Home > Uncategorized > USL/TOA Update: Lawyers Entering the Picture

USL/TOA Update: Lawyers Entering the Picture

As the saga between the USL and the TOA enters its third month, lawyers are now being summoned potentially to play a big role in the outcome.

We can report that the TOA has approached a connected attorney in the US Soccer community who could be handling either:

a- The application process to the USSF and CSA

b- Any litigation with USL on behalf of TOA members.

USL itself, we are told by sources, have been looking at legal options not only to prevent the TOA from forming a new league, but also potentially to replace TOA owners with new franchises in certain key markets. Keep in mind, USL’s new owner/CEO Alek Papadakis is a contract lawyer who has specifically dealt with franchise issues in his Atlanta based legal career.

From this we can presume USL has not made moves based on Public Relations considerations, but probably on legal considerations. This would appear to give the USL the legal high ground in its battle with the TOA.

However, it is somewhat striking the about-face, U-turn Papadakis was forced to make last week, one day waving goodbye to two Canadian franchises and the next day committing to set up a Canadian administrative office for the league. Whether it was sound legal strategy combined with bad PR instinct or something else, is up to the reader to determine.

Furthermore, we have been told that on matters of player contracts and franchise agreements, the USSF which does have the final say in the matter is favorably inclined towards the TOA. (This has been previously reported by Brian Quarstad of our partner site, Inside Minnesota Soccer) The meeting which TOA leaders held with MLS Commissioner Don Garber, as well as their presentations to Garber and USSF head Sunil Gulati, we are told were far better received than similar conversations between USL’s Tampa based administration and the USSF/MLS.

We have received no word on whether or not the Canadian Soccer Association would sanction the new league. But based on our reporting, should the TOA get past first base in the application process, the leadership of both the USSF and MLS are favorably disposed towards whatever course the owners group chooses to pursue. From the standpoint of the USSF, losing good owners and clubs/potential clubs in critical markets is not acceptable according to one source. MLS has a similar concern as the league seeks build a more national footprint: losing critical markets for the sport, before MLS is ready to expand there, particularly in the Southeast and Florida is not something Commissioner Garber wants to deal with we are told.

The Federation, we are told realizes the vital importance of certain mid-sized and large markets currently in USL and does not want to jeopardize those markets not having professional soccer for an extended period of time. Atlanta for example, has already gone one season without a team despite having its own stadium because of a dispute between the Silverbacks ownership and USL.

Our sources have asked to remain anonymous at this critical time. However, these are not off the record sources. We have more off the record information and deep background sources which have allowed us to paint a broader picture, but we still have been exposed to some information that we cannot reveal.

A quick word on criticisms. It became fashionable among some bloggers and message board writers to take issue with Inside Minnesota Soccer’s Brian Quarstad and myself for not revealing off the record information regarding the brewing TOA/USL dispute over the summer. As has been reported and speculated about on other websites, both of us had been aware of the brewing dispute for many months and did not report the information because our sources were off the record.

While we are not proper journalists, we do have certain standards of ethics we abide by and betraying off the record sources is not something  either of us will do.  Moreover, our off the record sources allow us to paint a broader and more complete picture on these issues when information does become public.

Categories: Uncategorized
  1. November 3, 2009 at 1:02 pm | #1

    Kartik, we would all rather have some information in this story than none. Just remember, you only get the opportunity to burn a source once. I personally don’t recommend that you don’t do it to satisfy basically anonymous commenters.

    In the era of modern media there are not “proper” or improper journalists. There are people who do research, are based in facts and follow ethics and there are those who don’t. Whether they are bloggers, print, radio or TV is irrelevant.

  2. November 3, 2009 at 2:15 pm | #2

    Kartik, great job like always.

