Nonsense--"mentality" has nothing to do with it. The system just didn't evolve here, and financially it isn't viable here.
I wonder if the answer for women's soccer is to replace a national league with a series of regional leagues, and have a championship at the end among them. Further, require that if you want to play on the national team, you must either play in one of these regional leagues or a foreign league. So far, the model of having a national division 1 league has not worked.
You don't make any sense. The 2 points that MRAD2 pointed out were absolutely right. What is wrong with them?
Spot on. We've tried the "big splashy" league approach with lots of attention from World Cup/Olympics and we couldn't keep it going. Start small, build on the quality of play and keep it at a semi-pro level for now. Requiring play for USWNT may not work for some of the players, but most decent players will need to be playing regularly anyway.
Sigh. 1. NO ONE (except Gonzo) is accusing the league of some sort of misconduct in its dealings with DB. DB's trying to interpret the league's rules to say the league didn't follow it's procedures (before Sullivan was ever on the scene, btw), the league claims it did (not to mention the hilarity of DB arguing about the sanctity of WPS rules). EVEN DB ISN'T ARGUING THAT HE DIDN'T BREACH LEAGUE RULES. No matter what WPS did, DB was going to sue when they seriously enforced the rules, and he'll eventually lose - for WPS the question has always been at what cost (the court's ruling was that they'd hear the case, not a ruling on the merits). 2. what's point 2? trust?? If they come back in 2013, they'll certainly have my trust, what will you hold out for?
This part of DB's statement is very telling: "...and I didn't have to live in their world.” To me his means that he want to control his team but does not want to follow WPS rules. This is not fair to the other owners. It's tragic that WPS folded. I hope they can return without DB headache.
NO ONE? How about the judge who decided the case? Who cared about what DB thought. He could sue all the day and his case would have been thrown out except for the fact that the league did not follow the law and went thru the steps the law required to terminate majicJack. The trust is about depending on the lawyer(s) of the league including the CEO to know and follow the law.
This may be a finalist for most ignorant BS post ever. The only ruling issued by a judge in this case was a refusal to summarily throw the case out of court. There's been no argument about WPS following the LAW, and it's unlikely that DB would win his case - but if he's willing to "sue all day" you have to show up and defend yourself. That costs money. DB treated the WPS bylaws like toilet paper, the laugh track for him arguing about the meaning of the letter of the bylaws was fairly loud, but the bar is also high to deny someone their day in court. Even if the court ruled, as I think they eventually would, that DB had to pay all court costs, by the time you get there it could be YEARS of expense. And what are your odds of collecting from DB? You're basically arguing that DB would win his court case or the WPS folks could've avoided this lawsuit. That is not a rational argument - once Dan owned MJSC this lawsuit was inevitable. Before posting again, find the packet of stuff WPS submitted to the judge and read it - if you haven't seen DB's communications with WPS prior to being terminated, you don't really understand how much of a slam dunk this would eventually have been in court. Or the issues related to trying to reach an amicable settlement. NOBODY is claiming that WPS/Sullivan/whatever "didn't follow the law."
Interesting from Beau Dure on Twitter (@duresport) This seems to mean that StevieBeat had the right idea when he wrote: This is even worse than that. If this is what Borislow really was insisting upon, or what the other owners understood him to be insisting on, this is clearly unworkable. The league wouldn't be able to have any other games going on at the same time. League play would have to stop for these "all-star games".
Talking about ignorant. IF the league had followed all the steps required to terminate majicJack, the judge would have thrown DB's case out already. Don't you get it? The judge wanting to hear the case because it has some merits. Merits in the sense that the league had not followed the procedure for termination. DB may have been completely wrong in all instances and I do agree he was, and the league has a very good case BUT in this country, you have to follow all the steps required to terminate the contract of an employee or an associate. What else do I have to spell out for you? Let me give you a small example. Have you ever heard of criminal getting off completely free because of an error in procedure of a prosecutor or that the police failed to read him his right?
