With all the twists and turns of Chivas and expansion any time I see news or 'news' about this stuff it all seems very ho humm.
Utah? Where have I been that Utah is in the running for an MLS expansion team? I love the state but the pretty red rock canyons don't put butts in the seats or viewers in front of the tube.
Sigh. Not good. This is really a terrible, terrible way for the league to "reach out" to Hispanics - pick an owner that in fact polarizes the Hispanic community and put the team in a city that simmers with class and ethnic tensions against another team in the same city - with the new team already having a predetermined racial fan base. This decision really has the potential to attract the worst type of fan to the game and bring out the worst in the fans the game already has. It feels like the year the Kobe/Shaq Lakers won their first championship - the Staples Center was broadcasting the final game on a Jumbotron to fans outside the stadium and fans were gathering from near and far and bringing a lot of beer. I recall thinking, "Uh, oh. Not good." Rioting and much damage followed. I'm getting the same feeling here.
Rice-Eccles Stadium, University of Utah, Salt Lake City. It has hosted WNT games, among others, and was the site for the opening and closing ceremonies at the Olympics two years ago. It has FieldTurf. That would be home until a SSS gets built. Seating is 45k+. Too big for MLS but not a cavern like Giants or Arrowhead. Pictures: http://www.stadium.utah.edu/ Looks like the stadium hosted at least one MLS exhibition. Rapids vs. Utah Blitzz. http://www.stadium.utah.edu/images/pastEvents/soccer/SOCCER16.jpg http://www.stadium.utah.edu/images/pastEvents/soccer/SOCCER42.jpg
I would've preferred if they just put Rochester on a long road trip a la LA 2003, but whatever. And don't worry about Chivas. It'll be fun.
My question is: Why on Earth would it make any sense to put two teams in one city? MLS doesn't really have more than a gentleman's agreement with Vergara. Garber needs to tell him to land in Houston, San Antone, San Diego, or some other market with a large Hispanic population or forget the whole thing. If Chivas ends up in LA or Chicago, the Galaxy or the Fire will lose a large chunk of their marketshare and hard-won fanbases to Chivas, and the pitches will get thrashed by playing two games a weekend on them. No, Vergara, this isn't Burger King- You can't have it your way. C'mon, Garber, he's telling you where he's putting his franchise. Show some backbone for crying out loud. This whole thing is a ridiculous idea, and MLS clearly does not need this friggin' merry-go-round! (Just had to get that off my chest)
The Galaxy doesn't have a lot of fans that would be Chivas fans to start with. Few. I'm sure they will not be scheduling both the Galaxy and Chivas LA both home the same weekends but at any rate it's very common elsewhere in the world for two teams to share a stadium.. Sampdoria .. Genoa.. and on and on..Just need a competent grounds crew. I'm not going to guess how it will work out but it may work and may be good for the league and perhaps even the Galaxy, in the end. I think will just have to wait and see.
El esta muy equivocado en todos de los tres puntos. Umm, so wrong on each of the three counts - that's gotta be some sort of record for a single sentence, even on BigSoccer.
That's a new one, thanks. Hadn't thought of that. Pretty sure they'd probably just play every weekend, rarely both teams on the same weekend.
chivas owner says chicago still in the running http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/dssports/pro/012sd9.htm
Some hypotheses that I think are fairly good ones: 1) Chivas USA will draw better at the HDC and in LA than it would in Chicago, Houston, San Diego, etc. 2) The Chivas-Galaxy matchups will become a huge rivalry. If the teams play eachother four times a year, that's four potential sellouts with great atmosphere and potentially much broader coverage in the country's second-largest media market. 3) Seattle has proven to be one of the best cities in the country that does not already have an MLS team at drawing fans. Combined with a first-year expansion enthusiasm "bump," and an attractive, if large, stadium to play in until/if a SSS gets built, and building off of the Sounders pre-existing ticket buyer base, this team has the potential to be as much of a success story as people hope Rochester will someday be.
I think Chivas would actually work better in a 2nd city, where if it bombs, it doesn't totally wreck MLS in that city for a long time. And, if it's going to be named Chivas, that would work better in Southern California, where there's already a precedent with the San Diego Padres. If you go to Chicago and name it Chivas, non-hispanic Chicagoans (and I may be wrong, I've only had the pleasure of visiting the city twice-- the Aquariam is cool) probably won't accept that name as well as that same group of people would in Southern California.
The one thing that scares me about a Seattle bid is that AFAIK, there are no plans to build a SSS anytime in the future. People can call me out if I am wrong. And if a potential owner <cough Allen> went back to the public well and asked for more money after the shenanigans of Seahawk Stadium, he'd need a presidential entourage to get around the city. Having been to Seahawk stadium a few times, I can say that while it is an impressive facility, 14-16 thousand fans would just be another replay of OSU and the Rose Bowl, or even the Razor. We hardcore fans would be thrilled with the attendance numbers, while Joe Casual looks at the game on TV and wonders why nobody's there. I am in the camp that believes perception is everything in marketing. If casual fans perceive that MLS can't draw fans, then there is a halo effect in play that leads them to question a lot of things about the league. Having said all that, if MLS does come to Seattle, I instantly have a team to cheer for - finally (until MLS comes to the best soccer city in the USA).
Well at least with the L.A. Chivas MLS will have it's version of the Yankees to be hated by all the other clubs... that should but some butts in the seats of the teams they visit...
Garber, on May 19, in reference to Seattle being "a finalist this year": "Long-term there would be an opportunity to not play in Seahawks Stadium."