CJR

Admin
  • Content Count

    4,332
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

26 Prospect

About CJR

  • Rank
    Official Token American

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Contact Methods

Recent Profile Visitors

9,402 profile views
  1. London said they were never asked. Somewhere along the line, someone (maybe Foley himself?) said "London owns the rights to 'Knights' in Canada" and suddenly a bunch of people took that to mean Vegas had tried to go with "Knights" and London had blocked them. It didn't happen that way. Foley wanted "Black Knights" and then immediately shifted to "<something> Knights" when the Army wouldn't play along.
  2. That logo is very likely wrong. It dates back to a time when people were making up best-guess logos for teams/leagues where there was no definitive logo. As far as I know, no photo of an NHA logo has ever been found. What we do know is that, until 1938 or so, the NHL logo featured text that was simply slanted, not skewed. The mothersite doesn't recognize that despite photographic proof. In order for that NHA logo to be accurate, the NHL would have had to copy everything about the NHA logo except for the skew of the letters, swapping out the A for an L, and then just happen to put the skew back 20ish years later.
  3. Different name but I'm still here and still an admin. I just don't do anything.
  4. There was a thread related to the Kraken that I was researching and didn't follow up on when I wrote that piece because I ran with Geoff Baker's declaration that Kraken had been eliminated. I followed up on it today and, while I don't have anything strong enough to publish, I'll de-lurk to say my gut feeling is Kraken - if it hasn't outright been chosen - has at least pulled ahead of Sockeyes. It might all be part of a feint, for sure, but if so, it goes beyond John Hoven.
  5. Foley basically said this whole time, "I love the Army, I want my team to be like the Army, I'm naming my team after the Army." While no one would look at the Vegas Golden Knights and confuse them for the Golden Knights parachute team, I don't think it's a stretch for someone to think that the Vegas team was somehow endorsed by the Army, especially alongside Foley's comments. That said, I'm no trademark lawyer, so I have no idea if that matters.
  6. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I agree that they'd be missing out on revenue and brand protection. That said, I think that Foley is stubborn enough that he'll just keep using the vegasishockey.com domain no matter what the team name ends up being.
  7. The Silver Knights domains all moved, too.
  8. The Knights were never actually asked and don't hold a trademark on just "Knights" for hockey in Canada anyway, even though people said otherwise. Foley always wanted "______ Knights."
  9. That was the path I went with when I first wrote about the possibility of Desert Knights as the name back in August but I no longer think it's an actual connection. The Silver Knights and Desert Knights domain names are also currently listed as for sale by their current owners. Foley (or people in his org) have said they own those domains in the past but I think he's full of it and they're actually held by speculators. I think they're going to keep using the vegasishockey.com domain, not have one with the team name. He's just not willing to pay speculators.
  10. I'm already mentally composing the OITGDNHL chapter on the naming of this team. Depending on how this all pans out, some of the more absurd parts of this story haven't even been told yet.
  11. The Flint Firebirds had to play their penultimate home game of the season in Saginaw when the ice plant in Flint broke down. The announcement was made just hours before the game and hardly anyone was there. The Flint crew ran most of the in-arena stuff but on their one power play, the scoreboard graphic was Saginaw's power play package.
  12. Near-universally derided here, 4.2 rating on the mothersite... 75% approval rating on Winging it in Motown.
  13. This. There aren't enough likes for this. I get that there are some people who didn't like the old logo and like the new one. But it's pretty clear they're a minority. I have no idea how enough people in the Griffins offices said, "You know what, that new logo is really way better than the other one. We should replace it. Oh, squirrel!" (At least I imagine that's how the conversation ended.)
  14. Hmm.Is Yzerfan plotting another coup? I don't have to, Creamer has been ruling in name only on my behalf for years.
  15. No, it's a global brand in Canada, it's required to use a maple leaf and only a maple leaf. I predict a throwback logo. Throwing back to 1997 means gradients. Lots of gradients.