I'm not even sure they didn't, in fact, follow their agreement. It's been several weeks since I read it, but as I recall, at the time I read it I agreed fully with WPS as to their interpretation of the requirements set forth in the operating agreement. Arbitration was only a required process when there was a dispute between the owners on an issue (such as changing league rules or requirements, or financial distribution/capital calls, etc.), and was completely separate from the process of terminating an owner. One has to do with making sure the owners could function together going forward without litigation where possible, while the other had to do with making sure the league could function going forward by removing an owner where necessary. And my recollection is that WPS followed the requirements of the latter process. But since I'm not charging anyone for this legal opinion, I won't be re-reading the relevant documents to confirm that my initial reading was correct.
How can you have a proceeding when the Party does not show up ? WPS gave him ample opportunity and several chances to attend meetings. What happens when you don't show up for a legal court date ? They throw your ass in Jail. But in Dan's case, not attending meetings of the owners means you get to claim you were kicked out unfairly. The only mistake WPS made was not call one an Arbitration meeting. This would have been thrown out eventually, but at what cost of time and resourses?
there isn't any rational logic. dan takes you to court in the FL, you will lose. with the right judge in the right parish in louisiana, i got you. that's how it works down south. why you think the wps wanted to stay out of FL courts in dan's backyard. you dont get out much, do you?
This is an important point that Norsk Troll makes - Beau Dure (via Twitter) says this is exactly the WPS argument. Florida judge didn't buy it but doesn't mean they couldn't win this on appeal... eventually... after much legal cost... add: Monica Gonzalez points out (via Twitter @MonicaGonzo) that the argument failed in court once before (last August apparently). It's been linked here before but I'll link again to Monica's article on ESPNW WPS Brought Mess on Itself.
I'm out, arguing with pigs and all . . . BUT the MJSC lawsuit claims that THE ARBITRATION HEARING THAT WPS HELD (yes, they had an arbitration hearing) DOESN'T APPLY AND WPS SHOULD HAVE HELD A SECOND ONE. As for the rest of Gonzo's points, they assume that DB was going to live by the WPS operating agreement. That's a stupid thing to assert, the guy's never lived by any agreement in his entire life. When bylaws say you "can't appeal" THAT's when you go to court.
Well, DB made HIS argument in August, filing papers seeking a temporary injunction against the League termination of him, but I was under the impression that the motion was never ruled upon, because the parties settled and DB withdrew the motion without prejudice to refile. If that is accurate, then it's entirely incorrect to state that the League tried THEIR argument before and failed. Yes, perhaps DB's suit in August made it clear how far DB would go, and what arguments he would make, which might have given the League pause to think about whether they should take the extra step of arbitration before termination, even if not required, just to forestall any further legal challenges. But that doesn't change the validity of WPS's interpretation of the agreements, and the ultimate likelihood that they would win. What the court seemed to overlook, in determining the meaning of the provisions of the two agreements, is the presumption that parties generally do not include in their documents provisions which are rendered meaningless in light of other provisions. The Operating Agreement contains a 4 page article solely on "Termination", which even includes a subparagraph entitled "Procedure", which merely provides for the opportunity for a hearing - NOT arbitration. When reviewing that document, the presumption must be that they would not have inserted such a section in the Operating Agreement, with its own "Procedure", if it were to be rendered meaningless by the arbitration provision of the LLC Agreement. And that presumption is backed up further on in the Termination Article, at the end of the subparagraph detailing the "Effects of Termination" (i.e. what happens AFTER a termination), which says "any decision by the Board of Governors to terminate this Agreement shall be subject to arbitration" in accordance with the LLC Agreement. In other words, the League admitted DB as a member to the LLC, and then issued an Operating Agreement to run the franchise. Then they terminated the Operating Agreement specific to MagicJack - NOT the LLC agreement [and from what I have read, the League made that termination in complete compliance with the terms of the Operating Agreement]. The procedure at THAT point, if DB objects to the termination, is to seek arbitration under the LLC Agreement, contending that the League's termination of the Operation Agreement was unfair, or that he is now owed compensation under the LLC, etc.. The arbitration could possibly force the LLC to re-issue a new Operating Agreement to DB, or just pay him whatever is due under the LLC Agreement, or tell him "sorry, go away".
