Hull City vice-chairman promises 'fan-led' rebranding process

[IceCap]

6 hours ago, Mac the Knife said:

 

I'm speaking in a legal sense, Goth.  There is nothing - not one word - in the Major League Constitution, or the Constitution and Bylaws of the NBA, NFL or NHL, nor the LLC Agreement of Major League Soccer, that legislates them such authority.  

Obviously the FA has such authority. 

[Gothamite]

1 hour ago, MJWalker45 said:

The only NFL rule I know 100% exists is that a team nickname must end in s and be plural. At least I remember a NFL memo stating such during the 1994 expansion process.

 

Even that establishes that the NFL does have a measure of authority over nicknames.  

[MJWalker45]

I want to say I heard about it because before the Grizzlies move, Memphis wanted to call their NFL expansion team the Express and the NFL said it wasn't plural so they moved to Hound Dogs. Could be Mandela affect though.

[Gothamite]

I think you’re conflating the Titans and Grizzlies.  The plan was to rename the Grizzlies the “Express” when they moved to Memphis, and use purple and orange, FedEx colors.   The NBA rejected it.

 

http://articles.latimes.com/2001/may/23/sports/sp-1420

 

The issue wasn’t about the singular name (gods know that any league with “Heat” and “Jazz” isn’t exactly particular about names), but about the corporate sponsorship.

 

Quote

"As a matter of long-standing policy we don't permit teams to be named after commercial entities. That's not territory we're prepared to enter," said Mike Bass, an NBA spokesman.

 

So at this point can we accept that North American leagues do indeed have (and exercise) some measure of control over their franchises’ branding?

[MJWalker45]

Yeah, I think someone in the expansion group wanted a singular name and I definitely remember the Express getting nixed by the NBA specifically because it was FedEx pushing the name. 

[Gothamite]

It was more than just FedEx pushing the name; they were going to pay for it.  Straight sponsorship deal, just as they did for the arena. 

[IceCap]

There’s a similar story about the Blue Jays. They were originally owned by Labatt, the beer company. Their flagship beer is Labatt Blue, and they wanted to call the team the Toronto Blues. 

MLB said no, so they went with Blue Jays.

[tigers]

16 hours ago, Jaffa said:

 

The Allams bought the club in the autumn of 2010 - following our relegation from the Premier League the club was financially crippled and administration was a real possibility. Their long term aim was to acquire the stadium and its surrounding land, and develop the area at a profit - the KCOM Stadium is actually owned by Hull City Council, the football club is one of the tenants. The Allams' view was that the Council would willingly part with the stadium and land at a reasonable cost, in part out of gratitude for helping resolve the club's money woes.

 

The Council weren't open to such a sale however, resulting in an at times bitter dispute between themselves and the Allams that rumbles on to this day. A key reason for pursuing the name change was the similarity between 'Hull City AFC' and 'Hull City Council' - Allam Snr has stated in interviews that he believes (bizarrely) people get the two entities confused, and think that the Council owns the club rather than his family. In addition, the proposal naturally upset supporters - Allam Snr feels that we should have backed him without question in his dispute over the stadium, and in effect changing the name would be both a punishment and a demonstration of his power.

 

And that's just the abridged version... 

 

Sounds like the conundrum of chicken or eggs first.

 

13 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

Why wouldn’t you?

 

If you’re the brand-new owner of a struggling club, wouldn’t you think you could change things to make the club perform better? A new manager can improve results on the field. A new badge can improve merchandise sales.

 

Now, sometimes these changes are more about flexing the new owner’s ego. And any changes must be weighed in light of what is lost in turn; the old manager might be popular, an old badge has sentimental attachment for the fans. And I’m certainly not suggesting this owner is right in what he’s trying to do.

 

But the general concept is not unsound. 

 

Wasn't talking about admin changes, was referring to changing long standing historical things like club names and identities.

[Mac the Knife]

15 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

I’ll have to take a look, because that runs counter to what I’ve been told in regards to both MLB and the NFL, from people who would know.  The Commissioner himself told me that MLB has veto power over team names. 

 

MLS is a special case. The nature of single-entity means that trademarks are owned by the league, not the clubs, and owners are not free to do what they please.  That has caused consternation in the past, where teams entering the league were not allowed to bring their old logos in, since MLS wants new logos that they control 100%.

