Talk:Los Angeles Galaxy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] New 2008 Home Kit
Someone should create an image of the new Galaxy home kits for 2008 to replace last season's. worldsoccershop.com and the galaxy.com store has photos of the new kit up. The old, navy away kits will still be used in 2008. Manutdglory (talk) 23:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] "Gals"
RM'd from the nickname section, but I'm putting it back. I put it there in the first place, 'cause people really do use it. At the BigSoccer LA forum alone, there's 174 uses ([1]) - it's not just a derogatory nickname given to them by other teams. It's more common than "The Sash" - no? Bill Oaf 20:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Beckham
I fixed the section regarding Beckham's contract. The $250 million is a misnomer, that's including his outside endorsements and a profitsharing agreement. SirFozzie 00:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Here's the source: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/soccer/01/11/bc.soccer.beckham.contract/
$50m for Beckham.
Try closer to $250m.
How on Earth can a figure have a misnomer? Dictionaries aside for a moment, this is correct, the $250m figure currently circulating represents more than just basic salary. The $50m constitutes about £100,000/week which is arguably much more than any European club would pay an ex-international well past his prime. --JamesTheNumberless 10:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- According to this breakdown the BBC [2], Beckham's club derived income (merchandising, salary, profit share) is estimated at $30 mill pa. I can't believe for a second that he would throw his life away like this if his annual club income was only $10 mill- that is probably slightly less than what he gets now at Madrid. $30 mill sounds distinctly more plausible. Badgerpatrol 10:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Still, his salary is only $10 million a year. and coming to the US is not "Throwing his life away" (rolls eyes) SirFozzie 13:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- For modern major sports contracts, the actual salary is often not even the largest single component of the deal. The contract will include definitely include payment clauses for merchandising, and it seems for a profit-share agreement also. And yes, I misphrased that- meant to say "throwing his career away", not throwing his life away....same difference really. In any event, $10 "mill pa is similar or slihgtly less than he would have got for staying at Madrid or moving elsewhere in Europe- I doubt he would move to the US on that basis, even if he has basically now given up the football side of his career. Badgerpatrol 14:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- For Footy, maybe (and again, MLS isn't as bad as you insinuate), and again, when reporting on hard #'s, that's all we can go by, what's guaranteed (for example, it's going to be hard for him to earn the 10 million a year for profitsharing with the Galaxy, as they were one of the few teams to report a profit from ANY season recently. See List of largest sports contracts, that is all hard salary only, no shirt sales (Most US players get their share through their Players Asociation), and not endorsements. SirFozzie 14:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I agree that most of the quoted figures are probably bs- but they are the quoted figures- verifiability, not "truth". The bottom line is- he must be getting paid a fortune, otherwise he wouldn't go. The strength of American football is growing and one day they will be a major force- but without meaning to offend anyone, few of the players on the LAG teamsheet would survive in even the second tier of English, Italian or Spanish football, and a couple have tried already and failed. With the best will in the world, there is a long way from Madrid V Barca in the Bernabeu to Los Angeles v Chivas FC in the HondaSuperClassico.... I think this is basically Beckham signallling the end of his football career and the intensification of his media activities. Basically, it seems to be me to be a blunder from both sides- is Beckham the sort of player who will excite Americans who are not already football fans? I doubt it- they seem to think they are getting a young Ryan Giggs; they're actually getting an old David Beckham. His career as a footballer is effectively over. Badgerpatrol 14:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- For Footy, maybe (and again, MLS isn't as bad as you insinuate), and again, when reporting on hard #'s, that's all we can go by, what's guaranteed (for example, it's going to be hard for him to earn the 10 million a year for profitsharing with the Galaxy, as they were one of the few teams to report a profit from ANY season recently. See List of largest sports contracts, that is all hard salary only, no shirt sales (Most US players get their share through their Players Asociation), and not endorsements. SirFozzie 14:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- For modern major sports contracts, the actual salary is often not even the largest single component of the deal. The contract will include definitely include payment clauses for merchandising, and it seems for a profit-share agreement also. And yes, I misphrased that- meant to say "throwing his career away", not throwing his life away....same difference really. In any event, $10 "mill pa is similar or slihgtly less than he would have got for staying at Madrid or moving elsewhere in Europe- I doubt he would move to the US on that basis, even if he has basically now given up the football side of his career. Badgerpatrol 14:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Still, his salary is only $10 million a year. and coming to the US is not "Throwing his life away" (rolls eyes) SirFozzie 13:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- According to this breakdown the BBC [2], Beckham's club derived income (merchandising, salary, profit share) is estimated at $30 mill pa. I can't believe for a second that he would throw his life away like this if his annual club income was only $10 mill- that is probably slightly less than what he gets now at Madrid. $30 mill sounds distinctly more plausible. Badgerpatrol 10:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm sort of new to soccer so please don't make fun of this question. I was just wondering if the New England Rev. would play regular games against Galaxy? Not including championships and such. Thank you.
