No because what the owner will do is have 3-4 SI slots, 6 TI slots, and not to mention 4 developemental players which do not count as part of the perscribed make of the club. I don't know the exact figures but lets just say that I would not expect more than 3-4 americans on the club. Does that sound like an american club to you? Sounds more like the club comes from another country. Btw, there are alot of leagues such as Bundeslega(sp?) that are considering putting a cap on the amount of foreign players because they believe the developement good german players is slowing. They are not the only League to consider this the last couple years.
If SD Chivas follows the same MLS rules as every other team, then what's the problem? And this has what to do with what?
I'm not sure I understand what you're arguing here. Are you suggesting that SD Chivas will have more SI and/or TI slots than any other MLS team?
Horrible comparison! George Steinbrenner is not creating an american club in another league such as MFL or EPL.
Ok, fair enough, I see what you're saying. For the sake of argument, let's just go with the following assumptions: (1) Vergara fills SD Chivas with lots of GC-holding Mexicans; and (2) such a team is successful enough, both competitively and economically, that he decides to keep doing so. (Obviously, both assumptions are very much open questions, but just work with me here for now. ) So, again, what's the problem? Vergara would be adding a team, not taking one away. He'd be putting an expansion team in a market in which no one else has shown serious interest. It's not like he's taking a team in SD away from an investor who would fill out a team in SD without GC-holders. He's costing no American (and let's just define American for our purposes here as a player eligible for the US nats) a spot in MLS. He's creating spots in MLS that wouldn't otherwise exist.
But there is serious interest from other cities to have MLS clubs. Rochester is a prime example but there are more.
You don't sound like a prejudiced person and, being Mexican, I don't take your comments as "Mexican bashing". Still, you need to be open-minded and follow the most American of all precepts: Free Market. If Vergara and Chivas want to participate in MLS, what's wrong with that? They are putting their money, they are contributing to the league, they are paying stadium fees, they are creating jobs and, most of all, they are bringing an exciting rivalry equal to none. Wouldn't you like to go to RFK and see the great DC United hammer the Chupacabras 5-0? Do you meant to tell me you wouldn't be proud to know that an American team beat the so call "Mexican team"? And, if hundreds of MLS fans in different markets attend their home games to beat Chivas, wouldn't that add to MLS' coffers? And when San Diego Chupacabras go to Mexico, don't you think the Mexican teams will do their best to beat "an American team"? Chivas USA might be the most passionate, exciting entry to MLS, and all those who so steadfastedly pronounce their dislike for the team will be the first to celebrate their losses... So, my friend, be open-minded, let Vergara risk his money and let's hope that after him other foreign investors follow suit... After all, if Murdoch had not ventured his fortune into FOX, we wouldn't even have MLS WRAP... WOULD WE?
Sure, but Vergara expanding in SD does nothing to impede another serious investor in another market. The only instances in which Vergara would be taking an expansion spot away from someone else would be if either another investor wants SD or MLS has so many teams that it can't expand any further. Neither instance exists now or is likely to exist in the foreseeable future. It's also worth noting - although it's obviously a separate question - that MLS isn't exactly overflowing with serious, viable expansion candidates. Talk is cheap, but, unfortunately, it doesn't create expansion teams. If you browse through the various threads in this forum about each of the main expansion candidates, you'll probably conclude reasonably that MLS will be quite fortunate to expand in even one or two additional markets (beyond SD) in 05 or 06.
Re: Re: MLS Chivas a bad thing? Efren, that's nice that you may be excited about Chivas but there is nothing American about this new club. As I mentioned in an earlier post MFL would NEVER let an american invest by creating a new club with 90% american players. They would see this a negative just like we do. You call it what ever you like but if I want to watch a mexican league club play then I switch the channel to a mexican channel like Galavision of Telemunodo.
Let's just call it a Truce here. Obviously you do not care about the league or you really honestly believe this will positively develope american players. Just a quick note but are you aware that the same Mexican owner is trying to buy clubs in 2 other countries? doesn't sound like he seriously wants to develope better players and certainly not american. I won't start calling him names yet but I very seriously do not trust him as far as I can throw him. I advise you to consider what you are backing. If he does create a san diego chivas club I will be looking VERY closely to see who is on that roster. This is not the only forum to get viable news about expansion. ;-/
I'm all for truces, but you really shouldn't suggest that I don't care about the league. Focus on the arguments, not on personal jibes. If you disagree with an argument, it's helpful to point out where you think the argument's wrong and why. Merely assuming to be true the conclusions that you ought to attempt to prove achieves nothing useful. Throwing out conclusory personal indictments achieves even less. Fair enough? And, yes, I'm quite aware of what Vergara has been doing with Saprissa and his negotiations with Gil y Gil regarding Atletico de Madrid. Indeed, I'm impressed with his youth policy in Guadalajara. What do you think about it?