 

In MLB I could see where that could be an implied power... the Major League Constitution and the way its organizational structure is set up, the Office of the Commissioner has powers that could be really, really broadly interpreted.  But there's nothing in the document itself that legislates it one way or the other.

 

I can't disagree with you regarding MLS either, but that's more a "marks control" issue than a "can they rebrand at all" question.  The LLC Agreement references what are essentially individual franchise agreements in its language, making it possible that team operators had to give up brand control; but in the master documents there's no mention of it.

 

13 hours ago, MJWalker45 said:

The only NFL rule I know 100% exists is that a team nickname must end in s and be plural. At least I remember a NFL memo stating such during the 1994 expansion process.

 

That must've been an edict of the expansion committee specific to the process then.  There's nothing in the NFL Constitution and Bylaws, or their subordinate resolutions (side note:  the NFL needs to seriously overhaul their governing documents, compiling everything into one master document; as it is, it's a mess) that establish any hard, fast restrictions.

 

FWIW, I'm all in favor of the leagues controlling branding, across the board and without exception.  I think it's imperative from a licensing/merchandising standpoint, and that if anything the process of naming teams should be reversed:  with the leagues telling prospective franchise owners, "These are the options for a name... these are options for identities we've developed for these names... pick a name, then pick the marks, then cut us the check for $800 million for your franchise."

[MJWalker45]

6 hours ago, Mac the Knife said:

FWIW, I'm all in favor of the leagues controlling branding, across the board and without exception.  I think it's imperative from a licensing/merchandising standpoint, and that if anything the process of naming teams should be reversed:  with the leagues telling prospective franchise owners, "These are the options for a name... these are options for identities we've developed for these names... pick a name, then pick the marks, then cut us the check for $800 million for your franchise."

I think the owners would know what works as far as branding much better than the league would. I'm fine with a league denying an identity but they shouldn't be the lead on creating them. 

[Gothamite]

6 hours ago, Mac the Knife said:

 

I can't disagree with you regarding MLS either, but that's more a "marks control" issue than a "can they rebrand at all" question.  The LLC Agreement references what are essentially individual franchise agreements in its language, making it possible that team operators had to give up brand control; but in the master documents there's no mention of it.

 

 

That must've been an edict of the expansion committee specific to the process then.  There's nothing in the NFL Constitution and Bylaws, or their subordinate resolutions (side note:  the NFL needs to seriously overhaul their governing documents, compiling everything into one master document; as it is, it's a mess) that establish any hard, fast restrictions.

 

I’m sure that’s true.  You may need to check all related and amended documents, because we know for a fact that the leagues have those powers.  

 

Those regulations must be spelled out elsewhere, because they definitely exist. 

[Mac the Knife]

30 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

I think the owners would know what works as far as branding much better than the league would. I'm fine with a league denying an identity but they shouldn't be the lead on creating them. 

 

8 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

I’m sure that’s true.  You may need to check all related and amended documents, because we know for a fact that the leagues have those powers.  

 

Those regulations must be spelled out elsewhere, because they definitely exist. 

 

The only one I can't speak for with certainty is MLS, for the reasons mentioned earlier.  In all the other cases though, there is nothing legislatively that prevents it.  It's a moot point perhaps, as in this day and age no one in their right mind would try it - the "Devil Rays" to "Rays" rebrand was what led me to look into it back when it was announced; I think full blown rebranding (new name and identity) is a bad idea unless you have a compelling reason to do it such as franchise relocation (Washington Senators to Texas Rangers) or public pressure is being applied (Redskins, Indians, etc.)

 

But MJ, I'll argue that premise with you, for sake of argument if nothing else.  Owners don't know what works with respect to branding.  They think they know what will sell more swag.  And in the short term?  They're right.  But over an extended period of time, history has demonstrated a lot of those choices to be bad.  For example, does anyone think that if Toronto were granted an NBA expansion team to start play in 2015 rather than 1995, they'd go with "Raptors" as a name?  If not for a minority owner by the name of David Gerstein who had the good sense to stop it, the Nets would've been rebranded the New Jersey Swamp Dragons.

 

Ostensibly as a partnership among its teams and their operators, league control of brands and marks, whether originating from the its governing documents or just as a traditional practice, is a good idea.

