https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-2945.html http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/soccer/us/news/2002/08/27/mls_burbs_sa/ Your memory is faulty (i.e. you are lying) again. No mention of zoning board in here at all. The deal fell through because of differences on the length of the deal. Peter Wilt said so. And it was nixed by Anschutz himself, according to Soccer America. Now comes the part where you either: a. Ignore the facts and refuse to sack up and admit you were wrong b. Lie yet again, subtly call Peter a liar and say that you and only you know the real reasons.
It eems Kenn is not familiar with the saga of the Chicago Skyway, which was a short term bust but long term money-spinner. The thing went bankrupt but emerged from Chapter 11 like a swan. It took 20 years though. Too bad about Arlington Heights. We came this close to having ths stadium there but it seems Daley intervened with the zoning board and the thing fell through. Why would anyone put any credence in what Sports Illustrated says? Isn't that the magazine that said that Adu was born in 1989, that his birth certificate is accurate and everyone who questions that should shut up?
Not this time. http://www.fifa.com/documents/static/regulations/statutes_08_2006_en.pdf Go to page 60, 3, A. It's a pdf file, so I can't cut'n'paste. But it says that a player cannot switch if he has played an A match (i.e., against Canada) and if at that time he had already that same nationality (i.e., by representing the US at the U-17s.) NOW, write something snarky. Let's not get into crazy hypotheticals.
That's just funny. Peter Wilt is quoted in SI, so they are the liars because you are too ignorant to believe that Freddy Adu is as old as he says he is. Can you give me a link to this zoning decision? Funny. I know I promised I wouldn't get involved, but you're the gift that keeps on giving.
Wasn't there a question about whether the Canada game qualified as an A match or am I misremembering? Was that question settled?
It certainly was. Every international is an A match unless it's a youth match or a "B" international (which the U.S. never plays).
YOU said bankruptcy was inevitable in the stadium's case, even though it's been open less than a year.
Good research. It may or may not be applicable. I asked my guy at USSF the other day, who said he was swamped but would get back to me and then said, "But I'm right." We'll see.
I'm also thinking that under the new rules where players can change associations that age group competitions don't lock a player in. In fact that's the entire reason for the new rules, so that a minor who accepted bad advice to play for one country at the youth level has the ability to change their national team. And, yeah, I'm pretty sure the Canada game was not a cap-tying game, either by itself, or in combination with Freddy's participation in either the FIFA U-17 or U-20 championships, nor CONCACAF's qualifying tournaments for those championships. And that's after careful reading of the link Dave provided, and other portions of the same document. -------------------------------------------------- But it's a completely moot point. Freddy Adu won't be playing for Ghana in this or any conceivable alternate reality. -------------------------------------------------- Additionally, I'm a bit ashamed at both myself and some of you folks for taking Tom's bait. Tom, a fervent MNT supporter, is a really nice guy - in person. But he plays an absolute dick-wad on BigSoccer. It's an act. A tired act. His MO is tired and predictable. Over inflate corner cases into supreme court cases. Lie about what other posters post, and folks being discussed have said. Make up facts without research to fit an argument. Repeat said arguments without regard to the replies or refutations. Throw so much shit into a single post that the riled up responders reply in long, drawn out point by point rebuttals - then reply to that rebuttal, ignoring 97% of the post and responding the least important, most irrelevant part, and mention a previous thread that he's too busy to, or "banned from" looking up in which some topic was discussed (ignoring that his point was probably discredited there, too) as "backup" for why the point is a valid topic now. Lather, Rinse, Repeat. Really, I'm ashamed for taking the bait. And frankly we should all just step back and let Tom drift back into online obscurity, then just share beers with him at tailgates.
Kenn, maybe you don't understand. A corporation can declare bankruptcy, reorganize, then emerge from bankruptcy. I don't see how Bridgeview can service the debt unless something big changes and I don't see that either. The Fire have discounted tickets to the bone. The concerts are not there; they all went to Northerly Island. However, long term, they can probably get enough acts in there to pay the debt. Look at the Auditorium Theater; it has almost been razed 3 or 4 times in its 117 year history. But it keeps coming back. You better believe Salt Lake City and some other places are taking a long hard look at Frisco and Bridgeview and it is not a pretty financial picture.
I hope I don't sound like a dick, but how are you interpreting the section I pointed y'all to, then? It seems very clear to me.
We played Angola and I don't think that was an A match, but this match is listed on Fifa's website as an A friendly. http://fifa.com/en/mens/results/resultsindex.html?currPage=26
How can Frisco not be a pretty financial picture? Actually, the Fire have not discounted tickets to the bone. But because you know everything about TV and about the workings of the Fire's front office, I guess I'll have to believe you.
