North American Pro Soccer 2015

[DaytonBlue]

I don't mind Minnesota United since they have a pretty strong unofficial nickname in Loons too.

[Still MIGHTY]

True, although "United" doesn't have to mean anything more than players and/or fans united towards a common goal. Many of the world's most famous Uniteds chose the name because it was common to the sport, not because it reflected the merger of two clubs or anything like that.

Right. I know. See my own Manchester United. (You could argue it was four businessmen "uniting" to save the club from debt in 1902. Or arbitrary in switching from Newton Heath.)

I meant it would make literal sense in uniting two things. Not just a name thrown on because soccer.

[pluggerplugger1]

I love the current identity MNUFC has, I really hope they don't change it. It's also worth noting that Dr. McGuire (the current majority owner) was once CEO of UnitedHealthGroup... a lot of people said that may have been a factor in the rebrand from a few years ago.

DaytonBlue is right in saying that Loons is a very prominent nickname as well. I don't know if I'd like the MLS reincarnation to include 'Loons' in the official team name, but I wouldn't be opposed. I just hope they won't need to tweak anything too badly, I think their current set would be one of the best in MLS.

[IanC]

For exposure around the globe it is better if MLS clubs start using names like City or United or F.C. Having nicknames after a City name does bring an element of not taking your game seriously enough. It might work with other American sports but with soccer it just does not fit globally. Thats why Minnesota United sounds very good and just like Orlando and New York City. The organisers have realised this to be taken more seriously.

[Gothamite]

I don't think there's anything wrong with admitting and embracing the global nature of the game, and adopting the best traditions for ourselves. Not to say no teams should have American-style nicknames, but the variety is good for the league. .

[NJTank]

TCFC would be good name

[pluggerplugger1]

https://twitter.com/IMSoccerNews/status/580045403514675200

Here's a link to a tweet (not sure how to embed (if even possible)) from IMSoccer News (St. Paul) stating:

"Source is telling me they believe Minnesota United FC will be allowed to keep name, logo, special font when moving to MLS."

We may not know if this is legit until tomorrow morning's announcement, but what do you all think of this?

[-kj]

Oh, Brian and his "sources"...

Also... you guyyyyys... sigh

[Gothamite]

Yeah, that was mentioned yesterday. So far the response seems to be positive - they have a pretty good identity, no need to change it.

[pcgd]

Update on the Indy Eleven Stadium:

After passing the Indiana house, the bill went to the Senate. The senate added a new amendment which basically killed the stadium renderings we all saw. Instead of a new $82 Million dollar stadium, its $20 million in bonds from the state for renovations of their current stadium, still repaid the same way the old bill had it. The city of Indianapolis and the team would likely kick in additional money. It would be state owned (technically Indiana University which runs IUPUI where the stadium is) and the team would be a tenant but the primary one and have a 20 year lease. That version passed committee this morning 13-0 and heads to the full senate. (where I believe it will pass, things don't normally pass committees like that and not pass) The team publicly is in support of the new plan.

I have mixed emotions. Loved the renderings and was hopeful that if they happened, that stadium could become a jewel in the SSS landscape of the United States. Personally, I'm fine with tax dollars going to stadiums. Not because they increase economic development (they don't) but because they create civic pride. Parks don't give us economic benefits but they make cities better places. I understand not everyone feels that way and that's fine.

Having said that, it still is NASL we're talking about (currently, or whatever league they may be in in 5 years. I can see a world where the NASL doesn't exist anymore, but I can't see a world where both NASL and USL fold without a replacement. Too much interest…I digress…) Some people have suggested this kills the MLS for Indy but I don't see how that's really true. In order for the team to go to MLS if that ever happens, they'll need additional investors anyway and perhaps they can revisit a new stadium at that time. Depending on how its written, the lease could be broken or something could be done. Indy could be in the discussion right now if they had richer ownership.

In the meantime, "The Mike" will be a good home for them and something was going to have to be done within a few seasons no matter what. I'm sure its a really hard sell getting players to come to Indy when the home stadium has no locker rooms or running water. I love quirky stadiums and perhaps we could get some interesting solutions to the issues that the stadium currently has. I do hope they get rid of the track and turf though. The turf might go, but I think the track is going to stay unfortunately.

[gosioux76]

I can see why Orlando, Vancouver, Seattle and Portland upgraded their identities upon moving up to MLS. But Minnesota United FC — the name, logo, uniforms, everything — is one of the few that could, and should, make the move unchanged.

Sure, a few uniform tweaks to adhere to MLS styles, are to be expected. But I love everything about the current branding scheme. The adoption of the loon motif is unique to sports and relevant to the market. Its adaptation on the jerseys, and the emphasis on gray as a primary color, work perfectly.

As much as I enjoyed Mockba's design — a look that certainly didn't get as much time on the pitch as it deserved — I'd be disappointed if the club did much tweaking to its look.

