But they got the exemption from both USSF and CSA. The only reason that CONCACAF got involved is that CPL is Victor Montagliani's baby.
Unless they can produce some receipts of assurances of exemptions from all parties, they were operating under bad faith. I am not saying that CONCACAF's posturing wasn't out of spite, but when Ottawa so publicly rebuked Victor Montagliani's brainchild, you better be damn sure you've you have some assurances when know you need CONCACAF to sign off on your future. Let's also point out that USL released their 2019 schedule, despite the fact that Ottawa had not gotten sanctioning. There are a few possible explanations for this: Ottawa, either maliciously or out of incompetence, convinced USL they would be sanctioned Ottawa didn't do anything and USL didn't do their due diligence USL was complicit in trying to force sanctioning by crying hardship since they'd already scheduled next season No matter how you cut it, CONCACAF'S announcement shouldn't have been this massive disruption because their position should have been known prior to announcing anything.
Basically, if you're going to try to bluff your way past one of the most historically corrupt organizations in the world, that also happens to be your sanctioning body, you better be holding a full house.
Some similarities (and some differences) with when the FA of Wales attempted to get all Welsh "non league" teams to play in its new league as opposed to the English pyramid. A court ruled in favour of the clubs and some still play in the English system.
But I think the reason for that was that you can't legally stop a UK business from operating anywhere in the UK. I believe what happened was that Ottawa announced that they were staying in the USL on September 5th with the full knowledge of the CSA, which had conferred with both USSF and USL. USL agreed with CSA that Ottawa only has to give 6 months notice of leaving the league instead of the usual 12, and waived the exit fee of 10% of the current franchise fee i.e. $700k. CONCACAF wrote to CSA in November asking for clarification of why they had given Ottawa a waiver but CSA either failed to respond or failed to give a satisfactory explanation and CONCACAF subsequently pulled the plug. It'll all come out in the wash.
It’ll be a great day for soccer when the FBI storms CONCACAF’s offices and sends its leadership to Federal prison. I honestly can’t think of a single positive aspect about CONCACAF or FIFA.
Again, I'm not saying that CONCACAF isn't being spiteful or petty. But Ottawa knew who they needed permission slips from, so without some kind of written promise, they had no business acting like they could just return to USL on their own accord. They needed three signatures, but apparently thought they could bluff their way with two.
I would assume they thought the CSA's sanction was enough. After all, CONCACAF asked CSA for clarification, not Ottawa. Have TFC, WFC and the Impact asked CONCACAF for permission to play in MLS in 2019? Edited: You were right about Ottawa jumping the gun before receiving formal agreement from the CSA. So what happens to the Canadian teams in PDL?
The Fury's exemptions are year to year and require approval from CSA, USSF, and CONCACAF. What the other Canadian teams have to do has no bearing on what the Fury knew they had to do, because they have to do it every year.
And, again, you know you just pissed off the president of one of the bodies you need approval from, why would you not double and triple check that your i's are dotted and t's crossed?
Didn't this already happen once before though? Jack Warner is no longer associated with FIFA or CONCACAF. Understood, yet there was no valid reason to suspect that CONCACAF would just pull the plug pre-emptively prior to the USSF and CSA going to them with their approvals first. Again, this has the smell of Montagliani overstepping his bounds to protect his former baby the CPL. He's no longer the president of the CSA. His actions in this matter seem to be more of a personal decision on his part.
Do you have someone in your life whom you would trust to read this exchange and give you an honest opinion? Because I know there's nobody here whom you would listen to, but...you're really not scoring the points you think you are. You're inventing a pretty heinous accusation out of thin air, and you're doing so in a format where anybody can go back and check your work.