  3. robert scorca
    November 3, 2009 at 5:43 pm | #3

    Thanks for the update. I just hope with lawyers entering the scene it does not delay the formation of the new league for to long. I see this as a possible bad sign which might force teams back to the USL or make them sit out a year while things get resolved. Hopefully this is not the case. Even if the ruling is in the favor of the TOA every day delayed is a victory for the USL.
    I agree with Dave Clark. The worse thing you can do is disclose an anonymous source. It will take years to reestablish the trust you have. Word gets around that you can not be trusted and many doors will be closed. I deal with several clubs and am privy to info that is kept from the general public because I do not disclose it.
    Many of the people might not be aware but what you share is only the tip of the iceberg. You use all info you receive to come to a most likely outcome. Keep up the great work.

  4. Scott
    November 3, 2009 at 10:02 pm | #4

    Thanks for all the information related to the USL and TOA. It is hard to find this information anywhere else. Do you have any information on how the USL-2 teams are reacting to this? Teams that were in USL-1 at one time, like Pittsburg and Richmond, come to mine. If USL-1 splits apart, the old league and the new league may battle over USL-2 teams. Could USL-1 and USL-2 merge? I have so many questions related to this topic. Thanks again for keeping us informed on what you can.

  5. Chris
    November 3, 2009 at 10:26 pm | #5

    Thanks Kartik
    Speaking of USL-2 On the west coast there are some PDL teams that have mentioned going up to USL-2 wouldn’t it be easier if both USL-1 and 2 were owned by the teams to create a West division of USL-2 with the possibility of some NPSL teams joining? ( i mean they already left the USL for the same reasons acording to there old slogan!)

  6. Anonymous
    November 4, 2009 at 7:30 am | #6

    Kartik……………as one of those who left messages on that Big Soccer thread, I believe you have an obligation to really tell us what is going on. Not the drip, drip stuff you and Inside Minnesota Soccer have been given us. This thing has now, including the time you sat on info gone on for almost a year. These updates weekly may simply be sinister ways to get more traffic to your site, rather than to protect sources.

    So much for ethics and responsibility. Sadly, it has worked. You have a lot of readers now because of your “ethics.”

    Tell us the whole story or skip it.

  7. November 4, 2009 at 8:35 am | #7

    Anonymous :

    Kartik……………as one of those who left messages on that Big Soccer thread, I believe you have an obligation to really tell us what is going on. Not the drip, drip stuff you and Inside Minnesota Soccer have been given us. This thing has now, including the time you sat on info gone on for almost a year. These updates weekly may simply be sinister ways to get more traffic to your site, rather than to protect sources.

    So much for ethics and responsibility. Sadly, it has worked. You have a lot of readers now because of your “ethics.”

    Tell us the whole story or skip it.

    Please read the last three paragraphs of the piece again. If you want to know the whole story as you put it cultivate your own sources and betray them on a message board.

    Typically, I make it a rule not to respond to an anonymous poster, so consider this the last response you’ll get from me.

  8. November 4, 2009 at 8:36 am | #8

    Chris :

    Thanks Kartik
    Speaking of USL-2 On the west coast there are some PDL teams that have mentioned going up to USL-2 wouldn’t it be easier if both USL-1 and 2 were owned by the teams to create a West division of USL-2 with the possibility of some NPSL teams joining? ( i mean they already left the USL for the same reasons acording to there old slogan!)

    I know the west coast PDL teams are keeping track of this situation very closely and are looking at all options. The NPSL teams are largely former USL teams as you mention who left because they wanted an owner controlled league. Also consider the PCSL has a few teams that could be part of any potential new league as well.

  9. November 4, 2009 at 8:39 am | #9

    Scott :

    Thanks for all the information related to the USL and TOA. It is hard to find this information anywhere else. Do you have any information on how the USL-2 teams are reacting to this? Teams that were in USL-1 at one time, like Pittsburg and Richmond, come to mine. If USL-1 splits apart, the old league and the new league may battle over USL-2 teams. Could USL-1 and USL-2 merge? I have so many questions related to this topic. Thanks again for keeping us informed on what you can.

