For the record..The Coliseum seats about 76,000 in it's current configuration. The Rose Bowl seats a little over 92,000. The seating went down from over 101K (close) when they redid the seats several years ago.
About 14 million in the metropolitan area. LA County itself has 9,824,800 people plus those missed in the census. Some very large cities are a "stones throw" away, such as Anaheim, etc.. "Los Angeles County has the largest population of any county in the nation, and a larger population than 42 states."
> attendance would be San Jose-esque (which is > still recovering from the Krafts). Oh, come on. How long is this excuse going to be used?
As one of the earlier posters put it: Vegara is jerking the league around. He says he wants to be up and running in '04, and yet he's still making random pronouncements in October about where the team will actually play. Every day and hour is precious if '04 is really the goal, and even if '05 is the goal. My guess is that he never comes through.
Ok, you and I both know how LA is situated. It's NOT New York. That 14 million is spread out immensely .............. not a "stones throw" away from each other. And your example makes my point. Lets look at Anaheim. Isn't that the same place that has a baseball team that actually won the World Series last year????!!!! ummmm, i think so. And did they do well at the gate last year? ummmmm, i think not. And this is in baseball, which has been around and has been a part of this culture for many many more years than soccer has really been part of this society (just recently). If Anaheim can have trouble in baseball. If LA can't keep support for a darn football team (which is easy as hell), how on this earth do they support TWO, count 'em TWO, soccer teams?? Let's join planet earth, ok
Esta gente no se entera... Uh, LA is kinda sorta made up of quite a few Latinos, for whom futbol is the #1 sport. Try again, ese...
(I don't know about YOUR planet earth) You are SOOOO right. Finally, somebody who knows that averaging 42,000 fans a night is horrible attendance! LA cannot "support" a modern pro football franchise b/c big-money sports are no longer about getting fans in the gate in order to field a competitive team. On MY planet earth, it hasn't been so in a couple of decades. LA lacks a profitable stadium, that's why the NFL doesn't play here. And taxpayers wouldn't go for forking over hundreds of millions of $$ in corporate welfare for a new stadium. Let's break it down again: LA has more Mexicans than Guadalajara, Monterrey, Tijuana and Cancun (the 2-5 largest cities in Mexico). The only city that surpasses it is Mexico City. That's on the real planet earth and it is the 2nd largest city in the world. Guadalajara has 2 teams. Let me break it down for you: if LA were to get an MFL franchise, they would average 60,000 PLUS. Once MLS surpasses MFL in quality (which won't happen until USMNT starts making inroads in the inner-city), HDC will be too small for the Galaxy. Do ppl forget that LA average 34,000 in '96?
Comprendo bastante. whoopdy freakin doo....then maybe more of those latinos whould show up to a LA Galaxy game then, huh? It's not 96 anymore, it's 2003. Start making HDC tickets a hot commodity. I'm well aware of geography and populations.... There are also plenty of caucasion and african americans in LA also...This is the USA, not mexico if you didn't look at the sign....and even still, to the majority of the mexican soccer fans apparently...as you said: the MLS is nowhere near the MFL, so they don't show up; remember Hernandez? Plus, what? San Diego doesn't have any latinos? Vergara could be drawing of the baja peninsula all the way to LA...and "get all the latinos"....to go to SD to watch Chivas. LA always has been a so-so sports city anyways and already has the Galaxy, and other sports competing for the $$$.... Try again, esa... All of this said, I don't think it couldn't work at all, but that there are a majority of other cities that could/would/should get a MLS team before another LA team....Vergara either needs to quit being a jerk off and play somewhere that doesn't have a franchise, or go home....I think it'd be good overall to have him, his exposure, and his brand name....IN SAN DIEGO.
42000??? maybe in the playoffs. certainly not during the regular season! when you get to the World Series, sure, people are gonna come to those games. We're not talking about World Series tickets ....... we're talking about regular season MLS games. big difference, buddy! Next, I don't care if there are more mexicans in LA than there are in some city in mexico. this still isn't Mexico and this isn't the MFL. If there were sooooooo much support for the MLS that we need 2 teams in LA, then why are the Galaxy not selling out 27,000 every game? sure they get 22-24 every game, but the bottom line is that they can't normally sell out the 27 that they have. wow, that really sounds like another team to dilute the market is gonna help! When LA has a backlog of people who want season tickets, then come back and talk to me. Until then, it's plain silly to put a second team in a market where the one team already there is just barely establishing itself.
