The NASL should tell the Aztex to take a hike if they get sanctionned for next year.. Was it really necessary for them to come out publicly and bash the NASL's proposal?
The NASL needs the Aztex more than the Aztex need them. I'm not sure that there won't be a new D-2 entity next year, made up of the current teams who make the grade, plus one or two new ones, maybe. I imagine USSF has had enough of the NASL as is; they are no better than the USL ever was. Just goes to show what happens when you do something out of spite.
Well the NASL has not even had a chance to run a league yet so I think we should wait before passing judgement and comparing them to USL. And if the NASL proposal to run a D2 league does get sanctionned for 2011 then no they don't need Austin. I mean with Portland being gone next year and with Puerto Rico jumping ship over to the NASL, Austin is the last hold out of the old USL-1 teams and instead of trying to participate in the effort to get a league going next year ,they choose to just sit on the sidelines and criticize. Not really the type of partner or team I would want in a league with me if I'm the other NASL owners. Oh but if the NASL does get sanctionned then they want in...
Not if they get USSF sanction for next year, they don't. With Rawlins's comments, the Aztex aren't just sitting on the sidelines - they've taken a side. Too bad there's literally nobody on that side with them anymore. Hope they enjoy playing in D3 next season. I imagine USSF wants to get out of the pro soccer business - or, rather, I don't have to imagine it because they've said it numerous times. We all know nothing is really mandatory in American soccer, and the NASL's proposal seems close enough to give the USSF cover to bow out gracefully. And as others have pointed out: what does "NASL as is" even mean? The NASL hasn't had a chance to run a league. But they do have somewhere between 8 and 10 D2 teams ready to play next year, while USL-1 is an unlamented memory - which puts the NASL way ahead of USL when it comes to D2 soccer in 2011, at least. Just goes to show what happens when you post message board comments out of spite. (You really thought Papadakis was going to put a USL-1 team in Atlanta, didn't you?)
Except for me, and IMS, and everyone else that's looked at the teams and listed what the shortcomings are. He hasn't said anything more than what we already know. Is that really taking a side? I suppose. Is it damning? If so, there's quite a few of us damned right along with him.
I don't think they bashed it. They stated that there were multiple inadequacies, which I think most would say is true. That said, it would've been smarter business (in my mind) to say they feel uncomfortable with some of the teams listed in the proposal and will be happy to join when those parties' financial and other issues are resolved.
I don't know if I'd say 'a lot'. It would nudge it closer to meeting the standards the USSF put together. But it would still be short.
It's a lot easier to get one exception rather than two or three. If USSF doesn't okay St. Louis or Minnesota, the bid is dead.
Remember, St. Louis has an owner and a stadium. The issue is that Jeff Cooper is very wealthy, but his assets are not sufficiently liquid. An exemption for that wouldn't necessarily be that big of a deal. (The search for additional investors apparently continues as well, but we'll see how that goes.)
I suspect he could come up with $750k pretty quickly though if push comes to shove. Just saying it would have been a lot easier if Austin was in on the bid instead of hitching their ride to USL and riding that sinking ship down.
I wouldn't go saying that in front of Athletica fans. Push came to shove there, and I don't remember him pulling out the checkbook.
I haven't been able to pull up the full document on IMS, but Ives' summary of that article states that the $20m is "net worth" Ives' bullet points: * 75% of the teams must be U.S.-based, and play in markets with a population of at least 750,000. * Stadiums must seat at least 5,000 people. * The league must have U.S.-based teams in at least two different time zones in the first year, three by the sixth year. * Principal team owners must have an individual net worth of $20 million. * League must have at least eight teams in the first year, 10 in the third, and 12 by the sixth year. (note: fixed mistake in Ives' blog) * A $750,000 bond is required to cover operational costs every year. Other things that stand out to me from the portion I can actually read: * Not later than 120 days prior to the start of each season, each team shall have a lease for one full season with its home stadium. If it's true that CPB has used five facilities this season, they might have problems here. * Each team ownership group must demonstrate the financial capacity to operate the team for three years. As part of the process of demonstrating financial capacity, each ownership group must provide detailed financial history, verifiable individual financial net worth statements for each member of its ownership group owning at least a five percent (5%) interest in the team and projections (including a detailed budget) for the team to the Federation in a form satisfactory to the Federation. And here's the part relevant to your question: * Each team must have and designate one principal owner that owns at least 35% of the team and has authority to bind the team. Such principal owner must have an individual net worth of at least twenty million US dollars exclusive of the value of his/her ownership in the league or team.
That was more of a contract issue. Cooper couldn't pay for the team until the Vaids were out. Once they were, he started payrolling the team.
was just looking over the requirement document and it it requires a 110 x 70. im pretty sure the field is currently 100 and not sure if it can be lengthen.
here is a link to the copy and paste of IMS blog http://www.insidemnsoccer.com/2010/...sideMinnesotaSoccer+(Inside+Minnesota+Soccer) and your right it does read net worth, not including the worth of the team.
My apologies. I remembered wrong. The reason I'm so sure that it meets those standards is that on one of the IMS threads regarding the USSF standards (or maybe it was on kenn.com), I posted that TB didn't meet the stadium standards. Either WSW or Kenn corrected me, and either supplied a link or I found one with the soccer layout for Steinbrenner. It was whatever was required. I just didn't remember the number right when I replied to you.
Wont the Axtex require a waiver on that narrow field at House Park? No way that field is anywhere close to 70 yards. Thats my only problem with Rawlins comments. He is very shrewd businessman and he's probably right that he will be invited in no matter what his postition is now. But he also runs a team on of the worst fields in D2. Glass houses, Stones, etc.
its all good. As I get older I have a hard time remember things. But I was pretty sure I remembered the dimensions. I tried to find the numbers on steinbrenner but all I could find was the baseball field stuff.
The NASL didn't get sanctioned last year (of course, neither did the USL). AC St. Louis, for whatever reason, almost didn't make it through the first season; ditto for CPB, and NSC, and Miami couldn't draw ants to a tank of sugar water (as usual). Looks like business as usual to me. The only thing difference between the NASL and USL was the letters in front of "SL." Lots of big talk (i.e., spite), but more of the same (not that the USL was all that, mind you). Jolly good show by the "disgruntled former employees." And no, I didn't think Papadakis would put a USL-1 team in ATL; he had the USL D-1 rights, but showed no interest in doing so. I think though, had he done it, he would have fared better than Silverbacks Part 2. As of now, I don't know anyone in ATL who could, or would, bring D-2 soccer back here.
If you start a new team, you have to begin with rumors and press conferences and billboards, but Papadakis did nothing, so nor Atlanta nor Birmingham will have pro teams in 2011
There was hardly a peep about either B'ham or Atlanta heard from Papadakis after his group purchased the USL from Nike, which means to me that he was content to run his PDL team, and just see what progressed with D-2. But now, since they're talking about putting teams in places like Eastern Zambowanga, I don't know if I'd want them putting a team in ATL. What next, a headline reading, "USL Expands to the Azores?"