Possible New New York Red Bulls logo?

[Around the Horn]

3 minutes ago, Buc said:

 I mean, being right outside of Newark, the ["Metro" part of the] name makes sense, to me anyway. But again, that's just me...feel free to skip on past this if you wish.

See this is what I was trying to get at earlier...

NYCFC can claim the city and Red Bulls due to their location in Jersey should claim the metro area. And I feel like going back to Metro Stars would solidify that identity as a NY/NJ regional team.

[Gothamite]

1 hour ago, Ice_Cap said:

That's part of what gets me about this NYCFC/Red Bulls back and forth, in a way that does Stick to Sports(tm).

There seems to be this perception that the Red Bulls are nothing but a corporate billboard out in New Jersey while NYCFC is the Real Team With Real Fans and Also Scarves.

 

I literally don't know anybody who feels that way.  NYCFC fans understand we’re part of a larger corporate entity, too.  

 

You’ve also got it backwards; they’re the ones who call us “plastic”, while they’re the Real Fans Who Supported Soccer For Twenty Years And Where Have You Been.  Although that’s mostly just joshing and banter.

 

1 hour ago, Ice_Cap said:

I think the Cosmos could have been that, but unfortunately the name fell into the hands of some dolts who didn't know what they were doing. It's probably a tarnished brand at this point.

I'm not sure I want to see it now. I'm over all the NASL fetishizing. They failed. MLS is still going strong.

 

I can’t name a single team that’s had a worse string of ownership than the second Cosmos. Since their founding, they’ve had three owners that are liars at best, frauds and con men at worst.  How many teams can say that?

[MilSox]

47 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

Ultimately it was a name meant to tie in with a corporate brand. The idea that Red Bull came in and stripped away this wonderfully unique thing is a fallacy.
 

And as I said before? There was a push for more international-style names in MLS. One I supported, and still supported. I believe that, yes, the top flight league in North America should absolutely look to fit in with the top clubs elsewhere. As Gothamite has pointed out on a number of occasions? Manchester United chose the name specifically because it sounded soccer-y. So there's no shame in newer clubs following the same logic.
 

The trade-off, however, is that there will be some clubs that go corporate with their names. The New York Red Bulls wasn't a name that came out of nowhere, after all.

It's hard to believe that was ever a long-term plan considering Metromedia was folded and its assets sold to MGM almost as soon as the Metrostars began play.

I also think you're making a lot of assumptions and projections regarding my stance.  I like the mix of European and American naming conventions in MLS and always have.  I would have no problem if they changed their name to something along the lines of Metro FC or Metropolitan FC.  Those names both sound European, yet evoke a naming convention that sports club in the NYC area have been adopting since the 19th century.

That said, I have no problem with the NASL legacy names either.  The league on the whole may have failed, but it was around long enough for several of its franchises to become part of the culture of their community.  Particularly those teams in the Northwest which continued on in one form or another until their city got a MLS franchise.

But naming yourself directly for a corporation and taking on their branding?  That's bush league and amateur.  Notice that with the exception of RB Leipzig, none of those teams play in what is considered a top flight competition.  And in Leipzig's case, while the team's identity is definitely influenced by Red Bull's branding, neither the name or logo appears anywhere in the Leipzig's brand.  The RB doesn't even stand for "Red Bull," but rather "RasenBallsport."



If NYRB's approach were closer to this, people would find it a lot more stomachable.  But if you want MLS to be seen amongst the top competitions in the world, it probably shouldn't allow something that happens in third world competitions out of necessity.

[AstroCree]

5 hours ago, Brandon9485 said:

Having a name with New York has more value than a name with New Jersey. Red Bull is not going to give that value away. 

Representing New Jersey worked well for the Devils. 

[njdevs7]

Could argue about this all day (I live in NY and have been a Red Bulls season ticket holder before NYCFC even existed).

 

The "Red Bulls should drop NY from their name" argument would be valid if...

 

1) They weren't the only NY area soccer team for 20 years

2) The Jets and Giants didn't also play in NJ

 

[IceCap]

1 hour ago, NicDB said:

I also think you're making a lot of assumptions and projections regarding my stance. 

Not really. I wasn't making any assumptions about your stance.

 

1 hour ago, NicDB said:

That's bush league and amateur.

