Do you support Chivas USA in MLS and in either Chicago or Los Angeles?

[pc4th]

As the title indicated, let the votes decide.

I am all in favor of Chivas USA. If they end up in Chicago, good for them. If they end up in LA, good for them.

Paste of what I wrote earlier:




Whether Chivas USA ends up at Chicago or LA, it will benefit MLS.

1) stadium benefit: In LA, Chivas will pay AEG to use HDC. In Chicago, Chivas will resolve the stadium debts faster with the Chicago Fire. More money for both team.

2) community benefit: Bridgeview agreed to build the stadium for the Fire because the town want the economic benefit of having a soccer team in town. Restaurants, hotels, bars...etc...
Having 2 teams will double the economic effect.
The same would take place at Carson, I imagine.
Like a poster commented: if Chivas USA end up in Chicago, I will go and buy a bar somewhere near the Bridgeview stadium.

3) attendance benefit each team will have 2 home games against your conference opponent. So it is virtually guarentee that Chivas de Chicago will have 2 out of 15 home games sold out. Chicago Fire 2 out of 15 sold out. Galaxy will have 2 out of 15 games sold out. Or Chivas de Los Angeles 2 out of 15 sold out. without any marketting I might add

4) tapping into the Mexicans fanbase benefit Right now MLS is not doing a good job, might as well let someone who know what he is doing to take over. Who know, maybe Telemundo might sign a TV contract with MLS because of it.

5) local derby benefit Enough say. You know you want to be there cheering on for your team

6) more investor for MLS benefit I think MLS could use some more investors, don't you?

P.S. Take it from Peter Wilt, the GM of the Chicago Fire, he wants Chivas USA to come to Chicago and he knows what he is doing. There isn't a person that is more familiar with the Chicago soccer scene than he is, and if he thinks it is a good idea, it's a good idea.

Take it from Vergera, he is risking his $10 million and more with this venture, I am pretty sure he did his research. It's not like MLS Fantasy for Owners where money is fake.

Take it from MLS, despite some of the follies, I trust in MLS to do what it sees as the best interest for the league.

I rather see Chivas USA play in a SSS in either Chicago or LA than seeing Chivas USA playing in 67 k football stadium in San Diego or Houston.
p.s. Expanding to other cities to increase TV contract/rating doesn't work with me. Having an extra city and an increase in 10,000 households isn't going to make a dent in the rating


I forgot to add 2 things:

1) without CHivas USA drama, it would be really dull on BigSoccer the couple of days/weeks and the months before.

2) Chivas USA will draw well when they are on the road. Trust me, they probably become the second highest (if not highest) team in term of road attendance next to DC United with Freddy Adu.

If you think Freddy draws well now, imagine Chivas USA on the road for next year. They won't beat Freddy, but it will be a significant bump nonetheless. And God knows that MLS need an attendance boost. Imagine Chivas @ SJ instead of Columbus @ SJ

Or
Chivas @ Dallas instead of ____ @ Dallas.
Chivas @ LA instead of _____@ LA.

Damn, the more I thought of it, the more I realize how great this idea of Chivas USA is. Go Chivas.

[soccerfan]

it is not a question on Chivas in MLS, not many will be against that, so you not proving anything with that, i think you should have added Chivas in LA(HDC) and another for them in Chicago if you want to have a good result on how fans feel

[pc4th]

it is not a question on Chivas in MLS, not many will be against that, so you not proving anything with that, i think you should have added Chivas in LA(HDC) and another for them in Chicago if you want to have a good result on how fans feel

opps. I got what you are saying. I didn't put that in the poll reply.

My mistake. I guess it's split 50/50. Passion is a good thing.

[Nutz]

I'm all for Chivas in MLS, just wish they would pick a new city. Houston would be nice and practical.

[pc4th]

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/sunpub/naper/sports/n0520fire.htm

By the second week in June, everyone will know whether Chivas USA will be the second Major League Soccer team in Chicago.

MLS Commissioner Don Garber confirmed again Wednesday at Fire practice that Chivas will without a doubt be a part of MLS next season, either alongside the Fire in Chicago or next to the Galaxy in Los Angeles.

Los Angeles has the largest Hispanic market in the United States, and Chicago has one of the best soccer traditions and followings in the country.

