Here's something you don't see every day: a high-level professional sports team folding.

http://www.si.com/soccer/planet-futbol/2...ealignment

(10-27-2014 08:22 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  Here's something you don't see every day: a high-level professional sports team folding.

http://www.si.com/soccer/planet-futbol/2...ealignment

They're so High-Level that, I didn't even know they existed. Advertising dollars well spent.

MLS isn't quite the Big 3 or 4 (depending on where you are in North America). Still though, you'd think the Mexican fans of the team they're named after would have stayed behind them.

Chivas was the prime example of people not understanding the market.

Hey there are Mexicans in LA let's tie a team to a popular Mexican team.

Ok and so all the Mexicans who hate Chivas are going to buy tickets?
The US fans are going to waste money on a team that sort of sounds like a minor league affiliate of a Mexican team but aren't because the league owns the contracts and has to approve player shifting.
Oh have them share the stadium of the league's glamour team with the biggest name stars.

Stupid idea from the get go and the fact that the league is likely going to get at least $100 million for their replacement but the new owners did not want to buy the name or the players speaks volumes of how stupid the Chivas idea was.

Imagine the CFL saying Hey there are a lot of Americans in Toronto lets put a second team there and call it Cowboys CFL and use the Dallas Cowboys logo and uniform so those Americans will embrace the team.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

I could see the Tampa Bay Rays fold to get out of their lease. I guess MLB would have to buy them first, than fold them though but that probably brings some lawsuits.

Looks like the Chivas team is folding and a predetermined expansion team will replace them. An organized shut down in order to re-launch. Not a bad idea, well not as bad as trying to pander to the Mexicans in LA the first time around.

The re-launch will probably be named AC Liverpool United F.C. in order to pander to all the Eurosnobs.

The Chivas teams have been mismanaged for years. The ChivasUSA squad was run so badly that the league was quasi running the show before buying out it's owner. The same owner has the Chivas club in Mexico in a relagation battle to stay in the top flight Mexican futbol league.

New clubs in Orlando and New York City start next season. Atlanta the following year with several other cities/ownership groups looking to start MLS franchises. The league ain't hurting, but it needs to continue to improve it's on the field product.

Okay, so a 2nd LA team didn't work the first time... so they are going to relaunch another LA team in 3 years? That makes no sense to me. Instead of trying to build a team in the shadow of one of the league's flagship franchises, why not give San Diego or Phoenix a shot? Dumb, dumb, dumb.

(10-27-2014 11:43 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  Okay, so a 2nd LA team didn't work the first time... so they are going to relaunch another LA team in 3 years? That makes no sense to me. Instead of trying to build a team in the shadow of one of the league's flagship franchises, why not give San Diego or Phoenix a shot? Dumb, dumb, dumb.

I don't know much about soccer, but from what I've gleaned, it's not being in LA that was the problem; it was corrupt ownership, the "Chivas USA" name and racist policies such as only signing Mexican players that did the franchise in. Being a soccer team in America is hard enough without all the bad PR and alienating all but one demographic in the market. If the new owners are competent, I don't see why a new LA team is doomed for failure - LA has proven to be a two-team city in other sports.

(10-27-2014 08:22 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  Here's something you don't see every day: a high-level professional sports team folding.

http://www.si.com/soccer/planet-futbol/2...ealignment

I don't think most Europeans would consider this a "high-level professional sports team." To them this is probably analogous to a AA baseball team folding. And that happens all the time - at least, there's teams moving locations or affiliates almost every year.

(10-27-2014 11:43 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  Okay, so a 2nd LA team didn't work the first time... so they are going to relaunch another LA team in 3 years? That makes no sense to me. Instead of trying to build a team in the shadow of one of the league's flagship franchises, why not give San Diego or Phoenix a shot? Dumb, dumb, dumb.

Yeah, I agree. Even in LA, it can't support a 2nd soccer team. Its just not that popular of a sport in America to have 2 teams in 1 large city.
Yes, I see even the new club NYC FC doomed to fail with 2 NYC teams.
At least this will bring an even 10 to each conference. Houston and the new club Kansas City being put into the Western Conference is good.