[Gothamite]

Portland's new design was an unmitigated disaster. When was the last time an expansion team's logo was roundly booed by fans at the unveiling? It's also no coincidence that the design they wear on their shirts now is closer still to their old one.

At the time, it was reported that they had to replace their logo with a new MLS-approved one per league policy. If reports about Minnesota United are true, that policy has been changed. And not a moment too soon.

You're right about the Sounders and Orlando, but Minnesota would be smart to leave theirs alone. As Portland likely would have, had it been allowed.

[Needschat]

Minnesota could just become the "Minnesota Loons."

[TBGKon]

Minnesota could just become the "Minnesota Loons."

Nah, that name is weak.

[gosioux76]

Portland's new design was an unmitigated disaster. When was the last time an expansion team's logo was roundly booed by fans at the unveiling? It's also no coincidence that the design they wear on their shirts now is closer still to their old one.

I generally disagreed - and still disagreed - that Portland's USL crest should have made the jump to MLS. But I agree that what they came up with, both initially and the less cartoon-y final version, isn't ideal. I think what they're using this year, the axe and chevrons minus the word mark, is spot-on perfect. But I suspect it's a one-year deal to coincide with the franchise's 40th anniversary.

At the time, it was reported that they had to replace their logo with a new MLS-approved one per league policy. If reports about Minnesota United are true, that policy has been changed. And not a moment too soon.

You're right about the Sounders and Orlando, but Minnesota would be smart to leave theirs alone. As Portland likely would have, had it been allowed.

I'm curious about the IMSoccer tweet, though. I could see the league allowing Minnesota United to carry over the club's name and logo, but its "special font?"

[Needschat]

Minnesota could just become the "Minnesota Loons."

Nah, that name is weak.

Considering that it's their name already, just drop United.

[IanC]

Minnesota could just become the "Minnesota Loons."

Nah, that name is weak.

Nobody would take a name like that seriously in the bigger global soccer realm and for good reasons it's very lame.

[Gothamite]

Portland's new design was an unmitigated disaster. When was the last time an expansion team's logo was roundly booed by fans at the unveiling? It's also no coincidence that the design they wear on their shirts now is closer still to their old one.

I generally disagreed - and still disagreed - that Portland's USL crest should have made the jump to MLS. But I agree that what they came up with, both initially and the less cartoon-y final version, isn't ideal. I think what they're using this year, the axe and chevrons minus the word mark, is spot-on perfect. But I suspect it's a one-year deal to coincide with the franchise's 40th anniversary.

At the time, it was reported that they had to replace their logo with a new MLS-approved one per league policy. If reports about Minnesota United are true, that policy has been changed. And not a moment too soon.

You're right about the Sounders and Orlando, but Minnesota would be smart to leave theirs alone. As Portland likely would have, had it been allowed.

I'm curious about the IMSoccer tweet, though. I could see the league allowing Minnesota United to carry over the club's name and logo, but its "special font?"

I think they mean the wordmark.

And they didn't say anything about it when the new shirts were unveiled, so I really hope you're reaching on that Timbers 40th anniversary badge.

[gosioux76]

Portland's new design was an unmitigated disaster. When was the last time an expansion team's logo was roundly booed by fans at the unveiling? It's also no coincidence that the design they wear on their shirts now is closer still to their old one.

I generally disagreed - and still disagreed - that Portland's USL crest should have made the jump to MLS. But I agree that what they came up with, both initially and the less cartoon-y final version, isn't ideal. I think what they're using this year, the axe and chevrons minus the word mark, is spot-on perfect. But I suspect it's a one-year deal to coincide with the franchise's 40th anniversary.

At the time, it was reported that they had to replace their logo with a new MLS-approved one per league policy. If reports about Minnesota United are true, that policy has been changed. And not a moment too soon.

You're right about the Sounders and Orlando, but Minnesota would be smart to leave theirs alone. As Portland likely would have, had it been allowed.

I'm curious about the IMSoccer tweet, though. I could see the league allowing Minnesota United to carry over the club's name and logo, but its "special font?"

I think they mean the wordmark.

And they didn't say anything about it when the new shirts were unveiled, so I really hope you're reaching on that Timbers 40th anniversary badge.

I say that only because the club continues to refer to the wordmark-less badge as a secondary logo. As far as I know, the Timbers haven't changed the status of the primary logo, the one with the wordmark, which still appears on the crest of the red change kits. So I made the assumption that the change on the primaries this year is due largely to the year-long celebration of the club's history.

Here's a quote from the team press release when the kits were unveiled:

The club’s secondary logo is featured on the left chest while a Timbers 5/40 nod, recognizing the team’s fifth year in MLS and 40th anniversary as a club since the team’s founding in 1975, is included on the jersey’s jock tag.

[Gothamite]

That's still a lot of assumptions. I'm not aware of any league rules preventing a team from putting its secondary logo on the shirt.