I know I don't believe him. Kind of sounds like a lawyer at times. Love when he uses the phrase, "Its a challenge"!
Hauptman's father-in-law is Charles Bronfman, former owner of Seagram and original owner of the Montreal Expos.
No, he wanted Guadalajara. It's rumored that one of the big sticking points of his offer to buy it was that he didn't want to buy Chivas USA.
Slim was close to buying guadalajara but the deal fell through because he didn't want chivas usa included in the deal. So I don't think Skim will be a buyer any time soon.
Not directly on topic, but it'll be interesting to see if Slim restarts negotiation with Vergara over Guad. Now that one problematic factor is gone perhaps the sale will go through?
There was also another factor. At the time that Slim was looking into Guadalajara, LigaMX passed a rule against multi-team ownership. http://msn.foxsports.com/foxsoccer/...it-the-ownership-of-more-than-one-club-052113
I thought the multi team rule applied to MX teams only? Anyway, I'm still wondering who Garber has lined up to buy Chivas ? I'm sure it has to be a pretty big name but there doesn't seem to be a clue of who it might be just yet.....
And like Precourt and Mansour this is isn't the type of thing that leaks. Unless that start talking property and real estate, which involves more people, we are not going to hear anything about new ownership until they want us to.
The rule does only apply to LigaMX teams. The post was in response to the contention that including Chivas USA in the Guadalajara sale was the primary factor that led to that sale not happening. The Liga MX rule was also a big factor. No bearing on the current Chivas USA sale.
Therefore, the chances of him buying the club are VERY SLIM! Too bad because I would have loved seeing Sofia Loren at Stub Hub... ....even at 80 years of age!
And then they let TVAzteca buy Atlas. The FMF is so full of shit. But they do know how to make tons of money from the Mexico National team, I do give them that. The truth is that they (TV networks) do not want Slim coming in and fvking up their soccer duopoly, they are not really serious about multi ownership.
Good stuff. The original point stands, though, Slim didn't back out of the deal because he didn't like CUSA being bundled with CDG.
While that rule was passed I don't think it was a determining factor. As we all know Mexican soccer rules are made to be bent or broken. Slim would have figured a way around it just like TV Azteca did a few months ago when they acquired Atlas which brings then to 2 teams in the league, Atlas and Morelia. Rumors are still going around that Slim has some sort of deal made already with Vergara for Chivas, specially now that a new telecommunications law was passed against Televisa and TV Azteca dualopoly. Slim is set to start his own TV station to directly compete with the duo and chivas would be a great asset for his new station.
Does Chivas USA have a new owner(s) in place? And will we hear about the new owner in just a few months? Guadalajara-based journalist San Cadilla reported in his column on Thursday that the sale of Chivas USA is already complete, and it will be announced following the World Cup http://www.thegoatparade.com/2014/4...nounced-after-world-cup-san-cadilla-la-aztecs According to the report, the owners will be an unnamed Mexican businessman based in California and a "wealthy American executive." Additionally, the new owners will look at possibly rebranding Chivas USA to the LA Aztecs, something that has been a persistent topic among observers, though some fans of the club bristle at that name
Certainly the Mexican businessman based in California has a name. But it would be incredibly cool if he didn't.
On the Chivas USA boards it's being discussed that "LA Aztecs" was trademarked by the nasl a couple of years ago....
Right now this is pretty much all everyone over on the Chivas board knows. I'm sure there are a few guys more in the know, but they have, so far, remained tight-lipped.
Therefore, for those of us who wanted the LA Aztecs initally, we weren't all that far off base. If there is a major problem with the name, couldn't the new owners just buy the name and logo from the NASL? I mean how much could it really cost and why wouldn't NALS want to sell it? I'm sure everyone has their price.
That's so awesome! It would change with what he was doing, at one point he would be 'man driving kids to school' but then later he would be 'guy across the street doing yardwork.'