs is a stable organization and committed owners. Plus, what is the Timbers organization going to do to help market NASL? NASL just isn't a concern for them. The Paulsons are more worried about building a new baseball stadium, playing hardball with the city government over PGE Park renovations, and marketing their MLS season.

 

Not only Merritt did say that he won't operate another team unlike Vancouver and Montreal rather it be USL1 or NASL. So its up in the air whats going to happen to Portland's spot when they make the jump to MLS.

 

Like Minnesota and Miami?

 

Hey now.. Miami is stable.. Minnesota is swirling the drain.

 

and teams like ACSTL and the Rowdies both of which have coaches ready all they need now are players.

 

If by stable you mean they have enough cash to stay afloat while they draw 348 people to the stadium for a game, then I concede the point.

 

I didn't say they were successful, just stable.

 

I love the edit. I said "stable organization and committed owners". The stable organization refers to the league as a whole. The Paulsons are doing absolutely nothing right now for NASL, and they will leave anyways after 2010 with no replacement team. Contrast them with Vancouver who have went out of their way to line up Edmonton for 2011.

 

Pretty much.

 

I thought you might. It was taken right from your playbook.

You can hem and haw all you want about Merritt Paulson but you know darn well the NASL would welcome the Timbers in a hot second.

 

@ the very least USSF would say NASL play nice and let the Timbers play

 

I read 100 posts of THIS? Glad I speed-read most of this.

As such, this stupid little proposal will similarly suck. I'm not that good at fighting the momentum.

Proposal:

NASL is conditionally approved for 2011, not 2010. Lawsuit is dropped.

Fees for USL-1 (the annual fees + reduced expansion fees) are pooled to a holding location, probably at USSF (henceforth known as "bank"). It should be with a REAL third party, but I digress.

Current USL St. Louis and Atlanta rights holders are given 14 days from agreement to put up or shut up. If they shut up, then St. Louis and Atlanta NASL owners can buy in at an agreed price. If they don't, they can't play in NASL in 2011... barring the aforementioned current rights holders actually putting up, something I don't expect to happen.

Condition- if USL succeeds in selling to TOA, no sanction. No need for it. Bank goes to new owners.

USSF judges "good faith effort" in attempting to sell/buy. If NASL is sanctioned and they didn't really try to buy USL, the bank goes to USL. If USL stonewalled, the bank goes to NASL. "In between" invites a split.

Main weakness in my plan- not sure the bank will be worth all that much.

Point- find the damn common ground. Confidence- um...

 

Would that actually work?

 

Everybody bow to Portland. They are so awesome. Please, please play in our league for one year. Gimme a friggin' break. Many men have risked a great deal to make NASL happen, while Portland just sits there. If the NASL is sanctioned, Portland will jump...right smack into a closed door.

 

I'll take my yellow card now.

 

So Cooper is saying what many of us already had assumed. USL can sue all it wants but the BEST it can do is get some money from one or more of the 3 teams they sued. However they cannot prevent them from playing in NASL. So we can likely definitively say Rochester, Tampa and Crystal Palace are done in USL and USL can no longer claim they'll have those 3 teams in 2010.

 

Don't make the mistake of thinking that Merritt Paulson is "just sitting there" with the possibility of the USL losing its sanctioning. Whatever happens (short of there being no league at all) the Timbers will be competing in the USSF sanctioned D-II league with most of the other teams in 2010.

I may have let my enthusiasm get the better of me with my "hot second" comment, but there's no way the Timbers aren't intimately involved with all parties.

 

So the spokesperson for the league is "over selling" their position? Shocking, shocking. Seriously, there isn't anything NASL is saying that is more believable than what USL is saying.

 

Cooper does have a point. USL is trying to delay USSF from sanctioning the NASL. The only thing USL can gain out of from the lawsuit is money plus possible backlash from USSF. I don't really see how the Court system could really force the 3 teams to go back to USL. Once USSF sanctions NASL the lawsuits are a moot point.

This is specifically why FIFA doesn't like civilian court getting involved.