Discussion in 'NASL' started by Sandon Mibut, Jan 4, 2017.
pot meet kettle
FC Wichita may have been one of them, based on an article in the Wichita Eagle newspaper a couple of weeks ago. But the article isn't clear on that point.
Here is the link...
One thing it may have done is to get the NPSL to start asking around to see if anyone had been approached by anyone from USL HQ.
Not really an NASL issue, but I don't see what the deal with the PDL/NPSL is. Teams switch leagues routinely, and it's a small world and owners talk. I don't know of any laws or regulations about recruiting teams to leagues.
I'm currently with AT&T for my phone service (actually - I don't have my own service at the moment (I used to have Sprint) because I have a company supplied plan), but that doesn't stop Sprint and Verizon from filling my mailbox with offers. (And, because AT&T doesn't see me as an individual subscriber, I actually get offers from AT&T, too)
Not quite sure I understand your questions, but I'll give it a try. Clearly there would be fewer D2 teams next season if the USSF decision stands. It would likely be a net loss of about 5 or so teams (loss of NASL teams + USL expansion teams + and defections to USL from NASL). Certain communities will lose D2 soccer in the near term, although some of them would not and some may gain D1 teams in near future. Some cities would be in a bit of a bind if USL stops expanding, and others would be in a bind if USL continues expanding, but the USL doesn't want them because of competition with other USL teams and potential MLS teams (SD, OC, NYC, and Miami, for example). In fact, that last point is the only part of this that bothers me at all. I'm not sure that falls under the umbrella of "anti-competitive," though, but it's not far outside.
With all that said, there is nothing to stop NASL or some other league to start at D3 and work their way up to D2 to fill in gaps. Not one thing. I would personally be against USSF ruling that there could only be one league per division. THAT would be anti-competitive---by definition.
As for your second question, D2 is D2. It will never be as good as D1. Each will get better year by year, but there will always be a gap, as there is everywhere, with or without pro/rel. I imagine there will be some teams that want to spend more and feel inhibited by MLS or USL salary budgets, but those were known when they signed up, so complaining now or in the future would ring hollow.
Which, of course, is why there is room for NASL. If their philosophy is the right one, then it will be a success. Of course, it has hardly been a success thus far, as they have been unable to satisfy the most basic of D2 league requirements. Still, if their talk about having 6 teams on the hook for the future is true, then they can most certainly prove to the US soccer world that their way is the best way. No one is stopping them from doing that.
Basically, I disagree that on a league basis that the USSF regs are anti-competitive. They allow for multiple leagues at each division and I see no evidence that they favor one league over another. On a team basis, however, I can see the argument that the USL and MLS regs are somewhat anti-competitive because they make the decisions on who can and cannot be in the leagues. That's American sports for you, though.
I largely agree.
I believe there are restrictions per usl as to how many teams within a certain market so if someone wants a second team they will have to look at nasl, and without the nasl, he/she is sol.
The NASL believes that since it is not beholden to mls as usl is, it will be in a better position to one day challenge/ compete / be an alternative to mls.
While not declaring there can only be one league per division, the ussl desanctioning of the nasl as D2 has the same effect, as will be argued by nasl. Their argument bolstered somewhat by the usl getting continued waiver while it did not, and the NISA not applying for D3 yet to compete against usl-d3.
It isn't ussl regulations as stated but as applied and their consequences. Likely another poor analogy but "separate but equal" was struck down despite being equal as laid out in the laws yet as applied and their consequences were anything but equal.
That is American judicial for you.
The judge will decide.
One day maybe, but not one day soon. I don't see NASL having any chance whatsoever to do this in the near-term---win or loss in this lawsuit. With the exception of Silva, none of the NASL ownership groups have anything close to what is necessary to compete with MLS. Hell, even Carolina's and Indy's don't have the capital necessary to take on the next stage in MLS's evolution (IMO), and they are applying for the expansion slots. It is the main reason why they are considered to be so far behind in the race.
American soccer history is littered with the corpses of teams and leagues who thought they knew better. Money is generally the deciding factor---more specifically, how much money they are willing to lose and for how long.
It temporarily has the same effect, but not long-term. There is a pathway forward for NASL to get to D2, and it is clearly spelled out. It is the NASL teams saying they won't play D3, not USSF. If they have the teams they say they have, it is one year in D3 purgatory.