"We believe it will be a unique fan base for Chivas USA," Garber said. "We have not been successful keeping and attracting the Hispanic fans with current MLS teams, and we have tried so many different things — from different players that we signed to different marketing programs to media strategies. Our goal with Chivas USA is to have a team that will connect with that Hispanic fan that we have lost a bit of."

Look like Chivas USA will be in either Chicago or LA.

[cmosso]

I support Chivas USA in MLS, but I don't like the idea of them moving into a city that already has a team. Why can't they move it into a new market? There is going to be support for them no matter where they are. you could put them in Alaska, and there would be support from the Hispanic community. I just don't understand why you'd divide a soccer fanbase in a city that doesn't sell out games to the team they have. Sure attendance will go up, but would Chivas USA NOT sell out in San Diego, or Houston? Of course they'd have success there, and their road games would bring new fans to watch. I just think that the MLS will succeed with Chivas USA one way or the other. Why not give a new city a team and perhaps open a whole new city of potential fans. I'm lucky enough to live in a city with an MLS team, but after supporting them strongly for years, I don't know if I'd be as into MLS if I didn't have my team to root for. There could be millions of people in major metro areas that do not have a team, that are not as interested in MLS because of that fact. Sure it'll be more practical and easier to transition Chivas USA into an existing market with a place to play, etc. I just think Houston was their best bet. A Houston/Dallas rivalry? C'mon now. :) The best rivalry in soccer is the one I'll be seeing tomorrow night (LA vs. SJ), why not create another interstate rivalry that ISN'T sharing a city of fans?

[Khan]

Whether Chivas USA ends up at Chicago or LA, it will benefit MLS.

1) stadium benefit: In LA, Chivas will pay AEG to use HDC. In Chicago, Chivas will resolve the stadium debts faster with the Chicago Fire. More money for both team.

2) community benefit: Bridgeview agreed to build the stadium for the Fire because the town want the economic benefit of having a soccer team in town. Restaurants, hotels, bars...etc...
Having 2 teams will double the economic effect.
The same would take place at Carson, I imagine.
Like a poster commented: if Chivas USA end up in Chicago, I will go and buy a bar somewhere near the Bridgeview stadium.

3) attendance benefit each team will have 2 home games against your conference opponent. So it is virtually guarentee that Chivas de Chicago will have 2 out of 15 home games sold out. Chicago Fire 2 out of 15 sold out. Galaxy will have 2 out of 15 games sold out. Or Chivas de Los Angeles 2 out of 15 sold out. without any marketting I might add

4) tapping into the Mexicans fanbase benefit Right now MLS is not doing a good job, might as well let someone who know what he is doing to take over. Who know, maybe Telemundo might sign a TV contract with MLS because of it.

5) local derby benefit Enough say. You know you want to be there cheering on for your team

6) more investor for MLS benefit I think MLS could use some more investors, don't you?

P.S. Take it from Peter Wilt, the GM of the Chicago Fire, he wants Chivas USA to come to Chicago and he knows what he is doing. There isn't a person that is more familiar with the Chicago soccer scene than he is, and if he thinks it is a good idea, it's a good idea.

Take it from Vergera, he is risking his $10 million and more with this venture, I am pretty sure he did his research. It's not like MLS Fantasy for Owners where money is fake.

Take it from MLS, despite some of the follies, I trust in MLS to do what it sees as the best interest for the league.

I rather see Chivas USA play in a SSS in either Chicago or LA than seeing Chivas USA playing in 67 k football stadium in San Diego or Houston.
p.s. Expanding to other cities to increase TV contract/rating doesn't work with me. Having an extra city and an increase in 10,000 households isn't going to make a dent in the rating


I forgot to add 2 things:

1) without CHivas USA drama, it would be really dull on BigSoccer the couple of days/weeks and the months before.

2) Chivas USA will draw well when they are on the road. Trust me, they probably become the second highest (if not highest) team in term of road attendance next to DC United with Freddy Adu.

If you think Freddy draws well now, imagine Chivas USA on the road for next year. They won't beat Freddy, but it will be a significant bump nonetheless. And God knows that MLS need an attendance boost. Imagine Chivas @ SJ instead of Columbus @ SJ

Or
Chivas @ Dallas instead of ____ @ Dallas.
Chivas @ LA instead of _____@ LA.

Damn, the more I thought of it, the more I realize how great this idea of Chivas USA is. Go Chivas.