Is it? They've consistently been the better team out of MLS' two New York teams. Say what you will about the name, longevity and wins cure a lot of ills.

 

1 hour ago, NicDB said:

That said, I have no problem with the NASL legacy names either. 

I 100% do. I'm tired of people going "ewww more Euro names, [insert NASL name] was better!" Every year we get further from the failure that was the NASL. It's time we collectively moved on. And I'm glad we're mostly trending in that direction.

I will say that the lone exception would have been the Cosmos. Unfortunately that brand fell into the hand of a gaggle of idiots who drove it into the ground to the point where it has no equity.

 

1 hour ago, NicDB said:

I would have no problem if they changed their name to something along the lines of Metro FC or Metropolitan FC.

Would that have been good? Yeah. Am I too broken up about the name "Red Bulls"? Nah.

[SFGiants58]

I agree. I'm not even a "Class of '96" supporter (the old Quakes left and I'm not going to become a Rapids fan), yet I believe that RBNY should keep the "New York" name. At the very least, it's more marketable than "New Jersey."

 

6 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

I 100% do. I'm tired of people going "ewww more Euro names, [insert NASL name] was better!" Every year we get further from the failure that was the NASL. It's time we collectively moved on. And I'm glad we're mostly trending in that direction.

 

No kidding. I remember some doofus (I think it was VancouverFan69) who wanted Toronto FC to be the Toronto Blizzard or Metros, because that was the old NASL name (along with the LA Aztecs). Given the success of both Toronto FC and LAFC/LA Galaxy, giving into silly/inappropriate NASL names is stupid.

 

Also, if San Diego gets an MLS bid, please don't revive "Sockers." That's just corny.

 

Quote

I will say that the lone exception would have been the Cosmos. Unfortunately that brand fell into the hand of a gaggle of idiots who drove it into the ground to the point where it has no equity.

 

What about the Pacific Northwest teams (the Sounders, Timbers, and Whitecaps) and the Earthquakes? Granted, they at least had the excuse of semi-continuous operation/existing on lower levels in between the NASL days and their MLS call-up. Also, "Earthquakes" is so much better than "Clash."

 

I wouldn't have minded the revival of the Cosmos' name, before all of the brand equity went right into the toilet.

 

Quote

Would that have been good? Yeah. Am I too broken up about the name "Red Bulls"? Nah.

 

Same.

 

[sozopol]

Hey ho, lifelong soccer fan from NYC here. I remember the Cosmos as a kid. MetroStars fan from 1996, but never really loved the (MetroMedia) identity, and when Red Bull bought them that was even worse. But they were the only local option. My kids grew up in NYC playing soccer, and Red Bull was the only (slightly embarrassing) local option. We were at the opening of Red Bull Arena in 2010. Watched awkwardly, disappointed, as Cosmos crashed and burned like Icarus. When NYCFC was announced in 2013 I was overjoyed-- yes it was a foreign, oil-money group (plus the Yankees at 20% lol), but they went all in on NYC identity and reached out to local clubs. Crest and branding was all about NYC, and beautiful to boot. . The club invested in infrastructure by building fields in the underserved communities in the 5 boroughs. I can tell you that a stadium is coming (I work for an engineering/environmental firm with knowledge of the project). Red Bull has mostly focused on northern NJ lately when it comes to their camps, clubs, and events. However, why on earth would Red Bull want to trade in NY for NJ, not in a million years would they do that. I don't blame them. But I am blue through and through. I love that I can jump on the subway to catch a match rather than have to brave the PATH train to NJ.  I love the NYCFC fan community, culture, and club! 

[IceCap]

2 minutes ago, sozopol said:

Hey ho, lifelong soccer fan from NYC here. I remember the Cosmos as a kid. MetroStars fan from 1996, but never really loved the (MetroMedia) identity, and when Red Bull bought them that was even worse. But they were the only local option. My kids grew up in NYC playing soccer, and Red Bull was the only (slightly embarrassing) local option. We were at the opening of Red Bull Arena in 2010. Watched awkwardly, disappointed, as Cosmos crashed and burned like Icarus. When NYCFC was announced in 2013 I was overjoyed-- yes it was a foreign, oil-money group (plus the Yankees at 20% lol), but they went all in on NYC identity and reached out to local clubs. Crest and branding was all about NYC, and beautiful to boot. . The club invested in infrastructure by building fields in the underserved communities in the 5 boroughs. I can tell you that a stadium is coming (I work for an engineering/environmental firm with knowledge of the project). Red Bull has mostly focused on northern NJ lately when it comes to their camps, clubs, and events. However, why on earth would Red Bull want to trade in NY for NJ, not in a million years would they do that. I don't blame them. But I am blue through and through. I love that I can jump on the subway to catch a match rather than have to brave the PATH train to NJ.  I love the NYCFC fan community, culture, and club! 