For that matter, the waivers are not the same. NASL is requesting Division 2 waivers. USL is not. NASL does not meet the basic requirements of D2. USL does. USL is instead requesting (4) professional clubs waivers on behalf of its member clubs. Otherwise, they are in D2 compliance. NASL may very well use an apples to apples argument, but, but USSF lawyers can rebut it pretty easily by showing that it is apples and oranges.
Fair enough. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm unable to coherently tease apart what relationships there may and may not be between the two cases.
Your conclusion that "lawyers agree" is an obvious fallacy.
The lawyers for the nasl did agree to take up the case an argue the nasl perspective, so yes their lawyers did agree. Didn't think I needed to clarify that relationship.
It would be a fallacy if I had declared "all lawyers " or "all lawyers in the case" agreed.
They "agreed to take the case" not "agreed that it had merit"
I argued a hypothetical case in law school where I defended a fraud claim against a white supremacist who sold "Kosher pork" to a Jewish guy. My argument was legally sound, but the defense really had no merit at all.
Lawyers agree to take cases because that's how they get paid.
That maybe the case, but most reputable lawyers in a specialized field as professional sport make money by winning cases and building their reputation rather than wasting time with lawyer fees and losing cases.
I categorize this as possible but not probable.
Do you know who is representing the nasl?
We do.....and getting paid is what he all about. Hilarious.
Trying to take the high road with a snake. Well done!
The guys who lost his last big case against a soccer league? Or did you not know he was chief counsel on the losing side of Fraser vs. MLS? Kessler likes to have his name out there win or lose, yeah he's won a couple sports cases but not soccer ones. Honestly I'm curious what happens to all these people if NASL loses its request for an injunction? Does USSF/MLS suddenly become some all powerful Illuminati type org. that controls the US courts for its own nefarious plans, or do they understand that the NASL is just grasping at straws and has very little hope whether they win or lose?
I'm honestly expecting them to win the injunction. That seems to happen with frequency when it comes to the NFL, at any rate.
I also suspect that NASL winning or losing will have nothing to do with the things we discuss here. It will probably come down to the question of whether the USSF has the authority under law to make divisions and enact standards. Period. Everything else will probably be noise.
So you think the nasl lawyers doesn't believe the case has merit but is taking the case for the lawyer fee at the cost of losing another high profile case?
Maybe injunction followed by forced mediation as per FIFA guidelines and if this buy time for the NASL to get closer to twelve and meet standards the case will end without deciding on ussf authority.
You don't understand the lawyers always"win" in a case like these. His loss to MLS in the previous case and possibly this one makes him a "champion" for these types of cases and he'll keep getting them because he's become the "guy" to take these cases and he can claim a lot of expertise in these matters even if it is a little B.S. I'd go out on an limb and say the only true winners from this case are the lawyers. The NASL is just delaying the inevitable at this point and the USSF will look a little worse in the public's eye but these lawyers will laugh all the way to the bank.
They're not asking for that, so they're not getting that. You realize in FIFA's eyes the NASL is doing a big no-no right? The NASL should have gone to FIFA directly but they didn't and went to the local courts which FIFA abhors. FIFA isn't going to side with the NASL in this one and I don't understand how people keep thinking FIFA is going to swoop in and make everything better for the NASL, when they're going about things the way they are.
Right. I've been waiting for this to come up. If anyone is going to be disinclined to help the NASL, it's FIFA.
not saying the lawyers won't win financially
Only stated the lawyers saw enough merit in the case to take it on
Yes the NASL should have gone into arbitration as per FIFA guidelines. Their argument was that there was no time to do so without risking failure so they needed the injunction. If the injunction is granted then they will have time for arbitration.
I also never said this will end well for the nasl, with or without FIFA.
You obviously haven't interacted with many lawyers, "merit" is very low on the reasons for taking a case but sure believe what you will.
Enough to know all lawyers are not mercenaries. A low reason to take a case doesn't invalidate the merit of a case.
Sure, but these aren't those type of lawyers they're not fighting for the rights of immigrants or helping bring to light an abuse of power. What these lawyers are trying to do is keep a floundering league afloat after years of dumb/bad business decisions and they're not doing it for "merit". This is all for profile and money.