PC4th: As I have already posted on the Chicago Fire Board, did any of what you posted come from actual research, or is this the same ethnic pandering that MLS used to il effect in the early years? Did you or Vergara or MLS actually spend any time/money to do MARKET RESEARCH? Or are you assuming this to be true?

So Vergara is "spending" $10 million. [Actually, consider this a minor business expense for a Billionaire.] In Mexico, $10 million might be a few player transfers, or the yearly salary of a player or two. The "expansion fee" is mere petty cash to Vergara. In business terms, the $10 million is a non-factor to Vergara/Chivas USA.

Smart businessmen do all they can to assure business victory. Because this is a tiny investment/commitment for Vergara, it is a low-risk/high-potential situation for Vergara. He has not signed any commitment to MLS, hence he can easily pull out of MLS in a year or two, should he feel the need. Without HIS money committed to a SSS, I can easily see Vergara pulling out of MLS.

Lastly, all this cr@p about "Chivas USA" drawing... Did Luisa or Compost or any of the other Mexican wastes of money who stole from MLS increase attendance or improve MLS' profile worldwide? The answer to these is a resounding, "NO." What HARD EVIDENCE [Meaning, NOT conjecture or supposition] can YOU, MLS, or Vergara point to as a predictor of success in MLS? Moreover, what HARD EVIDENCE [Again, NOT conjecture or supposition] can you, MLS, or Vergara point to to portend success in LA or Chicago? None? OK.

Businessmen, particularly those as successful as Vergara, use positive marketing research as a marketing tool whenever they are in position to bring a winner to market. Particularly when there is little/no chance for outside competition. Since we have not seen a summary of this supposed "market research," I as a businessman HIGHLY DOUBT Vergara or MLS have spent penny number one on this venture.

Chivas USA is a under-researched, under-funded, noncommittal folly waiting to happen. MLS is taking on the risk of PR damage, while Vergara is gifted the low-risk opportunity to piggyback onto Uncle Phil's marketing machine/SS Stadia. IF Chivas USA fails, Vergara can easily pull out, with his image intact and with little negative to impact his bottom line, while MLS is once again the rube.

[Treetaliano]

Chuck Fivas.

If no white or black players can play for them it's horsehit. Chivas and vergara can go to hell

[uclacarlos]

If no white or black players can play for them it's horsehit.
Although I'm prolly still on your "ignore list", here goes...

Only 10% of African slaves went to the US. That means that 90% went to "Latin America"/Caribbean. There are significant black populations in Cuba, Puerto Rico, Dominican Republic, Panama, Venezuela, Nicaragua (all baseball countries, but Venezuela is startin' to represent in footie), El Salvador, Honduras, Costa Rica, Colombia, Peru, Ecuador and to lesser extents Bolivia, Mexico, Guatemala, and Paraguay. Uruguay, Argentina and Chile had virtually no significant slaves.

There are white Latinos. There are black Latinos. There are Chinese, Japanese and Korean Latinos. There are Arab and Middle Eastern Latinos.

hard evidence??
MLS and "hard evidence" are a contradiction in terms. THe reason why there is no hard evidence is b/c the league doesn't give "evidence" for ANYTHING!!

[Bonji]

I am in favor of MLS expansion with strong owners who want to win. I think JV fits that profile. In addition I think they will reach the intended market, Chivas Mexico fans living in the US. This will help MLS teams with increased ticket sales when the team comes to town. I can see Denver getting a huge sales bump when Chivas comes to town. The team basically has a built in supporter base.

I'd rather see them in LA.

[mac_jojo]

I understand Chivas in the MLS. But I do not see why sharing markets would benefit MLS. Sure I could see on some cases why it would benefit Chivas. Sure if Chivas go to L.A. or Chicago they will be a success. They will have large numbers of fans in attendance at home games, large numbers of Hispanics and Hispanics only fans. Everybody else will support the Fire or Galaxy. Sure MLS wants to increase the interest in Hispanic population to the league. But how would it not help in another market where they would draw fans of non-Hispanic population because it’s the local team. Also attraction the Hispanic population to MLS is extremely harder than one would think if considering Mexican Pride which sees the MFL as the top league in the world for some reason and they don’t leave the league much. I mean there are more Americans across the pond than Hispanic’s. Also consider this, Houston might not have the Mexican population that Chicago has but if you consider the surrounding Mexican population and the fact that Mexico is just down the road there would be more support than the surrounding Chicago area. The same could be said about San Diego.