 

 

21 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

What about the Pacific Northwest teams (the Sounders, Timbers, and Whitecaps) and the Earthquakes? Granted, they at least had the excuse of semi-continuous operation/existing on lower levels in between the NASL days and their MLS call-up. Also, "Earthquakes" is so much better than "Clash."

The continuous operation thing helps a lot. It's not some old names like Blizzard or Aztecs that's been out of use for decades.

[AstroCree]

Still very pissed off about the Cosmos brand being buried to oblivion. What a waste. 

[MilSox]

44 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

Not really. I wasn't making any assumptions about your stance.

 

Is it? They've consistently been the better team out of MLS' two New York teams. Say what you will about the name, longevity and wins cure a lot of ills.

 

I 100% do. I'm tired of people going "ewww more Euro names, [insert NASL name] was better!" Every year we get further from the failure that was the NASL. It's time we collectively moved on. And I'm glad we're mostly trending in that direction.

I will say that the lone exception would have been the Cosmos. Unfortunately that brand fell into the hand of a gaggle of idiots who drove it into the ground to the point where it has no equity.

 

Would that have been good? Yeah. Am I too broken up about the name "Red Bulls"? Nah.

Then how did this become about North American vs. European naming conventions?  Especially when the name I've been advocating for is Metro FC.

But again, if the goal is for MLS to be taken more seriously.  And the Bundesliga, one of the most respected soccer competitions in the world, won't allow its Red Bull owned club to be named explicitly in reference to its product; then it's probably not a good idea to have a team called the New York Red Bulls in our top flight league.

One last thing, on the topic of NASL names. I think all the good ones have been salvaged at this point.  With the exception of Cosmos, and, well... I'd rather not think about that.

[Dilbert]

5 minutes ago, NicDB said:

One last thing, on the topic of NASL names. I think all the good ones have been salvaged at this point.  With the exception of Cosmos, and, well... I'd rather not think about that.

Yeah the Cosmos as well as the Strikers names were tarnished by NASL 2.0. The only three Id really love to see return would be the Drillers in Edmonton, the Blizzard in Toronto, and the Sting in Chicago. If the USL adds a team in Chicago in the future Id love to see the Sting there. Have FC Edmonton in the CPL become the Drillers. Add a Toronto team in the CPL or change USL2 TFCII to the Blizzard.

[UnclearInitial]

Important to note that technically Red Bull doesn’t own RB Leipzig, as Bundesliga  forbids commercial entities from owning more than 49% of the club, and is by and large the league that most supports fan ownership. Obviously very different from the MLS model. 

 

When NYRB changed to MetroStars the Red Bull sport takeover project was still in its infancy, so I wouldn’t exactly call it as a standard European naming convention either. Austria had been one of the few countries allowing teams to have commercial names but when they changed colors in Salzburg it was still condemned pretty widely. But Red Bull has already shown that they’re willing to let each team develop their identity and stopped the cookie cutter era so right now it’s not really any different from what NYCFC is doing, the only difference is that City was an accepted British football name and Red Bull isn’t. I sure as hell know which team ownership makes me feel less icky, energy drink silliness and all.

[SFGiants58]

2 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

The continuous operation thing helps a lot. It's not some old names like Blizzard or Aztecs that's been out of use for decades.

 

Of course, the Earthquakes name deserved to survive, if only because the NASL side got George Best sober for a time. I've watched that 30 for 30 - keeping Best away from booze was tough. 

 

 

I'd go with the Wogan interview pictures, but that's too far removed from his playing days to be an accurate image of what the Quakes had to deal with in him. It's the footy equivalent of this:

 

 

How Scott Hall has his original liver is a mystery.

[UnclearInitial]

16 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

Of course, the Earthquakes name deserved to survive, if only because the NASL side got George Best sober for a time.