(10-27-2014 08:28 PM)USFRamenu Wrote:  

(10-27-2014 08:22 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  Here's something you don't see every day: a high-level professional sports team folding.

http://www.si.com/soccer/planet-futbol/2...ealignment

They're so High-Level that, I didn't even know they existed. Advertising dollars well spent.

Thought the same thing. I've literally never heard of this team. To be fair, I probably couldn't name more than 5 mls teams either.

(10-27-2014 11:43 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  Okay, so a 2nd LA team didn't work the first time... so they are going to relaunch another LA team in 3 years? That makes no sense to me. Instead of trying to build a team in the shadow of one of the league's flagship franchises, why not give San Diego or Phoenix a shot? Dumb, dumb, dumb.

The New York Titans folded so NY can't support two NFL teams? The Dallas Texans (NFL) folded so Dallas can't support an NFL team?

MLS is less than 20 years old. They've folded Tampa, Miami, and 2nd LA. San Jose moved to Houston when they couldn't resolve their stadium issue and was replaced by a new San Jose.

The idea (bad) of Chivas was first to make them temporay tenants at the Galaxy's stadium in Carson. The operators (MLS doesn't truly have owners) were supposed to be in their own stadium in three to five years but the operators never really worked on it and at one point when pushed on the issue their idea was that Chivas was such a magnificent brand that would drive attendance every where they went, the league should free them from having a home stadium and they would train in LA but play a combination of road games and "neutral site" games against MLS team in cities that want MLS (so they would host Kansas City in say St. Louis). Needless to say that idea was not well received.

The Galaxy tried to push them out of their stadium but the league intervened.

FWIW, one of the rumors that has floated is that Stan Kroenke will be the new LA owner and the stadium will be on the land he purchased in LA.

The thing about MLS is you can be profitable drawing 17,000 or so a game over a 17 game home slate.

You put an LA team in an area where traveling to the StubHub Center in Carson isn't that easy to do, you have the potential for your own fan base. I know Pasadena, Glendale, Burbank, Sherman Oaks and Fullerton have been tossed around as sites at various times.

MLS is rid of a bad owner/operator and a ridiculous marketing strategy as well as incompetent player management. So that's a win.

When the NFL was about this old the teams were:
Washington Redskins, NY Giants, Pittsburgh Steelers, Philadelphia Eagles, Chicago Bears, Green Bay Packers, Detroit Lions, and the Cleveland Rams, Chicago Cardinals and Brooklyn Dodgers.

(10-28-2014 09:00 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(10-27-2014 08:22 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  Here's something you don't see every day: a high-level professional sports team folding.

http://www.si.com/soccer/planet-futbol/2...ealignment

I don't think most Europeans would consider this a "high-level professional sports team." To them this is probably analogous to a AA baseball team folding. And that happens all the time - at least, there's teams moving locations or affiliates almost every year.

Actually most Europeans are puzzling over why Montreal and San Jose weren't relegated to the NASL this year with Minnesota United and the San Antonio Scorpions replacing them.

Teams folding isn't that uncommon they have teams go into bankruptcy fairly frequently.

(10-27-2014 09:40 PM)bluesox Wrote:  I could see the Tampa Bay Rays fold to get out of their lease. I guess MLB would have to buy them first, than fold them though but that probably brings some lawsuits.

I don't think that we'll see any NFL, MLB or NBA franchise fold. Even the least valuable teams in those leagues are now worth way too much with their TV revenue regardless of local stadium issues. It doesn't behoove any owner to fold a team today since they can garner so much more by simply selling franchises on the open market. There are a whole lot more super rich people trying to buy pro sports franchises than there are pro franchises available.

Relocations, on the other hand, could certainly occur.

(10-28-2014 10:02 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-27-2014 11:43 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  Okay, so a 2nd LA team didn't work the first time... so they are going to relaunch another LA team in 3 years? That makes no sense to me. Instead of trying to build a team in the shadow of one of the league's flagship franchises, why not give San Diego or Phoenix a shot? Dumb, dumb, dumb.

The New York Titans folded so NY can't support two NFL teams? The Dallas Texans (NFL) folded so Dallas can't support an NFL team?