[kpaulson]

PC4th: As I have already posted on the Chicago Fire Board, did any of what you posted come from actual research, or is this the same ethnic pandering that MLS used to il effect in the early years? Did you or Vergara or MLS actually spend any time/money to do MARKET RESEARCH?

Have you? I'm definitely not certain that the poor results MLS got from Hernandez really have much to do with the success or failure of Chivas USA, so I don't think it really helps you to type MARKET RESEARCH in all caps.

In fact, I recall a few quotes from Vergara talking about his market research (which is, I believe, why Houston was discarded). So, all the market research I know of supports the idea that CHivas USA will work (or Vergara would've canned the idea) -- I mean, unless you count Wynalda's "poll" of restaurant workers...

[Khan]

Have you? I'm definitely not certain that the poor results MLS got from Hernandez really have much to do with the success or failure of Chivas USA, so I don't think it really helps you to type MARKET RESEARCH in all caps.

In fact, I recall a few quotes from Vergara talking about his market research (which is, I believe, why Houston was discarded). So, all the market research I know of supports the idea that CHivas USA will work (or Vergara would've canned the idea) -- I mean, unless you count Wynalda's "poll" of restaurant workers...


You're correct; I suppose I don't have to emphasize it by putting it in all caps; It's irritating to hear fans state, "I'm sure Vergara did his research..." and then we never see any evidence thereof. As a businessman, I know I'd make my positive market research as part of my venture's marketing. Vergara hasn't, so it calls into question the amount of homework Vergara/MLS has done.

Positive market research would get the ball rolling in terms of ticket sales, recruiting an on-site staff, and generating a buzz locally. It would be invaluable to Chivas USA and to MLS. Free advertising, in a sense.

Now KPaulson, I don't know if you remember when Campos played in Chicago or not. But when he did, the Mexican fan came out one or two times to SF, and then abandoned MLS. Among the MFL fans that I know, not a single one of them watches MLS, even when broadcast over free TV. When I was at UIC, there was a CBA team from Mexico City. The first time it came to the Pavilion, thousands of Mexican fans came out. When they saw that the team was not 100% Mexican, despite a marketing push on the radio, most of the crowd left after the 1st quarter, and few Mexican fans came back for the team's following visits to Chicago.

Of course my personal recollections hardly count as proper market research. I do know that a handful of diehards would come out to Chivas USA matches. But the core MFL fan would in all likelihood abandon Chivas USA as "not Mexican." Based on the previous attempts to utilise ethnic pandering as a marketing tool Chivas USA would be a huge failure. MLS as a league tried to use ethnic pandering as a marketing tool in the early years, and it didn't work either. What did work was a good product on the field, in virgin territories.

My understanding is that MFL's/Vergara's strengths are: The ability to draw, and the financial might. We have no clear demonstration of Vergara's commitment in either realm. The $10 million expansion fee is but a pittance, and as I recall, less than what Miami paid years ago. Without a demonstrated commitment, [by putting up dollars or stasia or marketing as Uncle Phil has hereto fore] I can easily see Vergara pulling out inasmuch as Miami did. Come to think of it, Vergara's commitments hereto for are actually less than Miami's bid in 1998: no stadium, less money in terms of expansion fees...


By placing a second team into an existing market, Chivas USA may very well negatively impact the existing club. The Chicago White Sox would most certainly draw better were the Flubs not in Chicago. The Mets would certainly draw better and enjoy better TV numbers were the Yankees in another city. The Baltimore Orioles are right to be against an MLB team coming to DC for much the same reason. When Mr. Schmuckatelli opens up a 7-11 on Clinton St, he's right to be against a White Hen opening up on Jefferson St. in Chicago.

Now, Peter The Wilt has publicly welcomed an expansion, but upon speaking to him personally, I get the opposite sense from him. As a PR genius, Wilt [I]should welcome Chivas. But from the sense of building a brand locally, Wilt can't be happy about Chivas' encroachment.


In the past, Garber/MLS had rejected "expansion" bids for not having the financial backing, or not having a SSS. While Vergara has the former, he does not have the latter. I feel this "expansion" bid by Vergara is therefore substandard. The point has always been to bring in as many viable teams into new SSS to make MLS a business success. Again, if Garber allows this weak bid into the league, [and by all indications, he will] it will set a weak precedent for future expansion bids.


I can see it now: Portland in 2006: "You let Chivas in without a SSS, why not us?"

