whatever happens to Chivas USA it doesn't need to be in LA. LA shouldn't have two teams and cannot really support two MLS teams. NYC is an exception due to the NJ vs NYC thing and the fact that it's metro area is like 12M. LAG already average about 4-5K below capacity ... without a Chivas USA sucking away some possible fans they might actually be able to fill their stadium on a regular basis (or up their average a few thousand with the Chivas USA fans who would be willing to jump ship). The closest to LA i could see a Chivas/Rebranded Chivas working is Orange County or the Inland Empire but tbh i think there are other more potentially viable markets than those for a free-agent "ex Chivas USA" franchise to go (Las Vegas? Phoneix? Orlando?). But bottom line LA should never have had two teams. MLS needs to cover more markets and the only market where two teams makes sense is NYC.
Re-brand and move the team to the OC, San Diego, Inland Empire or a new stadium near downtown LA. Lots of options.
Vergara paid AEG a fee in order to operate in LA, why on earth would they relocate? Because the franchise is able to operate in LA (arguable the most or second most attractive market) the franchise will always be worth more especially as other markets get sold. He could make more money in the end being the LA Clippers and eventually selling it to an agressive investor years down the road. The only way I could see him moving out of LA is if AEG buys up his franchise rights to LA or he sells those rights to another investor who wants to put a team in LA. I don't think MLS would let another team move into LA and I'm not sure AEG wants to pay millions to get them out. As of now they do almost no damage to the Galaxy as far as support or sponsorships. I don't think they are going anywhere. This is the guy who started up the whole 'show gringos how to play futbol' stuff. If anything we might be going back to 2004 era CUSA instead of some new team with a new identity.
Greater LA has a population of roughly 18 million. In my outsider opinion it's much more ripe for supporting two football teams than NY metro area. All they have to do is move to another part of town, possibly rebrand and watch them grow. It would be much more of a sure thing than NY2 in my opinion.
Yeah. I think a lot of people who haven't spent time there forget how huge LA actually is. The Chivas experiment has been so mismanaged I don't think they tell us much of anything about whether or not 2 clubs can survive in LA; they should be in another part of town, playing up their rivalry with LAG, and then we'll see what happens.
Huh...if LA pulling 4-5k less than they could is proof LA can't support two clubs, how do the 10,000 empty seats at Red Bull Arena support NYC's "unique" ability to do the same successfully?
because it is two different situations. A. LAG is pulling 4-5K less than capacity and the other team they compete against has fans that already come directly to that same stadium so they could be captured as LAG fans should Chivas USA go away (with the proper marketing efforts of course). B. NYC is a special situation ... from it being the media epicenter of the US and not having a team in the NYC proper hampering how much attention MLS gets to the mental divide between a NJ team and a NYC team ... a team in NJ and a team in NYC serve two entirely different communities (almost as if they were hundreds of miles away) whereas LA is not set up that way ... it is large, yes but people are used to driving from hither to yon to do things (or they are just absolutely opposed to it) ... having lived in LA (Pasadena actually) i just generally thought of the whole large area as LA (OC excluded) and if something was interesting enough i would go drive and do it regardless of where i lived (the "valley"). a team properly located in LA could cover the whole of LA (IE included but probably not the OC) ... now whether Carson is the best place for that is up for debate but I just don't think that any (if any) benefits from having two teams in LA are outweighed by the loss of covering a potentially entirely separate market. That is not the case in NYC ... by having a team in NYC proper there are huge benefits that outweigh any that might be gained from putting an expansion team in an entirely different market. C. there is also the fact that LAG has already established itself as the "A" franchise in the market (the Lakers) and any other LA team is pretty much resigned to being the "B" franchise (the Clippers). MLS would benefit far more from having a team in a new market than having a "B" franchise playing second fiddle to the Galaxy in LA ... even if Chivas moved to another part of LA. Whereas RBNY is already the "B" franchise in NYC metro area (by virtue of the fact they are based in NJ) and by adding a 2nd team to NYC proper they are actually adding the "A" franchise (the Yankees/Giants/Rangers) to the the already existing "B" franchise RBNY (the Mets/Jets/Devils). Now if at some far distant future date when NYC2 is established and kicking much but (like Seattle say) and RBNY is still medicore then the equivalency would be keeping NYC2 but getting rid of RBNY (which i wouldn't be opposed to in this scenario) ... but with a $250M RBA involved in the equation that makes it nearly impossible. Not so with Chivas USA ... they are the "B" franchise, MLS doesn't really need "B" franchises in any markets, and there is nothing substantial that mandates the continued existence of Chivas USA (ie no stadium) ... all Chivas is at this point is a sad misbegotten red-headed step sister to a famous Mexican team, who's brand is worthless and meaningless to both Chivas fans and to LA residents (for the most part) ... they could disappear tomorrow and not much would change.
