Given a swift, satisfying resolution to this is unrealistic, which would you rather have? A solution now that may not hold or one that holds but won't be coming this week? And, again, WHY DO YOU NEED THIS RESOLVED THIS WEEK?
We obviously don't, but USSF deserves some of the blame for setting a time frame only to postpone it twice.
I think what we got going on with the argument is whether or not people agree with USSF trying to micromanage the situation by meddling in possible individual team/league disputes. Over the idea that USSF should just make broad sanctioning decisions based on the evidence present to them at a point in time and let the results dictate future proceedings. Yes, the goal of this might be to see if NASL could be saved. and maybe USSF is possibly trying to facilitate this by giving them even more waivers and keeping them D2 just to try and prop them up. But NASL has never, ever attained true D2 eligibility. They've continued to need waivers every year for their entire existence. Does USSF want to keep giving them more waivers? especially now that they lost almost half their league in one off-season. Is Indy Eleven negotiating a possible USL exit going to change THAT much? If neither league is going to come close to meeting D2 requirements, why even sanction either league to D2 with a bunch of waivers. Just make both league D3 and tell them to get better and try again. But i guess we sort of know in the back of our minds, if NASL gets D3'd, they'll most likely fold. And USSF probably doesn't want a gap in their sanctioning pyramid. I get kenntomasch's argument of why there is no need to rush this just for the sake of someone's impatience. But the argument could also be, why does USSF need to micromanage this situation to death? IF down-sanctioning NASL is going to cause immediate collapse, what's the point of propping up such a weak league over the seemingly more stable USL in the first place? Both arguments that can rightly be made. Are USSF just being diligent by giving everyone time and not being hasty? Or why is USSF being so weak-willed and propping up an obviously failing league? --------------------------------- For me, I've grown weary of Soccer leagues and their unending hollow timelines. MLS's Miami situation has bothered me a lot. So it's probably spilling over into this USSF drama. I'd kind of like teams, leagues and orgs to be more timely and orderly.
Only legitimate reason I can think of: the question of "where would Portland play in 2010?" came up during the whole USSF D2 spat. It sucked even having the possibility the Timbers wouldn't play for a year because other organizations had difficulty with the status quo, and that possibility did exist for awhile. You can only postpone things twice in a lifetime.
Keep in mind USSF have their own interests. They're not an impartial judge here. That's the goal. We're getting closer. We're not there yet.
Not looking good in Strikers land. 1) Staff have been given termination letters but they will be paid up until Dec 31— Bob Williams (@WilliamsBob75) December 23, 2016 2) Players paid at least 50% of what they are owed— Bob Williams (@WilliamsBob75) December 23, 2016 3) Sale to PSG Miami still on - but they will only commit when NASL announces it is carrying on— Bob Williams (@WilliamsBob75) December 23, 2016 4) USSF decision on Div 2/3 said to be made on Dec 28-29 (cannot verify this)— Bob Williams (@WilliamsBob75) December 23, 2016
Right. They're modus is to foster all forms of soccer in this country. It does not help their mission to have teams and/or leagues fold. For professional players to be out of work. For youth clubs to lose funding because their professional team sponsor went belly-up. The USSF is motivated to salvage as much of the wreckage as possible. That takes time and effort. "Writs from above" like the 2010 USSF-D2 are an absolute last ditch solution.
I just want all this to end. Is that a problem? Because it sure as hell sounds like it. The federation does not want to kill the NASL. I know that. But, you can't keep giving reprieves to a body done in by gross incompetence. The league had bad luck but a good deal of their problems were self afflicted. And its frustrating for a fan of a NASL team because we're still in limbo. Jeez... Can't a guy be antsy without being labeled an asshole? They kicked the proverbial can twice already.
This was a really tough read. Just a glimpse into what is happening with probably a lot of players right now across the league
The current owners of the Cosmos name do not reflect the culture built by the staff, players and fans. We will get the name back from them eventually.
How do you get back something you never had? The current owners of the Cosmos ARE THE COSMOS. This is what this project has been since day one. I've been waiting for the official word that they're done before saying this, but this is getting nauseating: The staff, players and fans got to have a three and a half year party with other people's money. I'd say the bill has come due, except they're not even the ones paying it. This is isn't some gritty little start-up that was scrimping and saving, asking everyone to make sacrifices for the cause and delaying getting their fair share while carving out a niche, that got up-ended by a changing market or bad luck. Or where the owners cashed out and never compensated the staff. This is one of those '90s tech-bubble scams that everyone had a blast at for a few years before the money ran out. When you're in a culture like that you have to be willfully blind to not see what's going on. Where did they think the money was coming from to pay for Raul to play in front of three and a half thousand fans? You can't talk about the three championships they won in four years and not talk about the fact that they did it by spending well beyond what they were capable of generating. Again.
The Cosmos aren't their current owners anymore than the Glazers are Manchester United. These things change over time. The memories created by the players and supporters endure. If Seamus and co decided to go out in a more respectful way to their employees than their legacy as owners would have been better. I'm confident the Cosmos will come back at some point. Cosmos 2.0 will be remembered by Cosmos supporters for Gio Savarese, his staff, the players and the employees who ran the team. The owners threw away their place in that legacy by not giving their employees a softer landing.
Why would I bother to do that? The Glazers bought an existing, operating club and continued operations with the same staff and players, continuing on as before. I don't have to "tell it" to anyone. Facts are what they are. Feelings or wishes aren't particularly relevant. Plenty of people said that Obama wasn't "their president", and others are starting to say the same about Trump. People can say or feel what they like, it doesn't make it true. If you are an American, Obama is currently your president, and barring some unforeseen event, Trump will be your president in a month. The current Cosmos have no relation whatsoever to the original Cosmos other than as an IP acquisition.
Exactly. You can find people who deny the earth is round. It's not my job to seek them out and educate them.
I was doing research for a paper last week and ran across a forum dedicated to just that - debunking conspiracy theories on the internet. Flat earthers were their primary target.
Playing devil's advocate: Under normal circumstances, yes. However, it could be argued, and perhaps has been argued here, that the particular management of certain teams and leagues is being handled in a manner that is counterproductive to soccer in the US. ie: Very few people would want to see NASL continue under the same MO as the past few years, which by some of us had been seen as reckless, financially unsound and creating public disputes that no one truly enjoyed. So while the USSF may not want to see the death of any club I think there's also no interest in propping up entities that are considered possible disruptions to the pro game, as well. MLS survived the folding of two teams, and we've endured the death of leagues in the past. Honing a leaner, more sustainable business model may mean short-term sacrifices for longer term gains. Just saying.
I don't remember USSF telling MLS to fold two teams. Or USSF ever imposing "one team - one owner" on MLS. Even MLS was given space and time to solidify its business.
I personally like the Earth is the center of the universe crew. Everything revolves around us....sun and all.