http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/c78e3f96-4cbe-11e5-9b5d-89a026fda5c9.html Ok, I get it .... but COME ON. You don't even meet the current D2 mandates and your filing for D1 status was based on jack, and shit .... and jack didn't sign the paper.
So the NASL is now suing the USSF because the USSF raised the standards for D1. Why does this strike me as pre spin for them not getting D2 sanction down the road and USL getting it instead. This way they can play the whole "rebel" league angle.
apparently the Financial Times now has this article under a pay for view, any chance anyone can cut and paste this over to me via PM?
Or a breakdown on what changed or a link to the USSF D1 Standards. Or are these the old ones but this is just a new story about the lawsuit.
So a league that has yet to meet D2 standards wants D1 standards! Why not focus on the many other issues plaguing the league like ATL and CAR or maybe focus on finding a replacement for Minny. Getting D1 status won't fix any of that.
This article incorrectly states the facts. The 15,000 seater minimum D-I stadium requirement is already a D-I requirement and has been for years. Hence the NASL isn't just griping about new regulations. They're griping about old regulations.
Can NASL make this claim? As pointed out on twitter multiple times, USSF has been granted the authority to govern soccer in the US via the US Olympic Committee and the Amateur Sporting Act that gives that power to the USOC..
I know this doesn't help NASL fans who want this, but don't we as a growing soccer nation WANT our requirements for professional teams to increase as the leagues grow, popularity in the sport grows and the ability to put money into things like stadiums and other items get more stringent? As MLS grows I want their standards to grow ... you can't get in on the last generations D1 standards ... we need more from ownership groups now. Same for NASL, USL and others. Like others have said, get your ducks in a row for D2 before complaining about D1. Heck, work with USSF to increase the D2 standards so that it makes it hard for USL to get in ... if D2 standards don't increase like D1 standards just so USSF can give USL D2 sanctions, then you can gripe. Push for increased D2 standards if you have some issues. Make the current D2 standards match the last D1 standards and work towards that!
I was not commenting on their ability to meet D1 standards. Only their ability to meet D2 standards. Complaining about changing standards that you can't meet currently or in the near future is obviously ridiculous. I just like people to use factual statements, instead of spreading lies and myths as facts.
NASL can make any claim they want. I'm sure the commissioner perceives it as good PR under the principle that any news is good news. Is is a good enough claim for NASL to get concessions from USSF? Doubtful. Is is a good enough claim to prevail in court? My guess is that their chances are < 1%.
They currently do not have a west coast team which you need for D2 standards. The USSF is giving them time to get that team but as it stands they do not meet D2 standards.
I didn't say you were commenting on their ability to meet D1 standards ... I was asking a question if you WOULD comment on that.
Exactly, but as it stands right now they do NOT meet D2 standards set by the very same USSF that they are suing.
That standard does not come into affect until the 6th year of the league, which the league is currently in its 5th season. Based on a comment in another thread because of when the requirement was changed the NASL may not have to meet that standard until 2017. So yes the NASL does in fact meet D2 standards as the D2 standards state that the league does not have to meet that standard until year 6. Any statement to the contrary is factually false. Once they have missed the date at which they have to have a west coast team then you can start saying the NASL does not meet D2 standards. Notice it is the standards that state this, not an exception given to the NASL.
Currently the probably do, questions about some teams ownership, the problem is that they may not in 2 to 3 years. Also they have to get to 12 soon, but not sure by when.
Is that not the point also? That the mandates being given now are set by essentially MLS through the USSF and that the requirements on NASL to maintain D2 status are constructed in a way where they can not maintain it and USL (MLS's partner) can? In addition to the increased D1 requirements to prevent NASL from realistically making an application under the mandates?
Kessler makes some good points, with respect to MLS's heavy influence and involvement in USSF decisions and the exchanging of favors and money with SUM and USSF/MLS. It really is not a far leep of logic to conclude that MLS and USSF have a vested interest in maintaining their current relationship and power dynamic. Ever since NASL refused the farm league/reserve league angle and MLS went with USL there has been a much different posture from MLS concerning NASL. (Likely pushed by the SUM v Traffic conflict). In any event, i think you can look at this article and conclude the mandates are fishy and a the same time conclude that the NASL is not in a position to be D1 now anyway.