Re: Usl? Ain't no way Baltimore is making it next season. They are probably just as broke, if not more, than the City Stars were last year.
Re: Usl? Agreed that "MLS2" is a handle that's been used for many things. There's been a lot of discussion on what that might be, but I would find it coming out as a "reserve league" improbable. The more likely that I've seen is something similar to a farm league in baseball, where relationships between first and second division are made to share players. Not sure though, as the articles that I've read are really conjecture. USSF is not known for public comments on their thinking.
Re: Usl? Lest we forget I don't think this thread would be complete without a mention of our own (now defunct) Austin Lightning. Quick quiz: Name the current Aztex player who was also a part of this ill-fated and ill-managed USL team....
Re: Usl? Correct. Miguel has been with us since (before) the beginning. TwoMeters see the Brewmeister on Saturday for your prize.
Re: Usl? Thanks! But one thing I should clarify, and my apologies that it's apparently unclear. But, there is a close quote at the end of the Phil Rawlins' two-sentence statement. And the final paragraph is my commentary.
Re: Usl? So are the Aztex really saying to USSF and NASL that they aren't interested in NASL because they think their bid will fail BUT if it is accepted, they will change gears at once and join the NASL? Talk about keeping all your options on the table and not committing to anything. LOL
Re: Usl? Why should the Aztex sign on to a plan that violates the national association rules? I'm glad Phil isn't taking the approach of the NASL owners. I think we have one of (if not the) most professionally-run teams in D2, and decisions like that are one of the reasons why.
Re: Usl? My belief is that the Aztex have a contract with the USL. They paid a franchise fee to get into the league, and I'm sure there are some legal obligations to USL that go along with being a part of the league. I have no idea how the other teams in USL have jumped to NASL without some legal hassles, but I imagine Phil and Djorn are following their contractual obligations to the letter. I would bet that there is language in the USL team agreement that specifies that USL must be a sanctioned league for the contract to be valid. If the USL fails in that sanctioning process (yes, it's almost inevitable, but it hasn't officially happened yet) and the NASL succeeds, then the Aztex would be free to jump over. As Phil said in Nick's article, the NASL would no doubt be waiting with open arms to welcome the Aztex should the Aztex want to join. I would bet that Phil and Djorn have carefully cultivated relationships with the other NASL owners, explaining the above to them in great detail, so that it does not appear the Aztex are snubbing the NASL or denigrating them in any way. The franchise is just playing it smart and making sure all the t's are crossed and i's are dotted. I have to admit that's a refreshing attitude, given other owners in the league playing somewhat fast and loose with the rules *cough*cooper*cough*.
Re: Usl? Agreed to all you say. But, again, Phil didn't actually say that; I did. I'm pretty certain he would agree, but he might not be so presumptuous as to say so.
Re: Usl? Well interesting news this morning... sure to make VioletCrown more scaredy-cat-ish. http://tinyurl.com/2e6q9g5 You guys reckon we'll stay with the USL now? I tend to doubt it but I have to say I think it's a possibility...
Re: Usl? Haven't entirely read the article. Saw the title and laughed loudly. Merged? There's nothing to merge!!!!!!!!!
Re: Usl? the USL used the word "restructure" but I know what you mean. http://give-em-no-quarter.blogspot.com/ comfims that USL PRO will not seek D2 status but will apply for sanctioning with USSF. Not sure where that leaves Austin but their is a photo of an Austin player above the new USL PRO banner attached to the USL press release. www.uslsoccer.com
Re: Usl? I don't see the words "Austin" or "Aztex" in that press release, but that guy in red & white stripes in their picture ... ... he looks kinda like Tintin.
Re: Usl? But didn't Phil Rawlins just say that Austin would play in D2 next year, regardless of what league it is? Besides Austin, Charleston and maybe some rich USL2 side (Richmond?) no way any other USL team qualifies for D2.
Re: Usl? IndyWeek.com has a story, with some statements from USL President Tim Holt: http://www.indyweek.com/triangleoff...rez-holt-well-have-strongest-league-below-mls and
Re: Usl? Sounds like hard bargaining to me, designed to force the NASL guys to acknowledge that they can't put together a D2 league on their own. At least I hope so, because as it stands it looks like the USL plan is to go D3. I'm hoping that's a bluff. If we were D3, I wonder how this affects our player contracts or negotiations with Adrian Heath?
Re: Usl? NASL.com is stating that the movement of Puerto Rico from USL to NASL is a done deal. This leaves Austin as the only USL team that could be in Div 2 next year. As usual, a lot of comments flying around the net, and determining what is real and what isn't is difficult. What I know is that for me, the Austin Aztex have to be in Division 2 at a minimum. I've always agreed with the Aztex desire NOT to go to MLS. More reasons than I care to go into here. However, staying with USL in some USL Pro league that is Division 3 will be more than disappointing to me. I still hold to my belief that USSF will run Division 2 in 2011, and I hope the Aztex will be in whatever Division 2 league there is. However, if USL Pro ends up being Div 3, and the Aztex play there for regular season, I will be severely disappointed.