- As a Revs fan, I can tell you they would play the Galaxy 2x a year, once at Gilette, once at the Galaxy's home (the Home Depot Center) SirFozzie 20:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Last paragraph before Contents box refers to Pele, George Best and Kris Akabusi (!!!!). He wasn't a footballer he was an Olympic hurdler! Check his own article for evidence.88.110.253.198 10:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC) miles3659 13 Jan 2007
- AEG should have invested this money in the LA Kings not in a sport that most Americans yawn about. What a waste of good money. Meh!!!!Orangemarlin 01:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] New Logo?
Anyone else catch wind that the Galaxy might be changing their logo for the upcoming season? I guess there was an article in USA Today...uh Today. Pharos04 05:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I believe I read that in either the LA Times or on ESPN Soccernet on the day of the contract announcement. howcheng {chat} 06:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Slight confusion...
Sorry, don't know much about LAG or MLS but that opening has confused me a bit... How can it be two separate teams? Why isn't this mentioned further on in the article? Any care to clear up the confusion? Tbone762 10:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- OK I cleaned up that opening paragraph a bit. The idea was to state that there are two soccer clubs in LA and the Galaxy is one of them (the other being Chivas USA), but I can see how that sentence could be misread. I've changed it just to focus on the Galaxy. howcheng {chat} 17:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Woops! I understand what you mean now! <looking sheepish> Tbone762 22:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] LA Galaxy and Becks
Half of the article is about David Beckham, even talking about how Capello dismissed Becks' wish to play and such? How is this at all relevant to LA Galaxy, and is this club called Beckham Galaxy or LA Galaxy. This article will look so stupid as it stands now in 10 years time, where David will be worth a mention, but not constituting HALF of the article. A Galaxy fan, or somebody knowledgeable should work out this article immediately. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tuncay Tekle (talk • contribs) 05:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC).
Please, someone wrote about his new ad campaign. I'll move it to his article.(68.199.35.102 21:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC))
[edit] Uniform
They have a new jersey with new colors —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.82.162.50 (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Famous Supporters
Drew Carrey is a known Galaxy supporter, but the other three? Any evidence or references that they have yet to be at a game or support the club in any way? Perhaps they should be removed and then replaced once the paparatzi have photographic evidence of them actually attending a match. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.22.50.128 (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC).75.22.50.128 20:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Why do we even have this section? What's the point? It's been removed from most other football club articles (for example, see Talk:Arsenal F.C./Archive 1#Famous Arsenal fans). I propose that we toss this whole section. howcheng {chat} 03:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- We shouldn't have this section. In fact, back in the day I used to remove this section all the time. Rballou 23:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Roster
Tally Hall has decided to sign with Esbjerg fB in Denmark, so I have removed him from the roster.
Where is Kevin Harmse in the roster? Gordomono (talk) 06:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Los Angeles Soccer History
While this table is certainly informative, it doesn't apply to the LA Galaxy entirely. I think it could be best served as a new article, and removed from this page. Che84 04:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree, it should be in an article called los angeles soccer history. It takes up half of this page. Good idea though. (68.199.35.102 21:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC))
[edit] Beckham squad number
Anybody got info about what roster number Becks will wear?? Hjorten 21:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I've heard or read somewhere he'll be keeping the 23 shirt.
