Seattle NHL Brand Discussion

[CreamSoda]

37 minutes ago, the admiral said:

 

 

 

Odd, on the mobile app they have no problem saying Chicago Blackhawks

[Prince Harry]

Sockeyes is the best choice. It’s cool, unique, there’s alliteration(!), and you can craft a nice brand around it, as sparky did with his concept. 

 

I dont care really care about the Sharks/Orca predator angle, not sure it matters much. Pretty sure every physical namesake in the league could crush up a Maple Leaf pretty easily but it’s still one the best identities in sports. 

 

I hope they use all red/maroon equipment if they go with that as the main colour. 

[WSU151]

22 hours ago, the admiral said:

 

https://sports.yahoo.com/fantasy-hockey-stock-report-early-season-risers-fallers-211740035.html

 

Probably just a writer's choice to try to be woke.

[hawk36]

On 10/16/2018 at 11:53 AM, monkeypower said:

 

Like Brian in Boston pointed out earlier, the owner of the USL Sounders wanted an MLS team. When he and his ownership group were awarded a MLS team, he folded the USL team and moved the Sounders name up the American soccer pyramid because he owned both teams.

 

However, the Thunderbirds are an existing team that as far as I know, have no intention of ceasing to exist even with this NHL team on the way. You're assuming the owners of the WHL Thunderbirds are interested in a) being a part of the NHL ownership group and b) getting rid of the WHL team. There's no way this Seattle NHL team becomes the Thunderbirds if the WHL team is still in existence. 

 

It's a completely different situation. The Thunderbirds are an existing team in a completely different league (that isn't connected to the league the expansion team is joining), in a completely different age group owned by completely different people.

I just have a hard time believing if the current Thunderbirds ownership group was asked to become a part of the NHL group that they'd balk. Not saying it would happen but also don't see it as ridiculous as some are saying it would be. 

[M4One]

2 hours ago, Prince Harry said:

Sockeyes is the best choice. It’s cool, unique, there’s alliteration(!), and you can craft a nice brand around it, as sparky did with his concept. 

 

I dont care really care about the Sharks/Orca predator angle, not sure it matters much. Pretty sure every physical namesake in the league could crush up a Maple Leaf pretty easily but it’s still one the best identities in sports. 

 

I hope they use all red/maroon equipment if they go with that as the main colour. 

 

A few people made fun of the Golden Knights because of the Kings and look what happened.  The Kings got swept in the playoffs by the Knights.  It's silly not to go with any name based off of that type of thinking.  If Sockeyes is the best name, then go with it and don't worry about the Sharks/Orca deal.

[Mingjai]

2 hours ago, hawk36 said:

I just have a hard time believing if the current Thunderbirds ownership group was asked to become a part of the NHL group that they'd balk. Not saying it would happen but also don't see it as ridiculous as some are saying it would be. 

 

I have a hard time believing that there isn't a mutually agreeable sum of money that a WHL team would accept from Seattle H.C. for the Thunderbirds name. Not that it would happen, but I don't think there is as big as a barrier as people are saying.

[Brian in Boston]

Quote

I just have a hard time believing if the current Thunderbirds ownership group was asked to become a part of the NHL group that they'd balk.

 

Quote

I have a hard time believing that there isn't a mutually agreeable sum of money that a WHL team would accept from Seattle H.C. for the Thunderbirds name.

Who can say with certainty that the NHL Seattle ownership group is as enamored of the Thunderbirds identity as a certain subset of sports fans and logo enthusiasts happens to be? Might the NHL Seattle ownership group want to carve out its own unique place/identity in the history of sports - specifically, hockey - in the region? What makes anyone think that the NHL Seattle ownership group is willing to part with a significant amount of cash - to say nothing of potentially offering up equity in an actual NHL expansion franchise - in exchange for the Thunderbirds identity? If the owners of the Kent, Washington-based Western Hockey League Seattle Thunderbirds want to continue to operate the team in Greater Seattle - and, to date, there's been no indication that Dan and Lindsey Leckelt are inclined to either relocate the team, or shut it down - what would possibly make them think that it would be easier to operate a major junior team in the same market as an NHL franchise after jettisoning a brand that the junior team has sported for 33 years?

