Jump to content

Talk:LA Galaxy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Birkenburg (talk | contribs) at 21:39, 23 August 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Woops! I understand what you mean now! <looking sheepish> Tbone762 22:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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).[reply]

Totally agree with you, so I cut most of that out. howcheng {chat} 06:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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))[reply]

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).[reply]

LA has a newer uniform design, mainly on the top...Gordomono (talk) 23:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Where is Carlos Ruiz in the roster? Gordomono (talk) 05:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere. He signed for Toronto FC the other day. --JonBroxton (talk) 05:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
thanks. did not see that on mlsnet.com.Gordomono (talk) 17:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Bolkan has retired [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.159.199.138 (talk) 19:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

Beckham squad number

Anybody got info about what roster number Becks will wear?? Hjorten 21:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]


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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I agree with trimming it down. He's not the only player on the team. -- GoDawgs(T) 23:39, 01 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:


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)[reply]

All these images have now been removed, and the user has been indefinately blocked. JacќяМ ¿Qué? 08:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Totally concur with this statement. There is just waaaay too much information about the 2007 season. howcheng {chat} 03:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Recentism

The history section of this article suffers terribly from recentism and needs to be pared down if not entirely rewritten. -- Grant.Alpaugh 06:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isaias Lara

Hi everyone, I just came across this page and there seem to be a lot of strange references to David Beckham as Isaias Lara. Is there a reason for this as I noticed in the history that some of these have been reverted but they have been left in the subsection "Offseason: Departures and Arrivals". Thanks Stevenhorsman (talk) 10:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC) --[reply]

Álvaro Pires

Why isn't Pires's name on the roster, I can't find anything regarding him being released? – Michael (talk) 03:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Beckham

He's going to be back on March 8. If you don't believe me, read this. – Michael (talk) 01:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning Up

I am planing on doing a major cleanup of this article over the next week or so. I am sure it is clear to many of you that the last three years dominate this page, eventhough they weren't particularly good. I would be fine with moving that information to season-specific articles before I erase it, so I will wait a few days before starting any of my cleanup process. Spydy13 (talk) 14:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Season article

Your club doesn't yet have a 2009 Season article, we are hoping to get each of the MLS teams up and going like these; Sounders, Fire, Dynamo, Wizards, and TFC. If you have any questions or concerns feel free to contact me at anytime. Thanks Morry32 (talk) 01:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Head Captain?

"Midway through the season, Steve Sampson was sacked as head Captain,[3] replaced by Frank Yallop.[4]"

Saw this and had to ask...granted, he was called a lot of things while in charge but I don't recall that one.--EricPZ (talk) 06:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Year-by-year stats

1996 through 1999, MLS scored 3 points for a win in regulation, 1 point for a shootout win and no points for a loss in regulation or after the shootout. Those years should look something like this:

Season GP W WS LS L Pts GF GA
1996 32 15 4 4 9 49 59 49
1997 32 14 2 4 12 44 55 44
1998 32 22 2 2 6 68 85 44
1999 32 17 3 4 8 54 49 29

The way it reads now doesn't make sense as 19 wins (in '96) can't add up to 49 points. It would be 57 points. I know there's a movement by some to count those shootout matches as ties but for accuracy, we should use the correct format which counted the season the matches were played. I'll redo this so it's clean and more accurate if no one has any objection. --EricPZ (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor and Los Angeles soccer teams before the Galaxy

An IP editor has been editing the page to imply that the Galaxy existed as a soccer team from before the MLS was founded, under a different name. As I understand it, this is incorrect, so I reverted their edits, but the IP re-reverted, so I've brought this matter to the talk page. It is, of course, possible, that I'm wrong, as I am not an LA soccer history expert, but the reliable sources I've read agree with me, and the IP has not provided any sources. Thoughts?

You are correct. There is, of course, a long and storied history of soccer in LA, from the Los Angeles Aztecs to Los Angeles Salsa, but Galaxy is not a direct continuation of any of these clubs. It was created as a brand new team specifically for the launch of MLS, and shares no linear history with any other team. --JonBroxton (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
History of soccer in Los Angeles appears to be quite misleading as well, then. Are there any good online sources for soccer history in LA? As I am on a bit of a break from my real-life duties, I'd be glad to improve the article. --TorriTorri(talk/contribs) 22:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Los Angeles Soccer Heritage" section and "MLS" in section titles

Following WP:BRD. Should MLS be included in section titles in this article? For the "club honors" section, it is obviously inaccurate. For the other sections, since the Galaxy has only played in the MLS, I see no need to specify this in each section title. Also, should the History section "Los Angeles Soccer Heritage" be included or moved to History of soccer in Los Angeles? It seems a bit irrelevant to the Galaxy specifically but sounds like a great lead for the history article. --TorriTorri(talk/contribs) 22:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the mentions of MLS in the sections for exactly the reasons you stated. Personally, I quite like the quick overview of LA soccer heritage in the history section as it gives a bit of perspective and context to where Galaxy fits in with things. Providing the section doesn't get any bigger than it is now, and maintains a link to a longer and more in-depth article elsewhere, I think it's fine. --JonBroxton (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. The context does sound good. --TorriTorri(talk/contribs) 23:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I recently removed a similar contribution to Seattle Sounders FC. My main reason for removing it was because not a single reference was given for the new content. I can see that's the case in this article as well. --SkotyWATC 02:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://laist.com/2008/11/15/now_that_the_season_is_almost_over.php
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LA_Galaxy&oldid=380576351"