Just what the title sayshttp://www.recklesschallenge.net/usl-pro-to-apply-for-division-2-status-with-ussf/
it makes sense to have MLS clubs having a USLPro club as its top minor league affiliate be at the second level of the pyramid. For new expansion clubs going forward it would mean there will be no difference in being a NASL or USLpro team with D2 net worth requirements being the same as a D2 league. whether it stays as is or if the USSF changes the requirement of the net worth.
They could qualify now if they dropped 4-5 teams. Maybe those smaller clubs stay in D3 and become USL Pro 2.
Could be what they may be looking to do. Since the official agreement between MLS and USLPro there will be an expansion of 16 new clubs from the 2014-2015 season. Those clubs are either owned by the MLS club or have come in knowing where the league is headed with MLS affiliates. OC Blues and Dayton two name a couple where part of a USLpro that had a different mission.
Right now OC Blues, Pittsburgh Hounds, Rochester Rhinos, Harrisburg Islanders all would probably not qualify for D2. I don't think Arizona, St Louis, Colorado Springs, Tulsa or Austin do either. OKC? Charleston and Richmond probably do. If Charlotte is honest about MLS quest, they better have $20+ million in the ownership team. Even some of the MLS owned USL teams, while having adequate ownership are not playing in D2 approved stadiums (Galaxy, Portland, NYRB?, Vancouver etc). So a lot of issues.
The Oklahoma City Energy fc ownership also owns Express personnel employment agency which is where they made their fortune they have the net worth for d2 and could probably have the net worth for MLS
Unless they moved to Chester, their stadium still wouldn't meet reqs. MLS money? I seriously doubt that, considering most MLS ownership groups are billionaires. Still they only currently need 1 investor worth in excess of $20 million.
ii. Each team ownership group must demonstrate the financial capacity to operate the team for five years. As part of the process of demonstrating financial capacity, each ownership group must provide detailed financial history (if applicable) and projections (including a detailed budget) for the team to the Federation in a form satisfactory to the Federation. In addition, each team must have and its governing legal documents must designate one principal owner with a controlling interest who 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 forty million US dollars (US $40,000,000) exclusive of the value of his/her ownership in the league or team and his/her primary personal residence. The principal owner, together with all other owners, must have a combined individual net worth of at least seventy million US dollars (US $70,000,000) exclusive of the value of ownership interests in the league or team and primary personal residences. Federation shall have the right to require an independent audit to establish that the team meets these net worth requirements; the cost of such audit shall be the responsibility of the team or league. The Federation will take reasonable steps to protect from disclosure and limit access to financial information provided under this section.
Wow, didn't take long for someone to respond to the original Reckless Challenge article, challenging the legal standing of the single-entity business model. Geez.... Just when you think that USA soccer structure has stabilized since the "Nike buys Umbro, which spins the USL off to NewRock, which nearly causes the league to collapse, which created the TOA-now-NASL breakaway group, to creating the one-year USSF-D2-League, to creating the D3-USL-Pro, to MLS-minor-league-affiliations," to finally seemingly having a stable pro structure (not even getting into the possible college restructure). First glance, this looks like "making changes for the sake of making changes." Couldn't we just let the current system run for a few years before manhandling it again?
No, it doesn't. What it looks like is that time-honored American soccer tradition: a pissing match. Egos abhor what appears to most to be stability.
Well in that scenario the Islanders would either move to the fantasy D3 as is or cease to exist and become Philly2 in Chester.
Found this the most interesting quote: "Reckless Challenge, however, has also learned that the criteria for being sanctioned are likely to change by 2017."
Maybe. Maybe not. They only recently changed the D-II criteria regarding team distribution across time zones. It may simply be that those standards are subject to regular tweaking.
I have heard a lot about USL exclusivity agreements (non compete clauses regarding NASL). What are the timeframes on these franchise agreements (or whatever they are)? Are they reupped on standard time frames, or do they vary from ownership group to ownership group. I only ask because of the strain between quality of play and a goal of keeping operating costs low, and I am wondering if an application for DII might be a strategic play in order to allow teams to self select based on their competitive ambitions or financial commitments (similarly to teams choosing to move up to Pro, or down to PDL). Because otherwise at the end of contract lengths the stronger franchises might be tempted by the allure of an ownership driven league like NASL claims to be.
