it's hard not to be snide at this point. you're sharing your opinion, which is fine, but you're doing so rather deep into a thread you don't appear to have read.
MLB absolutely needed an NL team in New York after Brooklyn and the NY baseball Giants skipped town just four years prior in 1958. I guess that would really have made Ole's head explode there, were three MLB teams in NYC from the early 1900s until the 1957, in a league of just 16 teams. Oh and two teams in Chicago and for some of the earlier days two teams in Boston as well.. The Mets were further legitimized by winning the Pennant and World Series in just their seventh year of existence. This video on the other hand did not help them.
And two in St. Louis for more than a half century, between 1902 and 1953. In 1944 they played a cross-town World Series. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1944_World_Series
Yeah...not really a theory rooted in a deep understanding of cross-town rivalries. Chivas/Galaxy isn't even remotely there yet, but can you imagine Everton fans switching to Liverpool? Man City diehards deciding they prefer Man U? Even Hibs to Hearts is a stretch. And yes, it's a different country and situation but I can't imagine people switching between the Cubs and White Sox or Mets and Yankees either...
Philadelphia had the Phillies & the Athletics from roughly 1900-1954 & it also supported Negro league teams. http://phillyfiction.com/more/brief-history-of-baseball-in-philadelphia.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Oakland_Athletics
San Jose not having a soccer team for a few years was penance for the Bay Area having stolen the A's from Kansas City.
And the Royals' ongoing failure to make the playoffs since 1985 (the longest current drought as of the Nationals qualifying this season) is penance for Don Denkinger. http://mattweeks.hubpages.com/hub/D...lown-Call-That-Possibly-Turned-a-World-Series
Of course I'd volunteer for the moving crew for the moving trucks to send the Nationals back to Montreal.
Even with just sixteen teams, MLB was a league whose southern/western most outpost was St. Louis, so yeah, they definitely had to double up. But I think the comparisons people have brought up have been very worthwhile and instructive. Right now in the US there are only 16 'licenses' to provide a Major League brand of soccer to the entirety of the country, so I've a general sympathy for the 'why should LA/NY get two teams, one of them run crappily, when city X has none' argument, but the math is indisputable. NY + LA = ~12.95 million TV homes. That's more than the next four markets (Chicago, Philadelphia, Dallas/Ft.Worth, Bay Area) combined. Add in, among other factors, the fact that they are the two entertainment media centers of the country, and LA2, just like NY2, makes all kinds of sense for the league. It would shock me if they moved. Whoever is operating the team needs to find a permanent home so people will (mostly) shut up about it. All that said, what I found fascinating was this tidbit from the LA Times article "According to league sources, the Cues were recently given a chance to buy out Vergara and his wife, Omnilife CEO Angelica Fuentes, but declined." This is the BoG, I guess, who gave the Cues the opportunity to buy out Vergara first? I wonder what that ultimatum was all about. On one hand, the league seems to care enough about the ownership situation/general situation at Chivas to demand that the I/O situation be consolidated, but on the other, they are happy to offer it first to one, then the other, and then it's thrown in, who knows, maybe the team is going to Phoenix, and it's just sort of hard to believe that MLS, a business with only 16 US franchises, in one of the two most important markets, isn't more involved here about the running of their 2nd LA franchise. I feel for the Chivas fans. Old joke alert: Are you Phillies fans? No, we're Athletic Supporters!
c/s (clippers fan here) I see where people are trying to make the analogy of Chivas being the Clippers of MLS but as a fan who attends at least 12+ Clippers games a year for the past 13 years or so this is a really really bad analogy. First of all they've always been the Los Angeles Clippers and not some bullsh*t name like "Clippers North America" or better yet "Knicks West Coast". Plus, attendance wise, they've always drawn extremely well even in the most crappiest of seasons and they're one of the most profitable teams in the entire league. Yes it is a Laker town but since Blake Griffin and Chris Paul have burst on the scene the Clipps are a hot ticket.. and even when they sucked it was a hot ticket. -this is how it could be for Chivas if they changed the name and actually became a part of the LA sports landscape instead of trying to be more associated with the mother team in Guadalajara
Untrue. They were the San Diego Clippers, and even before that they were the Buffalo Braves. At least the baby goats didn't steal someone else's team.
Yes I know where they originated from.... when they played in Buffalo they were the Buffalo Braves, when they were in San Diego they were the San Diego Clippers, and since they've been in LA their called the Los Angeles Clippers.. what the f*ck?? -and you guys stole the Giants from NY, the A's and Warriors from Philly. what's your point?
I agree with much of what you have written. As for the buyouts, this isn't unusual in a partnership. In this case, I'd guess there was a disagreement about how to move forward -- there was a deadlock. Typically, the end result is that either one partner buys the other out and moves forward, or both sell out. My guess is that the league advised the partners that their current method for running the team wasn't working and they had to make some changes, but the partners probably disagreed on the best course of action. Vergara has doubled down. He now has total control. He's broken the deadlock. And, historically, he has wanted this team in Los Angeles.