 

Or, as Best would call it, the worst 20 minutes of his life 

[MilSox]

32 minutes ago, anythinglogos said:

Important to note that technically Red Bull doesn’t own RB Leipzig, as Bundesliga  forbids commercial entities from owning more than 49% of the club, and is by and large the league that most supports fan ownership. Obviously very different from the MLS model. 

 

When NYRB changed to MetroStars the Red Bull sport takeover project was still in its infancy, so I wouldn’t exactly call it as a standard European naming convention either. Austria had been one of the few countries allowing teams to have commercial names but when they changed colors in Salzburg it was still condemned pretty widely. But Red Bull has already shown that they’re willing to let each team develop their identity and stopped the cookie cutter era so right now it’s not really any different from what NYCFC is doing, the only difference is that City was an accepted British football name and Red Bull isn’t. I sure as hell know which team ownership makes me feel less icky, energy drink silliness and all.

I'm not a huge follower of MLS, no local rooting interest and all.  So I'll concede based on what I've read in this thread that NYRB's ownership sucks a lot less than NYCFC.

That said, I think my main beef with NYRB's name is that MLS is the only major league in North America where you're allowed to put your corporate sponsor's logo on the team's uniform at a size several times that of any team-specific logos or identifying marks.  It far and away makes the least sense to name a team directly after a sponsor in MLS than it does in any other sport.

I'm far from the type of person who will crap on something for being "too European" or "not 'murican enough," but NYRB's name will always come across as bush league to me. Especially when they could choose a much less controversial identity for the club and still pump out shirts with their logo prominently displayed to their heart's content.

[njdevs7]

9 minutes ago, NicDB said:

I'm not a huge follower of MLS, no local rooting interest and all.  So I'll concede based on what I've read in this thread that NYRB's ownership sucks a lot less than NYCFC.

That said, I think my main beef with NYRB's name is that MLS is the only major league in North America where you're allowed to put your corporate sponsor's logo on the team's uniform at a size several times that of any team-specific logos or identifying marks.  It far and away makes the least sense to name a team directly after a sponsor in MLS than it does in any other sport.

I'm far from the type of person who will crap on something for being "too European" or "not 'murican enough," but NYRB's name will always come across as bush league to me. Especially when they could choose a much less controversial identity for the club and still pump out shirts with their logo prominently displayed on the chest to their heart's content.

 

I agree that "Red Bull New York" sounds kinda corporate. It's on the badge but their official name is "New York Red Bulls." Maybe I'm just used to it, but it doesn't sound corporate to me. Sounds just like a nickname, like Manchester United Red Devils.

[IceCap]

1 hour ago, NicDB said:

Then how did this become about North American vs. European naming conventions?  Especially when the name I've been advocating for is Metro FC.

I was making a general point about how the name New York Red Bulls has precedent elsewhere.

 

1 hour ago, NicDB said:

But again, if the goal is for MLS to be taken more seriously.

I think the Red Bulls being a regular contender has done as much as possible when it comes to the team being taken seriously.

 

23 minutes ago, NicDB said:

That said, I think my main beef with NYRB's name is that MLS is the only major league in North America where you're allowed to put your corporate sponsor's logo on the team's uniform at a size several times that of any team-specific logos or identifying marks. 

That's just a soccer thing. Say they became Metro FC. They'd have someone else's corporate logo on their chest.

[Pharos04]

7 hours ago, Gothamite said:

This fan-colorized one is making the social media rounds.  Includes a version with the current shield, which I don't think we'll see, but the letters look good in red.

 

 

the one on the left would look good on a white shirt, or reversed on a red shirt.

Back on the actual topic and not whether NYRB is relevant to New York proper:

it could work as a secondary logo but the shield shape makes me think it’s either a new primary to minimize the full on Red Bull logo, or perhaps this is like RB Leipzig where it’s an “international” version, since FIFA doesn’t allow corporate names.

 

reading about RB Leipzig, it’s actually a crazy story in how Red Bull wanted to have a top-level team in Bundesliga but no one was selling, so they bought an extremely low-level team and built their way up through Promotion all the way up to Bundesliga.

[BC985]

3 hours ago, insert name said:

Representing New Jersey worked well for the Devils. 

The Rangers are worth 3x more than the Devils (according to Forbes), and the Devils are only slightly more valuable than the Islanders. 
 

Name matters and NY > NJ.