MLS is less than 20 years old. They've folded Tampa, Miami, and 2nd LA. San Jose moved to Houston when they couldn't resolve their stadium issue and was replaced by a new San Jose.

The idea (bad) of Chivas was first to make them temporay tenants at the Galaxy's stadium in Carson. The operators (MLS doesn't truly have owners) were supposed to be in their own stadium in three to five years but the operators never really worked on it and at one point when pushed on the issue their idea was that Chivas was such a magnificent brand that would drive attendance every where they went, the league should free them from having a home stadium and they would train in LA but play a combination of road games and "neutral site" games against MLS team in cities that want MLS (so they would host Kansas City in say St. Louis). Needless to say that idea was not well received.

The Galaxy tried to push them out of their stadium but the league intervened.

FWIW, one of the rumors that has floated is that Stan Kroenke will be the new LA owner and the stadium will be on the land he purchased in LA.

The thing about MLS is you can be profitable drawing 17,000 or so a game over a 17 game home slate.

You put an LA team in an area where traveling to the StubHub Center in Carson isn't that easy to do, you have the potential for your own fan base. I know Pasadena, Glendale, Burbank, Sherman Oaks and Fullerton have been tossed around as sites at various times.

MLS is rid of a bad owner/operator and a ridiculous marketing strategy as well as incompetent player management. So that's a win.

When the NFL was about this old the teams were:
Washington Redskins, NY Giants, Pittsburgh Steelers, Philadelphia Eagles, Chicago Bears, Green Bay Packers, Detroit Lions, and the Cleveland Rams, Chicago Cardinals and Brooklyn Dodgers.

I agree with this. A 2nd team in the LA market in and of itself is workable for MLS. It was simply that the Chivas USA strategy from unbelievably flawed from the get go.

(10-28-2014 12:26 AM)BoiseStateOfMind Wrote:  

(10-27-2014 11:43 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  Okay, so a 2nd LA team didn't work the first time... so they are going to relaunch another LA team in 3 years? That makes no sense to me. Instead of trying to build a team in the shadow of one of the league's flagship franchises, why not give San Diego or Phoenix a shot? Dumb, dumb, dumb.

I don't know much about soccer, but from what I've gleaned, it's not being in LA that was the problem; it was corrupt ownership, the "Chivas USA" name and racist policies such as only signing Mexican players that did the franchise in. Being a soccer team in America is hard enough without all the bad PR and alienating all but one demographic in the market. If the new owners are competent, I don't see why a new LA team is doomed for failure - LA has proven to be a two-team city in other sports.

And even at that, at least half of the Mexican demographic they were targeting were not Chivas fans and thus wouldn't support a team named for and affiliated with Chivas. Two teams in LA is definitely worthwhile given the size of the place and the support for soccer.

I think this Atlanta franchise is doomed from the start though. Atlanta just doesn't support pro sports all that well and I can't imagine it will support soccer in particular. Giving a team to Phoenix, San Diego, San Antonio or perhaps Raleigh/Durham or even Ottawa would have been smarter than Atlanta. I think the Miami team that pending a stadium deal is a go is a similar quagmire. Orlando with a soccer specific stadium will do just fine.

(10-28-2014 10:38 AM)brista21 Wrote:  

(10-28-2014 12:26 AM)BoiseStateOfMind Wrote:  

(10-27-2014 11:43 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  Okay, so a 2nd LA team didn't work the first time... so they are going to relaunch another LA team in 3 years? That makes no sense to me. Instead of trying to build a team in the shadow of one of the league's flagship franchises, why not give San Diego or Phoenix a shot? Dumb, dumb, dumb.

I don't know much about soccer, but from what I've gleaned, it's not being in LA that was the problem; it was corrupt ownership, the "Chivas USA" name and racist policies such as only signing Mexican players that did the franchise in. Being a soccer team in America is hard enough without all the bad PR and alienating all but one demographic in the market. If the new owners are competent, I don't see why a new LA team is doomed for failure - LA has proven to be a two-team city in other sports.

