Bleujayone Posted May 15, 2006 Share Posted May 15, 2006 What's wrong with either of these two colour schemes?Let's see...#1. Chicago Fire...NO.#2. Eh it's ok but it doesn't say DC.I really don't care about what it resembles or if its PC or not. To me it says DC and that's all that matters to me. Why not try #1 with Washington Wizards Blue for the shield,Washing Redskins Burgundy for the eagle,& gold ('Skins, Nats, Caps, & Wizards) for the logo outline and star?------------------------------------#2 looks like an offshoot of the old USFL's Washington Federals colors We all have our little faults. Mine's in California. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leedsunited Posted May 15, 2006 Share Posted May 15, 2006 What gets me about the DC United name is what was exactly united? There was never any smaller football clubs that merged together. Utilizing the word "United" in a soccer team name doesn't necessarily indicate that two separate entities came together to form the club. For instance, Manchester United isn't the amalgamation of two separate clubs. Rather, one of the team's owners - J. H. Davies - simply changed the cub's name from Newton Heath (L & YR) FC to Manchester United FC. The club's original name was a nod to the fact that it was a team comprised of employees of the Lancashire and York Railway's Newton Heath Depot.DC United pays homage to the fact that Washington DC is the seat of government for the United States of America. Let's face it, they liked the cachet of the name Manchester United and stuck it to DC. Just like the Real Salt Lake (that's a good one) name and the Houston Dynamo (conjures up old Soviet bloc-era names) moniker.BUT, all infinitely better than the usual american nicknames for teams, i.e. Colorado Rapids, KC Wizards... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian in Boston Posted May 15, 2006 Share Posted May 15, 2006 BUT, all infinitely better than the usual american nicknames for teams, i.e. Colorado Rapids, KC Wizards... In your opinion. In my opinion, Real Salt Lake is an abomination that epitomizes the very worst of international-poseur nomenclature in Major League Soccer. On the other hand, RSL's logo is second-best in the entire league after Toronto FC's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saturn Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 What's wrong with either of these two colour schemes?Let's see...#1. Chicago Fire...NO.#2. Eh it's ok but it doesn't say DC.I really don't care about what it resembles or if its PC or not. To me it says DC and that's all that matters to me. Why not try #1 with Washington Wizards Blue for the shield,Washing Redskins Burgundy for the eagle,& gold ('Skins, Nats, Caps, & Wizards) for the logo outline and star? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sodboy13 Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 You know, up until this thread, I'd never really taken a good, hard look at DC United's logo. That thing is just... eh. Bad. The wordmark is lacking, the badge design seems flawed, and there are several things amiss with that eagle, all of which I can't quite put my finger on. I say keep the colors and conjure up a new badge. After all, when I think of DC United, I think of black with three white stripes - not of an eagle whose ugliness was previously unknown to me. On 1/25/2013 at 1:53 PM, 'Atom said: For all the bird de lis haters I think the bird de lis isnt supposed to be a pelican and a fleur de lis I think its just a fleur de lis with a pelicans head. Thats what it looks like to me. Also the flair around the tip of the beak is just flair that fleur de lis have sometimes source I am from NOLA. PotD: 10/19/07, 08/25/08, 07/22/10, 08/13/10, 04/15/11, 05/19/11, 01/02/12, and 01/05/12. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.