PDA

View Full Version : Goodbye Chivas



kodiakTFC
02-20-2014, 04:10 PM
NEW YORK (February 20, 2014) – Major League Soccer today announced it has purchased Chivas USA from Jorge Vergara and Angelica Fuentes. Effective immediately, MLS will assume responsibility for operating the club. MLS will appoint an experienced sports executive shortly to serve as the president of Chivas USA during this interim period. Head coach Wilmer Cabrera, who joined the club January 9, will continue in his position and report to the new president.
In the coming months, the league will resell the club to a new ownership group that will be committed to building a new stadium and keeping the team in Los Angeles. The league has had initial discussions with a number of very qualified potential owners and intends to finalize an agreement with a new group sometime this year.
The club will play as Chivas USA during the 2014 MLS season and will be rebranded with a new team name and logo in connection with the sale to a new owner.
Under the terms of the purchase agreement, Mr. Vergara and Ms. Fuentes retain all branding and licensing rights to the Chivas name with MLS permitted to continue using the Chivas USA brand name on a transitional basis.
“We thank Jorge Vergara and Angelica Fuentes for their significant commitment to Major League Soccer,” MLS Commissioner Don Garber said. “Jorge was an early believer in the league and he and Angelica have been great partners in MLS. We collectively agreed that it is best to sell the club to new owners who are committed to securing a new stadium and providing MLS with a strong rival for the LA Galaxy.”
Vergara was part of the original ownership group that purchased an expansion team that began play in 2005, and he and Fuentes became sole owners of the club in 2012.
“When Angelica and I gained full operational control of the team for the first time 15 months ago, we were hopeful we would be able to turn it around,” said Mr. Vergara. “However, there is only one Chivas de Guadalajara, and we have realized that it will require more time, further resources, and a level of commitment that would divert too much of our focus from our other business interests. We explored opportunities to sell to other groups, but we believe selling the franchise to MLS on an expedited basis is in the best interests of all parties, including the team’s players and its dedicated fans.
"MLS has assured us they are committed to keeping the club in Los Angeles and finding the right owners to make the team successful in the future. We greatly appreciate the leadership and collaboration of Don Garber and his colleagues at MLS, which resulted in an efficient transaction that benefits all the parties involved.”
In connection with the sale of the club to a new owner, MLS also will lead the discussions for a new stadium that would serve as the new home for the team. The club has played its home games at the StubHub Center in Carson, Calif., since debuting in 2005 and will continue to play there in 2014.
Chivas USA open the 2014 MLS season on March 9 when they host the Chicago Fire.

MartinUtd
02-20-2014, 04:17 PM
Wow.. didn't think it'd happen like this.

So what will the new team be? LA Barcelonas?

Super
02-20-2014, 04:17 PM
Great and necessary move by the league. Hopefully they will find a great, new owner to take on the club. Also, I hope they will abandon the Chivas concept and go in a different, more generic direction. Los Angeles FC - type of thing.

ryan
02-20-2014, 04:18 PM
I hated the whole concept of "Chivas USA". Glad this is being done.

Hopefully it doesn't take them too long to get a new stadium up and running so they can have fans on a "school night".

Ivy
02-20-2014, 04:21 PM
Wasn't there talk on twitter a few days ago that Chivas applied for right to "Los Angeles FC" and "Los Angeles SC", as well as 2 logos? The writing was on the wall...

tfcleeds
02-20-2014, 04:32 PM
I liked the Chivas concept until I found out they weren't talking about a brand of Canadian whiskey. Hello Los Angeles FC, I guess.

MartinUtd
02-20-2014, 04:44 PM
Wasn't there talk on twitter a few days ago that Chivas applied for right to "Los Angeles FC" and "Los Angeles SC", as well as 2 logos? The writing was on the wall...

Just reports of patents being filed, no word on who but chances are it's MLS and not a PDL start up.

Personally I want to see Southern California Soccer Club or SC² for short.

