Jump to content

North American Pro Soccer 2016


Gothamite
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 928
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Where have you seen this as a "policy" of the league?

I certainly can be proven wrong if you have a quote from a league official saying "it's our policy to make teams change their logo when entering the league" I'll gladly say you told me so.

But it's my understanding this is based off a comment from the Timbers when they changed their logo and that turns into the "policy" of the league. (Which I'd like to see those stwtements. I don't doubt they were made but I'd like to see them in context) That could be attributed to someone mis-speaking, misunderstanding, or just blowing smoke. That's what I'm talking about. And it happens all the time around here. One off statements are taken as entirely factual, and then are interpreted as long term league, team, or manufacture policies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember the complaints from Seattle when the league wouldn't even let them enter as the Seattle Sounders. They wanted to keep their logos but MLS controls all team logos, case in point Orlando Pride. It took the ECS and other supporter groups speaking out to get Seattle Sounders FC. Timbers were not a one off. It's the same reason Vancouver dropped a far superior logo as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember the complaints from Seattle when the league wouldn't even let them enter as the Seattle Sounders. They wanted to keep their logos but MLS controls all team logos, case in point Orlando Pride. It took the ECS and other supporter groups speaking out to get Seattle Sounders FC. Timbers were not a one off. It's the same reason Vancouver dropped a far superior logo as well.

The whole thing worked out for Seattle though. This:

seattle-sounders-logo.jpg

is a significantly better identity than this:

seattlesounders.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember the complaints from Seattle when the league wouldn't even let them enter as the Seattle Sounders. They wanted to keep their logos but MLS controls all team logos, case in point Orlando Pride. It took the ECS and other supporter groups speaking out to get Seattle Sounders FC. Timbers were not a one off. It's the same reason Vancouver dropped a far superior logo as well.

I'd love to see the quotes to that effect from those team officials and even better, some league officials.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm looking for a cite, but it was confirmed to me by people in the Timbers Army who were involved with trying to fix that debacle.

They were brought in to work with the team, and one of their early suggestions was "just keep the old one." They were told point-blank that MLS wouldn't allow that, and that the new design would be registered by MLS as its own property from the start to avoid any confusion.

But I'll see if I can back that up with reporting (if you'd believe it anyway :P ).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't see why there would be that rule. It makes no sense. I can see a scenario where an owner that wants a new logo, knows the fans aren't crazy about it, and when asked why they can't use the old one blames the big mean league.

And I'll absolutely believe you if you can find a league official saying its their policy to make teams change their logo. I'm stuburn but I'm never afraid to admit when I'm wrong. I just can't make that jump based only off what team PR reps say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know that we'll ever find any league officials saying that, given how MLS prizes its opacity. They don't volunteer anything.

Which I guess isn't surprising - we wouldn't know about the NFL's 5-year rule if an owner hadn't spilled the beans. Not sure anyone from the league has ever publicly confirmed that.

So if that's the only evidence you'll accept, I don't think anyone will be able to satisfy you. Not because it isn't so, but because these types of things tend to stay under the radar.

The rule only makes sense to me if there is a concern teams might leave and want to take their IP with them, and only MLS has a claim on it. But then again, I find a lot of the MLS rules to be slightly silly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surprised this wasn't mentioned yet, but the Atlanta Silverbacks are no more. NASL will have 11 teams again in Spring with the additions of Rayo OKC and Miami and the subtractions of San Antonio (basically moved to USL) and Atlanta (basically moved to MLS). Yes I know those are different franchises but by and large the fanbases are just moving to different teams. There will be holdouts in Atlanta but not many.

I predict the name will come back as Atlanta United's USL team in a few years, but they'll play at the new Atlanta United soccer facility, not Silverbacks Park. I don't have knowledge of that or anything, just a prediction.

In other news, Peter Wilt also has left Indy Eleven to join Club 9 Sports, which is trying to bring a NASL team to Chicago. This pretty much confirms there will be a NASL team in Chicago in 2017. Indy has hired a president to handle the business side (former head of Indianapolis Motor Speedway) and will hire a GM in the future. Wilt will act as the GM in the near term to complete the 2016 roster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't see why there would be that rule. It makes no sense. I can see a scenario where an owner that wants a new logo, knows the fans aren't crazy about it, and when asked why they can't use the old one blames the big mean league.

And I'll absolutely believe you if you can find a league official saying its their policy to make teams change their logo. I'm stuburn but I'm never afraid to admit when I'm wrong. I just can't make that jump based only off what team PR reps say.

Just a thought: It could be because the league is single entity as oposed to independantly owned teams in a association/league? Where as the previous version of those teams (Seattle, Portland, Montreal, Vancouver...ect) were considered independant teams?

I don't know that for a fact at all, just something that may play into it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Silverbacks news was expected - the NASL just hung on as long as they could before pulling the plug. I get the sense that they were still hoping to find new ownership, but it's time to finalize the schedule and there's no more appetite for a league-run club. So the team dies, and nearly a quarter-century of history comes to an end. It's sad - I was hoping that they could relocate it instead of just folding.

Peter Wilt moving (back) to Chicago is interesting, though. That indicates the Sting is closer to a return than we thought, if he's drawing a salary. But still, a Chicago team would be interesting but doesn't solve their West Coast problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The same reports I've seen that have a Chicago team joining in 2017 have a SF and Orange County team joining as well. So I think their West Coast problem should be solved soon.

But hey, knowing the NASL, they are going to have a Albert Pujols owned team start up in Kansas City with a MK Dons backed team in Houston...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The same reports I've seen that have a Chicago team joining in 2017 have a SF and Orange County team joining as well. So I think their West Coast problem should be solved soon.

But hey, knowing the NASL, they are going to have a Albert Pujols owned team start up in Kansas City with a MK Dons backed team in Houston...

I'll believe San Francisco when I see it. They still haven't explained where this fantasy team will play except for to say it'll be near downtown. Which... "good luck with that in San Francisco" is about the only logical answer you can give.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The same reports I've seen that have a Chicago team joining in 2017 have a SF and Orange County team joining as well. So I think their West Coast problem should be solved soon.

But hey, knowing the NASL, they are going to have a Albert Pujols owned team start up in Kansas City with a MK Dons backed team in Houston...

I feel the same way about the proposed NASL efforts in Chicago. While Chicago NASL is extremely fortunate to have Peter Wilt drumming up support for its efforts in the Windy City, said organization faces nearly as uphill a struggle as a San Francisco-based side is going to.

Wilt is on record as tweeting, "For a short term solution, Soldier Field is our target but we plan to build a soccer-specific stadium in the city of Chicago." He also reportedly told Soccer Morning that construction of the stadium will be 100% financed by the group looking into launching the team.

Here's hoping that the pockets behind this venture are EXTREMELY deep, because it isn't going to be inexpensive to lease Soldier Field and foot the entirety of the bill for construction of a soccer-specific stadium in Chicago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.