What is their brand going to be? How are you going to market them? What location are you going to choose? Again specifics?
I think you're trying to bait me. There brand is not Chivas. If they were super smart, which they aren't, they'd fly in Elton John for some promo and get real with the LA Aztecs brand. Throwbacks are really, really hot right now. They'll probably be fine with one of the two names they've already trademarked. To anybody. That's a large difference between what Chivas did where they didn't actually market to anyone except sort of to Mexicans...but they sucked at that since they took a team name Mexicans either hate or love. So the change would be to market to everyone. It really isn't rocket science. The book for marketing in LA was already written for them by every other team to ever play in LA. Sign a big name Euro player or two for the soccer team. People in LA will pay attention then. We aren't talking about a discerning fan base. They aren't picky. They want flash and wins. They want a place to be seen and know people are watching them. Close to downtown and probably on the northern side of that from Carson. It doesn't matter much though. Just put it 40 minutes of driving away from Carson and you're good. That's roughly in downtown LA or nearby. It's funny you're trying to draw me out as some sort of idiot on this. One could write a book on how many ways Chivas screwed the whole thing up and MLS let them at the time because they were desperate for money. I'd almost bet money if you were able to get Robb Heinemann or Merritt Paulson drunk right now you could talk them both into telling you how they were stupid and should have just waited a couple years so they could be cashing in on a franchise in LA. Well maybe not Merritt since his whole purpose was to get a MLB franchise in Portland but he quickly realized that was never going to happen.
Not trying to bait you. Simply disagree with you. So far all of your ideas have been "not being Chivas". That's great but what I keep asking is how are you "not going to be Galaxy". Because that is the real question. When I asked for specifics for Branding I was curious what kind of a 'Brand" would you create for LA2? In your mind Galaxy are the team of soccer moms, so what specifically is LA2 going to do to not be the team of soccer moms? That's what I mean by specifics. It's easy to say "they need to create a brand" it's much harder to actually do that. If you are in a market that doesn't already have a team a lot of that has already been done for you. Your brand is soccer, and MLS, in addition to your specific team. But if you want to keep the team in LA you need to somehow specifically differentiate yourself from the Galaxy. So how are you going to do that? Correct me if I am wrong but isn't this exactly the marketing strategy of Galaxy? Also when you say sign a big name player specifically who do you mean? There is a very narrow band of player who would fit this, players who are big enough to get attention in the USA, and are willing to leave big European clubs. but aren't over the hill. The rest I will just leave. I think these are enough questions. I am not trying to draw you out as an idiot. I just disagree with you. But I am trying to figure out if there is something I missed.
It's like my Grampa always said; you can lead a horse to water, but you can't keep it from drowning because it's too stupid to pull it's head out.
@owain I'm late to this discussion, so sorry about responding to your quoted post so late, but... The answer to your question is, "Yes." Yes, a newly-re-branded second LA team will appeal to some people who don't know what MLS is. Yes, a newly-re-branded second LA team will appeal to some people who are soccer fans who don't follow MLS. Yes, a newly-re-branded second LA team will appeal to some Mexican fans. Yes, a newly-re-branded second LA team will appeal to another group of fans you are missing. Do you know that the LA Galaxy had the highest average attendance in MLS in 2004, the year before Chivas USA began play? Did you know that in 2005, Chivas' first season, the Galaxy had a HIGHER attendance, and Chivas' attendance was fourth in the then 12 team league? Did you know that the next year, 2006, the galaxy again led the league in attendance, and Chivas was second, and that the two teams combined averaged over 40,000 fans? These attendances were achieved despite Chivas' failed branding strategy, and despite the fact that the two teams played in the same stadium and were thus appealing to the same fan base, geographically speaking. So no, I don't think that Chivas USA, re-branded, would be better off in another market outside LA. In fact, I think that the league will receive closer to NYFC money than Orlando FC money for the rights to re-brand and operate Chivas USA, because potential buyers already know that a second team can thrive in LA. Just my 2 cents. Peace. T
Thanks but still not seeing it. Not trying to be snippy but you really think there are large amounts of people who don't know what MLS is, and are going to then become fans of it? How? These people are already soccer fans, in a city with an MLS team and don't go. What is LA2 going to do to change that? Bring in big name players, Galaxy has and does already do that. Win championships, Galaxy has and already does that. So specifically what will they do to get these fans? How? What specifically are you going to do? Are you going to specifically market to Mexican fans? Or are you figuring that the sport will bring in Mexican fans. Which is reasonable but why would they support LA 2 if they haven't supported Galaxy Who? I agree with the idea that there are millions of soccer fans in LA. But these fans have had access to MLS and so far have chosen to ignore it. So specifically what is LA2 going to do differently to win these fans over? and here it is I know I know hire Ruud Gullitt the symbol of sssexy (gotta say it with a Dutch accent) football. That's never been tried in LA before [/quote]
owian's responses are starting to remind me of a certain movie character from the 80's (hint...it's the one wearing black).