St. Louis in 2010: "You let Chivas in without a SSS, why not us?"

And on and on it goes...


Here's another novel idea: Let the so-called "expansion" expand MLS to virgin territories. After all, isn't that the chief aim of "expansion?"

Or at a minimum, demand Vergara commit to a number of years, at a number of dollars for marketing and development, along with commitments from Chivas Mexico to tour the US. If this were MLB, NBA, NHL, or NFL, Vergara would not only have to outstrip prior expansion fees, but also pay a "territorial rights fee" to Uncle Phil. Without the evidence of a commitment from Vergara [who is reknown for is underhanded business dealings] Vergara can easily eat the measly $10 million fees and pull out of MLS at the drop of a hat.

Vergara wants to buy teams in England and Italy. I don't think anything I've suggested [commitments for stadia, marketing, player acquisition, et. al] are anything that the Italian or English FA wouldn't demand as well. To allow Vergara into MLS, at a discount, with no commitment for a stadium, further weaken's MLS' stature both nationally and abroad. I think Garber/MLS should renegotiate a better deal than the one on the table.


I am not against Chivas coming to MLS. I am against Chivas coming to MLS in this fashion and under these circumstances. As currently constructed, this deal is a "maybe,possibly a-winner" for MLS, and a definite "no-loser" for Vergara.


Cheers!

[kpaulson]

It's irritating to hear fans state, "I'm sure Vergara did his research..." and then we never see any evidence thereof. As a businessman, I know I'd make my positive market research as part of my venture's marketing. Vergara hasn't, so it calls into question the amount of homework Vergara/MLS has done.

Fair enough-- I can tell you that I have definitely read quotes from Vergara or Sisniega relating to the market research they've done. I'm sure I could dig them out, but it probably wouldn't settle the discussion because I don't recall them being terribly detailed. As for "positive market research", I'm not familiar with the term, but if it would help ticket sales and recruiting, I think it might be better left to when Vergara's actually selected a site to eliminate redundancy-- but please correct me if that represents an incorrect understanding of the term.

Now KPaulson, I don't know if you remember when Campos played in Chicago or not. But when he did, the Mexican fan came out one or two times to SF, and then abandoned MLS. Among the MFL fans that I know, not a single one of them watches MLS, even when broadcast over free TV. When I was at UIC, there was a CBA team from Mexico City. The first time it came to the Pavilion, thousands of Mexican fans came out. When they saw that the team was not 100% Mexican, despite a marketing push on the radio, most of the crowd left after the 1st quarter, and few Mexican fans came back for the team's following visits to Chicago.

Naturally I remember Campos. The fact that he was benched certainly didn't help things either... ;) Again though, I think we have demonstrated that signing one ethinc "superstar" isn't a good strategy-- but mainly because it's too little bang for the buck rather than being a complete failure. You do see Guatamaln fans come up to watch Ruiz for example. The couple hundred or so that come out wouldn't justify signing a big star, but they do justify signing a great player who happens to be a member of a target demographic over another good player who is not. But again, I'm not sure MLS's experiences of signing foreign players will be directly relevant to Chivas USA's success or failure.

The CBA thing is interesting but different from Chivas USA. Odds are that Chivas USA will be much more "Mexican" (or at least latino) than the CBA team, wouldn't you agree?

MLS as a league tried to use ethnic pandering as a marketing tool in the early years, and it didn't work either. What did work was a good product on the field, in virgin territories.
Well, as I said before, ethnic pandering has worked-- when the costs are in line with the benefits. Spending $4m on Hernandez obviously was not.

In the past, Garber/MLS had rejected "expansion" bids for not having the financial backing, or not having a SSS. While Vergara has the former, he does not have the latter.

I think you are looking at SSSs as a means of showing commitment to the league, rather than an entrance requirement in their own right, which I think is interesting. I would say that Chivas USA does have an SSS. The fact that Vergara didn't build it himself won't affect the benefits of controlling revenue streams and ticket supply.

But you've definitely got a point: by not building an SSS, Vergara is showing somewhat less comittment to the league than, say, Kroenke. I think though there's a simple legal solution to your concerns about Vergara's commitment: make him sign the parntership agreement-- put in clauses regarding ownership of the Chivas USA brand; make it clear that if he pulls out, MLS-- not Vergara-- takes control of the team.