Then, you yourself should understand that the Deloitte Report was a necessary initial step by Silva to codify something that he and the NASL didn't previously have... namely, a simple study. Much like when municipalities hire a company like Conventions, Sports & Leisure to do feasibility studies as a first step in the term quest to build and fund a soccer specific stadium. Nonsense. Not even a well paid partisan hack on MLS's payroll like Mark Abbott would come to the conclusion that the report was "slapped that together in a couple of days." Shame on you. You should know better. No, the Deloitte Report mentions both strengths and weaknesses in its executive summary. And, based on how MLS apologist partisans like yourself are so flippantly and obsessively dismissive of it, it is likely that a substantial amount of Deloitte's more detailed findings are in the exclusive possession of Mr. Silva (and Mr. Crowley?) rather than dispensed to the public at large... #NPSL | Sean Flynn, CEO de @TheMiamiFC, se refirió a la polémica decisión de Concacaf que no le permitiría a @OttawaFuryFC disputar la temporada 2019 en #USL: pic.twitter.com/YzA8ebwMW0— Deporte Total USA (@deportetotalusa) December 14, 2018 Hell no, I'm not going to "just forget it." Why don't you "just forget it?" Honestly, what inspires you to so wholeheartedly argue for hundreds and hundreds of pages in favor of the status quo and against somebody else's hopes and dreams for the future of American soccer in a thread supposedly dedicated to the discussion of Pro/Rel in context of a Soccer in the USA subforum? To be clear, in this case: Somebody else = 88% of American soccer fans https://www.soccertoday.com/soccer-do-we-want-promotion-and-relegation/ Thank you, Deloitte. I believe the Deloitte executive summary indicates Garber may not have much choice, saying "...there is a limited lifespan to the franchise fee model and without significant increases in broadcast and matchday audiences, the business model may face challenges in the medium term." Again: Thank you for pointing this out, Deloitte. So, why on God's green earth should anybody "just forget it?" Again, from the executive summary you dismissively think you yourself could have done in only a couple of days: "The closed league system, while understandable in the context of when leagues were established, may hinder the longer term growth prospects of club soccer – the closed league system is one that seeks to maximise profit for owners and protect a league’s financial sustainability. To date however, this model in US soccer is more about loss and capital call minimisation, rather than profit maximisation, struggling to grow revenues and to an extent reliant on expansion franchise fees that have a limited lifespan." Once again: Thank you for pointing this out, Deloitte. So, you're okay with national and global sports oligarchies? Problem is, from my view, American soccer cannot sustain itself as a billionaires-only club controlled by an MLS-centric plutocracy... even with Arthur Blank as an outlier/innovator. But thank you for confirming my worst suspicions that you're little more than an MLS oligarch apologist. How else could you justify scoffing at the offer of a half a billion dollars investment in non-MLS lower division soccer? I happen to like my local billionaire, but the guy's in his 70's and may be able to monetize a statewide yet Tulsa-centric MLS expansion bid.... but his vast wealth is no substitute for creating the kind of grassroots, club level experience with the potential to innovate the sport of soccer in my local market, the kind of innovation American soccer needs, particularly at the lower levels, to rightfully become a global power in the sport. There simply aren't enough billionaires who care enough about the sport of soccer in this country. And many cities that could hypothetically support an MLS outlet don't even have any billionaires living in their respective cities. Old billionaires don't, as a rule, innovate... they simply monetize. Why Real Change Won’t Come From Billionaire Philanthropists I'd counter that an entrenched single-entity company engaging in cartel-like practices is actually worse than a cartel. Any plan which is a continuation of the status quo with no overarching reform will be doomed to failure. Based on hundreds of your posts arguing against Pro/Rel in almost every aspect imaginable, I believe your plan is nothing more than a feeble attempt at Pro/Rel which fails... it's the only logical explanation of your obsession against the merit-based hopes and dreams of most American soccer fans.
Your side on Bigsoccer has over the course of many years both demonized Ted Westervelt in just about every way imaginable while simultaneously propping him up as "the leader' of people like myself who want to see Pro/Rel in this country. If you want to defend Barry from individually accusing Ted of "denigrating the deaths of the Chacopanese soccer team" then you should also look at several others like @KCbus , you know, the viciously anti-Pro/Rel guy who's allowed to be a moderator on BS while those with views in favor of #ProRelForUSA are not.
