Just a thread to continue our expansion discussion from the Tuesday Practice thread. To spur some discussion, here's an article on Bergin's site on expansion that should raise some eyebrows: http://www.ussocceruk.com/news/?CatTypeId=2&ContentId=1632 Yes, that's Salt Lake City.
I was happy to see Houston on that list of possible cities. I'm hoping that the decision to wait on Rochester means that at least on of those other, bigger cities are REAL options for 2005. In other words, they are actually in deep negotiations with the league and there is a real, live investor group attached. I mean, if Garber plans to make an announcement in a month, those other options have to be very strong at this point. I always though Rochester was the last resort option if they couldn't find anyone to pair up with Chivas for 2005, so I'm hoping this is good news. Come on, Houston, we want a Texas derby, baby!!
The real issue for existing teams is how the expansion draft would work. Granted if Chivas and the Rhino's are the 2005 teams then the draft would be minimal in it's impact. Chivas only want Mexicans and the Rhino's have an existing core. That said, does anyone remember how the draft worked in the past? I remember it a number (14?) of players being protected and when a player was selected from a specific team another player could be taken off the board. Were the developmental players in a separate class or part of the 14 or so? I think to Burn have some very good young players and are likely to lose a few either in 2005 or 2006.
I still dont like the idea of 2 teams in the same city as of yet. It works in other leagues around the world. But those leagues have teams in dozens of markets across their respective countries. To me 12 teams in 11 markets wont go as far to promote the game and the league as putting a new team in a new market. I agree Chivas will attract the hispanic fan base but I would like to see them in San Diego or Houston. How do the Gals and the Fire feel about the possibilty of have another home team in their cities? And what about competing for the same fans? You would think there will be fans that will support one side or the other but not both. The only time you would have fans of both sides turn out is for the cross town derby. I think some of that loses its appeal if they both play in the same stadium.
I haven't heard seen much from Gal fans on this issue, other then the uproar when it was first discussed months ago. But recently, as the Chicago rumours heated up there was a ton of discussion on the Fire board about Chivas coming to town. I'd say it was pretty evenly split........maybe 60% against, 30% for, 10% undecided to be honest. Many feel the city can support both teams, and apparantly the Mexican community in Chicago is mostly from Guadelajara, which would be great for Chivas. My opinion on a two team situation is mixed. One on hand it would be great to create that derby atmosphere a few times a season. There would be some great, highly attended games that didn't include a 14 year old kid from Ghana. It also would be interesting to see if MLS can finely capture a good portion of that hispanic fan that they've been longing after for so long. It would open up the floodgates of potential investors from down South. On the other hand, what will this do to the Gals/Fire's current fanbase? Will they lose that portion of their fans that would rather support a team with such a strong Mexican connection? What if the two team city "experiment" doesn't work out? I could see a scenario where MLS thinks the situation is actually hurting the attendance and they want to move one of the franchises. If Chivas does capture the hispanic fanbase, then it might be the original team that has to move....and that just sucks.
This just sounds like another oh yeah we're expanding kinda-sorta-maybe in 2005, and we'll have 6-8 more teams or no right now on the horizon is four additional teams and that's what we're really focusing on and hope to get that in the next number of years. What does that mean?? Basically blah blah blah I don't know blah Chivas blah blah hispanics blah blah maybe blah blah next number of years How bout lets just not say anything til its official?? San Diego and Cleveland crap announcement has turned into Chicago/LA Chivas and one of these 10 other cities, gimme a break its almost as bad as the revamped ABA expanding by 21 teams this season.
Salt Lake City is a unique market that I think would be great for MLS. Here's why. 1. Only one "major league" team in town - the Jazz - and their season doesn't conflict much with MLS. No other major sport to follow in the summer. 2. If the Jazz are any indication, SLC fans are rabid supporters of their teams. 3. Lots of Mormon families with lots - and lots - and LOTS - of kids, the majority of whom probably play soccer. Big built in fan base. 4. Here's an interesting one. Lots of potential fans in the form of returned Mormon missionaries who spent two years in Europe or South America and most likely picked up some knowledge of the world's game while they were there. They certainly couldn't miss the fanaticism of European and South American football fans. 5. SLC has a fantastic summer climate. Not too hot and no humidity. 6. I know that Women's Nat games have been played at the University of Utah's Rice-Eccles stadium and have been roaring successes. I'm not sure if the men have ever played there. 7. A very large Mexican/Latino immigrant population. And lots of bi-lingual people there (those returned Mormon missionaries again) who could market the team to them in Spanish, if the team was smart and developed a plan in that direction. Personally, I would love to see it happen, and I think it would be a successful location for the league, but I won't hold my breath with all the other cities waiting in line.
call me picky but as great as expansion is I really hope whoever gets a team it isn't on FieldTurf or other forms of plastic. It just isn't good for the game. Also I stand by my stance of if Chivas gets a team that they get no special rules. That would just ruin us all together.
