I'm saying that MLS errs on the side of taking action when it shouldn't and the Football League errs on the side of not taking action when it should. Given the latter does have the power to suspend owners from any "football related activity", it's crazy that they seemingly don't have that power when an owner , for example, simply stops paying wages etc. Well, that assumes that Chivas should have been evicted in the first place. As I mentioned that's a problem with closed leagues in that the impact of a poorly run club is greater to the league and the league feels obliged to get involved. That's hardly the essence of free competition. Leyton Orient will be replaced by a resurgent Lincoln City (plus the Conference playoff winner) and either Leyton will play next season in the Conference or a phoenix club will replace it. Chivas fans have no such options.
Your original point was that the pro/rel mechanism replaces poorly run teams with better run teams. My point was that MLS doesn't sit idly by while owners run teams into the ground. This is the thread in summary... You asked how long it took MLS to "kick out" Chivas USA. When I replied, you followed up by pointing out that the four years between the start of their decline and MLS taking action, was longer than Becchetti owned Leyton Orient. That implies that you don't think MLS acted soon enough. Now you're saying they shouldn't have acted at all. Regardless, if they erred towards acting when they shouldn't, then it stands to reason that faced with a situation such Orient's (one in which you have stated a league should intervene), they would certainly have acted. How does any of that counter my original point?
It should also be noted that it didn't take MLS 4 years to step in.. MLS had been helping Chivas for several years prior to the final take-over. Things just came to a head when Vargas got sued by some employees for being a racist/sexist f**k and given all the other issues with the team, they felt it was time to give him the boot.
That's one perspective. Another is that the system in question demands a certain standard of performance from an ownership group. The Black Army 1850 and the Union Ultras have both taken the option of supporting the team that is rising from the ashes of Chivas USA.
I don't doubt that MLS would have intervened in the Leyton Orient situation given they intervened when they probably shouldn't have done with Chivas USA. So the net result would likely have been that Leyton Orient would have disappeared, just as Chivas, Miami and Tampa Bay did. The net result with pro/rel is that either Leyton likely have been relegated to their level of incompetence where they can regroup or a phoenix club will be formed that can then use pro/rel to move back up the pyramid.
Yes that is the problem with a system that runs the league as an effective cartel. If the cartel's overall success is impacted by a poorly run club, the only option is for the league to get involved.
Oh, I realise that. The question was specifically, "How long did it take them to kick Chivas USA out of the league". Of course, none of us can know precisely how long it took them to "act" in that manner, without knowing precisely when MLS first tabled the option of taking the franchise back.
We actually know that as well.. About a year before they actually took over the team they started negotiating with Vergara on a price. Vergara wanted something between $100 million and $200 million, MLS was at a point significantly lower than that given the damage Vergara had done to the brand/fan base for the LA2 team. It just took awhile and a number of failed sale attempts before Vergara settled for MLS's $70 million offer. However, that isn't what I'm talking about. Even before they even thought about buying the team from Vergara, MLS was helping Chivas USA with their business operations and attempting to expand their marketing beyond the Spanish speakers in the area.
The net result would depend on the situation with the team's fan base. If you look at the San Jose Earthquakes, they had enough of a local presence to reform in MLS after the previous incarnation moved to Houston. In all three of the cases you mention, a key issue was a struggle to retain a solid degree of local support, so it's doubtful there was enough interest to cause a phoenix club to emerge. Likewise, if Chivas USA had the necessary fan base, then the ever-changing gimmicks and rash decisions that sunk them, may not have occurred. The only reason LAFC isn't a renamed continuation is that the old identity was pretty much deemed toxic.
None of those teams played in a pro league the seasons following their disappearance from MLS (well, "San Jose" did, I guess, given that was a relocation rather than a demise). Some have never reappeared. This isn't a surprise, of course, given the lack of pro/rel. I just don't see how phoenix clubs are particularly feasible in a closed league environment. Those Chivas USA fans could have gone the "phoenix" route, but to what ends?
Again, that's all understood. However, we're not discussing a league helping a struggling club reach a greater fan base, or increase its commercial endeavours. We're discussing how terrible, damaging owners are handled in the closed and open systems. I didn't raise Chivas USA and I have no idea what the timeframe was between them deciding that a buyout might be necessary and initiating negotiations. But it's good for others to have the perspective that MLS's first course of action was an attempt to improve matters.
That's not a given ... that they play in the Conference even if they don't belly up. Chivas fans have the option of supporting the club that was born from the demise of CUSA, and many are doing just that. Really? Maidstone says ......
It's an important point to bring up tho, not necessarily for you. I was just responding to your comment to add to what you said. For many pro/rel leagues there is no attempt to help a failing club, they just let them fail until they go into administration, or the owner sells the team. Seems a little harsh to me.
They punish clubs for failing but they're independent businesses so I don't know how the FL could intervene. As for Chivas, the fans have the right to form a Phoenix club, it just won't ever play in MLS.
It's another option .... as for some reason M thinks that Phoenix Clubs and finding footing in lower tiers are the only options in pro/rel structures.
And yet Miami, Tampa Bay and Chivas all disappeared... seems to me that MLS's interests as a league take rather a large precedence over the interests of individual teams.
San Jose were guaranteed a spot when the club was relocated. They are one of the clubs with almost continuous ownership since the 1970s and the only time they folded due to financial reasons was in 1993 when they played in MISL. The following season of course they were awarded a franchise, so you could say they've existed continuously since 1974, despite their absence of an actual team on a couple of occasions.
Again, Miami Fusion and Tampa Bay Mutiny went away because they weren't attracting enough fans to be financially viable. Given that they had been around less than a decade (four years in Miami's case), there wasn't the local attachment or fan base from which to build a phoenix club. And as I pointed out before, IF such support had existed, it would likely have been unnecessary to contract them in the first place. Chivas USA was never contracted and never went bankrupt. The owner operator was bought out and the league sold the team on. Much like the other two teams, there wasn't really enough fan support to spark a "phoenix" club but in this case it's even less relevant. Had a sufficient level of support existed, the new ownership would have simply continued the team, with a new name and likely in a new venue. Of course, this hasn't prevented the Chivas USA supporters groups, such as they are, from adopting LAFC anyway, so that further reduces the already marginal impact of the team's identity "going away". So in none of these situations, would phoenix clubs have been likely to form anyway.
Miami has had several teams at various levels start since the Fusion failed. Tampa currently has the Rowdies, and Chivas was "immediately" replaced by LAFC. Or is the special thing you're pointing at is that the history of those teams failed to continue on? As pointed out by Barroldinho, none of these teams had the history for such a thing to be an issue.. In the few cases where teams have had a lengthy history, there may be interruptions, but the names and "history" tend to come back.
A lot of weasel words in that post. The bottom line is that all three of those teams disappeared from MLS at MLS's behest. All three of them ceased operations when they left MLS and had their players dispersed to other teams.. Yoshou's implicit comment was that, unlike in pro/rel leagues, MLS helped teams in difficulties. And yet here are three teams that simply disappeared when said "difficulties" transpired.
He wasn't wrong. Just because the efforts were ultimately in vain, doesn't mean they weren't made. Two of those three were contracted because the league was on the brink of going under.
More weasel words. Three teams simply disappeared when said "difficulties" transpired. All three of them ceased operations when they left MLS and had their players dispersed to other teams.
The players had their contracts honored, which usually doesn't happen in these situations. Consider your idea that there was something worth relegating to, and promoting from, in 2001 and 2005 mocked mercilessly.