I can see it now: Portland in 2006: "You let Chivas in without a SSS, why not us?"

"Because Chivas USA had the beautiful Brigeview stadium to play in. Now pay me."

Here's another novel idea: Let the so-called "expansion" expand MLS to virgin territories. After all, isn't that the chief aim of "expansion?"

No. "Virgin territories" is just a proxy for what really counts-- an untapped market.

Or at a minimum, demand Vergara commit to a number of years, at a number of dollars for marketing and development, along with commitments from Chivas Mexico to tour the US. If this were MLB, NBA, NHL, or NFL, Vergara would not only have to outstrip prior expansion fees, but also pay a "territorial rights fee" to Uncle Phil. Without the evidence of a commitment from Vergara [who is reknown for is underhanded business dealings] Vergara can easily eat the measly $10 million fees and pull out of MLS at the drop of a hat.

OK, you're the business man telling me about marketing man. Now you have to listen to the lawyer-- do you think MLS and Vergara will have NO agreement? Why would you assume that they're not doing the exact same things you suggest? I am certain of it-- although I'm certain I'll never have proof-- those terms will/should never be made public.

It's a bit of an intractable debate as we just don't know what they're discussing. But if you're going to (rightly) call out pro-Chivas folks for assuming that Vergara's done his research, I think it's fair to point out that you're assuming that we know what the deal on the table is. I for one just can't believe MLS won't have a well-negotiated deal with details that far outstrip our knowledge of it on these boards.

[Brownswan]

Chuck Fivas????

Wasn't he a relief pitcher for Cincinnati back in the '70s?

[Khan]

Fair enough-- I can tell you that I have definitely read quotes from Vergara or Sisniega relating to the market research they've done. [snip] As for "positive market research", I'm not familiar with the term
[snip]

[snip]The CBA thing is interesting but different from Chivas USA. Odds are that Chivas USA will be much more "Mexican" (or at least latino) than the CBA team, wouldn't you agree? Well, as I said before, ethnic pandering has worked-- when the costs are in line with the benefits. Spending $4m on Hernandez obviously was not.



I think you are looking at SSSs as a means of showing commitment to the league, rather than an entrance requirement in their own right, which I think is interesting. I would say that Chivas USA does have an SSS. [snip]

But you've definitely got a point: by not building an SSS, Vergara is showing somewhat less comittment to the league than, say, Kroenke. I think though there's a simple legal solution to your concerns about Vergara's commitment: make him sign the parntership agreement-- put in clauses regarding ownership of the Chivas USA brand; make it clear that if he pulls out, MLS-- not Vergara-- takes control of the team.


"Because Chivas USA had the beautiful Brigeview stadium to play in. Now pay me."


No. "Virgin territories" is just a proxy for what really counts-- an untapped market.


OK, you're the business man telling me about marketing man. Now you have to listen to the lawyer-- do you think MLS and Vergara will have NO agreement? Why would you assume that they're not doing the exact same things you suggest? I am certain of it-- although I'm certain I'll never have proof-- those terms will/should never be made public. [snip]

Again, I'll try to go point by point. I still don't know how to splice my comments into the quote of yours.

K, "Positive" marketing research might be as simple as polling known dedicated Chivas fans, and [for example] the results yield 8 out of 10 Chivas fans favor a Chivas team in MLS. Or polling known dedicated telemundo watchers, and the majority of them would watch more MLS matches if Vergara swindled his way into MLS. Merely looking at the 2000 census and stating that "The Mexican population in the Chicagoland exceeds 1M" is NOT marketing research, in the truest sense. Noting that "more Mexicans live closer to LA than San Diego" is NOT marketing research either. These are examples of raw demographic stats, with little to no predictive power within the market or market segment, in terms of future behavior of the consumer.

"Negative" market research might be indifference or open hostility toward a bastard "Chivas" team in MLS. [For the record, this is what I believe to be the reality. I think the average MFL fan would treat Chivas USA like a leper.]

Releasing the results would most certainly be invaluable to building a brand. The supposed "market research" you refer to has been nothing more than compliling demographic data hereto fore. I've seen the same quotes you're referring to, and they do not demonstrate MLS/Vergara having done any real homework beyond compliling demographics. While demographics certainly are part of building research, they are woefully incomplete and cannot predict market [or market segment] behavior by any means.