Oldtimer
02-20-2014, 04:45 PM
If it weren't for revenue-sharing, Chivas would have disappeared 8 years ago.

MartinUtd
02-20-2014, 04:45 PM
I liked the Chivas concept until I found out they weren't talking about a brand of Canadian whiskey. Hello Los Angeles FC, I guess.

lol, soooo much cooler than an energy drink

Huyton
02-20-2014, 04:53 PM
Wow.. didn't think it'd happen like this.

So what will the new team be? LA Barcelonas?

Olympic LA?

Detroit_TFC
02-20-2014, 04:58 PM
I'm sure Garber didn't want to have to do this, but it really needed to be done (ideally should have happened before the tv deal got done).

Now the guessing game starts as to who buys the franchise. If its Stan Kroenke, that will be a massive let down. If it is, hopefully he sells the Rapids to an ownership group willing to do more with the team.

OgtheDim
02-20-2014, 05:06 PM
Kroenke comes to mind here....he has been getting the land together for an NFL stadium. Sell the Rapids or sell some land.


The mlssoccer.com comments are always good for a laugh. All these people from San Diego and San Antonio saying LA can't support 2 teams. They've got 14 million people in LA metro.

Red CB Toronto
02-20-2014, 05:22 PM
Kroenke comes to mind here....he has been getting the land together for an NFL stadium. Sell the Rapids or sell some land.


The mlssoccer.com comments are always good for a laugh. All these people from San Diego and San Antonio saying LA can't support 2 teams. They've got 14 million people in LA metro.

Kroenke could not purchase them as he is now the majority of the St. Louis Rams. He actually sold the Rapids and Avs to his son.

flatpicker
02-20-2014, 05:41 PM
Wasn't there talk on twitter a few days ago that Chivas applied for right to "Los Angeles FC" and "Los Angeles SC", as well as 2 logos? The writing was on the wall...

My post from the other day in the MLS news thread:


Chivas USA heading for rebrand? Trademarks reportedly filed, new logos leaked (http://prosoccertalk.nbcsports.com/2014/02/17/chivas-usa-heading-for-rebrand-trademarks-reportedly-filed-new-logos-leaked/)

nbcsports.com

http://nbcprosoccertalk.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/imageagentproxy.jpg
http://nbcprosoccertalk.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/imageagentproxy1.jpg

ryan
02-20-2014, 06:19 PM
Los Angeles FC? Great, another club name for announcers to annoyingly state it during broadcasts as....Los Angeles *activate booming Monster Truck Rally Voice* EFF SEA

ensco
02-20-2014, 07:05 PM
Beckham obviously had no interest in this. Which is interesting.

If they do stay in LA, they need to rebrand as the Aztecs. That name has a lot of history there.

I don't really believe Garber, though, he is saying what he has to say but I suspect the team is moving out of LA.

Anaheim is too close to Carson, and baseball and soccer don't coexist well, football is the more logical co-tenant. Maybe San Diego? Indoor soccer was big there (raise your hand if you remember Branko Segota!) and Qualcomm is a decent venue for soccer, big-time friendlies have been played there.

tfcleeds
02-20-2014, 08:24 PM
Anaheim is too close to Carson, and baseball and soccer don't coexist well, football is the more logical co-tenant. Maybe San Diego? Indoor soccer was big there (raise your hand if you remember Branko Segota!) and Qualcomm is a decent venue for soccer, big-time friendlies have been played there.

San Diego Sockers! Yes, a team there would be fitting enough. Close enough in proximity too.

Red CB Toronto
02-20-2014, 08:51 PM
I know it is quite different, but could NYCFC face some of the same obstacles that Chivas faced, by being directly tied to another club?

ensco
02-20-2014, 09:19 PM
I know it is quite different, but could NYCFC face some of the same obstacles that Chivas faced, by being directly tied to another club?

If they play in Harrison and have cheapskate ownership, then the same thing will happen, sure.

brad
02-20-2014, 09:23 PM
If they play in Harrison and have cheapskate ownership, then the same thing will happen, sure.

