i was thinking about this yesterday while watching just some of the chivas/rapids game, and i came to the conclusion that I would be more supportive if they were named something else then essentially "The Mexican team in MLS". They have an annoying racist owner, but then again I hate cheapskate Wolff but I still watch Quakes. I'm mex/amer but I hate the Mexican team...only when they're playing US. Yeah, Chivas have got to stop being "The Mexican teams in MLS" and "The 2nd team at HDC", and just be LA Goats (w/new colors & play at Weingart already, get your own indentity).
They're not "the Mexican team". Anyone can cheer or play for them. And Vergara isn't racist. They just happen to have the same name as 1 of the most prestigious clubs on the continent. It's actually an honor. It's unfortunate that you root against your own people when they face the usmnt.
lol, He's American, why is it unfortunate? It's more unfortunate for Americans to root against their own team. Chivas USA's owner did this to himself, by attempting to be ethnocentric. You can't spin that away.
I repped your entire post, though I don't necessarily think that being open to the hispanic community is a bad thing. Yes you have ethnic rivalries in other leagues that we want to avoid. The Old Firm derby, for example, is propagated on the division betwixt Catholics and Protestants. Hell, quiet as it's kept, but Montreal and Toronto is partly an ethnic rivalry. If you go back in Canadiens history, I believe there was a time when they either didn't allow, or never got around to, signing non-Francophones to play for them. But we are a nation that doesn't legislate ethnic or racial harmony. We only prosecute violent activities that occur because of it. Now MLS has a right as a league to enforce a racial and ethnically inclusive environment in all of it's franchises, and I doubt they want matches where signs disparaging "gringos" are apparent, but until we see that I don't think that it's fair to force Chivas to rebrand based on an unfounded possibility. If that were happening, I'm damn certain that MLS would crack down on it with sanctions that would make what happened to the Dynamo fans pale in comparison. You'd likely see the first "closed door" match in MLS history. Beside which you're never going to be able to completely avoid such issues entirely. You must simply be vigilant in policing it. Hispanic Dynamo fans have complained about racism directed at them in the past. It is a concern, but for the most part I haven't seen anything that would indicate that it's been a huge problem with Chivas.
Statements like this is where the oop: icon comes in handy. I have nothing against Chivas' owner being involved in MLS, and wouldn't bat an eye if he wanted to import all the Mexican players he wanted. I would even tolerate a Spanish-speakers first mentality from the top down...But to say it's an honor that an MLS club is named after Chivas is trolling to the nth degree. It was stupid idea that alienated almost every potential soccer fan in southern California who didn't identify with the Galaxy, Mexican-American fans included. As an American soccer fan living in Southern California who didn't particularly care for the Galaxy in the early to mid 2000s, I and many other potential fans of the club were there for the taking. But they decided to do it "Mickey Mouse" style. Their approach pushed me back toward the Galaxy. Chivas USA should look at the example set by the Xolos - who have quietly pulled off the identity strategy Chivas USA was aiming for and touting all along. There are probably more Gringos like myself interested in them then there are fans of Chivas USA. They just went along and built a club, signed Mexican-Americans, and did it without some phony pandering name.
I dunno. It's easy to make a crowd look good when you tarp off huge sections of the stadium and push the crowd into a smaller area. ------RM
Count me as one of those "gringos" who follow Xolos. Too bad they wont make the semis of la liguilla, otherwise we might have seen them in CCL. I support all Cali teams (including Xolos...hey, Cali is the best state in both countries), but the problem that keeps me from supporting Chivas/Quakes fullblown (and I know, everyone is going crazy for SJ right now...and i've been to a few of their games) is the strong sense that both owners have alterior motives. Chivas have always been accused of simply serving as a marketing ploy for the older mexican teams' following in S. Cal., and Wolff has always been accused of simply using Quakes to persuade the city of San Jose to economically support the move of the A's (and get favorable real estate). Maybe the bigger problem is that MLS as it is currently structured allow for owners who have secondary interest. If owners suddenly had to swallow their financial losses, then maybe only serious owners would apply. I think "Los Donovans de Los Angeles" would be the best name change! And yes, I' m serious
No different than what New England does but I don't see people starting 200 threads about them. That's a 25,000 seat stadium and they filled in the lower bowl of the other three sides. That was a good number for them.