    USL-2 teams seem to be monitoring it closely. Jason Davis over at Match Fit USA had a piece on the USL-2 teams a few weeks ago. I’ll find it and link it.

  10. November 4, 2009 at 8:40 am | #10

    Dave Clark :

    Kartik, we would all rather have some information in this story than none. Just remember, you only get the opportunity to burn a source once. I personally don’t recommend that you don’t do it to satisfy basically anonymous commenters.

    In the era of modern media there are not “proper” or improper journalists. There are people who do research, are based in facts and follow ethics and there are those who don’t. Whether they are bloggers, print, radio or TV is irrelevant.

    Thanks. As we see above some anonymous people still want the “whole” story. Unbelievable.

  11. November 4, 2009 at 12:01 pm | #11

    W

  12. November 4, 2009 at 12:02 pm | #12

    Kartik, I think the problem is when you say:

    “Our sources have asked to remain anonymous at this critical time. However, these are not off the record sources. We have more off the record information and deep background sources which have allowed us to paint a broader picture, but we still have been exposed to some information that we cannot reveal.”

    No one cares if you have ‘more off the record info’ it just sounds like you’re stroking your ego. Say what you can say with the sources you have and then in the future address other sources if they allow you to.

    The whole things read like you saying “look, i’m a lot more important than you think because i have all these sources… except I can’t talk about it”. What does that accomplish? Making you sound all knowing? Well keep that among your friends, it makes you look less serious, more amateurish, and certainly way more conceited.

    Read a few more ‘real news’ articles and see how they handle talking about their sources. Maybe you can try and sound more humble.

  13. November 4, 2009 at 12:16 pm | #13

    Davis :
    Kartik, I think the problem is when you say:
    “Our sources have asked to remain anonymous at this critical time. However, these are not off the record sources. We have more off the record information and deep background sources which have allowed us to paint a broader picture, but we still have been exposed to some information that we cannot reveal.”
    No one cares if you have ‘more off the record info’ it just sounds like you’re stroking your ego. Say what you can say with the sources you have and then in the future address other sources if they allow you to.
    The whole things read like you saying “look, i’m a lot more important than you think because i have all these sources… except I can’t talk about it”. What does that accomplish? Making you sound all knowing? Well keep that among your friends, it makes you look less serious, more amateurish, and certainly way more conceited.
    Read a few more ‘real news’ articles and see how they handle talking about their sources. Maybe you can try and sound more humble.

    Fair enough. I don’t actually disagree with you, as this post was somewhat defensive. However, the posts at issue are previous articles both Brian Quarstad and I have written which were much more in news format than these recent blog updates. Those pieces simply mentioned the story had been developing for months and that we had been tracking it for months. The reaction on Big Soccer and other places was then “why didn’t you tell us months ago,” and ” you are trying to protect USL by not reporting it when you had info,” etc.

    So that is what I was addressing. On this post, it may have come across as a little smug but I was trying to defend why we had chosen the course we had. Thanks for the feedback.

  14. Tim
    November 4, 2009 at 1:14 pm | #14

    Kartik,

    I saw some of those same threads after the original stories you and BQ published and I think your reaction is justified, and perhaps measured. It however, is late. I would have written a disclosure like this, albeit less defensively, two months ago. That would have frozen the Big Soccer blowhards in place long ago.

  15. November 4, 2009 at 3:45 pm | #15

    Kartik Krishnaiyer :

    Davis :
    Kartik, I think the problem is when you say:
    “Our sources have asked to remain anonymous at this critical time. However, these are not off the record sources. We have more off the record information and deep background sources which have allowed us to paint a broader picture, but we still have been exposed to some information that we cannot reveal.”
    No one cares if you have ‘more off the record info’ it just sounds like you’re stroking your ego. Say what you can say with the sources you have and then in the future address other sources if they allow you to.
    The whole things read like you saying “look, i’m a lot more important than you think because i have all these sources… except I can’t talk about it”. What does that accomplish? Making you sound all knowing? Well keep that among your friends, it makes you look less serious, more amateurish, and certainly way more conceited.
    Read a few more ‘real news’ articles and see how they handle talking about their sources. Maybe you can try and sound more humble.