No worries about either. I have a feelin NYCFC's DP spending is going to make ours look like peanuts.

Areathrasher
02-20-2014, 09:43 PM
Beckham obviously had no interest in this. Which is interesting.

If they do stay in LA, they need to rebrand as the Aztecs. That name has a lot of history there.

I don't really believe Garber, though, he is saying what he has to say but I suspect the team is moving out of LA.

Anaheim is too close to Carson, and baseball and soccer don't coexist well, football is the more logical co-tenant. Maybe San Diego? Indoor soccer was big there (raise your hand if you remember Branko Segota!) and Qualcomm is a decent venue for soccer, big-time friendlies have been played there.

I thought that myself but NASL owns the rights to the name. Doubt they do MLS a favour and sell it to them.

Cashcleaner
02-21-2014, 02:28 AM
Kroenke comes to mind here....he has been getting the land together for an NFL stadium. Sell the Rapids or sell some land.


The mlssoccer.com comments are always good for a laugh. All these people from San Diego and San Antonio saying LA can't support 2 teams. They've got 14 million people in LA metro.

Population alone should never be used as an indicator of a potential market or fanbase. If LA was such a slam-dunk market capable of supporting two clubs, then Chivas probably wouldn't be in its current position.

Honestly, I think staying in LA is such a bad move for the club. I really don't understand Garber's decision here. I say MLS should just stamp a big sticker on the map shading all of the LA area as "Galaxy Territory" and be done with it. If the league wants to stay in California that's fine and all, but maybe consider San Diego or perhaps Sacramento where plans have been underway for a while to hook a franchise.

http://www.sacrepublicfc.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/sac-republic-brand-unveiled-feature-645x220.png

http://www.sacrepublicfc.com/sacramento-aims-to-be-part-of-mls-expansion-plans/#.Uwb-24UWnnQ

Fort York Redcoat
02-21-2014, 08:59 AM
Kroenke could not purchase them as he is now the majority of the St. Louis Rams. He actually sold the Rapids and Avs to his son.

Could the LA Gunners be property of a son?

Oldtimer
02-21-2014, 09:33 AM
I thought that myself but NASL owns the rights to the name. Doubt they do MLS a favour and sell it to them.

The current NASL does not own the rights to any of the old NASL (went bankrupt in 1983) club names.

Haddy
02-21-2014, 09:49 AM
Maybe San Diego?

That's Xolos territory now. Club Tijuana is in the midst of a massive expansion to Estadio Caliente (turf in Mexico??) because of the loyal San Diego crowd that keeps driving down.

Areathrasher
02-21-2014, 10:11 AM
The current NASL does not own the rights to any of the old NASL (went bankrupt in 1983) club names.

Search the US Govt trademark site and see who owns the rights ;)

Red CB Toronto
02-21-2014, 10:44 AM
The current NASL does not own the rights to any of the old NASL (went bankrupt in 1983) club names.

Are the old NASL logos individual owned? On the subject of NASL trademarks , does anyone own the Blizzard right now, I am curious.

Brooker
02-21-2014, 10:45 AM
Alaska?

ag futbol
02-21-2014, 10:51 AM
I see no reason why they have to leave LA. In fact, the huge amount of sprawl and traffic issues in the area easily lend itself to placing a franchise in another corner of the city. East LA has been suggested before or something just off DT which is starting to be revitalized. Clearly they should not be playing out of the same venue.


Beckham obviously had no interest in this. Which is interesting.

FWIW, rumor was Beckham's deal specifically excluded NY and LA as potential markets.

Areathrasher
02-21-2014, 11:00 AM
Beckham didn't get the discount if he chose NY or LA. He could have but would have paid full whack for it.

Oldtimer
02-21-2014, 11:26 AM
Are the old NASL logos individual owned? On the subject of NASL trademarks , does anyone own the Blizzard right now, I am curious.

