LOL I love the Spurs but from what I've seen in Portland, some Timber's Army members hate the Blazers but love their team. That just shows more support. I really believe San Antonio deserves a team. We have a new mayor who supports soccer [not one who will screw us over again].
move Chivas to San Antonio? either there or Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, Riverside, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Austin, Albuquerque, Tulsa, Omaha, or Oklahoma City.
Trying to be as non-biased as possible but I believe Texas is seriously under served... San Antonio and Austin should be cities we aim for in the future. yes yes I know...show the money and the stadium and we're talking but I think just on the culture of both cities I think they have great potential. Plus given the recent MLS boner for promoting rivalries it could recreate the PNW scene in another region of the U.S. Like I said, I'd like to think I'm not biased with that opinion because if there were more glaringly obvious choices that would help the league - I'd be all for it. Cosmos, (rebrand/relocate CUSA to either their own place in L.A. or San Diego), St.L, San Antonio, ATL & Austin in that order.
I think a third Texas team in San Antonio or Austin accomplishes a fair Lone Star rivalry similar to the PNW. Any more than that and we are looking at an over served state (granted Texas is the second largest geographically). I would argue for SA simply because The Spurs have a fair history of sports ownership and management, and would most likely be the majority owner of an MLS franchise. Plus, a silver and black kit could look pretty kick ass! Alternatively, a team could be plopped in Oklahoma or New Orleans to achieve the same effect. I agree with relocating Chivas USA to another Cali city or anywhere in the southwest. I like the idea of having three regional teams creating a natural and strong rivalry (like the PNW teams), so I would opt to keep Chivas in Cali and work on fostering a rivalry with the Quakes. The Galaxy have strong rivalries with the other two Cali teams, so why don't Chivas and the Quakes have anything going? I see Atlanta coming in between 20 and 22. I suspect we'll see at least one Florida team as well - most likely Orlando or Tampa. Building a SE triad would be a great idea. As much as the prospect of NYC2/Cosmos excites me, that area of the country is fairly well served right now. In a perfect world, MLS would be looking to create a stronger presence in the under served areas of the country...
Austin just had a NASL team that moved to Orlando because of the owner screwing the fans over. They still have a great supporters group [Chantico's Army] but they have no team as well. I was hoping before this past season that Dallas would have too low of attendance numbers and they would relocate to SA but because of their MLS Cup appearance it seems like they have fans all of a sudden. And yes Chivas to SA wouldn't be bad either. Close to the border with a good sized hispanic population in the city. I think if San Antonio and/or Austin gets a team, you'll see a huge [Portland and Toronto like] amount of support. The Austin/SA rivalry would be enormous and then throwing Austin and Dallas into the mix we could have a legitimate rivalry going. Have a Texas Cup that the4 compete for. The best record against the other TX teams gets at the end of the season. It'd mean something.
Sorry, hate to destroy any possibility of your dream here but no matter how weak FCD's attendance is, FCD is locked into their lease with c/o Frisco for PHP. So in this case, its best to wish FCD's attendance improves to stoke the popularity of MLS in this state, thus making the San Antonio/Austin hole appear more visible to Garber. As for Chivas, as long as Jorge Vergara owns them, they will always be in LA. Consider this: Back when Vergara was negotiating for an expansion franchise with MLS, he had the choice of locating Chivas in Houston, San Antonio or even better, San Diego. (at the time, it was widely thought SD was a go) But instead, Vergara chose to force and cry his way into LA. The only way they move now is to another venue in LA (Inland Empire or Coliseum site) or if Vergara sells the team to outside interests ...like the Spurs. As for San Antonio, I really am rooting for you guys to land an MLS squad of your own. I've heard the passion James Hope and the Crocketteers have, thanks to Glenn Davis and his weekly "Soccer Matters" program here in Houston. And like you, I believe SA's addition into the league can do nothing but help grow the popularity of the MLS game in our state. I just want SA under the right conditions and I view Gordon Hartman and his suburban STAR venue as PHP 2.0, especially when compared to a renovated Alamo Stadium, much closer into town. In this case, I personally would want the Spurs to own SA's MLS team given their obvious financial and political clout in the area. Just my 2 cents ....Good Luck SA!