-
- There are no sources on way or the other, the repeated adding of the false/unsourced information is vandalism. Batman2005 12:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- it is obvious that becks is going to wear #23...here's the image...http://la.galaxy.mlsnet.com/images/2007/07/11/YicAaC5D.jpg
-
-
- There were images of Reggie Bush wearing a #5 Saints Jersey, and NFL.com sold hundreds of #5 Saints Jerseys with "BUSH" on the back. He wears 25. Batman2005 21:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] New Colors and Jersey
Anybody hear anything about a new color scheme and jersey design for LA? I thought I remember Lalas talking about possibly having blue as the team's color and redesigning the jerseys and logo. Can anyone confirm or deny this? Thanks. --Crosscountrycpjon 19:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, ha. Just saw the earlier discussion about the new colors and jersey. But does anybody have a reference for this? It might be worth including in the article.
[edit] Removed Beckham from Squad List
As is the norm on pages where a players contract is expiring, I have removed Beckham from the listing until he is officially announced as a Galaxy member. This is a LONG accepted wikipedia policy. Additionally, there are ZERO sources as of now that say that Beckham will be formally assigned jersey #23.Batman2005 08:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] New Colours and Crest
I've just seen an article purporting to show the new colours and crest of LA Galaxy. Obviously, the kits should be left alone, as the new kit will be unveiled on Friday. http://www.footballshirtculture.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=457&Itemid=26 User:Mpbx3003 21:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC) It's official. The new kits have been released at shopadidas.com User:Mpbx3003 16:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- It is not official. It will be official on the 13th during the scheduled news conference unveiling Beckham, his number and the new kits/logos. The page needs to remain current, not what may possibly happen in the future. Batman2005 19:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Also, you were completely and totally wrong in your edit summary, the new away kit on shopadidas clearly says that it's "Collegiate Navy," not black. Anything else you'd care to just make up and pass along as you knowing more than anyone else??? Batman2005 19:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Well then change it already! How the hell can it become anymore official than their own website?
-
- Perhaps you didn't read the posts. It's not official until it's posted on the Galaxy website. It has not been posted there, ergo...it's not official. Also, sign your posts. Batman2005 20:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Whoever normally creates the jersey renderings on the soccer team sites should go ahead and use this template for their rendering, it isn't "official" but this is most definitely the design of the kits. http://www.sitv.com/blogs/whatshot/wp-content/uploads/la-galaxy-07-08.png Squadoosh 21:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Protection?
Should we add a protection for a bit, preventing edits by well meaning Galaxy fans, who take the kit and badge changes as vandalism?
-
- No, because it is vandalism until they are officially unveiled on the 13th of this month. As of RIGHT NOW the Galaxy wear a gold and green jersey with the corresponding badge. They do not wear the kit which is shown on shopadidas.com. They might in the future, but wikipedia is not a crystal ball and should not be treated as such. Wikipedia doesn't print information which may be true in several days time, it prints information which is current. When the new information is unveiled on the 13th of this month, then the changes can be made. Until then it's the posting of speculative information and original research, both of which are against wikipedia policy. There is a section for information about the new kit and new badge in the article, which is the appropriate place for this until an official announcement is made. "shopadidas" is not the official source for information on the Galaxy. Batman2005 19:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
check the website though, they've changed their crest and colors officially as of the 11th
-
- That's correct, as of about an hour ago. You'll notice that now that it's posted on the page, I have no problem with its inclusion. Batman2005 22:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] High resolution logo
This is the highest resolution logo I could find, I uploaded it. From the LA Times http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2007-07/31112658.jpg Squadoosh 22:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mascot's Page
Since all of Cozmo the mascot's info from it's page is already of here, I think vote that we delete it's page. Agree? Disagree? Portlygrub 11:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Absolutely agree. No objections several months on, so I've replaced the (very minimal) content from Cozmo's article with a redirect to the main Galaxy article. --Jameboy 16:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] All the new Beckham stuff
Is it really necessary to have this much detail about Beckham's arrival on the team? I mean, clearly it's an important event in terms of Galaxy's and MLS's history, but virtually the entire "history" part is given up to Beckham's 16 mins playing time. We don't have that level of detail on the preceding DECADE! Perhaps it would be better to create a new article along the lines of "Beckham at Galaxy", and move it there rather than have it all cluttering up the main page. --JonBroxton 22:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, there is too much about Beckham to say it's about the club, not just Beckham. He has only played 16 minutes give or take, so i agree there is too much about him. I'm willing to help sort this out if a concencus says we should change it. JacќяМ ¿Qué? 22:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The new pictures
Many new pictures have been uploaded by a relatively new user : User:Englandfan7. I suspect he is not the creator of these as he claims on each image page (public domain tag).