I don't know, you'd have to check. The names/logos were owned by the individual clubs. In the case of clubs that more or less continued (Whitecaps, Timbers, Sounders) they assigned the copyright to MLS when they joined. In some cases (e.g. the Cosmos), an individual kept up the copyright listing because the name had potential value. In other cases the copyright has expired and anyone could register the old NASL name.

Back to the current situation...
With Chivas, it's more complex as the Mexican club holds the rights and has allowed MLS to use it (with a "USA" added). Undoubtedly MLS has to give up that name now.

Villa TFC
02-21-2014, 12:20 PM
As far as I can remember, the final owner of the Toronto Blizzard was Karsten von Wersebe. He had the team when it ran out of leagues in which to play following the NASL, NSL, CSL and the APSL. I would bet quite strongly that he still owns the Blizzard name and logo.

SilverSamurai
02-21-2014, 12:37 PM
I liked the Chivas concept until I found out they weren't talking about a brand of Canadian whiskey. Hello Los Angeles FC, I guess.
LOL

lol, soooo much cooler than an energy drink
Red Rain anyone? ;)
Can't say I'm a fan of the new logo and prefer this older one...
http://revimgs.bevnet.com/media/red_rain/images/red.rain1.jpg

Population alone should never be used as an indicator of a potential market or fanbase. If LA was such a slam-dunk market capable of supporting two clubs, then Chivas probably wouldn't be in its current position.

Honestly, I think staying in LA is such a bad move for the club. I really don't understand Garber's decision here. I say MLS should just stamp a big sticker on the map shading all of the LA area as "Galaxy Territory" and be done with it. If the league wants to stay in California that's fine and all, but maybe consider San Diego or perhaps Sacramento where plans have been underway for a while to hook a franchise.

http://www.sacrepublicfc.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/sac-republic-brand-unveiled-feature-645x220.png

http://www.sacrepublicfc.com/sacramento-aims-to-be-part-of-mls-expansion-plans/#.Uwb-24UWnnQ
Huge +1!!!

But really, it's about time.
Calling it Chivas, was a huge mistake IMO.
Great way to alienate a large portion of potential fans.

Yohan
02-21-2014, 12:46 PM
http://www.thegoatparade.com/2014/2/20/5431762/the-lowlights-10-lowest-moments-of-the-vergara-era-at-chivas-usa

amusing

Initial B
02-21-2014, 01:19 PM
Why not move Chivas to somewhere else in the Southwest, say San Diego, Phoenix or Las Vegas? Cede LA to the Galaxy for now. Or maybe rename them Athletico LA.

GuelphStorm2007
02-21-2014, 01:27 PM
How about relocate out of L.A. Like San Diego or somewere rebrand your self and star over I believe someone said do not be surprised if the Cosmos may have the same fate in years to come...

Yohan
02-21-2014, 02:34 PM
Chivas USA signs ex Swansea and Villa striker Luke Moore

http://www.mlssoccer.com/news/article/2014/02/21/report-chivas-usa-complete-deal-english-forward-luke-moore

TOBOR !
02-21-2014, 02:36 PM
*sigh* it's a bit of our history, though, isn't it ?

We played our very first MLS regular season game against them, oh, so long ago.

http://soccernet-assets.espn.go.com/design05/mediaUS/20070406/mulrooney_205.jpg

loads of pics here, if you're interested : http://112575.photoshelter.com/gallery/2007-MLS-Soccer-Chivas-USA-vs-Toronto-FC-April-7-2007/G0000s_ZBqeJgo1k/C0000njTKrWmyp5w

Yohan
02-21-2014, 02:41 PM
Why not move Chivas to somewhere else in the Southwest, say San Diego, Phoenix or Las Vegas? Cede LA to the Galaxy for now. Or maybe rename them Athletico LA.
the biggest thing for rebrand Chivas USA is to find own stadium. LA is big enough for 2 teams. I suspect Garber is going for Lakers vs Clippers thing. The new owner gets into 2nd biggest market in US, and almost complete new team with a rebrand, considering Chivas USA brand is near worthless.