Fair enough. I apologize. I still want to know why you really SERIOUSLY think this helps the league and American players. Something tells me this guy is slime. I am rarely wrong when I rely on my gut feeling. What's to say he doesn't try to impliment they same youth policy in Chivas USA. What do YOU think about that! ;-)
No problem. I think you raise a good question about the extent to which SD Chivas would develop Americans. I agree that SD Chivas wouldn't do as much to help develop Americans as would one of the existing MLS teams (or any expansion team that's run along the same lines as the existing teams). If you think that's the determinative question, then I can see why you would think the analysis should end there. That's certainly a reasonable position. But I don't think it's the only reasonable position. I think it's also reasonable to conclude that the benefits of SD Chivas to the league, especially economically, outweigh the likely comparative lack of development of Americans on one team. So long as we're only talking about one or two teams in an expanding league, the overall benefits to the league outweigh the comparative lack of development of Americans. Of course, if every team - or most teams - in MLS suddenly decided to feature players who aren't eligible for the US nats, then I'd be far less sanguine. But that's not what we're contemplating. As I argue above, SD Chivas would only pose a problem if Vergara takes an expansion team away from some other serious investor for SD or if MLS can't expand any further - and neither situation applies. Vergara is doing nothing that would impede the ability of other MLS teams - existing or expansion - to develop Americans. Again, he's not taking anything away from anyone - rather, he's adding something that wouldn't otherwise exist. So, I don't think the concerns about lack of American player development on SD Chivas have much of a comparative impact. And they're far outweighed by the positives - efren lists a number of them in his post above - particularly the economic considerations. Actually, I'd be glad if he did. To the extent that such a policy would uncover new talent that would otherwise be overlooked (another very debatable question), at least some of that talent would be eligible for the US nats. Vergara's Chivas in Guadalajara emphasize youth in a league best known for expensive foreign signings and over-valued domestic veterans. If he brings a similar approach to SD, then that's a good thing. I also happen to agree with you that Vergara often comes across as something of a snake-oil salesman. But Vergara's treatment of Chivas in Guadalajara since he took over doesn't look so bad. In addition to emphasizing youth, he's also willingly given up income streams from uniform ads. Compare this season's Chivas uni's with last season's. Snake-oil salesmen don't often leave money on the table and he's done so in Guadalajara. In both cases - youth policy and the new uni's - he's taken the long-term view over the short-term gain. That sounds pretty good for an investor coming into MLS. And this league could certainly use a dose of personality.
Assuming Chivas-MLS really is a Mexican team in a US league, it can still develop American players by providing an opponent for other MLS teams, an opponent that plays with a different style and temperment than other MLS teams, which may help American players and teams when they go into CONCACAF competitions, which you may remember, were pretty embarrassing for Columbus and New England earlier this year. So, while I have no doubt that Chivas is ultimately in this for themselves, they could do quite a bit to improve American players without providing them a salary and a uniform to play in.
And since they have to follow league rules it will also expand the number of MLS roster positions for American players, of course.
MLS Chivas is not a bad idea as long as the majority of players are US born and bred. Chivas in Mexico are all Mexican born and bred. So, the same should apply here, so I see no problem. However, if it ends up being Chivas, mexico' s reserve squad, then it is bad. It does nothing to develop the US player and only furthers the careers of fringe Mexican players.
Well, I think deg's point was that the spots would go to Green Card holders (who, by definition, are not US citizens and ineligible for the US nats). But even so, it's likely that at least some of the roster spots would go to players eligible for the US nats. And every new job that goes to one of those players is a good thing - even if it's only a few on SD Chivas.
Anderson: Vergara is one of a kind. Shrewd businessman, he's in it for the money, not for "the love of the game." He got rid of advertising in their team's shirts, but at the same time prohibited selling of any drink except his so called "healthy one" inside the stadium. One old friend in Guadalajara who is close to his company told me Vergara forsees a great future in MLS because he feels is going to be a world-class league within few years. Vergara thinks the US is the "greatest marketing nation" and that he is applying the same marketing techniques within his businesses. He might be wrong with his MLS appreciation. But, what if he is right?
Thanks.. I'd forgotten about the green card aspect of it. It would be the key to the "Latinization" of the team for Chivas. It will be interesting to see the first roster should Chivas MLS becomes a reality.
fair enough. yes economics is helpful IF it makes MLS $$. We have plenty of personality in the league. ;-/ we don't need a mexican investor that treats us like 2nd citizens in our own league( a feeder for Mexican club chivas), has no interest in american youth developement on the club level, and alienates all fans that are not hispanic. Yes this sounds really positive to me. IF Chivas has their way it will lead to other foreign investors creating the same template which doesn't help the american league. I realize rumors are 10% truthful but there are just too many different people confirming this will happen. It will not just be 1 or 2 clubs. (at least 4-5 clubs) As to his youth policy I was stating he would only have mexican youth nationals if he could in Chivas USA not american. Everything about this sounds wonderful doesn't it? Let's piss off all fans. It's taken a long time to get the coverage that we get on american tv today not to mention what little respect the league gets from the american media but who cares right? Yes Senor Viagara(sp?) is great for the future of american soccer.
I also understand that he got rid of Atletica and has no athletic wear company logo on the jerseys because he intends to create his own brand of athletic wear. I have no doubt that the man's not motivated by pure love of the game. What impressed me was not any sense of altruism, but his ability to take a long-term view over short-term gain. That's the perspective (long-term over short-term, not altruism over profit motive), that I think is useful for an MLS investor. I hope that MLS investors want to make some money at some point.
Yes american investors do want to make money however they also realize you have to develope a good product, SSS, etc etc. that's another thread I don't care to rehash lol.