The lawsuit was not about whether there was good cause for WPS to terminate DB's franchise. It was only about what the right procedure was to do it. The league's and DB's attorneys had different interpretations of the agreement, in regard to what the right procedure was. The judge ruled that DB's attorneys were correct, but deferred to a future hearing the question of what to do about the fact that DB's attorneys were right. DB's attorneys were asking for a temporary injunction that effectively would have allowed MagicJack compete in the league until the league went through the correct procedure (or appealed the judge's decision about the proper procedure and got it reversed, which probably would have been a year to year-and-a-half process at a minimum). The league was going to oppose the temporary injunction, effectively asking to be allowed to exclude MagicJack from competition while going through the correct procedure or through an appeal. There was going to be a hearing before the judge on the question of which way to go, right before which the league and DB tentatively agreed on the one-year settlement we heard about. The judge re-scheduled the hearing to give the league and DB time to put their agreement in writing and sign it. It was questionable whether the league and DB would be successful in coming up with a written agreement and it seemed highly doubtful to me they would, given DB's history. When the league realized it wasn't going to happen because of DBs demands, it suspended operations. Some of the questions, if there had been a hearing, would have been whether MajicJack would have suffered irreparable harm if it were excluded from competition while the "proper" termination process went on; and whether it would be in the public interest for MajicJack to be allowed to continue participating in competition while the proper process was underway. On the public interest question, there has been a whole lot written recently on other BS threads that might have been pertinent to what would and would not be in the public interest. If I were a league attorney, I might be telling the owners, "Look, if you really want to do this, let's start deposing players about all the things that went on so we can show that MajicJack's participation not only won't be in the public interest but rather will be contrary to the public interest." Making a proper record before the judge would have been a very expensive process, could have been very bad for the future of the league and possibly professional women's soccer, and would have taken a great deal of time. It was in this context that the league opted for a suspension, which probably was the least of the evils. I also doubt that there is validity to statements about Florida judges being "homers." In a situation like this, judges naturally will be conservative and require more procedures rather than less. Way back at the beginning when I heard that there was a dispute between DB and the league about the proper termination process, my first thought was, just go through the process he says they're supposed to go through. We don't know what the league's lawyers advised the league to do, because it's confidential information, but it's very possible the lawyers advised the league to go through the requested process and that the owners were so perturbed they didn't follow the lawyers' advice. Or, maybe the lawyers advised the league that DB's lawyers were wrong and the owners relied on that. Frankly, however, I bet the owners made the decision to take the chance, not the lawyers. Whoever made the decision, however, from hindsight (and possibly from foresight of many who really are experts on this kind of situation) the league made a big mistake. I've been in situations like this in my previous legal career, and sometimes things get so far gone that a good attorney can look at the situation and say, and does say, "If you do this, I can tell you exactly how it's going to end up and you will not like it one bit." And the attorney can know, at the same time, that the person is going to go ahead and do it anyway, because there are other "non-rational" factors at work. This easily could have been one of those situations, given the nature of the opposition.
They did not have a arbitration,they had a board/owners meeting which decided the termination, as far as I can tell. There is a huge difference.
As I understand it, and I haven't re-read the court filings, WPS HAD an arbitration hearing, found MJSC non-compliant with their bylaws, and imposed penalties. When DB failed to comply with the penalties or come into compliance, they had a meeting and terminated him - DB contends they needed A SECOND arbitration hearing to impose that new penalty.
I think a few of the most recent posts are ignoring the analysis of Norsk Troll. His reading of the contract agreement is that termination and arbitration are separate procedures and that termination does NOT require prior arbitration. He doesn't claim this is rock-solid and it's been a few weeks since he read the documents but this obviously is the interpretation of someone with professional background.
and i challenge you to find out who are Dan's rich boys Massar was running with for two days, and which one of them may know judges and lawyers from the golf course. i challenge you again to take on any rich family in southern towns like houma, thibodaux, raceland, covington, etc. and see if you don't get jacked in court even if evidence is overwhelmly in your favor. i guess you haven't spent me time in tight nit southern communities in the deep south. lets not talk about the thieving politicans and under the table land deals and hiding $100k in a freezer during a hurricane. they give some of the shadiest areas in brasil and south america a run for their money. please carry on.