View Full Version : The Los Angeles Manchester United Beckham Galaxies
Matrim55
27 Nov 2006, 04:10 PM
It's hard to really take time off from the blog when Sports Illustrated absolutely compels me to post. (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/scorecard/11/27/soccer.truth.rumors/index.html)
If only there were any Galaxy fans who had a blog and could write a scathing bit on this. Oh well.
Malcolm Glazer is ready to expand his Manchester United empire into America and wants David Beckham to spearhead the ambitious move -- according to influential fanzine Red Issue. The Glazers are preparing to buy into MLS side L.A. Galaxy with the intention of renaming the club, effectively making it the first American franchise of United since their £790 million takeover 18 months ago.
-- The Mirror
zcgf02
27 Nov 2006, 04:54 PM
So the Galaxy is still owned by Anshultz Entertainment, right? Would AEG part with the Gals in this situation?
And how would Man U rebrand LA? LA United sounds lame, plus we've already got DC United (the best name in the league). What about the Red Devils? That might work.
Matt in the Hat
27 Nov 2006, 05:39 PM
So the Galaxy is still owned by Anshultz Entertainment, right? Would AEG part with the Gals in this situation?
And how would Man U rebrand LA? LA United sounds lame, plus we've already got DC United (the best name in the league). What about the Red Devils? That might work.
Red Devils and Red Bulls in the same league. Why don't we just become the CFL and call all of the teams the Roughriders
reedinthewind
27 Nov 2006, 06:54 PM
Of all the bollocks! the one of the few teams that needs no rebranding. By Kraum! but bring Bring becks over here....that'll be the day
Beerking
27 Nov 2006, 07:29 PM
LA Galaxy is a name that begs for change.
Hate_Eternal
27 Nov 2006, 07:52 PM
This is great news for MLS, but horrible news for me and the rest of the galaxy supporters in a way. I mean, getting bought and all is cool but changing the franchise is a completely different story. How could you do this to one of the most popular clubs in the MLS. When I go to Guatemala every year, the only team people know in the MLS is the Galaxy and DC. It is not like Metro, because this team actually has some history behind it and people would actually care if the name was changed (no offense NYC). I dont know whether to be happy or angry. :confused:
Shen-O
27 Nov 2006, 08:01 PM
This is great news for MLS, but horrible news for me and the rest of the galaxy supporters in a way. I mean, getting bought and all is cool but changing the franchise is a completely different story. How could you do this to one of the most popular clubs in the MLS. When I go to Guatemala every year, the only team people know in the MLS is the Galaxy and DC. It is not like Metro, because this team actually has some history behind it and people would actually care if the name was changed (no offense NYC). I dont know whether to be happy or angry. :confused:
Exactly how I feel :/.
Papin
27 Nov 2006, 08:08 PM
Have I missed something? Has this officially become reliable news?
Or is it still just a rumor based on a fanzine and a UK tabloid?
Devil500
27 Nov 2006, 08:12 PM
Please no as a Manchester Supporter more debt is not what I need plus why the Hell LA!!!!!!!!!! Glazer just stay in the Uk sell the Bucks and run United the way it should be run. :(
nutella
27 Nov 2006, 09:14 PM
FC United of Los Angeles Galaxy Town-City Dynamo Devils
Has a ring to it.
Going Mobile
27 Nov 2006, 10:03 PM
Lets take a stoll down memory lane and see if this makes sense.
Lalas GM of San Jose- team moved to Houston
Lalas GM of NY Metros- team sold
Lalas GM of LA Galaxy- ?????
see a pattern. IMO AEG will sell if its in the best interest of MLS. Ultimately there needs to be 12 teams with 12 independent owners. AEG will retain the stadium and their stake in SUM. the money will keep flowing in but AEG won't be on the hook for as much
tab5g
27 Nov 2006, 10:22 PM
IMO AEG will sell if its in the best interest of MLS. Ultimately there needs to be 12 teams with 12 independent owners.
well, since MLS will have 13 teams (with at least 9 and possibly 10 or 11 different I/O groups -- depending on what AEG does in LA and DC) in 2007, you're a bit behind the times.
in your post, replace 12 with 16 (or even 32 at some point) for number of unique teams and owners in MLS, and that kinda makes sense.
spejic
27 Nov 2006, 11:09 PM
I mean, getting bought and all is cool...No, I don't even think that is cool. I don't think Glazer has much understanding of the way MLS works or how soccer fans in the US think. It takes a lot of hard work to be successful on and off the field, and either can slip away in an instant. I don't know that Glazer is prepared for that (given his dealings with Manchester United), and MLS does not need an owner that isn't.
TOTC
28 Nov 2006, 12:07 AM
Lets take a stoll down memory lane and see if this makes sense.
Lalas GM of San Jose- team moved to Houston
Lalas GM of NY Metros- team sold
Lalas GM of LA Galaxy- ?????
see a pattern.
Wow. I think Alexi was the silent partner for the 1998 World Cup team, the WUSA, and the Republican Party!
SankaCofie
28 Nov 2006, 01:03 AM
LA Galaxy is a name that begs for change.
Norwich City is a name that begs for change.
This has got to be the most singularly inept, incompetent, moronic, assbrained, retarded, illogical, absurd idea since... well... ever.
Lets build a brand name for 10 years.. we're MLS.. we're all about building brand recognition.
Recognition achieved.
Excellent... lets re-brand. Lets re-brand the team to appeal to foreigners on the other side of the planet. No doubt they will suddenly show up in droves to support the team. Of course we'll lose one or two of the original fans. But its ok, American sports fans have very short memories.
And from a strictly Floridian standpoint... why is Malcolm Glazer looking to buy a team in LA when his Raymond James stadium is empty half the year... Hello. MLS TO TAMPA.
Actually. I could care less if MLS comes to Tampa. They'd fold/move/rebrand in 5 years anyways. I'm happy with USL and cable TV believe it or not.
R1234
28 Nov 2006, 02:15 AM
I hope this isn't true, LA doesn't need to be renamed, especially not after another team. I don't want this league to become a bunch of teams named after others..Chivas was enough. and if Glazer has any money to spend shouldn't he be wiping out United's debt?
sidis
28 Nov 2006, 03:30 AM
but dont touch in the diagonal stripe, i like that +).
"Galaxy United" may can bring alien supporters.
Shen-O
28 Nov 2006, 03:57 AM
or just unite the Riot Squad and Galaxians :P
Just kidding, don't go all crazy now :P
balatonsurfer
28 Nov 2006, 08:53 AM
Since you guys already have Donovan...and if you get Beckham...you could just be the FC HoMo's.
soccerfan
28 Nov 2006, 09:05 AM
The Glazer's need to be banned from MLS, they had their chance and blew it. They allowed their home town team to die, when a very small investment could have saved it.
I wish them good luck with Man U but i dont want them anywhere near MLS