Exactly. That's why I'm going on the theory that his sole purpose in these threads is to practice arguing for a lost case. Maybe a jury would fall for the rhetorical tricks. So I don't mind indulging him as long as it's not a threadjack. In a thread that starts with Oliver's head exploding, there's no harm done.
I know this viewpoint is not popular. For years we heard the same thing. As soon as we get A Home of Our Own everything would be all right. I said that was bogus and was right. I wish I was wrong but look at Columbus, Dallas, Chicago. The attendance stinks in all 3 places all three have their "own" stadiums, nice ones at that. That doesn't solve the problem that MLS is losing fans. Fast. When you went to a Fire game in 2001-2003, you could see it gaining momentum. It went south after that. Believe me, no one wants to see the Fire stick around more than me.
And...by the way...they're approaching profitability. Which was...wait for it...the point of the stadiums in the first place (not increasing attendance, though Dallas' is up). Actually, the (necessary) move to Naperville seems like it had an effect (though there were other factors). Fire attendance did pick up substantially in 2001 after sliding substantially in 1999 and 2000. The move to Naperville (again, little choice in the matter) killed the momentum and going back to SF didn't really help (except cosmetically thanks to doubleheaders and such).
In other words, he blatantly ignores the rules of this Web site and wholeheartedly deserves a permanent yellow card and restrictions on his posting because he's too immature/narccisstic to play nice?
kenn, in re-reading the FIFA rules, it seems to mean that since Freddy already had Ghanaian nationality when he played for our U-17s in an official game, THAT'S why the Canada friendly cap-tied him. It seems like the logic is this...someone in Freddy's position has a chance to choose (youth competitions) and then he has a chance to affirm or not affirm that choice (Canada friendly.) The point is, as a U-17, he DID have to make a choice, and in my mind, that's the best interpretation of FIFA's rules. They are to ensure that there are two forks in the road and not just one. I say that because the section spelling this out is a subsection of when the rules talk about a player switching his affiliation. The first time I read it, I didn't read 3(a) enough in the context of 3. Let's put it this way...if Freddy couldn't get his US citizenship in time for the U-17s, and had played for Ghana in that, even a friendly for Ghana's seniors wouldn't tie him, because at the time he played for Ghana, he couldn't have played for the US. Because in this scenario, Freddy only had one fork in the road, the Ghana friendly. (I hope it goes without saying that a senior cap in an official competition ties a player.) But in the real world, Freddy chose us over Ghana with the U-17s, and then affirmed that choice in FIFA's eyes with the Canada cap.
I'm not sure why a friendly would be more affirming than playing in subsequent Youth Cups - especially since friendlies are viewed as non-captying, but I'm confused by this paragraph you wrote - if he didn't have a choice at the time of the U-17s, he would be captied by the U-17 appearance and the friendly would be irrelevant, no? Why is the Ghana friendly a fork in the road in that scenario when he's already captied by the U-17 tournament? You've really lost me with the fork in the road stuff, especially if someone like Freddy doesn't know the rule then he probably didn't view it as a fork in the road. The rule would make my head hurt a lot less if it were - Freddy can change associations provided he hasn't been captied by an A team appearance, i.e., not a friendly. That would make sense to everyone - but as the language stands now - that a friendly CAN captie you if you have appeared in official Youth tournaments - just seems arbitrary and confusing. What if you played in the friendly before the Youth Cup? You could play in a friendly thinking it didn't captie you and then not be able to play in a YWC later. That's a fork in the road which materializes after you past it? Freddy should have been told clearly that the friendly would captie him and it seems clear he wasn't told this. I would think the rule wasn't intended to sneakily captie you.
Apparently USSF isn't going to give an "official" response until an "official" person asks for one. Beau? Wanna help?
I tend to rate out very high in reading comprehension tests, and I just don't read that much into the FIFA statutes, Dave. I think you're making way too many assumptions. In reality, we may never know the real status as it's likely to become moot sooner or later when Freddy plays in a WCQ.
Andy, you know this is totally false and are posting in anyway. Physician heal thyself. Concerning Adu, the only FIFA rule I can discern is that there are no rules that are consistently enforced. Why would anyone be surprised that the enforcement of the "rules" relating to being cap tied are impossible to figure out? I think it would be great if Adu went and played for Ghana. His heart was clearly with the Ghanaian team during the World Cup when he said the German ref in Nurnburg did a good job. Anyone think it was suspcicious we were "drawn" to play in Nurnburg and "drew" a German ref there? Adu has been the biggest flop since the Edsel and the sooner he disappears from the US soccer scene the better. It is time to move into damage control mode on the fiasco if it is not already too late.
Actually, he's spot on. Self-awareness is hard to come by, I guess. Wondered how long it would take before you claimed match-fixing.