Of course you could fill a stadium in LA if you "do all the marketing campaigns you want", LA is a big place. Get a great stadium, overpay some past-30 big names like van Persie and Ribery, spend on marketing, and you will probably fill your oponent stadia as well, not just your own. How much will it cost and will it be a good business in the end, that's another question. However, back to the question where this discussion started, that is "why MLS is insisting on keeping Chivas in LA." I would say there are 3 factors here, in order of importance. 1. Failing in any market sends a bad message, and failing in LA sends a terrible message. The NFL might not care about failing in LA, but a young growing league like MLS should. It doesn't matter that they had a terrible owner. That owner is gone now. If MLS moves out of LA now, it will be like saying that this can't work. This would likely be the popular perception. It makes much more sense to try to find a rich owner who's willing to invest and turn it around. 2. Potential. NickCarraway summed it up here better than I can https://www.bigsoccer.com/community/...a-rebrand-thread.2000913/page-9#post-29816065 and here: https://www.bigsoccer.com/community/...-rebrand-thread.2000913/page-11#post-29887612 If this succeeds, sky is the limit. A Sounders type success in LA could be worth several times more than the current Sounders value. Probably worth as much as many of the NBA franchises. And if it fails for whatever reason and all that investment into marketing doesn't pay off, it's not MLS who will have spent that money and took those risks, it's some billionaire. Worst case scenario, MLS will face these same decisions in 10 or 15 years. But at that point they will be a much more mature, bigger, stronger, popular league and the above mentioned factor no.1 won't be as much of an issue. 3. Actual business sense for the owner. Now this is what most of you guys seem to be arguing so tensely about and even calling people stupid, but I don't see this as black and white. LA2 don't even have the new stadium spot yet. How much will the stadium cost, where will it be, who will pay for it, will they end up just staying in Carson for the foreseeable future. Also, what kind of stars will they have to get and how much will they have to spend on all that rebranding and marketing. LA has plenty of entertainment options and you have to be loud to be noticed. MLS in LA is not close to the Clippers/Lakers situation, because the Clippers can just do a terrible job, be cheap, have a racist owner, and still make huge profits. LA2 clearly can't do that. Potential rewards are massive but investment will also have to be massive, and I don't think we can say for sure that this reward/investment ratio is good compared to relocation. Nor do I think we know otherwise. So arguing about it will probably lead nowhere and just become an endless loop like it seems to be the case here. Lets say, there's some bilionaire who wants to move the team to San Antonio. San Antonio has a new stadium that's supposedly easy to expand to MLS size and quality. They have a city mayor who wants an MLS team badly and would likely be a huge help. They have few options for sports fans, and fewer entertainment options in general. And they have a brand / team (Scorpions) that already draws well for a lower division, and you might just be able to combine forces somehow and turn Chivas into Scorpions. The whole venture would have nowhere near LA potential, but it's definitely much more straightforward and cheaper. It's conceivable that for an individual owner, that might make more sense. But it does not matter. MLS won't do it because factors 1 and 2 are just much more important to them.
