News: USL1 now USSF Division 2 League

Discussion in 'United Soccer Leagues' started by EstebanLugo, Dec 30, 2009.

  1. EstebanLugo

    EstebanLugo Member

    Mar 18, 2007
    N of your DB
    Club:
    Millonarios Bogota
    Nat'l Team:
    Colombia
  2. AndyMead

    AndyMead Homo Sapien

    Nov 2, 1999
    Seat 12A
    Club:
    Sporting Kansas City
    Re: USL 1 De-sanctioned

    Which is another reason why I thought splitting the forums was premature. Now we end up with the same discussion in two seperate places - with one result being one league with two seperate forums. Sweet.
     
  3. AndyMead

    AndyMead Homo Sapien

    Nov 2, 1999
    Seat 12A
    Club:
    Sporting Kansas City
    Re: USL 1 De-sanctioned

    USL Press Release
     
  4. law5guy

    law5guy Member

    Jun 26, 2001
    Re: USL 1 De-sanctioned

    Was looking for the offical NASL website to see what their official press release said.

    But.. I had no luck in finding it. ;)
     
  5. bluedevils

    bluedevils Member

    Nov 17, 2002
    USA
    Re: USL 1 De-sanctioned

    some careful and peculiar wording in that USL press release.

    I'm not sure I understand what they are implying with this: "USL will continue to move ahead with its preparations for the 2010 USL-1 season in the appropriate membership category."

    They also alluded to a "newly-implemented re-sanctioning process for professional league members." As far as I know, that is more information than we heard from USSF (i.e. more than none) about the sanctioning process that the leagues were undergoing recently.
     
  6. SoccerPrime

    SoccerPrime Moderator
    Staff Member

    All of them
    Apr 14, 2003
    Club:
    Real Salt Lake
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Re: USL 1 De-sanctioned

    Actually, besides this small thread there has been no or little discussion on the USL forum. Sad really.
     
  7. EstebanLugo

    EstebanLugo Member

    Mar 18, 2007
    N of your DB
    Club:
    Millonarios Bogota
    Nat'l Team:
    Colombia
  8. GOALSeattle

    GOALSeattle Member

    Oct 13, 2007
    Seattle
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Re: USL 1 De-sanctioned

    http://www.uslsoccer.com/home/390471.html

    In support of USSF’s efforts to find a resolution for the upcoming season at its Division II Men’s Professional League level, USL very recently agreed to one of the proposals made by USSF requiring USL-1 and the contemplated North American Soccer League (NASL) to come together for 2010. USL remains willing to proceed with this USSF-proposed scenario in order to enable the 2010 season over the course of the next several days.

    Meanwhile, USL will continue to move ahead with its preparations for the 2010 USL-1 season in the appropriate membership category.
     
  9. Mikey mouse

    Mikey mouse Member

    Jul 27, 1999
    Charleston, SC
    Club:
    Charleston
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Re: USL 1 De-sanctioned

    Quality not Quanity ;)

    I suppose I could post random links with no description, or tin-foil hat conspiracy theories or I could just repeat myself over and over again regardless if someone had corrected my misinformation.
    But the NASL press release has a different tone

     
  10. fútbolgrande

    fútbolgrande Member

    Sep 10, 2009
    Fredericksburg, Virginia
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Re: USL 1 De-sanctioned

    so who is the NASL's 11th team? to my knowledge they claim Vancouver, Montreal, Rochester, Minnesota, St Louis, Baltimore, Carolina, Atlanta, Tampa Bay and Miami. that makes 10. are they including the team that Edmonton will inherit from Vancouver in 2011?
     
  11. SoccerPrime

    SoccerPrime Moderator
    Staff Member

    All of them
    Apr 14, 2003
    Club:
    Real Salt Lake
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Re: USL 1 De-sanctioned

    They did use the vague "2010 and beyond". I guess they could pretty much use any group that has shown interest at this point. Its pretty obvious that USSF didn't like whatever number and teams NASL used on their application.
     
  12. DCU1996

    DCU1996 Member

    Jun 3, 2002
    N. VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    Korea Republic
    Re: USL 1 De-sanctioned

    I think it means USL won't pursue as a 2nd level league after MLS for now, but rather try to get sanctinoned as whatever appropriate position as a professional league.

    I think it's good decision by USSF leaving the door open for both parties to work toghether.
     
  13. CFL-fan

    CFL-fan Member

    May 1, 2006
    Maryland
    Re: USL 1 De-sanctioned

    It makes sense for the two to play nice this season.

    One other point. While the USL was not sanctioned neither was the NASL.

