So having two of the league's last four (five, if you count this year) MVPs, along with two separate franchises in the MLS Cup during that same time frame, qualifies HSG as a sucky ownership group? What, exactly, has the HSG done to directly alienate their fans, and what makes them "amongst the worst in MLS" off the field? By comparison, what makes Seattle's ownership group so much more successful? How much of that success is due to the astronomical (by MLS standards) attendance the club is drawing? If you were to place Seattle's owners in Columbus and put HSG in Seattle, what would happen?
This went from a thread about a team's new direction to one poster's hatred. Maybe it should be locked.
It would be better if it indicated that the quotes exist while not showing the text. A lot of posts in this thread make no sense with ole on your ignore list.
The crazy thing was it all started out relatively reasonably, but then some decided to latch on to irrelevant things in the posts and it snowballed from there.
Wait, so this thread's gotten to six pages and none of you mentioned Vergara squaring up to a Chivas fan?
It seems particularly important for a niche league which is up against stiff competition for attention even in its own sport that the brand is strong across the board, which goes to the point Ismitje made several pages ago about the newsiness here is not just in what Vergara said, but how forcefully supported it was by the league.
Back when I was on this site more regularly, I had hit "ignore" of Ole after one of his ridiculous thread-stealing rants. I can't even remember what it was. That was under the old big soccer. Now apparently it's time to do it under the new system again. I think we all get that Ole doesn't like the Chivas USA idea. Been said more than enough times in six pages. Can someone put this thread back on track about potential stadium sites? Garber mentioned more than one. What are the others beyond the Sports Arena/USC idea?
That is my hope and the hope of 97% of us on Big Soccer. Antonio Cueand Co. had a broader plan that included a new badge and the city of Los Angeles seal on our kits for 2013. With Vergara, he might just consider adding the city name. He hinted at it at the press conference. Yes, CDLA would make complete sense.
Since there was a side discussion about Vergara wanting to maintain Chivas USA's inferiority to its sister club, it may be relevant to point out that he's not all that appreciated in Guadalajara either atm.
The other thing it does, which I don't think the old BS did, is that threads started by the ignoree disappear. So if you have ole on ignore, you can't see the player movement threads.
My Spanish is a little rusty, but I'm pretty sure "Club Deportivo Los Angeles" counts as four words, not one.
Bob was only there for one year. His starting lineup included Claudio Suarez, Panchito Mendoza, Juan Pablo Garcia and Paco Palencia...and half-Mexican Jon Bornstein. I think he also had hopes for Ramon Ramirez. From what I gathered at the time, CUSA fans liked having players like Ante Razov, Jesse Marsch. The point is, Bob did not want to make it a non-Mexican, non-Latino team (if he stayed a second season, he'd have had Amado Guevara), but the owners also wanted to compete.
This is the most important question here. Vergara can pontificate all he wants about how he made a mistake, about how he will fill the roster with guys from Chivas Guad etc. In the end it is all hot air unless he is willing to put his money where his mouth is. In the current economic state California is in no one will be willing to build that stadium for him and with Vergara still owing millions due to the new Chivas Guad stadium, I'm not sure how serious he will be about building a new stadium for Chivas USA if everywhere he goes he gets the same response--"yes but only if you build it with your own money."
Besides, if they find U18 talent, that'd be the only time they could easily 'ship' them to Chivas Guad. Once they hit 18 and sign a contract, CUSA can't ship those talented kids anywhere as they don't own the contracts. MLS does. I really don't see how they could, easily, use CUSA as a feeder team.
it is easy. Chivas USA's academy has kids up to the age of 18. all of those kids are not under contracts of any kind, professional or amateur/youth contracts. anybody who is really good in that academy once they turn 17/18 can be signed directly into Chivas Guad bypassing MLS and Chivas USA altogether. it is what is happening now from many other youth clubs in SoCal to LigaMX teams.
So you admit that the idea that the Chivas USA MLS team is a feeder team to Guadalajara is 100% wrong, then? BTW, still waiting for anything to back up your assertion of a "clear statement" that "they want to use Chivas USA as a foothold in LA to discover and develop talent for the mothership and secondarily Chivas USA."