hmmmm. let's see. Lakers A; Clippers B Kings A; Ducks B Dodgers A; Angels A Cubs A; White Sox B Yankees A, Mets B Rangers A, Devils B, Islanders C Giants A, Jets B so in ever single instance except for MLB in LA there is a pretty big distinction between two teams sharing a market in the same league. and the MLB thing is only due to the fact that the Dodgers have been a dumpster fire for the past 5 years with the whole divorce/ownership thing .... now that is sorted it is pretty likely the Dodgers will overtake the Angels and it will go back to it being Dodgers A and Angels B just like it has been for most of the co-history in LA.
If RSL were giving away 30% of its tickets in the early year (this was admitted by RSL front office in the recent article), I wonder how many tickets Chivas USA are giving away right now... Chivas USA is a failure. Need a new start and new identity. Relocation might be best. Phoenix and San Antonio are front runners. If the owners of the Arizona Cardinals offer to buy Chivas USA for $40 million, would they sell? About Phoenix,Arizona: City population: 1,445,632 Metro population: 4,263,236 Demographics: White: 76.7% (46.5% non-Hispanic) Hispanic or Latino (of any race): 40.8% (35.9% Mexican, 0.6% Puerto Rican 0.5% Guatemalan, 0.3% Salvadoran, 0.3% Cuban) Black or African American: 6.5% (6.0% non-Hispanic) Asian: 3.0% (0.8% Indian, 0.5% Filipino, 0.5% Chinese, 0.4% Vietnamese, 0.2% Korean, 0.1% Japanese, 0.1% Burmese) Two or more races: 1.7% Native American: 1.6% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander: 0.1% Some other race: 0.2% Stadium: University of Phoenix Stadium (with air conditioning due to high summer temperature) Surface: Grass Capacity: 63,400
Are you just making stuff up now? Unless there's the slightest shred of evidence that anything like this has occurred, I don't think that this belongs in this discussion. If I want fantasy, I'd spend my time in You Be The Don.
If CUSA is a failure then Colorado, FCD, Chicago, Columbus, New England, and DC are all failures too and should be moved. If you are just going to use attendance as your base (and I know you are) then each of those clubs have been around or below CUSA's attendance since they entered the league. Otherwise I hope you have some data to show that they are a failure in any other way because none of us have ever seen it. Hell, I'm pretty sure I read other places that they did pretty good in terms of sponsorship.
There's always going to be A team and B team in any dual sport city. The important thing is can that team make money. I can't see why CUSA wouldn't be profitable with their own stadium.
Hell, I'd take a B team on the relative level of the Mets and White Sox any day. The fact that OlePopgun00 sees those type of teams as something to be avoided is both laughable and predictable coming from hm.
Good point. I am sure the owners of both teams cry bitter tears about their "B team" status as they swim through their piles of money...
Yes, but when the Commissioner says, "We have, like all leagues, markets that we’d like to see perform better. Chivas (USA) is an example of that", that's not a good thing. With all due respect to Chivas USA fans, I think there is evidence the league was, and probably is, particularly concerned about the team.
again. you've entirely missed the point. there is nothing wrong with having a Mets or Whitesox or Jets in a league with 30-32 teams where you already have all of the major markets covered and doubling up on a few doesn't hurt your nationwide footprint. but in a league with 20 teams it is just idiotic to invest time and money in having B teams in markets when you have few enough teams as it is to cover the whole country. but feel free to ignore the obvious difference and continue to be entirely obtuse.
Hey Ole, how many MLB teams were there in 1962 when they started the Mets? Were there teams in Denver, Phoenix, Seattle, Miami, etc.? It's too bad you weren't around to warn them what idiots they were...
I agree. When a franchise has a season ticket base in the hundreds they are going to be viewed as very poor. I almost wonder if MLS hasnt forced their hand here to make changes. I wonder if this isnt the first step in them either selling the team or doing a total facelift(move to another city, rebrand).
Unless, of course, a new "B" team in a existing market is more successful drawing in fans and sponsors than a new "A" team in a new market. Going back to the baseball examples, I think it would be more harmful to MLB to lose the Mets and White Sox rather than the Royals or Pirates, despite the fact that the latter teams increase the national footprint.
Naming the team Chivas USA alienated a lot of Mexican American in LA. Right off the bat, you eliminated a large part of the population.
Except that your initial comparison wasn't merely A team/B team. It was Lakers/Clippers, where one is a glamorous team with championship dynasties in multiple decades, and the other isa p[erennial laughingstock and an afterthought. Way to move the goal posts there. Oh, and in regards to your other post, in which you laugh derisively at the fan base of a certain team, as if the size of said fan base has anything to do with the passion those fans have for their team, and how heartbroken they would be to lose their team: You are the dumpster fire of BigSoccer posters. Please just stop.
I don't disagree that they need to perform better. They have had a steady decline the last few years in attendance and they have a small season ticket base as pointed out already. However, to say that they are a failure and they need to move ignores the years they have been mid-pack in terms of attendance and whatever commercial value they have (which I'm thinking are better than quite a few teams in MLS). Things need to change there for sure, but I am far from the opinion that means move the team from the LA metro area.
Well, if CUSA pull an attendance of 11,000 for a game it does seem to generate a lot more anger on these boards than oif New England, Colorado, Dallas or whomever does.