PDA

View Full Version : Report: MLS to expand to Salt Lake City



iceblizzard69
07-12-2004, 03:23 PM
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/headlinenews?id=304871&cc=5901

I would have prefered Seattle or Rochester to get the second team in 2005, but I think both cities will get teams in the next few years.

Prime Time
07-12-2004, 05:16 PM
So I guess MLS is doing good then? I mean you don't expand If you aren't doin' good?

iceblizzard69
07-12-2004, 06:11 PM
So I guess MLS is doing good then? I mean you don't expand If you aren't doin' good?

MLS is expanding because they make more money by doing so. The owners in SLC have enough money to buy a franchise so the MLS is going for it. One problem with the league is that if there is money, they will take it. The owner of Chivas, a famous xenophobic Mexican club, wanted to buy an MLS team so of course, the MLS is giving him one. They are probably going to play at the Home Depot Center in LA which was supposed to be the Galaxy's stadium and the "home of American soccer." The stadium is now going to be known as Chivas USA's home and will now be looked at as "the home of Mexican soccer in America." I think there are benefits to having Chivas USA, they will attract a lot of fans which will help the league make money. However, I wouldn't be happy if I was a Galaxy fan. Also, I will be really pissed if the MLS lets Chivas USA have more international players than the other teams. They better have the same rules as everyone else.

I'm not so sure if Salt Lake City will be a good place for soccer. The MLS is going there because the money is there. The best place to expand would be Rochester. They are building a soccer specific stadium and get 10000 fans a game for A-League games which is phenominal. I think they will get a team by 2006.

I think the MLS will benefit a lot from Chivas USA, but I do think the league will do pretty much anything to make money even if it is bad for American soccer. The Galaxy probably have the best fans in the league and they are getting screwed.

iceblizzard69
07-14-2004, 11:13 AM
The Press Conference to announce expansion to SLC is today at 1 PM EST.

Here are some pictures of the stadium they will play at (Rice-Eccles Stadium which is also where the University of Utah plays football)

http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2004/07/ussoccer062403d-1.jpg

The stadium holds a little more than 45,000. Obviously they will never get that many but it isn't too big unlike Giants Stadium (when 20,000 show up, it looks totally empty). The stadium will still look relatively empty when 20,000 show up but it won't look as bad as some other stadiums do. Also, the view is really nice. The biggest problem with this stadium is that it has FieldTurf instead of natural grass. :(

Dolfan02
07-16-2004, 06:33 PM
If you ask me, the MLS couldn't have made a more self-destructing move than this one.

Everything about these 2 "expansion" teams is sickening.

MLS allows a Mexican investor to open the flood gates for foreigners to hijack our league and stamp their own brands in MLS only because they're throwing money in the face. I'm not buying into this "they bring more fans". That's the biggest BS I've ever heard. After 2-3 years, these extremist loyal Mexican-brand-only soccer fans will soon realize that "Chivas of USA" is exactly what it's going to be... an American team with a Mexican-brand on it. And they're going to bag the team and go back to supporting their previous Mexican team, then the team will collaspe because you already have LA Galaxy in the same market. This is only one of the many backlashes that this team will have.

Salt Lake City? Ridiculous. A city which throws it's name into the mix virtually in the last minute is going to get the 2nd expansion team. This is a total slap in the face to Seattle, Rochester, and Philadelphia with established fan support for soccer. SLC is a fraction of what MLS could be gaining by expanding to a city that most Americans can identify with and which would actually be a rival town.

MLS is not "expanding" by creating a 2nd L.A. team and a secluded mountain team... MLS is folding.

iceblizzard69
07-16-2004, 07:16 PM
If you ask me, the MLS couldn't have made a more self-destructing move than this one.

Everything about these 2 "expansion" teams is sickening.

MLS allows a Mexican investor to open the flood gates for foreigners to hijack our league and stamp their own brands in MLS only because they're throwing money in the face. I'm not buying into this "they bring more fans". That's the biggest BS I've ever heard. After 2-3 years, these extremist loyal Mexican-brand-only soccer fans will soon realize that "Chivas of USA" is exactly what it's going to be... an American team with a Mexican-brand on it. And they're going to bag the team and go back to supporting their previous Mexican team, then the team will collaspe because you already have LA Galaxy in the same market. This is only one of the many backlashes that this team will have.

Salt Lake City? Ridiculous. A city which throws it's name into the mix virtually in the last minute is going to get the 2nd expansion team. This is a total slap in the face to Seattle, Rochester, and Philadelphia with established fan support for soccer. SLC is a fraction of what MLS could be gaining by expanding to a city that most Americans can identify with and which would actually be a rival town.

MLS is not "expanding" by creating a 2nd L.A. team and a secluded mountain team... MLS is folding.

There are a lot of Mexicans in this country and espicially in the Los Angeles area who love soccer. Chivas USA will attract many Mexican fans. People who support Chivas USA will still support their club team in Mexico, with many of those people being supporters of the Chivas club in Mexico. Chivas USA will lead the league in attendance next year. The LA Galaxy will still do well in

SLC got the team because of money. They had the money so MLS is expanding there. I don't think it is the best place, but Rochester isn't going to have their stadium finished by the start of next season and Seattle doesn't have the money. I don't think SLC is the best place to expand, but having 11 teams next year would have been horrible. We had to do something, and the owners of SLC plan on building their own stadium, so it wasn't a horrible idea. My main concern with the move there is if they will have the fanbase to support a club, we will soon find out the answer to that one.