The pricetag for this particular field is $1.2 million. No. That looks like it will be a grassy prommenade where fans can hang out pre-game There is room for 2 or 3 more fields. Does not take away from parking. He is just doing what he said he was going to do when he brought the franchise, albeit at a relative snail's pace. It would all depend who sold it to, right? If one of the Google founders decided they were suddenly Earthquake soccer fans and wanted to build the west coast version of RBA, then yes, selling the team would be good. Don't know about self-consumed, but, it seems to be his priority. Your questions are fairly rhetorical. Do I really need to answer some of them? Yes, I am sure they could arrange that the same land be used for the stadium if new owners wanted to build there. Why is Chivas artificial? It is only natural for a team that shares the same city and stadium become a rival.
I DON"T REALLY THINK SO, BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT I HEARD FROM ALL OF YOUR OTHER BUDDIES IN THAT FORUM !!
Sorry, I go back to NASL days and LA-SJ existed back then too.....sorry, the Goats just don't count.. The league took them in when investors were not knocking down the league door.......this team should have been in some other city , our national footprint is too small as it is. I would settle for the Goats to go get their own place... to me, that then shows more commitment. - As for SJ, slow but steady progress is good. I guess with the economy being what it is, lets be glad the league hasn't lost any team- in fact, adding is amazing ...
Idle day dream: The Google Epicenter. Put the Google logo on the stadium roof facing the airport: more advertising for Google (not that they need it). Skimming the ongoing story it seems (to me) what is needed now is a stadium naming rights/sponsorship deal, not a new owner. But I'm just Captain Obvious looking on from the other side of the continent.
LA Aztecs -San Jose had a rivalry during the NASL days but not really with the Surf as they only lasted 4 years 78-81...We just you to make fun of their white shoes....
You mean the George Best tranfer? The Los Angeles Aztecs traded best to the Ft. Lauderdale Strikers for George Dewsnip in 1978. He then came to the Earthquakes in 1980.......LA never really drew more than 9000 fans per game in those years so no one reallly cared or noticed...
-Others beat me to the punch... Yes, I put the Surf ahead of Chivas, because we at least had to travel to their stadium and so forth.. And San Diego for that matter.. Just seemed that Surf played SD more than the Aztecs.. we always seemed to play SJ , SEA etc.. i think it might have been that conf.set up the NASL used.. Oakland had a team also- "Stompers" How often did they play Quakes, because once again, they were in another conf. also... As we all know, a case of expansion gone bad... - Quakes name has been around as long enought to have history and we are seeing history repeat as the Timbers, Sounders and Whitecaps are back.... MLS knows it needs some good history added to the history that we are making now... I doubt we will ever see the Cosmos back and I don't think too many other teams will change there names back to NASL names.... but Chivas, uh no... wrong for many reasons
Fortunately, I wouldn't necessarily be so sure about that. One way or another, we'll see... GO SAN JOSE EARTHQUAKES!!! -G
Not too long ago, Peppe Pinton finally sold the rights to the New York Cosmos brand to Paul Kemsley. GO SAN JOSE EARTHQUAKES!!! -G
Who is Paul Kemsley? I looked him up in Wikipedia but and they talk about his connection to hotspur. Is he connected to MLS? How much did he pay for the Cosmos brand name?
Paul Kemsley is indeed Tottenham Hotspur's former director. Though I still can't find out how much he paid for the brand, he did buy it last August (after Peppe Pinton publicly hinted three months earlier that the brand was finally for sale): "Cosmos to Be Reborn (Sort Of)" (Friday, 8/28/09) "Kemsley planning rebirth of New York Cosmos" (Saturday, 8/29/09) Though the articles hinted that the reborn New York Cosmos could be a sort of traveling roadshow before trying to enter MLS, an interview afterward with Shep Messing (about 30-35 minutes in) dispelled the notion of such a traveling roadshow. Also, the New York City MLS expansion board is abuzz with this that's recently been painted just outside of the Manhattan offices the New York Cosmos will apparently soon occupy. If this comes to pass, the MLS Heritage Cup may very well include the San Jose Earthquakes, Seattle Sounders FC, the Portland Timbers, Vancouver Whitecaps FC and the New York Cosmos in a few years time. GO SAN JOSE EARTHQUAKES!!! -G
I'd love to see another Cosmos! The only thing however, how can you (in today's soccer world and stringent MLS salary cap) even come close to matching Pele, Franz Beckenbauer,Vladislav Bogicevic, Carlos Alberto and Giorgio Chinaglia on the same pitch?