Gee, last I checked, the Angels didn't make the playoffs this year. I look into it though, make sure I get my facts straight... In the meantime, Anaheim set an all-time attendance 3,061,094 this year (2,2807,360 in 1982): that averages out to 37,330. So I guess I was wrong about 42,000. For the first time ever, a market had more than one Major League franchise each draw more than 3 million fans as the Anaheim Angels (3,061,094) and Los Angeles Dodgers (3,138,626) each surpassed that mark. That ain't bad, considering that another team is doing ok at the gate at the same time (Galaxy). If you read the entire thread, you'll see my position on a 2nd team in LA: I'm against it, for those that have trouble w/ reading comprehension. Also, Mexicans residing in the US don't give a $hit what you think, but they are soccer fans who know the game and quality soccer. When MLS reaches a decent level, they'll come to the park en masse. As per the attendance at the Cathedral, it has been hindered by tix that are too expensive given the quality of play of the league. And the G's have been stinking it up this year. All things considered, 22,000 isn't that bad. If the G's were playing better and prices were done properly, the number would be closer to 24,500 average. REading comprehension clue: I said that if LA were to have a team in MFL (Mexican Futbol League), it would average 60,000. MFL isn't MLS. Big difference there buddy. MFL fans haven't been converted en masse b/c the level of play is better in MFL. Here's the thing: immigrants from footie countries appreciate good soccer, and they'll watch it. They'll lay aside their hometown/country allegiances to watch the beautiful game. That's why WC ratings on Univision or Telemundo are stronger than ESPN and ABC. There are just more Spanish speaking futbol fans in this country than Anglophone. This isn't a value judgement, just a simple fact. And that's why Telemundo paid 3 times as much as SUM for WC rights from 2002-6. My point is that when MLS reaches a stronger level, these dormant fans WILL come out en masse.
BulaJacket, apologies. It's just that this esquire guy has/had no idea what he was talking about. To say that LA is bad market for a 2nd soccer franchise based on completely erroneous baseball "facts" is moronic. So I tried to correct his "facts". Look, a lot of ppl opine about soccer and how to market it to "white bread America", which is absolutely necessary for the success of the league. W/ this crowd, you have to convince them that soccer is a great sport to watch, essentially having soccer leapfrog the big 4. What I'm trying to point out is that it's entirely different marketing to already existent soccer fans who have always followed the sport. There's no convincing as to the merits of the sport. It's about convincing them that MLS is worth a 2nd look (those that left after '96, which wouldn't have been that many in LA if it had won the Cup that first year; that was b4 the Lakers started dominating and LA was starved for a victor) or a 1st look for those that figure(d) that American soccer isn't worthy of their attention. Once again, I personally feel that Houston or San Diego are the best options right now. LA and MLS are not ready for a 2nd team.
yeah, you need to get your facts straight, because they didn't average 42,000 this year, which is what you stated. wrongly, i might add. add to the fact that this is just their one year bump as the champion and we'll see Anaheim's attendance go right back to what it was LAST season ....... which was 28,000. If they were so successful, Anaheim wouldn't be operating at a loss (unlike the 2 New York baseball teams that operate at a profit). I never said that you were against it or for it. I'm just making a case against the argument. maybe YOU need to take reading comprehension. Did i ever put down Mexicans? Once again, the reading comprehension that you talk about should have you as its first student. My point was not to bash Mexicans. It was to determine the level of support between here and in Mexico. More support in Mexico than there is here. Period. No matter what excuse you use for it, it's still the case. Once again, I read what you said. Just because I choose to focus in on something else, doesn't make you a genius. My simple point, which you fail to understand obviously, is that we cannot base what we do in MLS on what MIGHT BE in the MFL. Two different leagues with 2 different levels of support. You seem to keep glossing over that like it's meaningless. If MLS were run like the MFL right now, the MLS would probably disappear. 'nuff said. Has that been proven? I go to games in DC all the time, and when Latino players from other teams score, the place erupts as loud as when the home team scores. [/B][/QUOTE] oh, and to finish up, about your snide comment lumping me in with white-bred Americans who opine about marketing ......... well, you might wanna check yourself because i'm a dual citizen (caribbean) and i'm not white. sorry to correct your ridiculous "facts".
Re: Re: LA Chivas.. There is a difference between white-bred and "white bread"... I don't think his comment was intended to be "snide."
The reason I put "stones throw" away in quotes is that in the LA area going to events from these different cities here is just part of life in that people don't think twice about going from Anaheim to see the Lakers in downtown LA, etc.. The distances do not prevent attendence, for most people. It's a car culture here and it's simply part of life and the 14 million in the greater LA area, for the most part, will and do travel to the other parts of the region for entertainment.
Re: Re: Re: LA Chivas.. the only difference is that he doesn't know how to spell it the correct way ....... and yes, it was obviously meant to be a snide remark.
anyway, getting back to the topic of this thread, who in here believes that another LA team is better than going to Houston, San Diego, Cleveland, or any of the other "new" cities that are out there?
I think it's way too early in the league's history to consider a 2nd team in any market but I don't have the marketing info and the rest that those making the decision do. Hopefully they will be doing plenty of homework before they make the decision. I really can't guess how the "Chivas team" in the US will work out until it happens.
