Being an optimist here....if SJ gets a new team in 2007 or 2008 with a local owner, a SSS, and being out of the AEG umbrella, will the loss of the 2006 season (and perhaps the 2007 season) and the loss current players as memebers of the team be worth it? Basically, would you trade the current team and one or two seasons of no soccer for a SSS and a committed local team owner? I hate to say it, but I would.
I appreciate the question but, especially in this time when feelings of loss and sentimentalism are so strong, I hate to think of "sacrificing" OUR guys (the great people that they are) for a material object like a stadium and/or a team in a league that has shown its direction is wayward, at best. Take our beloved boys out of the equation and here is my feeling... ...my family and I loved nothing more than going to Quakes' games--to be with our friends, to yell for our team and to have fun. It meant so much to my daughter that when issues of discipline would arise in our house, the big "trump card" we would play was to threaten that if she didn't behave, she would not get to go to the next game. The success rate was an immediate 100%. (God help us now ) If we were to get a new stadium and a committed local owner, I would love to again experience all of the pleasure Earthquakes' soccer brought my family. It would be a bitter pill to realize that I would simultaneously be supporting the stupid MLS but then, I was begrudgingly doing that for the past few years under AEG anyway. The way I see it, to deny myself Earthquakes' soccer in a beautiful new building with local owners who won't look to screw us would only be punishing me....MLS will go on, with or without my $$$. So, I would rather get on board and try to support our new team.....and when the Houston Anonymous come to town for the first time, I'll be on my feet applauding/thanking every one of those guys for the many great times they gave us. IMO, they are still our boys to a degree.
This is just not something to get enthusiastic about, and here's why: The "trade" you're suggesting is called trading for a pig in a poke. It's an invisible thing, nothing more than a promise, really. And a promise is only worth the value of the word of the man making it. And in this case, you have a cast full of tricksters, scoundrels and clowns on the other side of the table. So, no - I would never contemplate such a trade for more than a brief instant. This lady sums it up so well right here, her analysis can't be improved upon: http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/13429258.htm These are the people we're dealing with. The story's over. Sorry.