Some contributions which raises my suspicion:
- Image:Beckhampresentation.jpg That was from Getty, with a huge watermark, and tagged public domain!
- Image:Becksunveiling.jpg watermark.
- Image:Galaxyhomekit.jpg and Image:Galaxyawaykit.jpg : professional promotional material. I suspect it's from some Adidas web shop.
- Image:Beckhamstrikingsetpiece.jpg, Image:Becksdribbling.jpg, Image:Beckhamdebut.jpg Image:Donovanlagalaxy.jpg Shots from a photograph authorized to be on the field.
- Image:Candicehansard.jpg Pro shot
He may be a well-meaning fan, but I don't think he's going around shooting these himself, being presumably from Indiana.
This guy's uploaded so much stuff over the weeks... He's even the designer of his university logo it seems!
Kl4m 06:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- All these images have now been removed, and the user has been indefinately blocked. JacќяМ ¿Qué? 08:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "Batman" Vandalism
This "Batman" guy keeps trying to vandalize our page. He's already tried to mess with the captain applications and even tried to delete the Miss Galaxy section, citing that it's not "very encyclopedic!" Who does this loser think he is to decide what sections are approrpriate? He's being investigated by Wikipedia for vandalism.
-
- None of my edits were vandalism. The "Miss Galaxy" section is not encyclopedic, and was written as an advertisement. Additionally, there has been NO announcement that Beckham will be the new full-time captain for the Galaxy. Wearing the armband for one game does not make one a full-time captain. It's entirely possible that he will remain as captain, but it's also possible that it was a one-time honorary distinction. Also, I am not being investigated by wikipedia for anything. Batman2005 08:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
While I have no idea who this "BATMAN2005" guy is, you have to find his comments above pretty funny. I just saw this: the official website source stating that David Beckham was indeed made the permanent captain of the Galaxy on Tuesday. That is why anal people shouldn't be allowed to be editors - this is what's wrong with Wikipedia. What a joke. http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=453915&cc=5901
-manutdglory
[edit] Yallop
I know for a fact that I heard on Tuesdays edition of FSC's "Fox Football Fone-In" that they said that they had heard that Yallop had been sacked by Lalas. However, there is no mention of it on soccernet.com, foxsoccer.com, or lagalaxy.com, so now I don't know what to believe. I guess I'll undo my comments.
-manutdglory —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manutdglory (talk • contribs) 02:44, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
[edit] MASSIVE Cleanup required
This article is in need of serious cleanup. For starters the article is WAAAAY too long for that of a club only a little over a decade old. The history sections appear to be copied directly from another website, and even if they are not the headings need to be changed to coincide with wikipedia's style guide. They are not sourced and again are monstrously over length. I'm a Galaxy fan and even I realize this is not by any means this storied of a club. Serious reverts will follow without proper justification of the current content. Grant.alpaugh 20:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. I trimmed it back. Most of it was added within the last 10 days or so. The excessive Beckham stuff should be trimmed as well. Maybe a nice book can be written at Wikibooks. --Elliskev 21:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- I agree it need to be trimmed but someone took out the entire 1996-2005 section from history. I just made a new one from scratch so no one can say it's copied. I think we should trim the 2007 season. It basically just talks about Beckham. Portlygrub 00:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I also agree, why no simply break it down by seasons like on the Houston Dynamo article and start individual articles for seasons like Houston Dynamo season 2008? That way you can more easily summarize and expand on various things that may occur throughout the season?--Hourick (talk) 20:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Superliga.PNG
Image:Superliga.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 22:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Failure?
The headings using the word failure seem a little extreme. I would use something more like "disappointment," as using the word failure seems too strong to me for an unbiased article. I am sure that people are going to disagree, so lay it on me. --Crosscountrycpjon 04:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Infobox
Can anyone tell me what is the reasoning behind using a special MLS Team infobox, as opposed to the standard Football Club infobox? Charles 14:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Rename this article David Beckham Galaxy?
Agree completely , i looked up this page to read about the team.I wanted to read about the origins of the team ,fans , stadium , whos funding them etc.... but almost all of the article is about Beckham!! . Just confirms my thoughts that he is participating in a modern day freak show. Is it LA Galaxy or is it David Beckham Galaxy?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.81.52.106 (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:LosAngelesGalaxy.PNG
Image:LosAngelesGalaxy.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 17:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)