Well I honestly didn't know the background history with Chivas USA. Thank you for that. I know the Dynamo had a chance to come to SA but the stupid mayor at the time ruined it for us. I listen to Glen Davis' show quite often now, after he did an interview with James! It was fun out chant the Dallas fans when Houston and Dallas faced off in Corpus!
Yeah, I remember that. For a time, it seemed that AEG was closing in on a deal for use of the Alamodome, which was the better option compared to Robertson or the Astrodome. But when Phil Hardberger was elected, he dissed the MLS for bigger aspirations and dreams, like the Marlins. Then soon after, Katrina happened and he focused on the Saints too. After the dust settled SA Fan was the ultimate loser of Hardberger's bets on the big leagues as the city struck out on MLS, MLB, and NFL. After the way things played out, I wonder if Hardberger ever regrets dissing the MLS now.... Yeah, we here in H-Town are pretty lucky to have Glenn Davis always championing the cause in this area. I sincerely hope when it is all said and done, Davis has a statue somewhere on the grounds of the new Dynamo Park for all his contributions to growing the game in this city. He and Ching both deserve this honor. As for out-chanting FC Dallas, congrats ...but honestly, thats not hard to do. What would be really impressive is if for one match, the Crocketteers were to invade PHP en masse (in SA supporters colors) and out-number FCD fan in their own house. If it were to happen, I guess you could say PHP had a rolling "Brown Out," but we aint talking bout the electricity lol....
LOL that'd be great. Onstad, Ching, and Glenn Davis deserve some kind of honoring at the new stadium. I think it'd be cool to see if we could compete with their fans at their own stadium but several Crocketteers [especially some of the higher ups in the group] are Dallas fans. IDK how they'd feel about disgracing their own team lol
i like clubs to have their own identity and i'd like to see Chivas USA relocate and rebrand.... but i believe that they should stay in the American Southwest and also hold some sort of tie to the Latino community. But which of these markets is the best? Albuquerque Austin El Paso Las Vegas Phoenix Riverside San Antonio San Diego Tucson Personally, i think all could do well but need the vital three.
Chivas will not re-brand so long as Guadalajara owns the team. But they might want to consider moving to another Hispanic-centric market. San Antonio might be a good fit. I would be wary about El Paso, since it's across the border from the most violent city in the world right now. Phoenix might work too, but only if they can play at University of Phoenix Stadium.
you are missing the big one.....LA! Dont think they will leave California...heck dont think they will leave the LA area.
I think a team in New Mexico would do incredible. Zero competition for the sports dollar, and a large latino, sports loving population. I am only speculating, but if a deep pocketed ownership group came suddenly appeared , it would behoove MLS to take a good look
Chivas does really need to get out of The Home Depot Center, even if it means simply moving out into the suburbs, particularly the Inland Empire. As for New Mexico... well, it wouldn't be a terrible idea. It's definitely thinking outside the box. Though Albuquerque is slightly higher in elevation than Denver, and Santa Fe would almost be considered "at altitude" by FIFA.
I don't think it matters if they're called "Chivas" or not. What will make them more powerful is if they actually have their regional location in their name no matter where they are. Chivas LA, or wherever they go after Home Depot Center, will take them to the next level. There's simply very little branding connection with the public at the moment. Those who are die-hard fans of the Chivas brand already support the original Chivas from Guadalajara.
I think the number 1 issue to look at is future economic conditions for possible MLS cities. As we know in one period of time cities and communities can be affluet and then with a decade or two become rife with poverty. Everyone mentions Detroit, but there's no middle class in Detroit to support a team now and it doesn't look likely for the future. MLS has to look at where these communities are going and try to spot which communities will have affluence 10 to 20 years down the road.
It cannot be quite as cut-and-dry as that. They can still have the capacity to support a team even if the economy is down, especially if there are few sporting opportunities in that particular city. There are many cities that can fit the bill of having little competition for their sports dollar: Orlando, San Diego, San Antonio, anything in the Carolinas, Las Vegas, Omaha, just to name a few.
