United scores with find-Washington Times Emilio Goes Beyond United's Stated Goals-Washington Post MLS notebook: U.S. team game against Brazil a Wizards reunion-KC Star Corner Kicks-LA Times Chivas USA CEO wants to 'unlock fan base'-Carson Daily Breeze Chivas USA tabs new CEO-Press ENterprise Nothing friendly here-Boston Herald Brazil is up for this one-Boston Globe Real Salt Lake faces daunting task in D.C.-Salt Lake Tribune Progress on RSL stadium is kicking in-Deseret News Argonauts consider moving to BMO Field-Globe and Mail Stadium vote 'sends message' to MLS-St. Louis Post Dispatch
Argies to BMO just means pointy ball lines and field turf again. Only difference is which futbol team screws over which football team. Just like MLS '96. Good to see RLS and STL coming along nicely, and Chivas USA actually starting to present a facade of wanting to succeed.
From the STL article: "Cooper said he expects a decision on a team could come in 60 to 90 days, which on the short side would put the announcement right around the time of the league's championship game, MLS Cup, on Nov. 18. An expansion team would need to be approved by the league's board of governors." This is exactly why I nominated "60-90 days" for the expansion tagline. Always good to see it in print. also: "The league wants to expand in even numbers because of the scheduling headaches that come with an odd number of teams, which could mean two in 2009 and two more in 2010." Although this would be 5 teams in 3 years, it would certainly ease the tension in the expansion race between STL, Philly and Seattle. Anyone else heard anything about this?
What does "undisclosed stake in the club" means?. Is he going to be a part owner of the team?.I am a bit confused about this deal.
I can't blame the owners for wanting to cash in on expansion clubs. However, five teams in threee years seems like a lot to digest. Five teams in five years - maybe.
Why wait? Soccer is not like other sports in this country. The talent pool is virtually limitless, it's just a matter of MLS tweaking its rules to accomodate future growth. I will say anyting over 18 teams is pushing it - but because I think 18 teams is the perfect number for a professional soccer league in this country.
That is good,because he's more motivated now to put more butts in the seats or do what ever it takes to get more of soccer fans interested in Chivas USA brand of the so called real Chivas .
When your hardcore support abandons you at home to watch "the real" Chivas play a meaningless friendly in another city against a K-League side....it can't get much worse.
NASL had one good team but 23 bad ones. When you get 18 teams with SSS and control over all the monies going to the teams, I don't see any problems here. I am sure ESPN brass would be happy to have their dream of 1 million viewers for the MLS Thursday night games come through a lot faster with 18 team league.As far as NHL,I care less because it doesn't interest me at all.
Damn I was going to say that.That's Nick's 60-90 days. He should get a copy -right for 60-90 days thing.
I will agree that 5 teams in 3 years is unprescedented. Still, it's not as drastic as what happened in the NASL. That was 6 teams in ONE year. None of which had stadiums being built for them. Despite this being a little closer to the NASL, there are still enough differences that I don't think we need to worry too much. MLS attendances in the teams that are here right now is higher than just about any annual NASL average. Nearly all MLS teams have solid control of their revenue streams A significant number of US players are currently in the league, and with all the yanks abroad, USL and college players, there are plenty of players to choose from in expansion. And, as has been pointed out in other threads, the international players rules can be adjusted to keep the quality of play up. In 11 years, only two teams have shut down, and only one has been moved. I can't possibly summarize all the folding and moving that happened in the 17 years of the NASL. If you want a recap, go here. That's just a short list. I'm sure there are others that can be added. ... I thought I'd leave the detailed NASL comparison for others to do, but now that I think about it, I feel I need to go into more detail. Let's look at one particular 5 year period, to give you a feel for what happened: Year 8 (1974) 2 teams folded 8 teams added 15 teams Year 9 (1975) 5 teams added 20 teams Year 10 (1976) 2 teams moved 20 teams Year 11 (1977) 2 teams folded 3 teams moved 18 teams Year 12 (1978) 6 teams added 4 teams moved 24 teams In 5 years, the NASL added 19 teams, 4 teams folded, and 9 teams moved. In the 5 years from 2003-2007 (the same 8th-12th years of the league), MLS will have added 3 teams, and moved 1. So, if MLS adds 5 teams in 3 years, it will be a lot. But it will in no way compare to the NASL.
