Yes, nothing would give MLS a better look than bringing on a guy convicted of a felony that involved bribing a public official for a gambling license. That is exactly the kind of image the league wants to promote. Plus, Fisher is worth more than DeBartolo, anyway. He ain't selling.
A Cincinnati player was charged with two felony counts in the past 72 hours, and he's still on the team. But their coach is gone for saying Jehovah. https://www.espn.com/soccer/fc-cinc...attocks-faces-felony-charges-in-pennsylvannia MLS is fine with felons. It's blasphemers they cannot abide.
This follow up espn article explains mattocks’ felony insurance fraud. Some more details surrounding the two insurance-related felony charges Darren Mattocks is facing. https://t.co/1XW10pmaMC #FCCincy— Jeff Carlisle (@JeffreyCarlisle) February 19, 2020 And this MLSPA release indicates Jans’ behavior should not be trivialized Statement from MLSPA Executive Director @BobFoose on the ongoing situation with FC Cincinnati: pic.twitter.com/iib3BYfv8l— MLSPA (@MLSPA) February 18, 2020
I'm not trivializing Jan's alleged behavior by pointing out that he has not been charged with a felony, whereas someone still on the team has. And the MLSPA statement is, in a word, trivial. No specifics. And it is contradicted by the FC Cincinnati press conference, as reported by Miki Turner over on MLS N&A. If MLSPA wants to be taken seriously by me, they will provide specifics to back up their bald assertions.
Compare the ample detail in Jeff Carlisle's article about the facts surrounding the felony charges to the lack of detail in the MLSPA statement about the sketchy circumstances surrounding the coach's departure.
I didn't suggest DeBartolo would buy it, but he could grab Fisher by his lapels, prison-style, and tell him in no uncertain terms that he sucks at being a team owner...
Apparently, Don Garber wants "big city teams to be bigger deals." Also refers to San Jose (Bay Area) as a "top 10-TV Market" that isn't measuring up. You think John Fisher is listening?... (Philly Inquirer, 2/19/20)
I discussed this on the Other Teams Results thread. Garber does not say the Bay Area is a top 10 TV Market, the reporter does. And it's true. But, nevertheless, Garber undoubtedly sees the Quakes as a small market team, because he lives in a Big Apple bubble. https://www.inquirer.com/soccer/don...ter-miami-20200219.html?__vfz=medium=sharebar
If by “small market team” you mean small team in a potentially big market then yes, I agree. The Bay Area has the potential to be the biggest market in MLS but it has to be done right. Quakes have been a small fish in a massive pond pretty much consistently since say around 2008.
Garber doesn't see it your way. He couldn't find San Jose on a map if you tied him to Dionne Warwick.
I bet these guys know damn well how awful Fisher has been for San Jose. And the potential here. Don’t forget they picked San Jose to host the first ever MLS game, they’ve seen World Cup games here, the US men & women, tons of exhibition games and so on, I’d bet he has a pretty good grasp on the situation here and when they’re not busting a gut, they know Fisher is a drag on the league as well as the growth of soccer locally.
"These guys"? Garber was not around when San Jose hosted the first MLS game. I did see Garber at Buck Shaw, though, in 2008. That made such an impression on him that he preemptively announced in Fall 2012 that the Supporters Shield-winning Quakes would not be allowed to host MLS Cup in their own stadium if they made it that far.
DG, you should have posted The Philadelphia Inquirerer piece in this thread originally; seems more relevant to ownership than to the other teams results thread (IMHO ). That said: as much as San Jose is an afterthought on the national scene and remains (unfortunately) in SF's shadow, I guarantee you Garber knows all about us and the potential for this market/team. Agree wholeheartedly with Quakes05 on this one.
Garber is all about growing the league and he’s been doing that by leaps and bounds in recent years. Then there are the teams that are content to hobble along at or near the bottom every year. He has to get those teams going, he can’t afford to ignore them, they’re holding everyone back. Other owners are probably not thrilled about that either, it dulls was the compete factor and bores people at a time when the league is trying hard to grow, there’s a WC coming and all the fiscal considerations.
Here's the thing: Garber has said things about and acted to correct course on large markets like Chicago (sending in Nelson Rodriguez to babysit a transfer of ownership) and LA (shutting down Chivas USA and replacing it with LAFC), and New York (bringing in a second team to compete with Red Bulls without any real prospect of a stadium, six years on now), and even in Montreal (publicly dissing ownership). Even in a "small" market" like Columbus, Garber manipulated things to try to relocate the team to Texas. Sure he did the same in San Jose, but that was 15 years ago, before Fisher. What has Garber said or done since to make anyone think "Garber knows all about us and the potential for this market/team"?
I think they think MLS is too small for the Bay Area. Garber knows this is one of the biggest markets but he also know the Quakes are primarily attracting people from San Jose. Sure they could spend big bucks to attract the rest of the bay but Fisher doesn’t want to spend big and probably feels MLS in its current state isn’t worth spending that much money (e.g. it’s not sustainable to spend).
If Garber felt that way, he would be pushing for a team in San Francisco. Instead, he begrudgingly green-lighted one in Sacramento.