Ron Manager
02-21-2014, 02:53 PM
*sigh* it's a bit of our history, though, isn't it ?

We played our very first MLS regular season game against them, oh, so long ago.

http://soccernet-assets.espn.go.com/design05/mediaUS/20070406/mulrooney_205.jpg

loads of pics here, if you're interested : http://112575.photoshelter.com/gallery/2007-MLS-Soccer-Chivas-USA-vs-Toronto-FC-April-7-2007/G0000s_ZBqeJgo1k/C0000njTKrWmyp5w

Interesting pics. Quite a few of those players went on to bigger than MLS type careers (Guzan, Kjlestan).........none of them were wearing Toronto shirts.

Ahh the good old days of Reda, Buddle, Boyens, Welsh, Lombardo. Really underlines just how much work we did this off season as we weren't really much better last year then 2007. Scary.

TOBOR !
02-21-2014, 03:00 PM
There's a great pic of Conor Casey there as well.

I know we had him on the books, but I never remembered him taking the field for us.

He doesn't look at all happy. Was he off to Colorado straight after the game ?

edit - nvm : Wiki says
After being released by Mainz, Casey returned to America and signed with Major League Soccer. Casey was originally allocated to Toronto FC [3] and after 2 games with 0 goals and 0 assists, he was traded to his hometown club, Colorado Rapids, on April 19, 2007, in exchange for Riley O'Neill and an undisclosed amount of allocation money

tfcleeds
02-21-2014, 03:11 PM
There's a great pic of Conor Casey there as well. I know we had him on the books, but I never remembered him taking the field for us. He doesn't look at all happy. Was he off to Colorado straight after the game ? edit - nvm : Wiki says Pretty sure he had two appearances for us. Paulo Nagamura had four (left us right after the home opener, haha). There's video highlights of that first match on Youtube - funny how we actually had a few chances in the first half.

Areathrasher
02-21-2014, 03:21 PM
I don't know, you'd have to check. The names/logos were owned by the individual clubs. In the case of clubs that more or less continued (Whitecaps, Timbers, Sounders) they assigned the copyright to MLS when they joined. In some cases (e.g. the Cosmos), an individual kept up the copyright listing because the name had potential value. In other cases the copyright has expired and anyone could register the old NASL name.

Back to the current situation...
With Chivas, it's more complex as the Mexican club holds the rights and has allowed MLS to use it (with a "USA" added). Undoubtedly MLS has to give up that name now.
This isnt't true.

The current NASL has been buying up the rights to the old names over the last few years. LA Azetecs, Dallas Tornados, Chicago Sting and Tampa Bay Rowdies are all trademarked by NASL. A quick search here http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=searchss&state=4807:thmvr8.1.1 shows this.




Word Mark
L.A. AZTECS


Goods and Services
IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: Organizing sporting events, namely, soccer matches, competitions, and exhibitions in which a soccer team referred to as the L.A. AZTECS is a participant or is featured; programming, production, and distribution of radio and television programs of soccer matches, competitions, and exhibitions in which a soccer team referred to as the L.A. AZTECS is a participant or is featured; production and distribution of films featuring soccer matches, competitions, and exhibitions in which a soccer team referred to as the L.A. AZTECS is a participant or is featured; production of CDs and DVDs featuring soccer matches, competitions, and exhibitions in which a soccer team referred to as the L.A. AZTECS is a participant or is featured; programming, production and distribution of television programs, radio programs and continuing non-downloadable internet programs featuring soccer matches, competitions, and exhibitions via the Internet in which a soccer team referred to as the L.A. AZTECS is a participant or is featured; providing a web site featuring information about soccer and soccer matches, competitions, and exhibitions in which a soccer team referred to as the L.A. AZTECS is a participant or is featured; publication of printed matter relating to a soccer team referred to as the L.A. AZTECS; soccer fan club services relating to a soccer team referred to as the L.A. AZTECS; conducting soccer training camps and clinics in which representatives of a soccer team referred to as the L.A. AZTECS participate or are featured; ticket reservation and booking services for soccer matches, competitions, and exhibitions in which a soccer team referred to as the L.A. AZTECS is a participant or is featured