I will politely disagree with your statement re: ethnic pandering as a marketing tool. Ethnic pandering can be the cherry on top of the sundae, but they cannot be the foundation of building a brand. Ethnic pandering can spice things up temporarily, but it cannot [and history has shown this] be the centrepiece to permanent success. Azzizi, Luisa, and Campos all enticed a handful of fans of different ethnicities, but I thought the idea was to build a new franchise that has the potential to succeed for the long term. [>25 years] That is, unless Vergara's true aim is to make his money within a few years, and then leave....


I think the SSS should be both a barrier to entry, and a measuring stick for committment to MLS. I sincerely hope this doesn't happen, but should Vergara come to Chicago, and for whatever reason the Bridgeview project collapse, where will this leave MLS/the Chivas bid? You can't open a 7-11 without a building, why should Vergara get a team with out one as well? I think it better [without exception] for new entrants to come with SSS plans in hand.
On a somewhat related vein, my question to the class is this:

Who has shown a higher level of committment to MLS: Rochester, or Vergara?
I argue Rochester, with their ESTABLISHED fan base [yes, I did have to put it in all caps/bold/underlined] and existing SSS is a true commmitment and thus a stronger predictor of future success. Vergara The Underhanded with his "Maybe the fans will come promises " and no SSS is, by comparison, not a committment at all. Remember kids, the girl won't say "yes" without the rock on her finger; MLS shouldn't say yes without the SSS either.


Again, any weak expansion bid now will lead to further weak expansion bids in the future. The old NASL taught us that, not only was over-expansion a problem, not only was a free market system a problem, but also scores of weak expansion bids built the old NASL on shaky ground.


Again K, I think you confuse the Mexican/Latino market segment of the soccer fan market with a new market in the truest sense. Again, with no media money, only fannies in the seats in virign markets is expansion for this league. The NFL once played the majority of their games in baseball stadia. Once media money AND football-specific stadia became the norm, that league exploded. Track your history, and it will show you that MLS can follow a similar track to success. Of course I know the NY football teams play in the same stadium, but these teams are profitable before game 1 by virtue of their media money. Again, Mexican fans does NOT = new market. Mexican Fans = market segment.


Lastly, I give MLS ZERO benefit of the doubt. I DO doubt their ability to negotiate a reputable deal. While past performance is no guarantee of future results, the past can be highly predictive of future potential:

MLS has butchered deal after deal. MLS can't even follow it's own rules in terms of player distribution consistently. [We can argue this one elsewhere...] MLS failed to earn penny #1 for Mathis and others, asking for far more than fair market value in player transfers out of MLS. MLS can't even discipline all of their players in a fair basis. [See Peter The Wilt's recent fine for details...] MLS had to have the stupid fixed 45:00 clock sans injury time and the shootout in it's infancy. MLS had luminaries as Andrew Shue in the league. MLS is fast approaching it's 10th anniversary, without a profit. In sum, [I]YOU'RE D@MN RIGHT I give the business management of MLS pure scrutiny. I can't think of a single reason why you shouldn't as well.


Cheers!

[kpaulson]

Well Khan, with all due respect, I would apply even greater scrutiny to management decisions of BigSoccer posters than to MLS's management. ;) I constantly read people fretting about things that never happen in the business world, yet, because these things happen behind closed doors, they assume the worst. I think that gets absolutely silly (though not necessarily your posityion). There IS an agreement that will govern Vergara's partnership with the league. It has been negotiated for months...

[masterklh]

I support anything that will make the league better, and bring more fans to the stands...

[MiamiAce]

Again, I'll try to go point by point. I still don't know how to splice my comments into the quote of yours.

K, "Positive" marketing research might be as simple as polling known dedicated Chivas fans, and [for example] the results yield 8 out of 10 Chivas fans favor a Chivas team in MLS. Or polling known dedicated telemundo watchers, and the majority of them would watch more MLS matches if Vergara swindled his way into MLS. Merely looking at the 2000 census and stating that "The Mexican population in the Chicagoland exceeds 1M" is NOT marketing research, in the truest sense. Noting that "more Mexicans live closer to LA than San Diego" is NOT marketing research either. These are examples of raw demographic stats, with little to no predictive power within the market or market segment, in terms of future behavior of the consumer.

"Negative" market research might be indifference or open hostility toward a bastard "Chivas" team in MLS. [For the record, this is what I believe to be the reality. I think the average MFL fan would treat Chivas USA like a leper.]

