anythinglogos

2017/18 Soccer Kits

Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, hawk36 said:

Agree to disagree on this one. I obviously feel strongly that they are completely in the right in keeping the legacy alive. But I get that half the people on this board are adamant that it's not valid. I don't think the two halves will ever agree. But I, for one, am incredibly proud that they embrace and continue the tradition of Seattle Sounders soccer that began in 1974.   

 

I agree. And I would be too.  But neither of those require any pretense.  "Embrace"

and "continue" don't require "claiming credit for". 

 

The Sounders are writing a grand new chapter in a glorious legacy.  But they did not write the first chapters, no matter how close their adopted name is to those who did.  

 

At least the Whitecaps have an unbroken line of clubs in their lineage, even if one used a different name for a while.  But the Timbers and the Sounders don't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

I agree. And I would be too.  But neither of those require any pretense.  "Embrace"

and "continue" don't require "claiming credit for". 

 

The Sounders are writing a grand new chapter in a glorious legacy.  But they did not write the first chapters, no matter how close their adopted name is to those who did.  

 

At least the Whitecaps have an unbroken line of clubs in their lineage, even if one used a different name for a while.  But the Timbers and the Sounders don't. 

The problem is all things change (owners, management, players, coaches, venues, etc.). So, it would seem as ridiculous for the current owners, team, etc. of any team to "claim credit for" the accomplishments of anything done 25, 50, 75 years ago since they had nothing to do with those accomplishments either.

 

At least with the Sounders you have an owner who also owned the USL Sounders and a coach who coached the USL Sounders and played for the NASL Sounders. Not that that is important to how I ultimate feel though. I feel that all Sounders history belongs to all Seattle and Sounder teams. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand the feeling.  But feelings aren't facts.  And the fact is that the Sounders go back to 1994.  

 

Your lineage is glorious enough, it doesn't need to be embellished. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me ask you this, so since I'm guessing you don't have an issue with other teams claiming history that they had nothing to do with (ie Yankees of now claiming history of the team in the 1920s) would you see the Sounders situation as different had Hannauer bought the rights to the NASL Sounders when he started the 1994 version?

 

For what its worth I think the Sounders have been pretty clear that they are honoring the original team and not claiming to actually be that team. From what I've seen it's been the fans that constantly push the 1974 theme and the team has finally agreed to honor it.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, hawk36 said:

Let me ask you this, so since I'm guessing you don't have an issue with other teams claiming history that they had nothing to do with (ie Yankees of now claiming history of the team in the 1920s) would you see the Sounders situation as different had Hannauer bought the rights to the NASL Sounders when he started the 1994 version?

 

I'm sorry, but that's a very silly argument.  The Yankees are one unbroken line, the same corporation with the same franchise right to play in the American League.  You can't seriously compare that to a team that buys and relaunches a defunct brand without any link at all other than aspirational.  

 

As for 1994, I don't know if the rights were even available back then.  I see a difference between something like the Cosmos, where the name continued in operation with the same corporate owner (even if it became applied to youth camps instead of a pro team), and a new team borrowing an old abandoned name they don't actually have any connection to.  And I've come to loathe the Cosmos while respecting the Sounders and Timbers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not groundbreaking by any means, but I just now realized neither of Atlanta's kits has a speck of white at all. Not even trim or numbers. Home kit: red, black, gold. Away: gray and red. That's gotta be pretty rare.

 

 

IMG_6713.JPG

IMG_6744.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, hawk36 said:

Let me ask you this, so since I'm guessing you don't have an issue with other teams claiming history that they had nothing to do with (ie Yankees of now claiming history of the team in the 1920s) would you see the Sounders situation as different had Hannauer bought the rights to the NASL Sounders when he started the 1994 version?

 

For what its worth I think the Sounders have been pretty clear that they are honoring the original team and not claiming to actually be that team. From what I've seen it's been the fans that constantly push the 1974 theme and the team has finally agreed to honor it.   

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you are thinking that a change in ownership is what we see as the issue here. That's not the case.

 

I won't speak for anyone else (though I believe this is the point that most see) is that there was no team fielded in any league for periods of time.

I.E. there was no Timbers in 1983 & 1984 then again from 1991 to 2001. Be it NASL, USL, NASL2, A-league, MLS, ect

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly.  