Mark Drawing Code
(3) DESIGN PLUS WORDS, LETTERS, AND/OR NUMBERS


Design Search Code
03.15.19 - Birds or bats in flight or with outspread wings
03.15.24 - Stylized birds and bats


Serial Number
85559027


Filing Date
March 2, 2012


Current Basis
1B


Original Filing Basis
1B


Published for Opposition
August 14, 2012


Owner
(APPLICANT) North American Soccer League, LLC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY DELAWARE c/o Miami FC 501 Brickell Key Drive, Suite 407 Miami FLORIDA 33131


Attorney of Record
Sarah M. Robertson


Disclaimer
NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE "L.A." APART FROM THE MARK AS SHOWN


Description of Mark
Color is not claimed as a feature of the mark. The mark consists of a bird with outstretched wings underneath the words "L.A. AZTECS".


Type of Mark
SERVICE MARK


Register
PRINCIPAL


Live/Dead Indicator
LIVE

Oldtimer
02-21-2014, 04:31 PM
This isnt't true.

The current NASL has been buying up the rights to the old names over the last few years. LA Azetecs, Dallas Tornados, Chicago Sting and Tampa Bay Rowdies are all trademarked by NASL. A quick search here http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=searchss&state=4807:thmvr8.1.1 shows this.

Interesting.... and quite clever of them to buy/re-register the old names. However that's only 4 out of a league of two dozen teams.

Red CB Toronto
02-21-2014, 04:35 PM
Pretty sure he had two appearances for us. Paulo Nagamura had four (left us right after the home opener, haha). There's video highlights of that first match on Youtube - funny how we actually had a few chances in the first half.

Yes he played two games for the Reds, Connor was actually kind enough to sign my two TFC photos when he was in town once.

Redcoe15
02-21-2014, 06:00 PM
Considering that MLS is going to debut a second team in the larget metro city in the United States next year, I highly doubt they're going to let the country's second largest metro city lose its second MLS team anytime soon, if ever. I definetly see a rebranding of the team towards Los Angeles. or even Anaheim/Orange County if they put a stadium there.

Yohan
02-23-2014, 02:18 PM
http://www.thegoatparade.com/2014/2/22/5436682/details-emerge-purchase-price-chivas-usa-recent-mls-involvement-70-million-25-million

james
03-01-2014, 05:11 PM
I just saw this thread now. I knew this would probably happen at some point, Chivas barely had any fans at games in recent years. The thing is yes many people live in Los Angeles at 3.8 million people, or counting surrounding suburbs you can say 9million, 12million even some say 15million depending how far of a distance you count as "Metro Population". But the thing is Los Angeles is not a densely populated city like New York, Chicago or even Toronto. Los Angeles is very spread out over a very large amount of land. Having 2 teams in the same stadium meant they were really only serving the same area of fans twice, which wasn't as much people as you may think. They need to either move out to an entirely different part of town to serve new fans that were much further away from LA Galaxy territory or move to an entire new city. Maybe San Diego,St.Louis, Florida?

Yohan
03-01-2014, 05:18 PM
Chivas USA is not moving out of LA. the Don said so

Yohan
04-19-2014, 12:34 PM
http://www.thegoatparade.com/2014/4/18/5630202/rumor-chivas-usa-new-owner-to-be-announced-after-world-cup-san-cadilla-la-aztecs

PopePouri
04-19-2014, 01:40 PM
http://www.thegoatparade.com/2014/4/18/5630202/rumor-chivas-usa-new-owner-to-be-announced-after-world-cup-san-cadilla-la-aztecs
Yes! More sports brands based on a racial epithet.

Ossington Mental Youth
04-19-2014, 07:29 PM
I dont see how thats an epithet, id be curious to see if Mexicans find it offensive