Before this becomes another hijacked NY2 thread, we should make something very clear. That NY2 expansion has little to do with Red Bull or attendance numbers or market size, the main motivation to move so quickly is because it looks like MLS found an agressive investor. If indeed Sela Sports has a Saudi investor willing to not think twice about dropping 300M on a stadium (largest SSS investment ever in US history) and 100M on a franchise (largest investment in a soccer team in US history) and probably willing to splash big cash on a number of big name players, then MLS would be foolish not to roll out the red carpet and do anything they can to bring them in. If there were foreign investors ready and willing to drop 400M total investment on a team in (fill in the blank US city) then MLS would be working overtime to make that deal happen too. This is US soccer and you don't turn down that kind of money. That is why it will happen. If Vergara was dropping hundreds of millions on CUSA then they would probably be a huge success. If another investor was willing to drop 400-500M on an LA team then Vergara would probably be long gone. NY is a unique situation because it looks like MLS has found a very unique investor.
Hmmm. I think the fact that Angelenos are used to long drives everywhere actually supports the idea that a properly-marketed LA 2 team with its own stadium could succeed...LA writ large is almost as big as NYC's potential market, and as you point out people regularly travel across it for things that interest them. Both LA teams, not just Chivas, could benefit from attracting more die-hard fans (as opposed to "nice day out" fans), and a cross-town rivalry that a) is actually cross-town and b) actually means something could go a long way towards helping to build that kind of support. There's no way either LA team is tapping all the potential soccer fans in that part of southern California, even if we set aside any efforts to attract the elusive Liga MX fanbase for the moment. Chivas would need to move and (probably) rebrand, but if done right there's a lot of potential for success. As far as NYC goes, I think you're making a lot of assumptions about how an NYC2 would function and the kind of support it would attract. You're by no means alone in those assumptions - they're very widely shared here on BS, especially among people who still call NYRB "Metro." But I'm not sure what evidence supports the idea that an NY2 would immediately attract a huge audience and surpass the Red Bulls...the league clearly thinks it will happen, but the league also thought 2 teams in LA would immediately succeed. Remember, the team will most likely be playing in Queens, not Central Park, so their "central location" may be somewhat overstated. And while the Cosmos name still has cachet in some circles and the new owners have demonstrated their ability to sell T-shirts, their skills at managing a soccer team have so far left a lot of people less than impressed. The fact they're playing in NASL next year is not necessarily a good sign. I think the hype around a revived Cosmos has blinkered a lot of people to the real challenges such a club would face.
Agreed. Chivas has definitely suffered from Vergara's relative neglect and their history so far doesn't necessarily have a lot of bearing on what would happen if an engaged, savvy ownership group was in place (especially one with deep pockets).
my logic is basically this. in every pro sport where there are two teams in the same MSA one is always the "A" team and the other is generally an afterthought ... or the "B" franchise, the ugly step sister (in the NFL even the "ugly stepsister" is pretty hot since it is ... you know ... the NFL). MLS shouldn't be in the business of having "B" franchises ... the league needs to cover more markets and is not likely any time soon to be at 30-32 teams so wasting spots on second fiddle in any MSA is a total waste imho. the only reason i make an exception for NY Metro is because the team that exists IS the "B" team or the "ugly step sister" ... RBNY ... by virtue of the fact they are based in NJ are automatically the "B" Team ... it just so happens that they exist as the "B" Team while no "A" team currently exists and I firmly believe that for maximum exposure and credibility MLS needs an "A" team presence in NY MSA (ie in NYC proper) ... if I could magically teleport RBNY with RBA to another market once NYC2 is established in Queens i would do that (consistent with my "MLS doesn't need to be in the business of having "B" franchises in its league given the smaller size constraints) but unfortunately that isn't possible.
