Never say never, but you have to admit it seems extremely unlikely that they have the required Pacific coast teams by next year.
At the very least, we don't ever have to worry about Virginia and Oklahoma City anymore, because in this article, he admits that they aren't going to bother incorporating them.
That would mean they'd have a pretty short turn around on annoucing expansion and playing on the field. Which is something many NASL proponents used to trumpet as proof NASL did it better than USL (who awarded franchises to anyone with no time to prepare). Just food for thought.
But Peterson says he will not be pressurised or swayed into where to admit teams or when. The article said so .
Not sure if its the case and I may be off on my reading of it but the standards were ammended last year to change from a looser 3 time zones specification to eastern, central, and Pacific. Maybe this clause could come into play? : Amendments i. Any existing league shall have three (3) years from the date it receives any amendment to these Standards to come into compliance with any amendments to these Standards unless the U.S. Soccer Board of Directors specifically informs the league that a shorter compliance period is required to protect the viability of the existing league. That would put the need for a Pacific Time Zone team at 3 years from the ammendment's (dated Feb.28. 2014) date, around Feb 2017 instead of 2016.
There where rumors going around that FC Edmonton is sticking with NASL because they view the Canadian league salary cap will be to high for them. If true this worries me a bit.
Some discussion going on in the OKC forum, but suffice to say, it's a weird one. Personally I can't see a La Liga team running a club in OKC. I think there's something else going on for this one. Maybe relocation?
Why buy into and relocate OKC when you can have the Silverbacks or the Railhawks? Pretty weird if they end up doing that.
Unless the NASL has local investors lined up (or at least in discussions) and SOS did the leg work in going out and finding a buyer for their expansion franchise fee themselves. NASL may be trying to sell both Silverbacks or the Railhawks off at a higher cost than SOS is selling the "rights to an expansion franchise". Either way, this story has a lot of things missing at this point in time. OKC FC fans shouldn't get their hopes up ... and it really shouldn't effect anyone else, unless they figure they're in the location where Rayo is locating it.
So I read that Rayo was considering buying OKC and moving them to KC and calling them the lightning, that to me sounds like suicide but to each his own.
I would question where they would play as well as numrous other things. I guess another high school venue, but the support would likely be very limited.
I can't see the CSA just starting up a league, even with CFL help. I think it would be a win-win for NASL and the CSA for them to create a Canadian Conference that is a part of NASL to provide something approaching stability and legitimacy for both parties. I can imagine a league set-up where there are multiple conferences (Canadian, US North, US South/Carribean?) that play a home and away matches throughout the season with some inter-conference matches thrown in. Top teams from each conference will engage in playoffs for the Soccer Bowl. NASL should petition the USSF to allow them a greater percentage of non-US teams to join their league. It's in their name after all. It would create a distinction between themselves and the USL if the latter gets Div2 status.
Because Puerto Rico United, Bermuda Hogges, Antigua Barracudas, Sevilla Puerto Rico and River Plata Puerto Rico were MASSIVE
To be fair, NWSL does not meet Women D1 standards but they are still a D1 league. Now if USL (all or partial) do meet all of D2 and NASL still does not, I could see USSF telling NASL sorry but your time is up, or leaving them as D2. Also to Note, 2 people from MLS and 2 people from USL sit on the USSF board, no one from NASL does, that may affect things in 2017 (also no member from NWSL as far as I know).
If push comes to shove, would you move Atlanta to some place in the pacific, I mean the league owns the team, use the MLS excuse to pull the team out and meet D2 standards (only if USSF does threaten to remove D2 if they fail to have a team out west).
I would, although it would be a last ditch effort. I think it would be smarter to move them somewhere closer such as Birmingham, Memphis, Nashville, or New Orleans. Another possibility would be Alberquerque which while wouldn't satisfy the PST requirement, it would be close enough to possibly be a bridge to potential owners out there.
Yes but as you say last ditch effort only if USSF does draw the line of pacific team or no D2 sanctioning. Otherwise I would keep them in ATL and see what happens when MLS comes to town. If it goes bad as many people think, then move the team then. Just what I would do if I were king of NASL. It is not my money
Yea that's not happening. http://m.ottawasun.com/2015/08/28/no-interest-for-canadian-expansion-nasl-commish
Yeah, the only way I see the NASL losing its D2 status is if the USL meets all of the requirements while the NASL does not. If the NASL does meet all of the standards I think it will make it more difficult for the USL to get D2 status as they now would need to make the argument that there should be two D2 leagues. Which the answer isn't as straightforward when you consider the established D2 league is made up of 100% fully independent teams, has higher operating costs, and is trying to achieve a higher level of play. Meanwhile you have gone on public record stating D2 status would not change anything within your league.
I mean does it really matter who is D-2 or D-3 honestly? There is no real pyramid. Without pro/rel, its just who is the tallest midget at this point. Who cares?
In a way, I think this is correct. For both leagues there's a vast difference between them and MLS. I'm also not sure there's that much difference between most USL and NASL teams.