    NASL may not have 8 viable teams because
    1. Minnesota has debts
    2. Atlanta did not play last year
    3. St. Louis and Tampa are startups
    4. CP Baltimore and Tampa are being sued by USL.
    5. Not sure if Rochester is also being sued.

    So viable teams are essentially Vancouver, Montreal, Carolina and Miami.
     
  14. SoccerPrime

    SoccerPrime Moderator
    Staff Member

    All of them
    Apr 14, 2003
    Club:
    Real Salt Lake
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Re: USL 1 De-sanctioned

    Makes sense for them to work together for 2010? Why? Because they hate each other? Because they will most likely to everything they can to undermine the other even if they "do whats right for soccer" for 2010?

    Sure, its great that there will be some Div2 soccer league for 2010. That will be great (hey thats not a given yet either, as of right now, there is no 2010 Div2 soccer). But its not going to be long term solution. Where there is smoke there is fire. There is something smoking about the USL/NASL clubs relationship. And USSF didn't solve anything except delaying it til 2011.
     
  15. Macsen

    Macsen Moderator
    Staff Member

    Nov 5, 2007
    Orlando
    Club:
    Orlando City SC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Re: USL 1 De-sanctioned

    Technically, the way things are going, they're going to have to archive and delete both forums, so it really doesn't matter either way.
     
  16. jasontoon

    jasontoon Member

    Jan 9, 2002
    Seattle, WA
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Re: USL 1 De-sanctioned

    By this logic, somebody better tell MLS that Philadelphia Union isn't viable for 2010.

    ACStL has a stadium, a coach, a youth system, and the same staff that successfully ran a WPS team last year. They're as viable as any other team in either league.
     
  17. athletics68

    athletics68 Member+

    Dec 12, 2006
    San Diego & San Jose
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Re: USL 1 De-sanctioned

    Seems to me USL seems to think that a resolution will be for the NASL teams to come back into the USL fold.
     
  18. athletics68

    athletics68 Member+

    Dec 12, 2006
    San Diego & San Jose
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Re: USL 1 De-sanctioned

    You forgot CP Baltimore and Rochester.
     
  19. DCU1996

    DCU1996 Member

    Jun 3, 2002
    N. VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    Korea Republic
    Re: USL 1 De-sanctioned

    maybe with a lot of demands by NASL side met.
     
  20. athletics68

    athletics68 Member+

    Dec 12, 2006
    San Diego & San Jose
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Re: USL 1 De-sanctioned

    Maybe the threat of having no league at all will be enough to finally make USL budge and give the NASL owners what they want. But I'm not holding my breath. NuRock so far hasn't been very willing to budge on anything and has been very fond of strong arm tactics. I would be much less surprised if they continue using the paddle instead of the carrot with the NASL owners even now. And that's not something the NASL owners will respond well to.
     
  21. Macsen

    Macsen Moderator
    Staff Member

    Nov 5, 2007
    Orlando
    Club:
    Orlando City SC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Re: USL 1 De-sanctioned

    The status of the lawsuit: The way it looks to me, and I could be wrong, but it looks like the judge told USL to go f*** itself.

    The teams asked for voluntary dismissal on December 21, and it was granted. The case is closed.
     
    1 person likes this.
  22. athletics68

    athletics68 Member+

    Dec 12, 2006
    San Diego & San Jose
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Re: USL 1 De-sanctioned

    Sure looks like the case was dismissed. I wonder why this hasn't been reported anywhere? Unless of course the entire case wasn't thrown out which would explain USSF stating that neither side had enough teams. Unless of course they consider some of the "incoming" teams to NASL inviable.
     
  23. teucer

    teucer Member

    Dec 17, 2009
    Raleigh, NC, USA
    Club:
    Carolina Railhawks
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Re: USL 1 De-sanctioned

    Those could only be NASL teams if the lawsuit went their way.

    ...on the other hand it sure looks like it did, so that leaves us in a state of :confused:
     
  24. athletics68

    athletics68 Member+

    Dec 12, 2006
    San Diego & San Jose
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Re: USL 1 De-sanctioned

    I don't think the 3 sued teams were what gave USSF pause about NASL. Rather it was probably teams like St. Louis, Atlanta, Tampa, and Minnesota who exist in name only. They have varying states of no coach, no players, no stadium, etc... We're awfully late in the game for teams to be sans players, coaches, stadiums, FO's...
     
  25. DCU1996

    DCU1996 Member

    Jun 3, 2002
    N. VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    Korea Republic
    Re: USL 1 De-sanctioned

    wut? I thought AC St. Louis is in very good shape, even used to ba a contender for a MLS spot.
     

Share This Page