Jump to content

Los Angeles NFL Brands Discussion


OnWis97

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, LMU said:

Funny how much whining there is about an interlocking LA being a ripoff.  You'd think there'd have been a situation where a city with two words in it had something similar happening...

 

 

IMG_1940.JPG

IMG_1941.JPG

The difference being that the Mets were meant to be a direct reference to both the Dodgers and Giants, and the history of National League baseball in New York...

YVRMUBj.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 12k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
7 minutes ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

The Knicks used a Yankees logo????

Fun trivia:  It's actually a police logo designed by perhaps the most famous jeweler in the world.

The logo has a connection to Tiffany's. The famous interlocking "NY" logo predates the Yankees. It first was designed by Tiffany and Co. as part of a Medal of Valor for John McDowell, an NYPD officer who was shot in the line of duty in 1877.

018323_lg.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

The difference being that the Mets were meant to be a direct reference to both the Dodgers and Giants, and the history of National League baseball in New York...

Whereas the Dodgers logo was acquired from the PCL LA Angels after O'Malley bought them and sent them into exile in the Palouse. Then Autry added some pretty serifs and adopted essentially the same thing.

 

Point being: interlocking letters aren't proprietary and if the Mets borrowed the Giants logo in the current era this board would devolve into anarchy.

VmWIn6B.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, dont care said:

What makes you say that? There currently isn't a need for expansion and all the rest of the current teams won't be looking to move another team to SoCal, and with how SD already refused to build new stadiums in the past it doesn't look like they will in the future, especially with no one coming at them proposing ideas. San Diego just doesn't seem like a city that puts that into a priority.

 

Because the NFL has a track record for going back to previous cities- whether successful or not- through expansion or relocation, once the dust settles on stadium situations.

 

Houston, Cleveland, Baltimore, St. Louis, Oakland, LA (back and forth and back again). None of those franchises were in their respective towns for anywhere close to how long the Chargers have been in San Diego. 

sig.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

The Knicks used a Yankees logo????

 

I'll do you one better - the Giants used to use versions of both Mets and Yankees logos.  Sometimes at the same time.

 

32155807756_57c225cec2_b.jpg

 

Of course, that was a different era.  There was a time when sports teams would just outright adopt the name of the popular team in another sport, but nobody would think that's a good idea today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, LMU said:

Funny how much whining there is about an interlocking LA being a ripoff.  You'd think there'd have been a situation where a city with two words in it had something similar happening...

 

 1.JPG2.JPG3.JPG4.JPG

 

 

Sometimes it happened in cities with one-letter names.

perry-indians.jpg rose.jpg

 

 

21 minutes ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

The Knicks used a Yankees logo????

 

The football Giants did, too.

football giants yankee logo.jpeg

 

In fact, the football Giants used the logos both of the Yankees and of the baseball Giants.

football giants yankee and giant logos.jpg

 

[Edit: @Gothamite posted the same image at the same time!]

logo-diamonds-for-CC-no-photo-sig.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, I don't think it's a half-bad logo. My only issue is using navy and white, but powder blue and yellow looks great. I also would keep the current helmet logo, this doesn't fit there.

 

People are really going nuts about this being similar to the Dodgers and Lightning, which is fair but overblown. It's simple mark that represents both the city and the franchise. I have a feeling that they are getting more :censored: because of the terrible circumstances that have led to the necessity for the logo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, tigerslionspistonshabs said:

 

Because the NFL has a track record for going back to previous cities- whether successful or not- through expansion or relocation, once the dust settles on stadium situations.

 

Houston, Cleveland, Baltimore, St. Louis, Oakland, LA (back and forth and back again). None of those franchises were in their respective towns for anywhere close to how long the Chargers have been in San Diego. 

 

Browns -- in Cleveland 1946-1995

Rams -- in LA 1946-1994

 

Not quite 55 years, but pretty damn close.

Most Liked Content of the Day -- February 15, 2017, August 21, 2017, August 22, 2017     /////      Proud Winner of the CCSLC Post of the Day Award -- April 8, 2008

Originator of the Upside Down Sarcasm Smilie -- November 1, 2005  🙃

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, tigerslionspistonshabs said:

 

Because the NFL has a track record for going back to previous cities- whether successful or not- through expansion or relocation, once the dust settles on stadium situations.

 

Houston, Cleveland, Baltimore, St. Louis, Oakland, LA (back and forth and back again). None of those franchises were in their respective towns for anywhere close to how long the Chargers have been in San Diego. 

San Diego isn't building a stadium. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

Not in the immediate future. 

Also the league isn't in a position to expand. So I'm not sure how the league returns. 

 

Not necessarily expansion, but whoever the next victim of a lame-duck stadium situation may be. All of the franchises seem to be fairly stable currently, but 5-10 years down the road, who knows? 

sig.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, tigerslionspistonshabs said:

 

Not necessarily expansion, but whoever the name victim of a lame-duck stadium situation may be. All of the franchises seem to be fairly stable currently, but 5-10 years down the road, who knows? 

Meh. Maybe, but I'm not betting on it with no desire to build a new stadium, and no team looking to move (aside from the Raiders, who are probably headed to Las Vegas).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It always seemed like the most likely to relocate would be Jacksonville, but while there will always be issues with the market just based on its size and economics, they have committed ownership and a decent stadium situation so they seem like they're in good shape now.

 

The Raiders aren't going to wait the 20 or so years it will take for SD to possibly consider building a stadium (and by then, the NFL might not even resemble itself today both in style of play and popularity) so unless Buffalo's new owners sell or die, it's not likely anyone is moving for a long time after the Raiders do.

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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