Cross posting this (originally posted it in the NASL forum under a similar title thread as this one) ... It's probably a waste of time to discuss what USL Pro teams could meet D2 status at this point in time. Realistically ... they could roll out a plan for a 15 team D2 league as USL 1 ... and then the remaining teams in USL 2 would be D3. A 15 team league would likely encompase enough time zones to qualify them. 15 teams would mean a single table home/away 28 season regular season (match's USL's current schedule length). How do they get to 15 teams that qualify for all of the D2's current limits? Let's go ahead and assume that ANY MLS2 team would qualify (all teams could use the MLS stadium to get to that minimum and they obviously have the owners net worth requirements set). How many of these will there be in 2017? Let's go ahead and say the 8 current teams (7 announced +NYRB2) make it till 2017. I don't know if there will be 7 MLS 2 sides again in 2016, but I think we can safely assume that 2 is an extremely likely low water mark (FC Dallas and Houston being the obvious). That gets you to 10. If Sacramento has put together a group to bid for MLS let's say that they can figure out how to make the D2 requirements by 2017 (it really makes it pretty easy if they are announced for MLS expansion for say the 2019 season). Does anyone think that 4 more USL teams couldn't get there? Some have the facilities, some may have the ownership groups ... but give them 2 years to plan and I think you can figure that 4 more teams is pretty realistic to find. Want to make it REALLY easy to get to 15 teams? MLS announces in early 2015 that Sacramento and Minnesota will be franchises 23 and 24 and will start in 2019. Both teams will be a part of the 2017 D2 league and will be "promoted" to MLS in 2019 (league standings aside). Along with this announcement, MLS says that ALL future MLS expansion will come through this new D2 (wheather that be through promotion or an expansion fee process will be determined at a later date) (including Miami's MLS team) and that MLS2 sides will not be eligable for promotion (to keep all league teams must have seperate ownership groups in mind). Promotion/Relegation between USL1 and USL2 would begin in 2017 (and promoted organizations would have to meet D2 standards or promotion would not be allowed). With ATL and LAFC coming in 2017, Sacramento/Minnesota in 2019 (really it doesn't matter where 23 and 24 happen so don't focus in on the "where", just the "when") MLS could say that they will pause at 24 and see how the MLS/USL1 and USL2 performs and grows through the 2021 season (giving them 2 season with 24 teams) before deciding if they want to expand past 24 teams or stay at 24 and use the USL1 as promotion/relegation (with expansion fees of promoted teams being something that would likely happen if the did open the pyramid ... really, this detail is minute as MLS would still control their own destiny in this and decide if they wanted to open the pyramid and at what costs). Just something to think about ... and if you were an NASL club (say San Antonio) and saw this laid out ... would you want to be a part of it or not. Something like this would surely put pressure on non MLS markets to get facilities, acadamy systems and a number of other things lined up ... with a little more insentive for investors. D2 - USL (USL1) could also expand to 20 teams or whatever ... and D3 USL (USL2) could grow in numbers and ideally stay regional.
Supposedly they are three-year contracts (standard), but the (potentially non-enforceable) non-competes are supposed to endure for five years post-expiration. Offering a D2 option that is within your own umbrella wouldn't be a bad strategy, now, would it? IF this scenario came to fruition, you'd very likely see a return to the pre-2010 setup, with the stronger USL organizations in the upper tier and the others below.
All this pontificating is interesting. My take is simple...Why would USL move to D2 only to split up what they have been building into two tiers with fewer teams? The reason there is hope of survival of USL and the undercurrent of recent wave of expansion is the budgets start to make sense when you have more teams in a region/close proximty and travel costs decrease. It also helps in creating natural rivalries that fans can get passionate about. It is far far to early in the evloution of the sport here in US for USL to break up what they are building into smaller pieces.
That is the downside. They (the USL teams) know how much regionalization they need to "survive" financially. If they have a number in mind then maybe they're at that number (or past) ... and they know that they need some growth to get past that in order to split between D2 and D3 (with a smaller/national D2 added to a regional D3 that would be no change from the existing). USL teams would get to decide which their ownership group/market fit and decline D2 promotion if they wanted. The benifit to this is that MLS could dictate how they expand further than 24 (if at all) and if they ever were to do promotion/relegation, they'd need a D2 that THEY controlled before they ever agreed to it. NASL is somewhat vulnerable right now (Atlanta very questionable, Minnesota could be put in a similar situation if not outright poached). Providing a D2 alternative to NASL the USL D2 league could actually poach some NASL teams to really cripple that league and put them under an MLS "controlled" umbrella. Some teams (like the Cosmos) may not want to play by the D2 rules (like a salary cap) that MLS/USL put forth, but others may if it means a relistic shot at MLS in the future (through expansion OR promotion). Long winded answer, but I agree with you that regional play is vital to USL Pro (D3) ... but it may not be to some clubs that would end up being a part of the D2 pyramid. So expand enough and you can have it both and satisfy ALL the wish's for the ever growing USL Pro ownership group.
Again I'm amused by your pontificating. There are so many extremely smart people on here that have everything figured out. Now if someone would just hire them all to run these leagues, we would all be in soccer utopia. Seriously folks, we all spend way to much time coming up with our own personal best case scenerios and ultimate soccer pyramid structures. While I enjoy coming up with ideas as much as the next guy, let's all take in downa notch and be real, 95% of our ideas will never come to fruition.
Completely agree ... not saying my idea is the best or that it's likely to happen ... just posting a "what if" scenerio and enjoying the discussion that follows ... if you're not interested, move along.