http://msn.foxsports.com/story/3064366 Who knows what can happen in a year, maybe they can find a way to stay permenently... I'm happy for the fans. We'll get a Houston or San Antonio team with or without them.
If this ends up working you really gotta give the Soccer Silicon Valley guys some major credit. A fan created group succesfully lobbying an investor to buy their team and keep it in town? Unprecedented in US pro sports as far as I know and a great story. Hopefully some of the bigger media outlets and sports rags will pick up on it.
It appears to be win-win all around. CA may be a catalyst for promoting examples of new investors in the league. Would it surprise anyone if AEG does roundtables with Vergara and CA, amongst others - in order to stir up interest? Good show AEG... and nice job Quake fans.
We have been trying to get back in touch with the source in Mexico... but he seems to have clammed up. If this is true good for SJ. but Viking tells me a local report down there said the current prez of Club America Mexico is stepping down to take the reins of the "Club American USA project" it also said Pumas management was talking internally about MLS. Viking also says the CA site had the story about CA USA> but I can't read it to find the actual story. http://www.esmas.com/clubamerica/
Buzz, Plse. ask Viking to write me back. I e-mailed him yesterday needing some information. BTW the scuttlebut was that CA prez was demoted due to the slow start and assigned the CA USA gig as one of his ancillary duties. It is good to hear about Pumas. The more the merrier for MLS.
oh for fvcks sakes, no more Mexican investment.....well ok I take that back, as long as they don't name the team after their Mexican club or have the same colors, if thats the case I majorly against all this Meixcan investment. We need some more American investers like what the Quakes are possibly getting, good for them, but they're going down on the 16th
Anyone wanting to invest money in MLS I welcome. They will play by MLS rules. f they don't USSF or FIFA will decertify the league and then no one in it can play for their country. Sn bring any money they want.
What would you prefer: An "American" with no professional sports experience to buy a club? or perhaps a foreign owner with loads of experience running a successful soccer club?
But we live in a free market economy. That is, whoever is willing to poney up and invest in a venture like MLS...well..they are in. So. To me is a plus that there are ANY investors willing to invest and risk in MLS and US soccer. With Adidas deal and with foreign/home investors coming in, this shows positive signs for MLS. El Chapulin Colorado
IF we few Anglo soccer fans in Dallas welcome the Mexican interest and other foreign interest in MLS we will only be rewarded. ---The players' pay will go up ---The crowds'll be bigger ---The anglo media will be pulled (kicking and screaming) into the soccer world ---Players from Latin America will be more likely to consider MLS ---other stuff but I'm too dumb and now Chivas' Vergara has made a shrewd and disarming move by hiring familiar, non-Spanish-speaking, former MLS coach Thomas Rongen for the coach. Don't worry, sea feliz! Arriba FC Dallas!
Well, there is the concern that they will overspend - something that has plagued soccer here before - and something that Hispanic investors in soccer in the US (mostly in the USISL/USL) have done time and again. The assumption is that soccer will sell itself, and that isn't true. The vast majority of soccer fans in the US are very discriminating - they know good soccer and won't watch anything less. MLS, much as we might love it, isn't there yet. I applaud all of those who support MLS and are enjoying watching it grow - and yes, I find those who don't go the MLS games a bit . . . short-sighted - but that is just my personal opinion. I like money coming into the league - but not Miami-Horowitz money. If Vergara and those who (might) follow have a better business plan and reasonable expectations, then great. My concern is that the scuttlebutt I have heard is that isn't the case.... Mind you, the scuttlebutt I've heard is very limited and based on information from over a year ago - but all of his actions since have followed in that theory. I think one more Mexico investment is okay, and one or two more foreign investors (Europe? South America?) would also be good. But I think that at least 70% of the league needs to be US-owned, and the league needs to stay focused on developing US players. If it happens to help North, Central and South American players (and can make money on it), then great. But the foremost goal should be developing US players. (Yes, this is part of the reason why I am not real high on the idea of a team in Toronto...)
I don't claim to know anything about how some existing teams may or may not be compensating top players "off the books" beyond the salary cap. Drum'r, is your concern that ChivasUSA will do that? (spend too much, and even win by spending more than other teams) ..or that ChivasUSA will flame out like Miami? (spend too little and stop spending) (sorry, I just don't know the rumors) also. I forgot which poster it was who just now proposed that if the league allows 4 foreigners...2 minimum of them should be Concacaf region guys ...what do you think of that idea? do you think that would help Costa Rica, Panama, etc to the detriment of the USA guys? re: C-eh?-N-eh?-D-eh? The Impact averaged well over 9k for the regular season. (actual people there, by the look of it on Fox) I see MLS like a big party that might be needing a little bit of an ice-breaker. Hopefully that'll be ChivasUSA and the 2005 12 team league with the new player policies and $$$ cap.
