MLS sale of Chivas USA looming(?) asking price varies from one source to the next

I always liked LAX in high school --heck of a spring sport!

 

LA Xtreme

 

Lazer Tag!

 

LA Express sound nice to my ears. It was a USFL team name and i believe the Detroit Express where an NASL team. Just a thought.

 

What no LA Riptide photo???

 

there problem solved

 

People, people, you're missing the obvious:



See, you get a sweet tie in with a TV show (that hardly anyone watches).. What is more LA than that???

 

(cylon voice) By your command....

 

Why not just fold the team? MLS are probably going to lose more than they make on them. Let the expansion market dictate the location.

 

For business reasons, whatever those may be, MLS is apparently committed to having 2 teams in each of the top 2 markets in the US. The league continually highlights how much they enjoy rivalries.

Of course, that is not to say that a hiatus would/could not be an option in 2015 (and beyond?) as MLS sorts out the ownership/stadium needs.

But apparently MLS sees continuing with LA2 (even as a league-owned team playing in the SHC) specifically playing in 2015 as the approach they want to and will pursue.

Will certainly be interesting to see what decisions are made and what unfolds ahead of the 2015 season.

 

It's a shitty name with no cachet in Los Angeles past or present. It's also owned by the NASL. So if you think that solves any problem, then you obviously don't know what you're talking about. This is a bad idea that needs to die.

 

So how many cities in the US with MLS aspirations can use "Riot" and not hearken back to some tough days. LA is definitely out. St Louis is out. Miami, Atlanta, and Orlando as well.

Maybe Minneapolis can use "Riot til I die"

The biggest problem the LA team has is that the market is somewhat saturated with names due to former and current MLB, NFL, NHL, NBA, and college teams.

 

It would be interesting to know who are the major proponents of keeping 2 teams in LA. It's almost like some stubborn contingent is refusing to accept it as a bad idea and move on. It's pretty obvious in MLS now that 2 teams don't need to be in the same town to have a major colorful rivalry going.

 

For MLS (right now), the biggest problems that the LA market has (specifically wrt the LA2 franchise) is that it is lacking a non-league-held ownership group and its own/new stadium in a different/better location than Carson.

The "branding" concerns are or should be number 3, or lower, on the list of things that need to be settled for the LA2 franchise in the relatively short-term.

 

Land-lease negotiation memos don't link as well on Bigsoccer.

 

I'd imagine very strong support for an MLS team branded as the LA Land-leasers.

(Of course, this assumes said land was well-located within the market and the team's ownership group was heavily financed and committed to the sport and the business success of the sport.)

 

Yes, I think it's insane to keep a league owned generic team in Carson next year. Literally any other option would be better: Such team in Weingart, the coliseum or even Fullerton. Or the team on hiatus, replaced by Sacramento or San Antonio next year. Anything. .... But staying in Carson as league owned another year is monumentally stupid. I would argue that the only way they can stay in Carson next year is with a billionaire purchase (like tomorrow) with new identity and stadium plan all on display plus two DPs signed and sealed ..... I'm not holding my breath

 

There is a compelling reason to keep a second team in LA. It gives the Galaxy 2 extra home games, thus enhancing their title chances.

 

The number one reason for keeping Chivas in LA is that not doing so means losing expansion money.

 

Indeed, and every league has underperforming teams, it's not very usual, even if Chivas is particularly bad. But relocation or contraction is much more serious business that can be perceived very negatively.

 

this is professional soccer in the united states. unpleasant as it may be, contracting a team isn't out of the realm of possibility.
i'd rather see a successful sale to good owners, but i can't help feeling the odds aren't that great.

 

Not if they expand "back to LA" at some point. In fact that could mean "more" expansion money -- even relative to the tidy sum for which they could re-sell the current LA2 franchise in the next however many months.

Although all routes forward come with challenges, certainly.

 

Maybe, or investors might think that LA just is not a town that can meaningfully support two teams of anything.

 

That means that NYC is better then LA. Y'all aren't going to take that LA, are you?