what makes Friday's attendance for Chivas so good is that its usually bad when both them and Galaxy play on the same weekend at HDC. Maybe it was the nice weather. Anyway, several teams blow in attendance if you dont have the game on Sat night (really got to maximize support, so games for fcd, chivas, colorado, ny, dc, crew, chicago. should all be on sat eve)
Not too familiar with who the owner is but racist? not good. Yeah it's cool that the Galaxy have a rival based on the fact that they're from the same city and share a stadium, but you're absolutely right, they're simply "The Mexican Club" of Major League Soccer. Don Garber needs to get a team going in Florida or maybe in San Diego. Some of the best soccer in the United States comes from San Diego.
Not sure why all the hate for the attendance figures. 14,652 was higher than 4 other teams this week. Pretty good considering there was a Galaxy game on Saturday. Chivas USA - 14,652 Montreal - 13,405 FC Dallas - 11,702 San J0se Earthquakes - 8,734 New England Revolution - 6,149 ...at least Chivas USA no longer holds the lowest attended game for 2012...
Well, Chivas USA has a notorious reputation for padding its numbers, worse than any other team in the league. Whether or not that reputation is deserved, I'll let everyone else debate. But the people going on about Chivas' attendance woes are talking about what they see at the stadium or on TV, not the reported ticket distribution. ------RM
Unfortunately, Toronto has the most license to pad their numbers by having so many season tickets sold, they can count those in ther attendance figures even when they are drawing like 25% of capacity.
You forgot Columbus, and New Yersey. No facts behind inflated numbers, no sponsors from other teams, half empty SSS stadiums in single franchise markets. At least Chivas USA can use Galaxy as an excuse behind poor attendance. New Yersy has 3 DPs, shinny new stadium and it's still half empty! Love this thread.
I see just as bad in New England. New England usually tarps off the entire half of the stadium on the broadcast side and you only see that when they shoot the stadium straight-on from the goalpost camera overlooking the stadium. They also tarp off the area behind both goalposts. Chivas only tarped off the area behind one goalpost. It's a clever ruse, but it's clear that on many nights they don't even have Chivas numbers when you consider that everyone is packed on one side of the stadium. Chivas fans are spread out over a larger area, so they're going to look a bit more sparse on tv until you take that into acount. But I've seen Red Bull games that were clearly just as bad if not worse. No Chivas is not alone, nor the worst, as far as bad attendance goes. And as far as Kraft criticism goes, count up the threads that are started about Kraft's Revolutions vs the ones that are started about Chivas and see if you see a difference. I'd say of all the other teams, the Red Bulls are probably the next on the list of teams that get ripped on, but only bc people like to be able to simplify it down to branding issues when the problem is a bit broader than that. That's easy enough to see. If we truly care about fixing this issue, then let's stop singling out teams that we don't like and start a real thread about all of the problem teams in MLS and look for real solutions.
Out of curiosity, if Chivas USA wasnt in MLS and Vergara was hoping to have a new expansion club, say for next season, what would the odds of them being granted a franchise? Would it be correct to think MLS would probably be less reluctant to let them in today as opposed to when they were originally let in ?
Think the word you might have been looking for is more reluctanct. As far as that goes MLS is alot more clear on their criteria, and because the league is healthier, they also require more out of their potential owners. They probably wouldn't be as interested in a second LA team until a second NY team was already in place. Now from everything that I read, Vergara is a billionaire. The only difference would be that MLS would likely have required him to have plans to build a stadium in place before being awarded a team. I mean there's alot of ownerships in the league that wouldn't operate along the same lines that they do today. AEG wouldn't have been allowed to buy a second club. Hell, Phillip Anschultz would still own Colorado and someone else would have purchased LA. The Hunts also would own only one team. So it's almost certain that at this stage things would be handled differently. Doesn't mean that Vergara wouldn't own a team, it just means that it would have been handled differently and he would have been required to invest more into the league up front. Stadium, much bigger expansion fee. The question is would Vergara have been prepared to invest that much up front? Who knows.
Phil Schoen: Raúl tiene una oferta del millonario mexicano Vergara para jugar en los Chivas de Los Ángeles