 

It would also be different if any of those teams took a deliberate hiatus from competition, like the Rams did in the 1940s, so long as the corporate entity remained in operation.  But when there's a gap where the team stops playing, and the corporation is defunct and abandoned, the line is broken and the new team no longer has a claim on the lineage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

I'm sorry, but that's a very silly argument.  The Yankees are one unbroken line, the same corporation with the same franchise right to play in the American League.  You can't seriously compare that to a team that buys and relaunches a defunct brand without any link at all other than aspirational.  

 

As for 1994, I don't know if the rights were even available back then.  I see a difference between something like the Cosmos, where the name continued in operation with the same corporate owner (even if it became applied to youth camps instead of a pro team), and a new team borrowing an old abandoned name they don't actually have any connection to.  And I've come to loathe the Cosmos while respecting the Sounders and Timbers. 

Not silly at all. Again I get your hard rule, black and white thinking I just don't agree. I see it as much more grey when it comes to sports. Yankees are New York baseball as Sounders are Seattle soccer. Sure there are differences, there always are. But I see both as being more similar than different.  

 

As I've said on the subject on other threads I see history as equal parts franchise and city. A line (either broken or unbroken) continues with both the franchise and the city. If either exist, I see the connection to that shared past. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We'll just have to agree to disagree.  

 

I'm certainly sympathetic to the emotional pull of your argument about fans seeing a connection; it's just that a statement like "the Sounders have withstood the changes" strikes me as wrong, since it's patently not true.  The current Sounders have an emotional connection to past teams, sure.  But that doesn't mean they withstood the changes and are the same team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

We'll just have to agree to disagree.  

 

I'm certainly sympathetic to the emotional pull of your argument about fans seeing a connection; it's just that a statement like "the Sounders have withstood the changes" strikes me as wrong, since it's patently not true.  The current Sounders have an emotional connection to past teams, sure.  But that doesn't mean they withstood the changes and are the same team.

The same goes for the Timbers. I'm as diehard a Timbers fan as you'll find, albeit a fairly young one (18 years old), but I completely understand that this current iteration of the Timbers is emotionally connected to past iterations, but it's not the same entity at all. Sure, every iteration of the Timbers is part of Portland's soccer legacy, but the name (and fan base to an extent) are the only things that truly connect each separate iteration. That should be realized with the Sounders as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hawk36 said:

As I've said on the subject on other threads I see history as equal parts franchise and city. A line (either broken or unbroken) continues with both the franchise and the city. If either exist, I see the connection to that shared past. 

 

Fair enough, you are thinking more "in spirit" as opposed the the literal definition. 

I can appreciate that. 

 

Like @Gothamite said "agree to disagree". :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gothamite said:

We'll just have to agree to disagree.  

 

I'm certainly sympathetic to the emotional pull of your argument about fans seeing a connection; it's just that a statement like "the Sounders have withstood the changes" strikes me as wrong, since it's patently not true.  The current Sounders have an emotional connection to past teams, sure.  But that doesn't mean they withstood the changes and are the same team.

I would say that the statement "the Sounders have withstood the changes" is technically correct though since the NASL, USL, and MLS versions have all been "the Sounders". Basically they are saying "the Sounders" instead of "we" in order to not be patently not true. But I get your issue with it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My issue is only that the Sounders didn't endure.  They didn't "withstand".  They died and were resurrected.  Which is accomplishment enough, it doesn't need embellishment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, hawk36 said:

I would say that the statement "the Sounders have withstood the changes" is technically correct though since the NASL, USL, and MLS versions have all been "the Sounders". Basically they are saying "the Sounders" instead of "we" in order to not be patently not true. But I get your issue with it.  

The name "Sounders" has withstood the changes I suppose, but each separate iteration has been its own entity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing we hadn't already assumed but I can confirm the new USA red jersey will be paired with red shorts and socks, head to toe. Product listings are starting to hit the interwebs. Haven't seen anything on the possible Gold Cup kit, yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, aawagner011 said:

Nothing we hadn't already assumed but I can confirm the new USA red jersey will be paired with red shorts and socks, head to toe. Product listings are starting to hit the interwebs. Haven't seen anything on the possible Gold Cup kit, yet.

I hate the Liverpool look.  Blue shorts would have been better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now