[Gothamite]

I think it would be helpful if you posted the documents you reference, or links thereto, so we may peruse them ourselves. 

[MJWalker45]

4 hours ago, Mac the Knife said:

 

 

The only one I can't speak for with certainty is MLS, for the reasons mentioned earlier.  In all the other cases though, there is nothing legislatively that prevents it.  It's a moot point perhaps, as in this day and age no one in their right mind would try it - the "Devil Rays" to "Rays" rebrand was what led me to look into it back when it was announced; I think full blown rebranding (new name and identity) is a bad idea unless you have a compelling reason to do it such as franchise relocation (Washington Senators to Texas Rangers) or public pressure is being applied (Redskins, Indians, etc.)

 

But MJ, I'll argue that premise with you, for sake of argument if nothing else.  Owners don't know what works with respect to branding.  They think they know what will sell more swag.  And in the short term?  They're right.  But over an extended period of time, history has demonstrated a lot of those choices to be bad.  For example, does anyone think that if Toronto were granted an NBA expansion team to start play in 2015 rather than 1995, they'd go with "Raptors" as a name?  If not for a minority owner by the name of David Gerstein who had the good sense to stop it, the Nets would've been rebranded the New Jersey Swamp Dragons.

 

Ostensibly as a partnership among its teams and their operators, league control of brands and marks, whether originating from the its governing documents or just as a traditional practice, is a good idea.

If we were looking at MLS, wouldn't the league have told Atlanta to pick a new name? The Atlanta ownership discussed allowing the organic creation of nicknames when settling on United, at the same time that Minnesota United was fighting to keep their logos. Seattle had a similar fight to keep the Sounders name when joining as well. 

[Mac the Knife]

With soccer though you can get away with similar names because of European club traditions.  It's not imaginative, but it's also not seen as problematic as generally (with the exception of Manchester United, perhaps) teams aren't referred to as "the United," "Sporting," etc.

 

Seattle's fight with respect to the Sounders name wasn't with MLS, it was with their own fans; initially if I remember right (and admittedly, I may not) they didn't want to use "Sounders," but the feedback they got from fans was loud and clear:  they wanted the name back.

[kroywen]

7 hours ago, Mac the Knife said:

But MJ, I'll argue that premise with you, for sake of argument if nothing else.  Owners don't know what works with respect to branding.  They think they know what will sell more swag.  And in the short term?  They're right.  But over an extended period of time, history has demonstrated a lot of those choices to be bad.  For example, does anyone think that if Toronto were granted an NBA expansion team to start play in 2015 rather than 1995, they'd go with "Raptors" as a name?  If not for a minority owner by the name of David Gerstein who had the good sense to stop it, the Nets would've been rebranded the New Jersey Swamp Dragons.

 

And league offices wouldn't pursue the same exact course of action? The league office is little more than a vessel for the team owners as a collective body. The league office is just as interested in selling swag for each team as the individual owners are. I don't see how the NBA choosing team names and identities would've prevented the Raptors or the Swamp Dragons any more than having ownership choose. In fact, having the league office choose might've made Swamp Dragons more likely to happen, as you wouldn't have had a minority owner be able to exercise outsized influence.

 

I also tend to think the Raptors are the exception that proves the rule - that most owners don't choose extremely "of-the-moment" names. That one stands out just because of how time-specific the reference was - it'd be like a 2008 team being named the "Dark Knights," or a brand new team this year being named the "Black Panthers" (boy, would that get vetoed by a league office in a heartbeat). No other team name stands out to that degree.

 

Sure, some names area bit stylistically dated - the Orlando Magic and Miami Heat come to mind, but you could also say the Boston Red Sox and Chicago Cubs are stylistically dated as well. The "wouldn't create that name today" argument applies just as much to beloved identities like the Dodgers and Phillies as it does to the Magic and Raptors. 

 

[Gothamite]

2 hours ago, MJWalker45 said:

If we were looking at MLS, wouldn't the league have told Atlanta to pick a new name? The Atlanta ownership discussed allowing the organic creation of nicknames when settling on United, at the same time that Minnesota United was fighting to keep their logos. Seattle had a similar fight to keep the Sounders name when joining as well. 

 

Minnesota United didn’t get to “keep” its logo in the end - they had to modify it to a version that MLS could register and own.