Sign in to follow this  
gosioux76

MLS Expansion Club St Louis City SC Unveils Name and Logo

Recommended Posts

Jesus. 

 

Is that pink? 
 

Despite recently getting Inter Miami, who looks pretty good, this league REALLY sucks at the branding part of all of this. There’s nothing about this branding package that’s exciting, and the colors are either gaudy (magenta and purple?) Or totally boring (navy and red, snore). That crest is pretty brutally bad, too. This is pretty similar to Cincinnati. They had a really solid (not perfect, but good) look in USL, and transitioned to an MLS package that was a total downgrade. 
 

 

 

This is what has me terrified for Sacramento’s entry into this league. They’ve been fighting for YEARS to maintain their badge and colors, but apparently they’ve had some really serious problems with the league getting that approved. I have this sinking feeling that we’re going to end up with something stupid like Sacramento United wearing purple and black. If that happens, any interest I’ve had in this whole thing disappears.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How badly did Real Salt Lake screw up to not be Salt Lake City FC? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Colors - 9/10

Crest - 6/10

Name - 3/10

 

That being said, as a St. Louisan sports nut, I'm sure I will be buying merch by the end of the day 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, FiddySicks said:

This is pretty similar to Cincinnati. They had a really solid (not perfect, but good) look in USL, and transitioned to an MLS package that was a total downgrade. 

 

 

Wait sorry to thread jack, but is this a commonly held opinion? I thought Cincy's USL look was awful, just that honkin' huge helvetica FC and the soccer ball crown missing an outline and bright vibrant color-clash everywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Digby said:

Yet again, a generic name that's already used enough repeatedly in the league. This doesn't feel like the right path for MLS to take, to me. Made considerably worse by the specific fraughtness of STL's city/county dynamic.

 

I do like how the logo is put together, though it feels like it will get dated quickly, and there's little to latch onto in terms of a brand. Interesting choice on the red, hopefully that plus a good jersey design will set them off from Chicago, Dallas and RSL.

 

Only by Orlando, no? I don't consider NYC a "City" team because "New York City" is the locale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, BC985 said:

I would have preferred this:

 

 

 

With McDonald's as their kit sponsor that'd be perfect. Nickname for the team could be the "Golden Arches".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BC985 said:

I would have preferred this:

 

 


I know a certain restaurant that would very much NOT prefer that.

 

Anyway, I do like the colors, though I find it kinda troubling to see so many people mistaking the red for pink. The arch and rivers design is a beauty, I think I just need to get used to seeing it for a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s more the contrast of the arch. If Arch Steel is a color, use it. All of the lines running together creates a very muddied look. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TaylorMade said:

 

Only by Orlando, no? I don't consider NYC a "City" team because "New York City" is the locale.

 

While that's true, I consider them a "City" team because no other New York sports team uses all three words in their own names. I said this in another MLS thread, but it was genius or coincidence or both that the corporate branding collided with the municipal identity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simply an atrocious logo. It looks more minor league that other St Louis minor league soccer teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TaylorMade said:

 

That's gonna get real confusing if Utah ever gets a team.

 

REAL confusing. Especially for SALT LAKE fans. 🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suddenly Charlotte FC's looking a lot better, huh? Very disappointed by STL, I was hoping they could be what Charlotte wasn't and put together and unique name and brand, but they flopped hard for me. Pink is good, this magenta is gaudy and if there's yellow in the package, where is it in the logo? The arch/river thing is just way too abstract to work well, not to mention all the lines being the same color make it worse. This is impressively bad, at least CLTFC managed to have a solid crest and colors. And as for the name, I don't mind having another City FC, but from what it seems like there's a big split between St. Louis "city" and St. Louis County. If so, this seems like a missed opportunity to unite the two under a different name. Holding out hope that Sacramento can keep Republic and their crest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank bleep it isn’t Spirits. That was the worst option of the set.

 

Otherwise, it’s pretty terrible. The colors are fine (but used poorly in the crest), but the logo is a mess of competing lines and the name will alienate a bunch of folks in the County (a big chunk of the potential fanbase).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Their emphasis of City (St. Louis CITY SC) is strange. Reminds me of how the Heat tried to be the "Miami HEAT" for a few years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Magic Dynasty said:

Their emphasis of City (St. Louis CITY SC) is strange. Reminds me of how the Heat tried to be the "Miami HEAT" for a few years.

IMO trying to stylize your name like that is incredibly stupid. The RedBlacks do it as well and it looks dumb. Are poor copywriters going to have to write out St. Louis CITY Soccer Club every time the team refers to itself?

 

1 minute ago, TrueYankee26 said:

Also am I the only one who think the red looks pink?

No, it looks very magenta to me, which is just a gaudy shade of pink, which is a dignified and glorious color.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a bad crest, But some elements need tweaking. The typeface used is fine but the placement seems to be the major issue. Colors are fine but if you have it, use it. And the Gateway Arch needs a better definition. Overall, not a bad crest however, a few elements need tweaking to make it a great crest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this