Taking you last point first - I disagree completely. MLS will take off as its US players improve. See the percetion change after '02. While it may not have made a huge difference in attendance, I think the league was taken more seriously. Nothing else will improve the league more than its quality of play - and that has to come from US players. Otherwise it will be percieved as another NASL - full of foreigners no one cares about. Remember that so much of US sports is about the local guys, etc. Until MLS' level of play justifies more money (as in, people will pay more because they are interested in the soccer), and until the level of play would justify bringing in better foreigners (Beckham and many other great players would be wasted in MLS), those would be expenses wasted. Slow and steady is the way to go until Bradenton can develop more players like Eddie, etc. It is just going to take time. A reserve system is going to help. That hopefully will start replacing the antequated and problematic college system which is working okay for now - and produces some good players - but isn't what MLS needs to really take that next step. I think a Canadian team would do well in MLS - but at the expense of US players and a US city. Hence, I would rather Houston or San Antonio get a team - even if it is owned by Club America. Toronto as the 16th team? Sure. But no sooner. My concern with Chivas and the Hispanic teams would be overspending on front office stuff. We may bash HSG for keeping the purse strings tight, but I'd rather that model until the revenue justifies another model. I am worried that Chivas will overspend on advertizing, coaching, facilities, etc. - all on the assumption that it will make gobs of money. Then, when they don't (and while I hope they do - it would spur the league as a whole - I fear that the objective facts point towards them not), they freak and run. That would leave MLS in a worse position than it is now. Question for anyone who might know - how much did Chivas pay to rent Victoria Street/HDC? That is an example of how Chivas might overspend.....
Does the EPL have all of its successful teams 'England owned' and geared toward developing England Nat talent? Is soccer a world game or re•strictly a US game? Limiting foreign investement during critical growth will repel domestic success plans. Reproduce already existing successful models and watch domestic investment come together with MLS ultimate goals. The additional SI slot, for an example, is geared toward adding value - and not isolating ourselves from unity.
You're not overreacting. These investers have other agendas and interests than what MLS has had up to now. The more of them there are the more power and influence they have. Do these owners want to see the U.S. beat Mexico? NO Do they have sympathy with Arena? etc etc Why do you think Harkes and Wynalda don't favor Chivas? Why Pumas now? Don't want Chivas to have the best inroads to the thousands of Mexicans in the U.S.? Would they rather develop Mexican players living the the U.S. or U. S. players? And just back to the basics of "MFS 2". One or two is one thing but more than that might not be a such a good thing.
When they have enough influence they will change those rules. And, the changes will fit THEIR agendas. It is already being said that MLS might go with four foreign players next year with Chivas in the league. [/QUOTE]If they don't USSF or FIFA will decertify the league and then no one in it can play for their country. [/QUOTE] huh ?? Anyway, USSF schedules games for the U.S. team in locales where the visiting foreign team will more likely have the most fans. Home field advantage for their own team is not as important to them as MONEY is.
Be kind enough to address the issue of the difference between the level of play in the Premiership and MLS, including the level of play of the average US player v. the average English player. Thanks.
The league might go to four IS, or something else, because the MLS coaches and GMs are asking for it to help keep the level of play up with expansion. NOT because Chivas is asking for it. USSF is a member of the MLS competition committee. They have a say in what rules MLS adopts because they sanction the league as the US Division One. Same as FIFA sanctions MLS as US Division One. If they league wanted to say... allow kick ins instead of throw ins... not only would USSF have to approve, FIFA would have to approve. If they do not approve and remove sanctioning, then no player who plays in the league can appear for their national team. Not really. Not for qualifiers. Does the US play Mexico in LA? Or Dallas? No they play them north where it is cold. DO they play crap teams places they can get crowds? Yes. DO they play friendlies where they can get crowds? Yes. But the reason most of the US qualifiers happen up north is that it the better for them than Miami, Dallas, or LA. Bruce was right there could be better one. And a lot of it is about money. But not all of it. Not for Qualifiers against good teams it's not.
The only time that "Mexican" investment in MLS will be an issue is when little Johnny Rodriguez, age 9, born in NM, raised in the Chivas USA reserve system develops into a National team calibre player by age 18 and both the USA and Mexico federations try to lure him to play for their country. If the scenario outlined above involves a Chris Gbandi/Ryan Suarez level player, then it will not be such a big deal. If it involves a Landon Donovan level player, then all hell will break loose. And that not only will force the USSF to grow in terms of retaining local talent, it will be great fun [jh] as well [jh].
I could only hope you are correct. If the talent is such, that decision might be made at a much earlier age.... U15 & U14 National Teams I know that if a decision is made at the U17 level the player is stuck w/ that Nationality as far FIFA goes I wonder if it happens at lowe levels...
The investor the Quakes are getting is Iranian. Not exactly Red, White and Blue. I say whatever helps the league and brings revenue and helps it survive long term, then no problem. I don't care if they are Chinese, Loatian or Martian.