You realize that MLS/USSF destroyed an entire league, do you not? They destroyed the league less than a year after granting the kind of reprieve that enabled several new investors to come on board, only to be left holding the bag after only one season. https://www.concacaf.com/en/article/concacaf-statement-12-13 CONCACAF typically does not comment publicly on sanctioning matters, but due to the lack of clarity regarding the state of the process and the unilateral statements from various parties in regard to the Ottawa Fury Football Club (Ottawa Fury) participating in the 2019 season of the United Soccer League (USL), we would like to clarify the following: Under international sanctioning rules, clubs that are affiliated to an Association may only join competitions in another Association’s territory under exceptional circumstances. For the sanctioning of such play in our region, approval must be given by CONCACAF and FIFA; CONCACAF to date has not received a formal request from any party to consider sanctioning the participation of the Ottawa Fury in the 2019 season of the USL, despite public announcements by Ottawa Fury that it would be doing so; In the fall of 2018, after unilateral public statements made by Ottawa Fury and before any sanctioning application was made to any governing body, CONCACAF clearly advised the Canadian Soccer Association (CSA) of its concerns regarding this matter. A further written correspondence to the CSA followed in November, providing guidance on our view that as it stands to date, we do not see exceptional circumstances, given the launch of the Canadian Premier League (CPL) for the 2019 season. As the governing body for international football in North, Central America and the Caribbean, we are committed to govern on behalf of all of our 41 Associations and key stakeholders. #NPSL | Sean Flynn, CEO de @TheMiamiFC, se refirió a la polémica decisión de Concacaf que no le permitiría a @OttawaFuryFC disputar la temporada 2019 en #USL: pic.twitter.com/YzA8ebwMW0— Deporte Total USA (@deportetotalusa) December 14, 2018
Dude... why should someone who’s against the concept of pro/rel be excluded from being a moderator? And similarly, who ever got excluded from being one because they were for it? Your victimhood shtick is wearing thin. Really thin.
Deloitte released the more detailed version publicly at a later date. It was 47 pages long. You know this. You MUST know this. You MUST know this because you've been whining incessantly for over a year now about Dan Loney's 7-part critique of the thing! So you object to a an extensive, detailed, humorous critique on the study and you object to someone who has a professional background telling you what the publicised synopsis indicates to him. I suspect that what you really object to here is the fact that those critiques weren't positive. I'm sure if David Bolt had written a 7-part critique on how the study was the dog's danglies and a firm indication that pro/rel is the optimum path forward for the game in this country, you would rise from your desk chair and frantically clap your hands in unbridled enthusiasm, your voice cracking as you let out a bold, tearful "BRAVA!!".
Dude, why should anybody as in-favor-of-it as you are opposed-to-it be excluded from moderating? After all, BigSoccer isn't Burger King, you shouldn't have it your way. And, as an 18 year customer of BS, I find its menu options too limited to patronize it on any regular basis anymore. There are many others like me. No, what I object to is Bigsoccer's years-long systematic anti-Pro/Rel snobbery and bias. I object to there being no single counter post to Loney's seven part hack job. I have no problems with David Bolt or anyone else writing an article in favor of the recommendations made by the Deloitte Report and its methodology, just as I would have had no problems with Loney writing a predictably biased one-part critique of Deloitte. But that's not what happened. In fact, I believe it was one of my responses that inspired Loney to expand a three or four part partisan series to trash the Deloitte Report into a seven parter....
Oh for the love of...! USSF and MLS didn't bloody well kill a league!! That league was in its death throes due to its own collective incompetence, despite years of waivers and concessions on the part of USSF. The "reprieve" was actually a bolt out of the blue, as the world and its mother expected the federation to justifiably pull the D2 sanction then and there. It was a last chance to assemble the teams necessary to retain the sanction and that was made clear at the time. Furthermore - and please TRY to digest this - the USSF didn't put NASL on hiatus or demand they cancel their season. They merely rescinded their D2 status. The remaining owners showed zero interest in scheduling any kind of season without that sanction. They didn't even try. He's not defending me against anything of the sort. He's pointing out that I in no way, shape or form, said or implied what you're accusing me of. And in the name of all that is good, given the gravity of the topic, have enough good grace to at least get the club's name right. It's "Chapacoense".
They did "bloody well kill a league." If they'd santioned them, there'd have been a D2 NASL last season and it would continue this coming season. Because USSF D2 status bestowed on the entire USL D3 league has value and the entire NASL as a D3 league has little to no comparative value. Typo. And I believe it was cut-and-paste from someone else's typo. Sad that twitter doesn't see enough of your posts to understand you only exist to antagonize those of us who enthusiastically want to see Pro/Rel in this country, including Pro/Rel at the highest level. Trying to respond to you post-for-post is turning into an infernal waste of my time.