We are hijacking here, but I guess my point is that there's nothing about the proposed NY2 that in any way ensures they'll be the "A" team you and others are sure they'll become, and simply being located in NYC proper doesn't guarantee it either. (For one thing, their likeliest stadium location is just next door to the city's baseball "B" team, and location certainly played a role in winning that status for the Mets). Both NYRB and NY2 are in the NY MSA...while I agree there is a psychological boundary around Jersey for some people, Queens is not necessarily different. To get back on topic, I think both LA and NYC are large enough and have enough *existing* soccer fans for two properly-run teams to make a go in each city. Those teams need distinct identities and, certainly, their own stadiums but I think it can be done.
LOL this might be a contender for most ridiculous comment in BS history...... okay most ridiculous comment this week... The LA metropolitan area could support MORE than two teams. IF they were branded correctly (start by putting "Los Angeles" in the name). IF they played in geographically separate areas and not in the same stadium. Clearly OleGunnar has never driven around LA... Right now there are zero teams in LA and two teams in freaking CARSON. And they still average a total of 36,000 (22662 + 13437) per game. To say that shows LA can't support multiple teams is like saying two teams in HARRISON NJ averaging 35k together (17664 is NYRB's current average, multiply that by two, which is being incredibly generous) shows NYC can't support multiple teams. I agree.
Vergara could punk the Galaxy by using his money to get a deal done at the sports arena site. Problem is having to work with incompetents (Coliseum Commission) and perfectionists (USC) at the same time. Hard task. But that site, coupled with a re-brand, has all the potential for making it a case of two equals in LA. No B team at all. And I would bet good cash that if chivas does get the sports arena site, LAG will play in Farmers Field almost half the time. Otherwise the LAG cedes to Chivas the north half of the LA basin that will not go to Carson ( North and East SF Valley/Glendale/Foothills/ Pasadena/ much of San Gabriel Valley and much of East LA.
In addition to those things, to have a shot at being level with the Galaxy on popularity they would also need to splash the cash for some notable players. Currently, they're the league's dumpster for unwanted players.
The Coliseum Commission is set to disolve next month, handing USC control of the Coliseum and Sports Arena. USC is more inclined to tearing the Arena down to build a soccer stadium in its place because it serves to both house its women's soccer team and establish a mens team. That climate is hilariously too fanfreakingtastic to indicate anything but a Vergara/USC partnership.
uh. it isn't a question of "could" but "should". nobody is arguing that LA isn't capable of supporting 2 teams if done correctly (which it isn't now). i am arguing that NO city should have two teams (whether they can or not is immaterial) when your league is only 20 teams. if you have 32 a few doubled up in large MSAs is fine, when you only have 20 teams you need to cover as many MSAs as possible and don't need to be in the business of having "B" teams in some cities. MLS doesn't need nor can it afford to have a "Clippers" in LA which, given the status of the Galaxy is what any 2nd LA team ... whereever they play, is destined to be. and as i said, i would say the same thing for NYC except that currently there is no "A" team in NYC because RBNY plays in NJ which, according to every NYer i've ever talked to (and the evidence of current teams), automatically makes them a "B" team. so it is hardly ridiculous to say that in a league of 20 teams that MLS doesn't need to be wasting it's time with putting a 2nd team in LA or any other market aside from getting (or at least trying to since success is never guaranteed) a true "A" team in NYC proper. i (and probably MLS too) would much rather see an LAG team averaging a full 27K a game and an Orlando City team averaging 18K a game than an LAG averaging 22K and a Chivas USA averaging 14K in a 20 team MLS.
'Cause, you know, Clippers/Lakers is the only example of multiple major league teams in the same city/metropolitan area. There are no other examples and no other possible models.
Did you factor in the cost of tickets in your analysis? If the Galaxy wouldn't have raised their ticket prices as much as they have, I'm sure they would have no problem selling out. Parking alone costs range from $15 to $45.