Reading comprehension, again up above I corrected myself. have you corrected yourself about your attendance claims? This past season (again) the Angels jumped up 1,000,000 fans. The season BEFORE last, the Angels seriously received a boost during their post-season run. Trust us when we say that your analogies lack an understanding of the LA market. It's not a put-down. "oh, and to finish up, about your snide comment lumping me in with white-bred Americans who opine about marketing ......... well, you might wanna check yourself because i'm a dual citizen (caribbean) and i'm not white. sorry to correct your ridiculous "facts". That honestly wasn't a snide comment. But your original post about how baseball has been around forever (in white bread America) ignores the fact that futbol is the #1 sport for Latinos in LA. The sports shows on Univision and Telemundo start off w/ footie unless a big 4 sport has a major event. In your initial post in which you erroneously capped on the Angel's attendance, you said: baseball has been a part of this culture for many many more years than soccer has really been part of this society (just recently)". My problem is who is included in "this"? You refer (I assume) to "standard" US society. But you cannot conflate immigrant America and "regular" America. Obviously they were watching (my original point) b/c they cheered when a Latino scored. This actually segues into things I've stated elsewhere: Chivas in MLS (wherever they land) absolutely will be a draw for US Latinos. The media and fans highlight/follow Latinos in sports. Saludos, El Genio
There was nothing to correct about attendance concerning Anaheim. they only had 2.2 mill last year and got a huge jump this year as the reigning champions. Disney wanted to get rid of them because they aren't profitable and Disney understood that there is no better time to get rid of them than when there value is high after a championship. Even with that, there is trouble finding a buyer. what says that to you? would the Mets have ANY trouble finding a buyer? no way. anyway, back to soccer. I understand where you are coming from Carlos, i just disagree with the premise itself. I would be a fool not to be able to understand what Latinos do to the market in LA. However, my point from the beginning is that you have to allow the current LA franchise to dig it's roots into the community before you throw another franchise into its market. that is with ANY market. once the marketplace faces a shortage of the product, then and only then do you introduce more of the product. it's simple economics (and yes, i am an attorney, but yes i do work in marketing). LA is NOT exempt from that simple little fact. as of right now, there is no shortage in the marketplace. if there were, there would be more demand for the Galaxy than there is. My fear is not that a CHIVAS team would fail, but that the GALAXY would face a major problem at the gate if Chivas were there because more soccer loving people would feel an affiliation to Chivas than to the Galaxy. 10 years from now, that may not be the case. today, i would be almost certain that it is the case. remember, i know a little something about immigrant soccer loving America too ............ because i AM a member of that class. Regardless of who is or who is not right on the facts of LA, I would still say that for the exposure of the league, it would be best for a team to be placed elsewhere. This is a great sport that should be shared equally .......... dont ya think?!
You keep going back to NYC, which is an entirely different market. 1st of all, the Yankees are one of the most storied franchises in ALL of sports, so they get excellent gate receipts for away games, they are broadcast on t.v. more, etc. The reason why the Yanks are able to spend a fortune on salary is b/c of the additional revenues flows outside of Yankee Stadium. What differentiates LA from NYC is that the NYC Latino is primarily non-footie Caribbean (Puerto Rico y Santo Domingo), whereas the LA Latino is 98% footie-fanatic. I kid you not when I claim that LA would be averaging 45,000 for MLS games if the following were true: 1. No single-entity that enforces parity (I know, I know MLS would've folded by now, but what, a brown man can't dream?! ) 2. They had won in '96 3. Luis Hernandez acquisition hadn't forced a fire-sale of the future in order to "even the playing field" b/c he was SUCH a dominating player. 4. HDC were bigger and priced properly This is why Vergara is so enamored of LA. Alas, none of this is true, but we could dream... Until then, spread the wealth and the exposure.
Alas, that is my point, and why i keep going to baseball though. In order for the Galaxy to become that storied franchise, they are going to need to be allowed to get their foothold in their marketplace. New York didn't start with a heap of teams. They had the Yankees ...... then the giants, then the dodgers, then the Mets ........ whew, i'm getting tired. But the Yankees had it to themselves for a bit. 10 years from now, the Galaxy may be rooted enough for another team. as for your point about single entity, i do agree with you. I think that the Galaxy WOULD have way more people there if they had their own marketing machine, which will come in time. Apart from all that, what was up with the Luis Hernandez comment??? LOL do i sense a little bitterness?!!! hahahahahahahahaha
Chivas owner has told MLS his first choice is: Chivas de Los Angeles, and not Chivas de San Diego or Chivas de Houston or Chivas de Burrito
Originally posted by uclacarlos (I don't know about YOUR planet earth) Guadalajara has 2 teams. Ahemm... Guadalajara (City) has 3 first division teams. Chivas, Atlas and Tecos UAG. There is also second div Tapatio which is Chivas feeder team. There might be another but im too lazy to look it up..