    Fair enough. I don’t actually disagree with you, as this post was somewhat defensive. However, the posts at issue are previous articles both Brian Quarstad and I have written which were much more in news format than these recent blog updates. Those pieces simply mentioned the story had been developing for months and that we had been tracking it for months. The reaction on Big Soccer and other places was then “why didn’t you tell us months ago,” and ” you are trying to protect USL by not reporting it when you had info,” etc.
    So that is what I was addressing. On this post, it may have come across as a little smug but I was trying to defend why we had chosen the course we had. Thanks for the feedback.

    To that I would say: F- them, 99% of people on BigSoccer just post large quantities of verbal diarrhea probably out of frustration. Keep up the good work.

  16. dave
    November 4, 2009 at 7:26 pm | #16

    Of course you don’t divulge sources when conversations are off the record. You also don’t want to give out information when it hasn’t been clarified, or not ready for public consumption. But then, you don’t want to take a “Nyah, nyah nyah; I know more than you do” attitude, either (not saying that you did; just sayin’). When I first started reading your stuff, I looked at it sort of like a gossip column. But, you seem very credible, and while I am reserving judgment on this ordeal, you seem to have a pretty good handle on things. No one should fault you for not divulging information that is still confidential or “not ready for prime time,” as it were. I think we’re all antsy and a little nervous about the USL and the TOA, and any news, good or bad, is welcome. I’m so far out of the loop that I only know about the pick-up games down the street when I see the guys playing.

    Keep up the good work. :-)

  17. November 4, 2009 at 10:25 pm | #17

    Some owners in USL-1 are thinking that they are going to have “up to a 14 team” league next year? Are they expecting magic?

    There are 4 expansion sides at the Beaverton OR meetings? TB, NYFC, likely Ottawa

    What’s the 4th?

    Reconcialiation would be amazing. Give me a league that is in the next best 20 soccer markets in US/Can/PR and I will be happy. Allow MLS Reserve sides in the pro-levels and I will be exstatic.

  18. J
    November 5, 2009 at 2:44 am | #18

    Dave Clark :
    Some owners in USL-1 are thinking that they are going to have “up to a 14 team” league next year? Are they expecting magic?
    There are 4 expansion sides at the Beaverton OR meetings? TB, NYFC, likely Ottawa
    What’s the 4th?
    Reconcialiation would be amazing. Give me a league that is in the next best 20 soccer markets in US/Can/PR and I will be happy. Allow MLS Reserve sides in the pro-levels and I will be exstatic.

    They weren’t counting TB or FCNY as they were already announced…

    http://www.uslsoccer.com/home/380020.html

    This press release says the four expansion cities present were Baltimore, Detroit, Ottawa and Edmonton.

    We can safely assume that the reps from the first three are the owners of the current USL franchises in those cities, as each has made public noise about moving up to USL-1. Edmonton is a question mark. And it appears Tampa Bay will be playing in USL-1 next year…

  19. chuck
    November 6, 2009 at 1:28 am | #19

    You said, “From this we can presume USL has not made moves based on Public Relations considerations, but probably on legal considerations. This would appear to give the USL the legal high ground in its battle with the TOA.”

    I don’t know what you mean by that. Contacting lawyers does not give one a legal high ground. Nor does being a lawyer. Nor does refraining from making public relations statements based on legal counsel. Maybe you mean “taking” the legal high road, meaning doing what it thinks is lawful regardless of public opinion. But if you have the legal high road over someone, that would mean you are doing what is legal and they are not; which certainly can not be presumed based on the little we know about the parties’ contracts and actions.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.