Thanks. In any case, I knew that they were really higher on the attendance list than their official eighth place that year... and even then, they would've been above four other teams. -G
This is a 19-page thread that I don't care to read all of, and I'm sure this has been addressed before, so I apologize in advance for redundancy. If San Jose does get a "new" Earthquakes franchise will that mean that Dynamo has one championship and New San Jose two, or does that mean that Dynamo has three championships and New San Jose none?
If it was like other sports, New San Jose would have none, and the Dynamo would have two. But, if New San Jose is resurrected as the Quakes again, I think they might give the titles back to the Bay Area. It would probably be too onfusing to have a team with the exact same name and location as the former champions not listed as having any championships. Who knows, though. There is no precedent for such a situation, so its really up in the air.
When Lew Wolff bought the rights to buy a club he bought the Quakes name also. Supposedly, its written and if and when the Quakes come back, they will retain their logo, colors, stats, history and trophies and will be called 2 time champs. It may not mean much to be 2 time champs however, because when they come back, the new Quakes will basically be an expansion team and will start from scratch.
There is a precedent. The Cleveland Browns retain the records and championships of the previous team even though the franchise moved to Baltimore and became the Ravens. As far as the NFL record book is concerned there is a gap of three years from 1996 to 1998 in the history of the Browns but it is considered the same team from 1950 to 1995 and then 1999 to present. The Earthquakes will be in a similar situation when they return to MLS.
They also had only one midweek game. The main point is that SJE realistically was prolly somewhere between 5-7 in attendance that year.
1. DCU 2. RSL Notice how DCU hase been sold to a local group and that AEG and the league kept/keeps sustaining losses much more severe than SJE... b/c this franchise has shown that it has the base necessary for success. Notice how RSL more than likely [/crosses fingers] is going to stay in Utah. A few thousand extra fans per game does that: it gives the team more clout in the business community and w/ local/regional/state govt. Now... there are obviously a ton of other factors going into this equation that supercede attendance. And like you and others and pretty much everybody on this thread agrees w/ or has stated, attendance is NOT the sole reason or primary or secondary reason why SJE --> Dynamo, but in all honesty, there is a connection.
Precisely! Don Garber even specifically mentioned the Cleveland Browns in his relocation speech. The two Alan I. Rothenberg trophies won in MLS Cups 2001 and 2003 are currently being held in the National Soccer Hall of Fame in Oneonta, NY until the new San Jose Earthquakes start up, after which they'll be returned to the Quakes. Also, the Houston Dynamo will start the 2007 season with an MLS Scudetto Patch (to be replaced by a star above its logo jersey crest the following year), while the new San Jose Earthquakes will start with two stars above its logo jersey crest upon its return. -G
Considering that Wolff has already paid good money to MLS for an option to purchase a new MLS franchise, there is no way RSL would be bought and moved. The price of buying and moving RSL is likely more than Wolff's already-negotiated price for buying a new franchise, also. In fact, isn't Wolff the only party who owns such an option? I have never read about any other person or organization in other markets (Philly, Cleveland, St. Louis, etc.) actually having paid money to MLS for such an option. Lots of talk but no option money paid to MLS in those towns, AFAIK. As to the joint use of the stadium, any thoughts on how practices could be handled in the fall once the SJSU players report for pre-season? Would the MLS team practice in the new stadium and the SJSU team use a practice field? Would a new practice field have to be built? (Where does the SJSU pointy ball team currently practice?)
Since you asked, Dave Checkett's group purchased an option on an expansion team several years ago. That option became RSL. If I am not mistaken, other groups have had options for areas in the past, such as NYC, but have not ended up using them.
It won't happen, especially on a grass field. It would make life easier (and less costly) if SJSU simply agreed to not play any home football games before October 1st. Too bad that's a pipe dream, albeit a nice pipe dream.
I thought Salt Lake went from completely off the radar to awarded franchise in pretty quick time. At least, they came from out of the blue when they were announced. I didn't realize that Checketts had purchased the option a while back. I thought, in fact, that Checketts had been talking with Garber and it went from discussion to awarded franchise in pretty short order, but I could be remembering that incorrectly.
Actually there is a precedent, the Cleveland Browns in the NFL. They regained all titles, records, HOFers etc... when they were brought back after a 3 year hiatus. The Baltimore Ravens were in practice just an expansion team, like the Dynamo are.
Did Washington Senators II (which followed the original Senators' move to Minnesota) take on the original Senators' history and such (not that there was much of it)?
No story has said a stadium announcement could be two weeks away. The report was that an exclusive negotiating agreement could be two weeks away-- not a stadium agreement. The exclusive negotiating agreement could then lead to a stadium agreement, but it would take several months, at a minimum, for that process to happen. Thus the reference to Wolff exercising his MLS option as soon as this summer. (In time for MLS to announce at the 2007 Allstar game, perhaps?)
I am talking about current options. If there is another potential investor out there with a current option, in theory there could be a "race" to exercise the option-- assuming that MLS is firm about taking a 14th team and then waiting a number of years before expanding again. If MLS is willing to expand to 15 (or 16) in 2008 or 2009, then there is no issue about two or more potential investors hurrying up to exercise their respective options.
I didn't scroll through the entire thread but if someone posted this already, apologies: http://blog.soccersiliconvalley.com/archives/2006/11/index.html Scroll down to the blog entry "San Jose 2, Houston 1" to see MLS' official position on this matter.
Yeah I'm in agreement about it not being two weeks. However the SF Biz Journal is reporting we'll have a stadium announcement in 2-3 months.
I don't believe the Carolina Hurricanes took the Whalers history with them (what little there was). The Hartford Whalers banners and retired numbers are still hanging from the Civic Center, and the AHL team in Hartford even "retired" 3 Whalers jerseys (Ulf Samuelsson, Ron Francis and Kevin Dineen).
No they didn't. The Senators-Twins are considered one continuous franchise while the Senators II-Rangers are considered another continuous franchise. The only precedent for the Quakes is the Browns.
You'd have to ask the NHL. Just because the AHL team is retiring jersey's doesn't mean that they still have the franchise's records. Take the Montreal Canadiens. They "retired" several Montreal Expos numbers and even took their mascot, but they have no rights to any of the baseball team's records. The Nationals have all of them.