Look, I'm as big a fan of the Seattle Thunderbirds name and logo as anyone. I like the brand so much that I own an authentic customized Seattle Thunderbirds jersey, a team t-shirt and a couple of their caps. That said, it may well be that the powers-that-be behind the NHL Seattle expansion bid - and don't rule out the suits at NHL headquarters making their voices heard on the issue, as well - aren't necessarily as enamored of adopting the Thunderbirds as the masses. It may be that the folks calling the shots would prefer to create a unique identity for the team.    

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

Does anyone think that the name "Sockeyes" is too easily mocked to be feasible?  Am I the only one whose mind goes straight to "Suckass"?

[CreamSoda]

Seattle Sockeyes will definitely turn into "ITS TIME FOR SOME SOCKEYE HOCK-EYE!"

[TenaciousG]

19 hours ago, Mingjai said:

 

I have a hard time believing that there isn't a mutually agreeable sum of money that a WHL team would accept from Seattle H.C. for the Thunderbirds name. Not that it would happen, but I don't think there is as big as a barrier as people are saying.

 

Bingo. I’m not saying they will either, but Thunderbirds is an awesome identity and should be present in pro sports.

 

Sockeyes is growing on me. 

 

Interesting thing: when Seattle gets NHL should they become the Kent Thunderbirds? Heck, they could even be the Tacoma Thunderbirds since the Tacoma Stars play in the same arena.

[Prince Harry]

1 hour ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Does anyone think that the name "Sockeyes" is too easily mocked to be feasible?  Am I the only one whose mind goes straight to "Suckass"?

 

Yeah you kinda do that with a lot of teams already, though maybe not as obviously.

 

Coilers, Lames, Casucks, Dead Things, Maple Laffs, Craphawks, Crapitals, Crapalanche (I’m stretching here), the Wild as a name in general. 

 

Also maybe it will help their brand if Suckass becomes a meme, what with how people latch onto memes these days.

[M4One]

20 hours ago, Mingjai said:

 

I have a hard time believing that there isn't a mutually agreeable sum of money that a WHL team would accept from Seattle H.C. for the Thunderbirds name. Not that it would happen, but I don't think there is as big as a barrier as people are saying.

 

Tell that to Vegas.  The plan from the beginning may very well have been to call them the Golden Knights because of Bill Foley's Army connection, but the reason they aren't simply the Knights is because they couldn't come to an agreement with the London Knights, as it would have been too much, according to Foley.  That could be all b.s., but the Knights are one of the more financially profitable teams in junior hockey.  I don't know what the situation is with the Thunderbirds, but considering how teams are about branding, even for a junior team, it would have to take a lot of money for the T-Birds to abandon their brand after 30 plus years and start new again.

[hawk36]

4 hours ago, TenaciousG said:

 

Bingo. I’m not saying they will either, but Thunderbirds is an awesome identity and should be present in pro sports.

 

Sockeyes is growing on me. 

 

Interesting thing: when Seattle gets NHL should they become the Kent Thunderbirds? Heck, they could even be the Tacoma Thunderbirds since the Tacoma Stars play in the same arena.

I don't know enough about the NHL but is there a chance the Thunderbirds could become partners, a minor league or feeder team for the NHL team in Seattle (like the Rainiers are for the Mariners and S2 is for the Sounders)? How does that work?

[IceCap]

1 hour ago, hawk36 said:

I don't know enough about the NHL but is there a chance the Thunderbirds could become partners, a minor league or feeder team for the NHL team in Seattle (like the Rainiers are for the Mariners and S2 is for the Sounders)? How does that work?

An affiliation won't work.

The Thunderbirds play in the WHL, which is a "division" of sorts of the Canadian Hockey League (yes, they have teams in the US). The CHL is a junior league and NHL teams no longer have CHL affiliations.