And even at that, at least half of the Mexican demographic they were targeting were not Chivas fans and thus wouldn't support a team named for and affiliated with Chivas. Two teams in LA is definitely worthwhile given the size of the place and the support for soccer.

I think this Atlanta franchise is doomed from the start though. Atlanta just doesn't support pro sports all that well and I can't imagine it will support soccer in particular. Giving a team to Phoenix, San Diego, San Antonio or perhaps Raleigh/Durham or even Ottawa would have been smarter than Atlanta. I think the Miami team that pending a stadium deal is a go is a similar quagmire. Orlando with a soccer specific stadium will do just fine.

Atlanta's NASL team averages about 4,000. Indianapolis is tops in the NASL in attendance but you never hear much about anyone in NASL going to MLS other than San Antonio and occasionally Tampa and Carolina.

I don't think sharing a stadium with the other LA team was a big issue, to be honest. The Staples Center is home to four teams and has worked just fine for all involved. The Giants and Jets share MetLife Stadium with no major issues. If Chivas' owners had focused on putting out a good product instead of a racist gimmick, I doubt anyone would have cared about the stadium situation.

Again, though, I'm not a soccer fan and don't know much about the sport. Maybe I'm wrong.

(10-28-2014 10:02 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-27-2014 11:43 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  Okay, so a 2nd LA team didn't work the first time... so they are going to relaunch another LA team in 3 years? That makes no sense to me. Instead of trying to build a team in the shadow of one of the league's flagship franchises, why not give San Diego or Phoenix a shot? Dumb, dumb, dumb.

The New York Titans folded so NY can't support two NFL teams? The Dallas Texans (NFL) folded so Dallas can't support an NFL team?

MLS is less than 20 years old. They've folded Tampa, Miami, and 2nd LA. San Jose moved to Houston when they couldn't resolve their stadium issue and was replaced by a new San Jose.

The idea (bad) of Chivas was first to make them temporay tenants at the Galaxy's stadium in Carson. The operators (MLS doesn't truly have owners) were supposed to be in their own stadium in three to five years but the operators never really worked on it and at one point when pushed on the issue their idea was that Chivas was such a magnificent brand that would drive attendance every where they went, the league should free them from having a home stadium and they would train in LA but play a combination of road games and "neutral site" games against MLS team in cities that want MLS (so they would host Kansas City in say St. Louis). Needless to say that idea was not well received.

The Galaxy tried to push them out of their stadium but the league intervened.

FWIW, one of the rumors that has floated is that Stan Kroenke will be the new LA owner and the stadium will be on the land he purchased in LA.

The thing about MLS is you can be profitable drawing 17,000 or so a game over a 17 game home slate.

You put an LA team in an area where traveling to the StubHub Center in Carson isn't that easy to do, you have the potential for your own fan base. I know Pasadena, Glendale, Burbank, Sherman Oaks and Fullerton have been tossed around as sites at various times.

MLS is rid of a bad owner/operator and a ridiculous marketing strategy as well as incompetent player management. So that's a win.

When the NFL was about this old the teams were:
Washington Redskins, NY Giants, Pittsburgh Steelers, Philadelphia Eagles, Chicago Bears, Green Bay Packers, Detroit Lions, and the Cleveland Rams, Chicago Cardinals and Brooklyn Dodgers.

Kroenke will not be part of the new LA2 ownership group, not without selling the Rapids anyway. We will find out Thursday for sure who the new ownership team is, and possibly where they are building their new stadium. The suspected lead investor is Henry Nguyen, a venture capitalist in Vietnam, along with Vincent Tan owner of Cardiff City in the English Second Division, and Peter Guber co-owner of the Golden State Warriors, and LA Dodgers.

Arkstfan did a nice job summarizing the pitfalls of Chivas USA. MLS originally wanted to keep the team running and have it transition to a new ownership group and rebrand. That however proved to be simply not possible in the time constraints.

This is ultimately best for the league, as it allows consolidation at 20 teams next season (which is one more than this season thanks to new teams in New York and Orlando), and then until 2017 when LA2 relaunches along with the incoming Atlanta team.

This is being discussed in more detail both credible rumors, and wild speculation over at bigsoccer. You will find me therein as 'edwardgr'