Please don't take me wrong here. San Antonio is a great market. I think they have the right people working to expand themselves to MLS and I have been nothing but impressed by what they've done. Their stadium is the best 2nd division stadium in the country. There is definitely a feel of minor league to the whole area what with the kids playground right there etc, but it could still be pretty good. It's also pretty far out from the city core, but it's San Antonio so everything is super spread out. Here's the deal. San Antonio can have good owners and seem to have a pretty solid ownership working themselves up right now. They aren't a group that is going blow anyone's minds. This is Orlando at the best. It can be a solid MLS club but it isn't a group that can command LA. All I am saying is there is someone out there with vision that can make LA2 work. Yes they will have to be rich. They will probably need to be a person that earned their money or at least is able to employ forward thinkers. LA2 is not a hard sell to the right young forward thinking owner. I bet Merritt Paulson would give his left nut for the opportunity as would Robb Heinemann.
Does it matter in LA? You are also saying 80% of the population isn't shallow fanboys who will go the way of the popular trend. I see LA and I see a giant population of people who are very shallow and follow the popular trend. Galaxy have something like 8000 season ticket holders. The rest are one offs. You'd be a fool to market only to Mexican fans. The thing I don't think you understand is that there are 18 million people in that city. Many of them will ooze with disdain if what they want to do that night is to drive to Carson. As long as the stadium is 15 miles away there are about 7 million other people to market to. You should really study marketing one day. You should have followed your post with...in Carson, which is over an hours drive in traffic from LA. [/quote] Beckham got them to hire a fool who didn't understand MLS. Sexy football in America is flash. It isn't recreating a team that plays like Barca here. You get the right owner to provide flash in LA and it's really not that hard to understand. LA will always have to have stars. It doesn't matter what team or what league it is. Teams in LA need stars.
I agree, LA has more potential than San Antonio. Of course. Look no further than the Spurs. They dominate that market, their local TV ratings are among the best in all pro sports. They won more NBA games than any other team since 1990, they contend year after year. Yet revenue wise, they are not top 5 and some years not even top 10 in the league. Market limitations. Yet I think you are jumping to conclusions a little about what these businessmen might prefer. Potential is one thing, costs are the other side of the coin. The team doesn't even have a stadium besides Carson which they want to leave. Marketing, stars also cost money. Yes, if LA County gives Heineman 150 mil for a stadium like he got in KC, or he can get it built for free by some huge private development project that will use the stadium as the carrot to get permits, it's a great situation for the team owner. But if the owner has to buy a team, then spend private money on a 200 mil stadium good enough to compete in the LA entertainment market, invest another 100 mil+ into DPs a la Toronto, spend a bunch on marketing, and then likely be patient for years maxing building up sponsorhips and brand and waiting for the business to turn profitable before he can start getting anything back on that investment.. That's a lot of money to invest into a soccer club in the US. Portland was a fantastic business venture. Minimal investment from the owner, one of the biggest brands in MLS. Timbers will likely never be the most valuable franchise in the league, but in terms of investment/reward ratio for the owner, it's fantastic and as good as it gets. It's not as simple as what market is bigger and where you can generate the biggest revenue. Right now we still basically know nothing about how this goes in terms of costs and stadium. If lets say some young tech billionaire like the one that bought the Memphis Grizzlies decides to buy into MLS, he might easily think that San Antonio is the smarter venture. At this point, before we know more about stadium opportunities, anything is conceivable. But on the other hand, this topic is also not as simple as "Better for the owner: MLS in San Antonio or LA2?" MLS has more reasons to prefer LA2 than just what's the smarter business for the individual owner.
You are absolutely correct. From the start I have always been about potential and the impact in the big idea sort of way. LA2 is a big idea franchise. It isn't going to be moved and that's pretty obvious from statements from MLS. They obviously consider it a pretty big asset. Business wise I agree with them. MLS will add franchises but they aren't moving Chivas. I guess the only point I should have ever said was, "are you really that stupid to think MLS will accept failure when its obvious they can fix it?" A new franchise is a win. Moving Chivas is an obvious loss. This isn't 2000. They'll take the win.