It may not interest you, but it does interest me. Though we may not care about the sport particularly, it certainly can teach us a lesson about how careful MLS needs to be about expanding. Anyone out there care to give us an NHL history lesson? Since I'm not familiar with it, it may take me a bit to find that info.
I think they should take it slow with expansion. Adding 2 teams every 4 years would make sense. Five in 3 years is crazy. Where would they get the players from ? The quality would go down and create a lot of confussion. They should stop at 16 teams and be sure they are stable and make a profit. Any new investors/markets should form and MLS2 and work their way up prove themselves. I dont think there are enough markets and cities to keep afloat so many MLS teams without a downfall. We don't want to repeat an NASL with 20 plus teams in one year and down to 8 soon after.
As others have pointed out, there's plenty of room in the international players rules to adjust things so that there are enough players to keep the quality of play up. The salary cap is also very tight. If they loosen it up just a little (which they should be able to afford with the various new sponsorships on jerseys, etc.), there are several US players that have gone overseas to lower level leagues (like Sweden and Denmark) that could stay here. I like the idea of an MLS2, and would love to see it happen. It's something that makes sense to me, but I have my doubts about whether the billionaires investing in MLS see it that way. I'm also sure that everyone involved in MLS wants to avoid the NASL meltdown. Which is why a stadium for every new team is a high priority. It gives each team much better control over their finances than the NASL teams did.
OK, I've found an NHL expansion history. And they added 5 teams in 3 years from '91 to '93, taking the league from 21 teams to 26. They added 4 more teams in '98, '99 and 2000. Despite the player/league troubles and loss of ESPN air time, they haven't contracted since '78, though many franchises have moved around. This makes me wonder where the idea that NHL has serious problems comes from. It makes me wonder if we're not buying into the opinions of Big 3 Sport Talk commentators. Then again, the page I found only goes through 2004. And, as I don't pay that close attention to the NHL, maybe I missed something. I do agree that the NHL messed up when it had its player/owner troubles whenever that was that lost them a season. And I don't like the idea of MLS getting to that point. I'd much prefer that the owners and Garber think long term and plan for the league getting big enough that it has these kinds of troubles. But I don't think 5 teams in 3 years will get us there. My impression is that it wasn't necessarily expansion that bit the NHL, but the idea that they were (NFL/MLB/NBA) bigtime and deserved bigtime pay. Though there are a number of fans and sports talk personalities that are convinced that MLS will never matter unless it's as big or bigger than EPL, etc., I don't think that the MLS owners think that way. Though there are Euro leagues for hockey, I expect the NHL is still top of the heap. MLS will never have that problem. It could, in the future, become one of several top leagues. There's a rotation in Europe, with England currently (arguably) on top, but since I've been following the sport regularly ('94), Italy, Germany and Spain have all had legitimate claims on having the best league in the world. If a couple decades from now, the US gets included in that list, the economics of competition will probably still prevent any sort of player/owner impasse like the one that hit the NHL.
Yes, the basic problem with Chivas USA may be the Chivas concept itself. It just doesn't seem to work to try to transfer your brand to a different team. Hopefully this has killed all the plans by other foreign clubs to start MLS teams wearing their shirts. I wouldn't be surprised if this this Cooper guy hasn't been brought in to figure out what to do--move to another city or build their own stadium in a another section of LA.
Just an observation about Chivas USA (please don't ream me for this) I never ever see "Chivas USA" listed as a favorite club for anyone on BS. Does that say anything?
There only so many billionaires to go around. Do you realy want someone who is not up to that to be an MLS owner ? I certainly dont and that is excatly the case if we over expand. MLS2 would be a perfect fit for potential owner/investores who want to be in it but not spend that kind of money and want to try their luck with soccer