Releasing the results would most certainly be invaluable to building a brand. The supposed "market research" you refer to has been nothing more than compliling demographic data hereto fore. I've seen the same quotes you're referring to, and they do not demonstrate MLS/Vergara having done any real homework beyond compliling demographics. While demographics certainly are part of building research, they are woefully incomplete and cannot predict market [or market segment] behavior by any means.


I will politely disagree with your statement re: ethnic pandering as a marketing tool. Ethnic pandering can be the cherry on top of the sundae, but they cannot be the foundation of building a brand. Ethnic pandering can spice things up temporarily, but it cannot [and history has shown this] be the centrepiece to permanent success. Azzizi, Luisa, and Campos all enticed a handful of fans of different ethnicities, but I thought the idea was to build a new franchise that has the potential to succeed for the long term. [>25 years] That is, unless Vergara's true aim is to make his money within a few years, and then leave....


I think the SSS should be both a barrier to entry, and a measuring stick for committment to MLS. I sincerely hope this doesn't happen, but should Vergara come to Chicago, and for whatever reason the Bridgeview project collapse, where will this leave MLS/the Chivas bid? You can't open a 7-11 without a building, why should Vergara get a team with out one as well? I think it better [without exception] for new entrants to come with SSS plans in hand.
On a somewhat related vein, my question to the class is this:

Who has shown a higher level of committment to MLS: Rochester, or Vergara?
I argue Rochester, with their ESTABLISHED fan base [yes, I did have to put it in all caps/bold/underlined] and existing SSS is a true commmitment and thus a stronger predictor of future success. Vergara The Underhanded with his "Maybe the fans will come promises " and no SSS is, by comparison, not a committment at all. Remember kids, the girl won't say "yes" without the rock on her finger; MLS shouldn't say yes without the SSS either.


Again, any weak expansion bid now will lead to further weak expansion bids in the future. The old NASL taught us that, not only was over-expansion a problem, not only was a free market system a problem, but also scores of weak expansion bids built the old NASL on shaky ground.


Again K, I think you confuse the Mexican/Latino market segment of the soccer fan market with a new market in the truest sense. Again, with no media money, only fannies in the seats in virign markets is expansion for this league. The NFL once played the majority of their games in baseball stadia. Once media money AND football-specific stadia became the norm, that league exploded. Track your history, and it will show you that MLS can follow a similar track to success. Of course I know the NY football teams play in the same stadium, but these teams are profitable before game 1 by virtue of their media money. Again, Mexican fans does NOT = new market. Mexican Fans = market segment.


Lastly, I give MLS ZERO benefit of the doubt. I DO doubt their ability to negotiate a reputable deal. While past performance is no guarantee of future results, the past can be highly predictive of future potential:

MLS has butchered deal after deal. MLS can't even follow it's own rules in terms of player distribution consistently. [We can argue this one elsewhere...] MLS failed to earn penny #1 for Mathis and others, asking for far more than fair market value in player transfers out of MLS. MLS can't even discipline all of their players in a fair basis. [See Peter The Wilt's recent fine for details...] MLS had to have the stupid fixed 45:00 clock sans injury time and the shootout in it's infancy. MLS had luminaries as Andrew Shue in the league. MLS is fast approaching it's 10th anniversary, without a profit. In sum, [I]YOU'RE D@MN RIGHT I give the business management of MLS pure scrutiny. I can't think of a single reason why you shouldn't as well.


Cheers!

This is a very good read. Your analysis is well-put.

[PZ]

Although I'm prolly still on your "ignore list", here goes...

Only 10% of African slaves went to the US. That means that 90% went to "Latin America"/Caribbean. There are significant black populations in Cuba, Puerto Rico, Dominican Republic, Panama, Venezuela, Nicaragua (all baseball countries, but Venezuela is startin' to represent in footie), El Salvador, Honduras, Costa Rica, Colombia, Peru, Ecuador and to lesser extents Bolivia, Mexico, Guatemala, and Paraguay. Uruguay, Argentina and Chile had virtually no significant slaves.

There are white Latinos. There are black Latinos. There are Chinese, Japanese and Korean Latinos. There are Arab and Middle Eastern Latinos.


MLS and "hard evidence" are a contradiction in terms. THe reason why there is no hard evidence is b/c the league doesn't give "evidence" for ANYTHING!!
C'mon buddy, you know that went over the head of 90% of those who post here. :)