Not that I think its right especially for the rest of the league, but as a fan, I'd love to see all the stars on the same pitch!
While the new New York Cosmos will likely have to play by the same rules as all the other teams in the league, will the upcoming new CBA agreement raise the cap somewhat to at least allow more incoming talent than before? GO SAN JOSE EARTHQUAKES!!! -G
I'd rather not. The Cosmos were the reason the NASL v.1 failed. With the extravagant spending they were ultimately responsible for the downfall of the league. Better to leave them in the past. Plus I've never got this obsession with putting another team in a city that already has a team.
Not quite. Read on... Actually, while that may have been a bit of a contributing factor in the first NASL's downfall, even that wasn't killing the league by the time the main reason for the league's eventual demise occurred. GO SAN JOSE EARTHQUAKES!!! -G
I drove by the new training field this morning on my way to Loews. There is a lot of heavy equipment on the site and they have torn up an awful lot of black top. Still doesn't look much like a field, but they are making progress.
While the details may be more complicated than "The Cosmos were the reason the NASL failed," the whole idea of having a team in the league that spends tons more money on salaries than any other sucks. If 89% of a team's standing in the table* can be deduced from the amount the team spends on salaries, then I really want a very strong, rigorously enforced salary cap. I don't want to have the filthy, scum-sucking, vile, repellent, cheating, league-favored, galactopustules nor the Cosmos reborn to be able to spend three or four times as much on salaries as OUR beloved San José Earthquakes. I am not interested in a league where a small number of teams always hang out at or near the top of the table. Having the Cosmos come back without the ability to spend freely would be a little like rooting for the 49ers after Eddie DeBartollo lost control and the NFL fined them. While some sentimental types might be big Cosmos fans, I think such a team would fail because the expectations would be hugely out of proportion to their ability to fulfill. Also, if such a team were allowed to spend freely, I'd find something else to do with my time. I'm sure plenty of other fans would feel the same way. (And yes, I know that the galactofilth abuse the salary cap. But that has been decreasing in recent years to where it does not give them a huge advantage anymore. In the early years of the league, they spread their salary out more so they had many skilled players at nearly every position, whereas now, they over pay two guys, but the rest have to live within the camp. At least, we think they do.) * This is taken from Soccernomics. The authors show conclusively that the more a team spends on salary, the better it does in the league standings. It should be clear from looking at our own MLB that the wealthiest teams do better than their less wealthy brethren. Go Quakes!! FUAEG!!! - Mark
I think there is a lot to be said of "derby" games. I didn't understand why for so many years MLB thought having teams from the same area in different leagues was a good idea. I guess there was the very off chance of a World Series encounter, (like A's vs Giants in 89') but, I think that they missed out on building real passionate rivalries. (I don't follow baseball, but, I believe they started limited interleague play a while back.)
I guess I've never understood though why MLS would create "derby" games that may or may not be accepted by fans at the expense of spreading the league's limited footprint into cities where they have no presence right now. A team in St. Louis or some other city would make more sense than a second NY team. Particularly in light of the mixed bag results of the "Honda Superclassico" among fans in LA. As for MLB, the reason MLB never set up derbies stems from the fact that originally the American and National leagues were separate entities. They only came together during the World Series. It wasn't until much later when the modern "MLB" was born that both leagues came together under the same umbrella. But even then the old, Am/Nat split remained and in some cases was increased over time with things like the designated hitter being introduced in the American League. It wasn't until the mid-90's that they finally introduced inter-league play and started to embrace crosstown games (now playing 2 series every year cross town). But even then it's just not part of the baseball structure. Ask any Giants fan who their biggest rival is and 99 out of 100 will say the Dodgers, not the A's. Same too with most A's fans, the Angels are more likely to be the "enemy" than the Giants (I'm a rare exception to that).