Yeah, as shown by all the people who don't go to see the Tigers, Red Wings, Pistons and Lions. Wow, Detroit must have a HUGE upper class!
Kudos to those who brought up the portfolio/American Business Journal study on financial capacity to support pro sports franchises. For those who haven't seen it, ABJ estimated the financial muscle needed to support existing pro sports teams in terms of a metro's total personal income. The wealth needed to support existing teams was subtracted from a market's total personal income to determine what was left to support a possible MLS expansion team. I updated their 2009 study that used 2008 income figures to 2009 (latest available economic data). What's interesting about the study is that it tends to reflect what has actually happened in MLS with respect to expansion in a post-RSL world. The wealthiest markets who spent all or some of this period without an MLS club are listed below (eliminating areas like Inland Empire, etc that are more or less satellites of larger metros)...#s listed are total metro personal income in billions and then available income in billions after supporting existing franchises. They're listed in terms of available income to support MLS. The number before each city is its overall rank (after eliminating certain metros). 7 Houston $255.6 $95.2 19 Montreal $125.0 $87.7 5 Philadelphia $271.9 $74.2 17 San Jose $101.9 $64.6 24 Portland $86.8 $50.4 25 Sacramento $85.6 $49.2 11 Toronto $206.7 $46.3 28 Vancouver $80.6 $43.3 13 Seattle $166.9 $42.9 10 Miami $229.4 $31.7 17 San Diego $139.3 $15.3 18 Baltimore $129.1 $5.1 12 Atlanta $199.7 $2.0 6 SF-Oakland $257.8 $(26.7) 14 Detroit $165.3 $(32.4) 26 Cincinnati $82.9 $(41.1) 20 St. Louis $114.1 $(47.2) 15 Phoenix $149.6 $(48.1) 16 Minneapolis $149.6 $(48.1) 22 Tampa $101.0 $(60.2) 23 Pittsburgh $99.4 $(61.9) 27 Cleveland $82.3 $(78.1) It's interesting to note the top 5 and 8 of the top 9 on the list (all bolded) ended up with clubs over the last 5 years. Seattle didn't fit the bill when they were granted an expansion club, however, they did by the time they began play w/ the departure of the Sonics. Of the remaining "next 20", Sacramento and Miami are the only metros that appear to be well clear of the $14 billion requirement ABJ has cited for MLS support, with SD clearing the $14 billion requirement, but not by much. This doesn't necessarily mean that the other markets couldn't support a club, but rather that investors probably realize that these markets are more of an uphill climb given the competition, which is why we rarely see a serious effort with real financial backing in these markets. A serious investor group with real plans for a SSS will still rule the day, but there are real barriers to those groups forming given the existing sports market in the sub $25 billion available income areas. One more list...below are the other markets with $35 billion+ of personal income ranked in terms of available income to support MLS. The list is cut at $25 billion of available income. Satellite metros such as Bridgeport and Providence were left off, as was Honolulu. I kept Hartford on as it isn't as close to both NYC and Boston as the other NE markets. There could be territorial issues with some of these. 30 Las Vegas $71.3 $71.3 34 Hampton Roads $66.4 $66.4 39 Austin $60.6 $60.6 41 Hartford $59.4 $59.4 43 Richmond $51.1 $51.1 48 Louisville $47.2 $47.2 50 Birmingham $43.5 $43.5 53 Rochester $40.6 $40.6 54 Tulsa $36.6 $36.6 55 Albany $36.3 $36.3 56 Omaha $36.0 $36.0 29 San Antonio $71.5 $35.1 30 Orlando $71.5 $35.0 37 Calgary $63.8 $26.5 38 Raleigh-Durham $62.7 $25.4 Jax, Memphis, Edmonton, Ottawa, and OKC are all next at $10-$15 billion of available income, with no one else above zero. Post NY2 and apart from a Chivas relo to elsewhere in Southern California, my money is on a serious investor group coming out of list #2 (even though those outside of the top 40 in wealth are probably a bit too small) + Sacramento + Miami over the other 20 or so markets among the wealthiest 40...at least until a few of those 20 grow more or lose existing teams.