Are you dumb? Are you really that incapable of reading? Or are you just unable to give a straight answer to anything? NAME ONE PERSON WHO WAS UNDER CONSIDERATION TO BE MADE A MODERATOR WHO WAS DENIED THE OPPORTUNITY BECAUSE THEY'RE #PRORELFORUSA. Go ahead. I'll wait. In fact, and I don't know this for a fact, but I'd bet that if you went up and down the list of BS moderators, you'd probably find quite a few that WERE in the "pro" camp. And the menu options aren't "limited." You're just pissed that you prefer the chicken sandwich and more people are ordering Whoppers. In other words, you object to the fact that the majority of posters disagree with you. THEN POST ONE. NO ONE'S STOPPING YOU. I've stated many times on this site that I'll never get to sleep with Jennifer Lawrence. I object to there not being a single counter post to that statement where someone comes to my defense. Maybe the reason it hasn't shown up is because the counterargument just isn't that strong.
@USRufnex I'm not going to copy and paste bits from 4 or 5 posts so here's a consolidated response. **** You make some good points about the MLS model and the possible lack of sustainability. But that makes it more important that you keep MLS out of a pro-rel discussion for now. If you sit there waiting for MLS to collapse and US professional soccer to collapse on the back of it, then you're just as bad as the billionaires you condemn. MLS is not going to accept pro-rel any time soon. If you want to help build a sustainable long-term model them you have to deal with reality. We're probably in a better position to do that in the US than ever before because we have a stable, wealthy top-flight which has proven that we can have a successful professional soccer league in the US. If you look at what happened in England, the Football League had no inclination to admit non-members on playing merit among for 9 decades. In the end the "non-League" teams created a professional organization outside of the Football League that closed the gap between the former amateur and professional ranks, which made the case for an open pyramid a no brainer. Do you understand that the it was the non-League clubs taking the initiative that crashed the case for automatic promotion and relegation? The 92 Football League clubs did not bequeath it in them out of a sense of justice or principle. By 1987 top non-League clubs appeared wealthier and more stable than teams in the 4th Division above them. Why would you expect things to be different in the States? Why would you expect owners to agree to a loss making proposition? *** I'm not anti pro-rel. I'm anti the hyperbole and half truths that people use to support the pro-rel argument. Pro-rel hasn't always existed and hasn't always began the be all and end all of football. Winning a competition can be sufficient motivation in itself. The lack of promotion and relegation doesn't hinder the success of many leagues in many sports around the world. The convolution of soccer with promotion and relegation is a fairly recent development, really a result of the globalization of the game. People see that it exists in other countries and want it here, which is fair enough, but they're really putting the cart before the horse. Also the idea that a team can go from a bunch of lads kicking a ball around in a public park to playing in a Champions League is a myth. It would take hundreds of millions of dollars for that to happen. Teams can go a long way, they can over-perform, they can even spend a season or among the stars but in the long-term it's not sustainable without access to cash. *** NASL was 3 teams (4 if PR survived) and 10 letters of intent in 2018. If you want to blame USSF that's fine. Whether you blame teams or federations seems to depend on which side of the USL/NASL side of the fence they belonged, rather than the merits of the particular case. And quite why you defend NASL is a mystery to me. I think the pro-rel advocates are struggling to follow your logic here. It had as many flaws, financial shenanigans and shady characters as any of the other leagues. I saw the latter day advocacy of promotion and relegation as an act of desperation rather than a strategy. If it was such a holy organization why did Malik and Edwards leave? *** I was quite disappointed when Garber implied that MLS would continue to consider expansion bids beyond 28 and possibly much longer because I don't think that you can create a stable structure as long as MLS, and for that matter, USL, can keep absorbing teams. There are other potential Cincinnatis out there but as long as the sole focus is on joining MLS then we're going to struggle to develop the professional game at the lower reaches. Oh, also we have ASL and UPSL, which don't show any inclination to play with anyone else. *** Not the way it happened in England, not the way it's going to happen in America. Seems more like an excuse to be a keyboard warrior rather than facilitating change. Oh yes I did!
TFCII has 2 leagues in Canada at their divisional level they can play in. The CPL doesn't want TFCII because they know MLSE will throw a ton of money into the squad and it would be embarrassing for the CSA and CPL. Having said all that - ALL Canadian teams face sanctioning every year not just Ottawa. Why do you think Victor and CONCACAF only denied Fury FC and not the three CDN clubs? MLS and CPL are both Division 1. Where's the letter to Bill Manning stating TFC has to move?