What kind of rule changes are we talking about? Is MLS entertaining the idea of changing some rules in order to lure US Chivas to MLS? Does it regard FPA?
Garber himself is on record saying that if and when Chivas or America get an MLS team, they won't get a special waiver to the foreign player rule. Now, that said: 1) They could just up and increase the Foreign player limit from 3 to 4 for all teams. Or tweak with the Transitional International rules. 2) Just take look at the current Metrostars roster to see what can be done with 3 Senior International slots and good use of the Transitional International rules: Gueverra (SI) Honduras Bonseu (SI) Uganda Galvan Rey (SI) Argentina Fabian Taylor (TI) Jamaica Cornell Glen (TI) T&T Joselito Vaca (TI) Bolivia Gilberto Flores (TI) Brazil Pablo Brenes (TI) Costa Rica Craig Zaidie (green card or dual citizen) Jamaica
I would like to see the 3 SI rule stay, but add a 2 CONCACAF national rule which players from North America could be slotted into. So, a Chivas club could slot Mexican nationals into all 5 non-American/Green Card slots, while the Burn would need to find players from North America if they were to add international players to their side. Americans would still be the majority of a starting XI, but MLS would keep a North American identity thereby helping make it the flagship League of the continent.
Like the way you're thinking. North American identity while strengthening MLS position in the CONCACAF food chain....
Soft, I have no problem with that idea when we expand. As long as the # of protected US roster spots goes up, then MLS is achieving its goal of furthering the game in our country. If it opens the door for more investors and a bigger slice of the hispanic market, then thats all the better. The more legitimate MLS appears to the hispanic population in this country, the better chance the USMNT has of capturing some of that talent and bringing them into the US Soccer fold. I think we are missing out on large numbers of amazingly talented hispanic youth players because of the lack of respect that community has for US soccer.
http://www.ussocceruk.com/news/?CatTypeId=2&ContentId=1651 decision should be in the middle of June, per Garber in this article. looking like Chivas to LA to groundshare with the Gals at the HDC, and SLC to get a team. nicknames to avoid for SLC: anything Mormon. so no SLC John Smiths or SLC Polygamists or anything. however funny that second one would be.
The SLC wives? I do like the idea of SLC getting a team. With only 1 other pro team in town maybe the MLS franchise will get the attention it deserves. As for Chivas in LA, I dont like the idea of 2 MLS teams in the same city yet. If the league was 20-30 teams and other major markets had 1 team I might go for it. But with cities like Philly, Atlanta, Houston, Seattle, etc not having a team I dont think there should be 2 in LA.
unfortunately, it's a money thing. the league would be jsut about crazy to pass up the kind of money that Chivas will generate, and they really need to be in a town with a huge hispanic contingent, like LA or chitcago.
yes chivas in LA will sell out the hdc many times and I am not completely opposed to it because it will hopefully create some true rivalries in the league i.e. chivas vs. gals plus chivas will raise attendence for other teams on their away games
I think the Chivas idea is a good one. But they should be in a seperate market such as San Diego or Houston.
I should have specified in my "I agree it's a bad idea" post. Chivas is a good idea, 2 teams in the same city is not - not yet. I like the Houston idea, but don't like where they'd end up playing...plus, is the market there? It's all moot, though. Chivas are going to be in LA -- I'd be shocked if they aren't.
I think you are right. I believe Houston has the market. They sold out Reliant Stadium for the last Mexican friendlies they hosted. As for where they would play I have no idea. There is no way Houston would build a SSS. In the last 4 years they have built new football, baseball, and basketball stadiums at a cost of over a billion dollars. San Diego is in the same boat. The taxpayers just financed a large chuck of Petco park for the Padres. SLC may have a venue left over from the Olympics that could be easily converted to a soccer stadium. So it looks like SLC and LA are a go.
I was just had an interesting thought. With the way the Burn are performing the last couple seasons and the new stadium and the large latino market in Dallas, a crazy idea could be the Burn becoming Chivas USA. Obviously this will not happen, but honestly the situatiun seems to be right for something like this to occur. I AM CRAZY!
OHMYGODDON'TEVERSAYTHATAGAIN. no matter how implausible or unlikely or downright unrealistic, you can't say that because my brain can't handle moving down that path. it'll start and it won't stop and i'll go crazy and.... ARGH.