Actually AEG just moved the Quakes to Houston, no sale was made. However I know back in 2005-2006 there was a group in Orlando trying to buy the Quakes and move them to Orlando. I think this group (City) is much more likely to succeed.
AEG actually bought the SJ Earthquakes from Kraft in 2000 ... and moved them after it was clear they couldn't get a stadium. i am just saying it is an option, perhaps. Chivas is the one team in the league that could disappear and it wouldn't make one damn bit of difference. no stadium built for the team would be abandoned thus giving MLS a black eye and making future expansion and stadium construction harder, the market wouldn't be empty, the media profile of the league wouldn't at all be diminished since the only media attention MLS gets in LA is for the Galaxy anyway, and it isn't like the owner is some dedicated, focused on MLS only kind of owner who is just not successful but trying ... Vergara only cares about LigaMX and Chivas d Guad ... he might even be glad to be rid of what is obviously a failed experiment to expand the Chivas brand into the US.
Bought and left for dead are two different things. It was not a change in ownership that caused the Quakes to move to Houston. Ask anyone on the SJ boards or anywhere else in the world. MLS would push any owner to leave a situation where they couldn't build a SSS or control their revenue streams. Considering Vergara just went out of his way to take over the franchise I doubt he now sells it. But it is an intriguing story and it could go either way.
again ... you assume that "taking control" means he did so so he could keep the franchise ... it is just as likely he took control so he could sell the franchise ... the other guy had no other soccer investments, maybe he was the one who wanted to keep Chivas USA at all costs because he had nothing else and Vergara had to buy him out so that he was in a position to sell the team if he wanted to .... just saying that "bought out the other guy" thing goes both ways ... either is as likely as the other.
The story is different no matter where they go. This statement was made to a group in NYC. Until something is actually agreed to, nothing is set in stone. And if you think MLS would pass up a market that is 100% ready, willing and able if/when they run into resistance with their NYC2 plans, then you're insane.
They won't be passing up on Orlando, just delaying it a bit. I wouldn't be surprised if MLS times Orlando's entry either with, or a season after, NY2's entry...
This is all very exciting. Whats happened here in the last month? Do you think someone got a wink and a nod back in 2010 to start a team here and if it went well an unofficial entrance to the major league?
That would kind of go against the way they've done these things in the past, wouldn't it? Not to mention the fact that it's been proven you don't even have to have a successful lower-level team to have a successful MLS team.
They certainly have. And so has Salt Lake. And so has Philadelphia. And Seattle - while a long-time D2 city - wasn't exactly considered so outstanding an organization that they just had to be promoted sooner or later. MLS wanted the market. Point being: the wink-wink nudge-nudge scenario described above has absolutely nothing behind it.
But so has Toronto and Philly and they didn't have a successful minor league team to build off of. You might included RSL in the successful group without a minor league team since, I don't think, there was a lot of overlap between what became RSL and what was the Utah Blitzz. Out of all the recent expansions, the only "failure" has been Chivas and that isn't a function of them not having a minor league team, but rather a function of them having an inattentive FO and ownership group. That might be changing as there has been a pretty solid stream of rumors coming out about Chivas moving out of HDC, but staying in LA, and rebranding to either the Aztecs or CD Los Angeles. We'll see if those rumors hold true though.
solid stream? try one or two very speculative and very hopeful articles. Vergara still has to drop $100M or more on a new stadium ... plus wait the 5-10 years it would take to get a stadium thru the convoluted legal, political and nimby process before it was even started, plus 2 years to build ... plus whatever the cost of this mythical rebrand. so in 8-10 years, and after $100M+ we'll see ... until then the "solid stream of rumours" is a trickle compared to the constant and yearly rumours of stadiums in both Boston and DC that have been around for a decade ... how are those "solid stream of rumours" working out? still not quite solid yet.
I didn't think there was any. I was just setting up the Blitzz strawman to knock it down before someone tried to call me out on it by including RSL in the no minor league team group.
While Seattle wasn't as strong as Portland, Vancouver or even Montreal (and the jury is out on Montreal's efficacy, surprisingly enough), you have to admit, dropping a team where there was little to nothing before is risky as all Hell. All Philly had was a grassroots organization and an indoor soccer team. Salt Lake City I don't think even had that. While I tend to doubt "nudge-nudge, wink-wink" conspiracy theories on principle, the idea has some merit. I mean, what better way to test the waters than to see if somebody who wants a team can build a following for a minor-league team?
