you guys read this right?

[SoccerPrime]

http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/20040401-9999-news_1s1soccer.html

[Wallydrag]

This quote was interesting:

"We've been talking to the Galaxy for about three weeks," Vergara said. "If we came to Los Angeles, it's a negotiation between Chivas and the Galaxy, not Chivas and MLS . . . We can come here if we want."

I thought that MLS owned all the teams. Therefore dealing with the Galaxy is dealing with MLS.

The "we can come here if we want" comment also seems a tad arrogant sounding.

No matter what Chivas USA needs to decide on a city and either way they're paying rent to play somewhere. From a financial standpoint sharing with the Galaxy would be the best option. However I'm still not sure there's going to be a second team in LA the next place it would seem is Houston, where they would have to pay rent for Reliant Stadium which is big, probably get very little in the way of parking, concession, etc in addition to schedule conflict and turf conditions with the Texans in the fall.

[uclacarlos]

The "we can come here if we want" comment also seems a tad arrogant sounding.
Were you there at the interview? Do you have the complete context? Do you know what was said right b4 that (signalled by '...')?

Sorry to be picky, but so many ppl have been throwing around comments about Vergara that are dripping in stereotypes, whether they be based on culture or social class (especially the nouveau riche).

[Wallydrag]

This quote also interested me:

Asked why San Diego is suddenly off the list, all Vergara would say is: "It's because of the concentration of the population in San Diego. If we wanted to bring a team there, we would bring it to Tijuana, not San Diego. And we don't want to put a team in Tijuana."

Another excuse? Houston is now appearantly back on the short list, though earlier Vergara dismiss it as a potential city by saying there weren't enough Hispanics in Houston.


Mr. Vergara is quite the enigma.

[Calexico77]

I want to thank Orlando for posting that article. Other than that, I think we should just leave it at that. Very little new was said that we didn't know, and nothing new will be said here, either.

If you like, I can sum up everything that will be said in this thread

"Vergara good for MLS!!"
"NOOO! Vergara BAD for MLS!!"
"But he'll make Mexicans come, and they like Soccer"
"But not all Mexicans like Chivas!"
"That's not the point!"
"And I don't like Mexicans"
"Besides MLS is for Americans, no Mexicans!"
"What about Mexican-Americans?!"
"You mean Latinos?"
"Well that means central americans, too"
[late post]"Vergara BAD for MLS!!"
"Soccer is played by white people in America, I've seen 'em!!"
"How is it possible that one city with 6 million support 2 teams!?"
"I like San Diego better" [ahem, Lithium]
"Vergara good for MLS?"

So can we just come back when there's something official?

[SoccerPrime]

Well it is an article in a mainstream SD newspaper. And it does quote Vergara quite a bit. So I figured that was important enough to post.

[dna77054]

I want to thank Orlando for posting that article. Other than that, I think we should just leave it at that. Very little new was said that we didn't know, and nothing new will be said here, either.

If you like, I can sum up everything that will be said in this thread

"Vergara good for MLS!!"
"NOOO! Vergara BAD for MLS!!"
"But he'll make Mexicans come, and they like Soccer"
"But not all Mexicans like Chivas!"
"That's not the point!"
"And I don't like Mexicans"
"Besides MLS is for Americans, no Mexicans!"
"What about Mexican-Americans?!"
"You mean Latinos?"
"Well that means central americans, too"
[late post]"Vergara BAD for MLS!!"
"Soccer is played by white people in America, I've seen 'em!!"
"How is it possible that one city with 6 million support 2 teams!?"
"I like San Diego better" [ahem, Lithium]
"Vergara good for MLS?"

So can we just come back when there's something official?

Best post I have seen in ages, kudos!!!!

[Bonji]

I thought that MLS owned all the teams. Therefore dealing with the Galaxy is dealing with MLS.

You're kidding right? MLS owns all the players, not teams. Unless you're talking about the "owners" actually being investor/opperators. I guess there is some gray area there.

I think Chivas should go to Houston and stop all the games. There is no reason to put two teams in one city, yet.

[Wallydrag]

You're kidding right? MLS owns all the players, not teams. Unless you're talking about the "owners" actually being investor/opperators. I guess there is some gray area there.

I think Chivas should go to Houston and stop all the games. There is no reason to put two teams in one city, yet.

I guess I don't understand the single-entity concept then. People can be I/O but not actually own the team. So then who does own the team?

[Minnman]

You're kidding right? MLS owns all the players, not teams. Unless you're talking about the "owners" actually being investor/opperators. I guess there is some gray area there.



Yeah, just a tad. MLS, in effect, DOES own all the teams, at least as far as the future of Chivas USA is concerned. Now talking to LA is, basically, talking to AEG, which operates half of the league. So that's something. Still, HSG, Kraft, Kroenke and the non-operator investors have their say, too. Vergara can't just decide on his own where he wants to have an MLS club (unless he wants a franchise without any players, I suppose). And until I start hearing someone at MLS HQ commenting on and reaffirming Vergara's statements, well, what he says won't mean much to me.

[uclacarlos]

And until I start hearing someone at MLS HQ commenting on and reaffirming Vergara's statements, well, what he says won't mean much to me.
You, my friend, are a very wise man who hath learned from the doom and gloom mistakes of our BS brethren. CHEERS!

[BulaJacket]

You're kidding right? MLS owns all the players, not teams. Unless you're talking about the "owners" actually being investor/opperators. I guess there is some gray area there.

I think Chivas should go to Houston and stop all the games. There is no reason to put two teams in one city, yet.

Are YOU kidding? Guess you need to brush up on your MLS knowledge before calling someone else out.
A MLS team is:
A) 49% owned by individual investors/groups/operators
B) 51% owned by MLS as a whole (comprised of said I/Os in A, plus other investors)

There is no gray area. I don't even understand what point you were trying to make in the second sentence.

Horowitz = in group B; NOT in group A
Hunt = in group B; AND in group A

and just technically for kicks...MLS owns "player contracts," not "players." :)