He never had a shot - he never had enough money. I'd like to see Tom Golisano, owner of the Buffalo Sabres and erstwhile politician, buy the Rhinos. He's got the money and he's done great things with the Sabres - hopefully he's got enough to save another franchise.
The big broadcaster is CBC which is why they got big ratings in Canada, I think some stuff is on ESPN2 or similar. And for Saputo (Montreal owner) $25m is no big money...It´s actually amazing how deep pocketed the Canadian owners of different teams are. Billionaires or big movers like MLSE are the norm...
I tried this once for a decade straight, and almost died from alcohol poisoning. Don't play this game with Nick Sackiewicz.
Glen Davis indicates that, among other things, the team is considering moving to San Diego... This would indicate a willingness to try anything. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/soc/5130654.html
Yes, and since MLS is looking to expand to an even number of teams only, I believe that this 2nd NYC team will delay expansion to 18 teams beyond 2010. I mean, this is NYC here and I know that Garber wants NYC in this 18 team market. The way NYC politics go, we probably won't see the 17th and 18th team until 2012, which is good since we don't want to dilute talent too quickly...I predict St. Louis and Seattle in 2010 and Philly coupled with NYC in 2012.
You are so far off it's not funny - garber is announcing 2 teams before the end of the year to play in 2009
I think Chivas to SD would be a brilliant move. The Galaxy games could sell 30k-40k tix, and the SJ would be a strong rivalry too. I'd think Chivas would want their own stadium sooner than later, so building that in SD is the key. Tough assignment. But for sure there is huge base of fans in SD- especially w/Chivas connection. They would draw better there, and it would have derby feel..same as 2 teams in LA.
I think Philly gets in before Seattle if the stadium talks continue to go forward. I can't see MLS saying no to a city that has made a serious attempt to build a stadium vs. the one that is offering a giant NFL stadium (no matter how "built-for-soccer" Qwest field is).
Unless MLS just lets them all in (say for 2010) assuming that they can go single-table OR that they think they can get another team up and running in that window (say LV/or heaven forbid NYC2). Either way they can announce all three at MLS Cup and still be ok in 2010.
I think that one issue that could arise from that is, with Jeff Cooper constantly talking to Collinsville in the past, as well as local STL media, he keeps saying the team will be ready by 2009, stadium included. I am going to guess that the City Council of Collinsville would be pretty pissed if they lost out of x amount of dollars because it was MLS, not Cooper, who delayed STL's entry. One has to wonder what was going on in Toronto last year, knowing they were all set to go... but with their inclusion, MLS would have an uneven schedule/conferences. MLSE must have really pressured MLS into allowing it, even if MLS had to change their playoff format AGAIN. I believe the most likely, and realistic scenario is for San Jose to enter in 2008, as we already know, and have two teams enter in 2009, period. Most likely STL at this point. Whether number 16 is Philly or Seattle is still up in the air (although something like that ought to be ironed out by year's end).
Like I said, I'm sure that they can have everything ironed out for 18 by 2010. It could go like this, 2008 (14) - San Jose 2009 (16) - Saint Louis, Seattle (Qwest) 2010 (17/18) - Philly, maybe Team 2 (Las Vegas, NYC/Queens) They would be even until 2010 and then that season they're either still even or they just go single table, with home & away so that every team in the league still gets their Beckham, Ronaldinho, or whomever game. The only problem with a scenario like this is that no MLS team can handle losing 5 players in 3 years to expansion. The depth would go down even further down the toilet (what's below non-existant?). But MLS isn't going to turn down a RCS in StL or Philly and it appears they've already sold their soul to Seattle & Qwest, so like it or not, if Philly gets a stadium there will be at least 17 teams in 2010.
Single table shouldn't even be considered. That stuff would work better if there were LESS teams in the league, not more teams in the league with teams spread all over the country. What if it's Galaxy, Earthquakes, ChivasUSA, and Rapids with the final game held in Home Depot Center, for example? Why would New Yorkers be interested? It's already been said by Garber that the league is looking to have 16 teams by 2010, and 18 teams by 2012. There might still be 18 teams by 2010, but either way, we know their goal is to have an even number of teams with at least 18.
if Vergara was REALLY interested in making CDCUSA a financial success, he'd drop the 'Chivas' moniker. the club tie-in was unnecessary IMHO. and now he's got all the other fanbases in SoCal (Club America, Cruz Azul, Morelia, etc) turned off b/c they don't want to support a cheaper, lesser version of the goats (whom they hate with a passion). actually it's kind of a Catch-22: Vergara wants to expand his brand name all over the world (so you have to keep the 'Chivas' moniker). BUT it's precisely the Chivas moniker that's helping to hold back the franchise as it is now in LA. So it puts Vergara in a tough position. He could have dropped the 'Chivas' from the LA franchise, went with a unified, neutral club name like LAFC, and he probably would have had a much stronger, much more lucrative soccer team. But then he wouldn't have the expansion of his brand name. Now he does have the expansion of his brand name, but it's not making any money based on the current model (and it probably won't for sometime). BL: for someone as rich as Vergara, he can probably afford to take it in the pants financially with CDCUSA. it still acts as great advertising for his team name, and it gets him into the LA market. But i also think he realizes that this doesn't have to be a money-loser.
vergara is making some bank on cdcusa, cuz the brand he brought in has the second highest sponsorship dollars in the league, and from what i'm hearing isn't that much lower than what the galaxy is raking in from sponsorships moving to a different part of LA would be help out
I assume that you're talking about the playoffs, because who cares where the last regular season match is held. As for NYC they couldn't care less if the final was being held at Red Bull Park, they wouldn't go. On a broader sense, would MLS Cup be less watchable if it were DCU v New England Revolution? It shouldn't be b/c those are the best two teams in the league.It should be the best soccer. The reason that its not an attractive TV matchup is b/c they've already played 3 times. Same with Houston/CDUSA. The problem with a non-east/west matchup is that it's already happened. The reason the World Series ratings are down (apart from being in November after 3 months of playoffs) is b/c there is the matchups have already happened. Repeatedly. If you gave each team a home & away, then every playoff game would be at worst a third meeting, but it's possible to play a team 6 times in a season, win 5 time and lose the series playoffs. That's ridiculous. It's also possible to have the two best teams in MLS meet BEFORE MLS CUP. Give me a single table, playoffs based on merit, not geography and an MLS with the two teams that deserve to be there.
STL has things in place for a launch with a new SSS, and if Philly and Chester get their act together and have one ready, they should be in first before Seattle, unless Seattle has a SSS deal ready from the start. STL and PHL go in the east, and move KC back to the west to even the conferences up. It seems the teams that get in the league with football stadiums drag their feet a bit getting their SSS off the ground. If MLS wants a good looking league with some credibility, the new teams need to have a SSS in place from the get-go, IMHO.
Actually, I think Seattle will get it with St. Louis in 2009 if Seattle announces a new stadium to be complete in 2010, because Qwest wouldn't be seen as a long term solution unless Paul Allen is the owner. Philly will still probably come in 2010 with Las Vegas if both are able to follow through with their stadium proposals. The idea of the league would be to keep the conferences even once San Jose came back.