 

Which could complicate Thuderbirds ownership coming on board. Ideally there shouldn't be any formal link between the Seattle NHL team and the WHL team. At most the NHL team could pay the WHL team for the rights to the name, but that's it.

 

4 hours ago, M4One said:

Tell that to Vegas.  The plan from the beginning may very well have been to call them the Golden Knights because of Bill Foley's Army connection, but the reason they aren't simply the Knights is because they couldn't come to an agreement with the London Knights, as it would have been too much, according to Foley.  That could be all b.s.,

It is bs. Foley used the London Knights as a scapegoat to explain why they couldn't just be the Knights. The London Knights actually released a statement that essentially said "Bill Foley never contacted us, and we're willing to work something out if he is." And then Foley ignored that, and the London Knights, to go with Golden Knights.

[Mingjai]

6 hours ago, M4One said:

 

Tell that to Vegas.  The plan from the beginning may very well have been to call them the Golden Knights because of Bill Foley's Army connection, but the reason they aren't simply the Knights is because they couldn't come to an agreement with the London Knights, as it would have been too much, according to Foley.  That could be all b.s., but the Knights are one of the more financially profitable teams in junior hockey.  I don't know what the situation is with the Thunderbirds, but considering how teams are about branding, even for a junior team, it would have to take a lot of money for the T-Birds to abandon their brand after 30 plus years and start new again.

 

I was thinking of this when I posted—I suppose Knights situation is possibly distinguishable in that the London Knights are a lot bigger and thus a more valuable brand than the Seattle Thunderbirds. 

[The_Admiral]

10 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Does anyone think that the name "Sockeyes" is too easily mocked to be feasible?  Am I the only one whose mind goes straight to "Suckass"?

On 1/19/2018 at 8:18 PM, the admiral said:

Evergreens, Rainiers, and Seals are my short list. If they were called the Sockeyes I'd never be able to refrain from calling them the Suckass, and if I can't be mature enough to handle that, think of what real idiots would do!

[OMMF]

38 minutes ago, Mingjai said:

 

I was thinking of this when I posted—I suppose Knights situation is possibly distinguishable in that the London Knights are a lot bigger and thus a more valuable brand than the Seattle Thunderbirds. 

If you believe the numbers from the lawsuit and TSN, the difference is about $18 million (Knights 23M, TBirds 5M). Contextually, that is a lot but overall there's not much of a value differential there. 

 

Also, there is a difference between value and revenue. London generated 6.2 million in 15-16 while Seattle had 7.3 million (both figures in Canadian dollars)

 

Edit: That's not to say anything about the name or ownership. Just that once you get below the big cities and the teams owned by NHL teams, there's not much difference among the CHL teams.

[Thaumatrope]

I'd have to read the quotes again, but the impression I got from the London Knights was that they were open to an "agreement", which suggests that they weren't looking to surrender their claim to the name, but rather allowing Vegas to use it under specific conditions (one if which likely being the exchange of funds).

 

In contrast, I have a hard time seeing the Thunderbirds being able to reatain their identity in the event that the NHL team adopted the same name. Having two teams in the same market, in the same sport, with the same name just seems too confusing.

 

By way if comparison, when the MLS Sounders came into being, the USL Sounders dissolved. If the Thunderbirds identity was to ever be used it would have to be under similar circumstances.

[Mingjai]

2 hours ago, OMMF said:

If you believe the numbers from the lawsuit and TSN, the difference is about $18 million (Knights 23M, TBirds 5M). Contextually, that is a lot but overall there's not much of a value differential there. 

 

Also, there is a difference between value and revenue. London generated 6.2 million in 15-16 while Seattle had 7.3 million (both figures in Canadian dollars)

 

Edit: That's not to say anything about the name or ownership. Just that once you get below the big cities and the teams owned by NHL teams, there's not much difference among the CHL teams.

 

Interesting. I would never have thought Seattle generates more revenue than London, though that makes the TSN $5M figure seem strange. 

[Chromatic]

Honestly I do think there are better  names out there than Sockeyes or Thunderbirds, but it seems people are resigned to that list