Not anymore it's not. My complete and only point: not anymore it's not. MLS expansion teams - with the exception of Miami and Chivas USA - have been successful. MLS knows what it's doing. Do you even hear yourself? When others have done it without testing the waters, it makes that strategy just one way to do it, and not even a necessity. If you want to do it, fine. I would think it would be prudent from an ownership's standpoint. But the idea that they said, "Hey, we'll let you in, just don't tell anybody, just go down there and see what you can do" is ridiculous fanboy bullshit. And...as I said before...it would go against the way they've done everything to this point. Is this thing even on?
well ... let's be honest here. yes RSL, TFC and PHI have been "successful" ... nobody will deny that. but there are LEVELS of success and it can be argued that the "legacy" teams ... those that existed for many years at the lower levels and were "graduated" to MLS have had MORE success than those that sprang into existence ... tho the data here is very preliminary since some of these teams haven't existed for more than a few years. but Portland, Seattle, Vancouver and Montreal all average more fans than RSL and Philly. and they also have a slightly higher % capacity over the past 3 seasons (as long as i've been tracking it): SEA: 99.6% POR: 100% VAN: 94% MTL: 90% RSL: 89% PHI: 96% TFC: 91% so in once sense you are correct ... excepting Chivas expansion since 2005 has been some level of success in both markets that had previously existing teams move up to MLS and those that had MLS teams started from scratch. but that isn't to say that there haven't been quantitative differences between the two types of expansion teams and how "successful" they have been. because there are two good ways to do a thing doesn't preclude that one way might still be better than the other. of course the only real thing the history of MLS expansion tell us is that factor that most predicts success is not being Chivas USA ...
It's a little unfair to only use the last 3 years in regards to Toronto. They were at 100% for their first three seasons and it is only in the last 3 seasons that they've dropped below that. Heck, it's only really been this season where they've dropped below 90%...
Let's say you are MLS and you (wait for it) want to cut down on travel, etc. and go to East-West conferences ... You want a team in the southeast to fill out your Eastern conference - which although you are already knee deep in a second NY team, is a team shy of what you need. So when a successfull group in Texas ( where you are chok a block with soccer teams) comes to you with ambition, you say "well, we are looking for a team in the southeast so...there's Tampa and Miami which know the market OR if you are really ambitious, there's Orlando which is virgin territory. If you could get something going down there, we'd definitely put you on the fasttrack." So, if you are the ambitious ownership group, why not Atlanta? Because you are BRITISH and everyone knows the Brits Llllloooovvveee Disneyworld! (and beer) So, there you have it.
Stadium capacities: Seattle- >38k Portland - 20,436 Vancouver - 21K RSL - 20,213 PHL - 18,500 So...... Larger seating capacity leads to potentially higher attendances.......
and stadium capacities are not randomly generated by some dice roll ... teams decided what capacity to make their stadiums based on what they think they can achieve with attendance .... and since none of the teams we are talking about are at 100% capacity they aren't being restricted by their stadium capacity. but nice try.
The argument isn't quite as solid for Portland. Their full capacity is only 22,000, and they sold out the entire year this year. If they just used their full capacity and said they were a little over 90% sold, there'd be no difference compared to Seattle and Vancouver having capacities of 67k and 52k respectively. (Though I think Seattle could get close to their full capacity.)
uh. my point was that you can't say that RSL, TFC, PHI having lower attendance than POR, SEA, VAN and MTL is due to restrained stadium capacity. because A. those teams picked their stadium capacities and B. they aren't at 100% capacity so they aren't being restrained. POR was part of the "doing better" group of expansion so my reference to stadium capacity wasn't relevant to them ... they are being restrained by their capacity of course, tho they still decided what that capacity would be themselves ... but unrestrained capacity would only mean that POR would average more fans per game which would only reinforce my argument that while every expansion team since 2005 has been "successful" (except Chivas) some have been "more successful" than others.
OG, you're arguing about a few percentage points in capacity here. If you use Toronto's first three years instead of the last three of their six years of onfield futility, you're literally talking about the difference between RSL at 89% and Montreal at 90%... You're tilting at windmills here.
no. the data supports that taken together SEA, VAN, POR and MTL have been slightly more successful (off field) than RSL, TFC and PHI taken together. these are facts ... sorry if they don't suit you. now, debating about levels of success is itself debatable ... but it can be argued, with supporting evidence, that those teams who came to MLS with existing teams and existing fan bases have done better than those that were created out of nothing ... not that those teams are doing badly (except Chivas).