To be fair, the NFL tried as hard as MLS to prevent that relocation, the difference was they didn't own the team. They voted against relocation and blocked a few attempts but eventually they had to relent or it was going to become an ugly legal battle. MLS was more lucky in that Vergara agreed to sell and now they are in position to find an investor commited to making it work in LA. If MLS moved the team, it wouldn't kill the league of course and might just end up a small bump on the road. But turmoil / contraction / relocation isn't a great idea for a young league in general, and especially relocating from a huge market like LA. MLS is finally proving it's a safe and stable venture. It makes much more sense to avoid it. If someone turns that Chivas embarrassment into success, MLS will have another team to parade and tell new investors "look at SKC, look at LA2, MLS is a sure thing if you do it right." And those other markets won't go anywhere, nothing stops MLS from placing expansion teams there when ready. If they were done expanding, maybe it would be a bit more of a consideration, but now they can have the pie and still eat it.
It's with the "LA almighty" type of approach ... that I'm more aiming at. There is absolutely NOTHING vital about LA (especially when there's still going to be a team there). So much to the point, that the NFL fought ... but ultimately didn't do whatever it took to keep that market (and it isn't just one team we're talking about either). The NFL gave up the second biggest market in the country and has exponentially grown despite that. You can have the biggest whatever the hell you want .... but size and potential are not and will never directly equal success. This is a league that (even then) had revenues and pluses for the city that the MLS would love to have today. Just saying. No it's not. It is past that. It is growing, not stabilizing. Hell, the league contracted an entire state back when it couldn't afford to do much of anything ... It relocated one of its better franchises as well the year after they won the SS. It's not just safe and stable ... it's hip even. Were this the only club in LA there'd be much more merit to this. It isn't though, and the GALS are far and away the LA market. I'm not getting into any potential and the fact that there is easily room for more there. But let's be honest, every single major city with more than one team in the major sporting leagues as "THIS TEAM, ...... and the other team" .... NOBODY and NO LEAGUE has equal footing with their teams in these situations. It simply doesn't work like that and it never has. Staining ? There'd be nowhere near the stain that CUSA has already left on the league. I'd argue that there's much more merit and positive to removing the franchise and completely cutting out every single aspect and tie to CUSA. Completely eradicate it. Move the thing out of LA and completely start new. No redo, rebrand, refresh, or anything. Foundation on up, brand spanking new. Or they could move the franchise to capture one of these other markets ... and still leave that LA2 option open to whomever (and give everyone involved time by the way) and possibly garner another of those other markets in the process (to even up the numbers with LA2) .... .... you know, while the iron's hot and all.
You're trying to compare the musings of a psychotic, dementia addled brain to smart business owner? They didn't build him a stadium and he took his ball and went home to Oakland. Probably the best move for them money wise at the time. There is one simple reason there isn't a NFL franchise in LA. Californians aren't dumb enough to elect a bunch of idiots that will give away a billion plus dollars to build a sports stadium in LA that will only reap profits to a private business owner. Good on them. Someone wants a franchise in LA then pay for the freaking stadium just like others have done. Sort of like the San Antonio owner did...
Actually, I was referencing the RAMS first ... given the issues with Davis himself. Of course, the fact that the city has done this TWICE, with both NFL teams ... doesn't exactly lend a positive hand to someone that might want to get something going for a league like the MLS, now does it ? I mean despite all of the "potential" and "sexy" and whatever else out there, they know they'll be shelling out twice as much at minimum for that spot (which is already 2nd rate in the city due to the GALS). Doesn't seem too grand to be forced into footing the entire bill for a stepchild franchise ... not matter the market size.
Alright, I think I have to step in. The NFL succeeded after leaving LA because of their own blackout rules. People weren't going to the games, so people in LA couldn't watch the games on TV. Without a team in LA, Angelenos are able to watch all 15 games every week. And TV drives the NFL. Gate receipts drive MLS.
Just to clear this up, "The NFL" (which a trade group) LOVES not having a team in LA because they use the LA market as leverage to get other cities to build new stadiums. The NFL's footprint is huge, you can't compare MLS to them in this context. People in LA are still fans of the 49ers, Raiders and Chargers and still get season tickets and still do the hours long drives to get to every game. Yeah, there's a Galaxy SG from San Diego, and I know a guy who drives out to most games from Vegas, but it isn't the same scale at all. The NFL's market is, similar to Euro leagues, the planet earth.
They were going when they were actually in LA. The attendance and success of the team both drastically changed when they moved to Anaheim. Of course, they moved because uh .... .... and the Raiders drew more than the Rams. Now they do, yeah. Much different scenario when it actually happened.