Jump to content

The FC in America


cyandlux

Recommended Posts

Real Salt Lake - Worst of the worst. Good god as much as I dislike Toronto FC, Real Salt Lake is hands down god awful. Damn shame too because their kits are some of the best in MLS.

Yea, this is a perfect example of MLS trying too hard. In Spain it was the king who ascribed "Real" to the clubs names. In America it was some ignorant marketing people who wanted the new Salt Lake team to "sound" foriegn (which is funny seeing as how Salt Lake City has one of the smallest foriegn-born populations in the US).

I could deal with "Royal" as long as it was attached to a city that actually had some kind of "Royal" connection like "Royal New York" or "Royal Atlanta" (Georgia used to be known as the Empire State of the South). But leave "Real" in Spain.

While I was in SLC, I was so excited when the city was granted an MLS franchise. But when they unveiled the name Real Salt Lake, I laughed because I thought it was joke. Unfortunately it wasn't.

The Wasach Front has an estimated hispanic population of 300,000 (out of about 2,000,000), finding a way to appeal to this audience is vital to the team's survival. My suggestion for the team name was Pumas UTAH or Pumas de UTAH as a nod to Pumas UNAM (or Pumas de la UNAM). The name Pumas works because Utah is home to pumas and the team would have become an instant rival with expansion-mate Chivas. Of course, the trademark issue would have to be resolved (Puma is a famous mark), but it would have been a great name.

Visit my store on REDBUBBLE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 145
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I wouldn't mind seeing the second club take the name. I also wouldn't mind seeing them take up the glorious history of the Cosmopolitans, either.

It can be theirs for only $2 million. I think it would be worth it for MLS if they get another team in New York.

[Croatia National Team Manager Slavan] Bilic then went on to explain how Croatia's success can partially be put down to his progressive man-management techniques. "Sometimes I lie in the bed with my players. I go to the room of Vedran Corluka and Luka Modric when I see they have a problem and I lie in bed with them and we talk for 10 minutes." Maybe Capello could try getting through to his players this way too? Although how far he'd get with Joe Cole jumping up and down on the mattress and Rooney demanding to be read his favourite page from The Very Hungry Caterpillar is open to question. --The Guardian's Fiver, 08 September 2008

Attention: In order to obtain maximum enjoyment from your stay at the CCSLC, the reader is advised that the above post may contain large amounts of sarcasm, dry humour, or statements which should not be taken in any true sort of seriousness. As a result, the above poster absolves himself of any and all blame in the event that a forum user responds to the aforementioned post without taking the previous notice into account. Thank you for your cooperation, and enjoy your stay at the CCSLC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Real Salt Lake - Worst of the worst. Good god as much as I dislike Toronto FC, Real Salt Lake is hands down god awful. Damn shame too because their kits are some of the best in MLS.

Yea, this is a perfect example of MLS trying too hard. In Spain it was the king who ascribed "Real" to the clubs names. In America it was some ignorant marketing people who wanted the new Salt Lake team to "sound" foriegn (which is funny seeing as how Salt Lake City has one of the smallest foriegn-born populations in the US).

I could deal with "Royal" as long as it was attached to a city that actually had some kind of "Royal" connection like "Royal New York" or "Royal Atlanta" (Georgia used to be known as the Empire State of the South). But leave "Real" in Spain.

While I was in SLC, I was so excited when the city was granted an MLS franchise. But when they unveiled the name Real Salt Lake, I laughed because I thought it was joke. Unfortunately it wasn't.

The Wasach Front has an estimated hispanic population of 300,000 (out of about 2,000,000), finding a way to appeal to this audience is vital to the team's survival. My suggestion for the team name was Pumas UTAH or Pumas de UTAH as a nod to Pumas UNAM (or Pumas de la UNAM). The name Pumas works because Utah is home to pumas and the team would have become an instant rival with expansion-mate Chivas. Of course, the trademark issue would have to be resolved (Puma is a famous mark), but it would have been a great name.

Trying too hard. Just have a good team and people will come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Boston Patriots became the New England Patriots when they left Boston for Foxboro, the San Francisco Warriors became the Golden State Warriors when they moved to Oakland and the LA Angels became the California Angels when they first moved to Anaheim. On top of which, the USFL had an official policy regarding geographically correct names, which is why we had New Jersey Generals, Michigan Panthers and Arizona Wranglers. So we really need to stop acting like this concept is completely out of left field.

"Boston" moniker was not helping draw fans, so the Pats owners decided "New England" would appeal to the region IIRC.

Oakland's a city in its own right (evidenced by the Raiders and Athletics)

Angels are now known as Los Angeles because Moreno (correctly) figured that that was the best way to get fans. (That, and there are 4 other California MLB teams)

USFL policy doesn't hurt if you want to attract fans either....

As far as Red Bull, if they want to be associated with New York so bad, they can take some of that corporate money, buy some land that's actually in NYC and build a stadium there. Although I seriously doubt hearing the name "Red Bull New York" is gonna actually help them move product. As if someone is gonna think "I should drink Red Bull because I hear people in New York drink it."

Did you pay ANY attention to the massive resistance/debates that New York City proper residents put up to getting a stadium for the Jets and then the Olympics in the city? How about the resistance the Nets are encountering in Brooklyn for their arena? If those aren't/didn't fly, there's no fracking way a soccer specific stadium will either.

I understand about marketing and I understand that people who don't live in the city proper like to feel as though sports teams represent the metro area. But having a pro sports team (at least on this side of the pond) is a sign that your city has arrived.

You're being consistent here, although the majority of the people in the city proper may not want to see the team of those durn upstarts in the suburb that doesn't know its place in the greater scheme of things.

And I don't think that suburbs whose ability to sustain themselves depends solely leeching off of the economy of a larger city deserve that distinction.

Umm...what? :blink: I think you're contradicting yourself here.

I hate urban sprawl, I don't like it when people in suburbs claim to live in the city and when suburban businesses list themselves as being in the city. I hold sports teams to that same standard.... that's all.

The suburban-based team needs the big city to survive just as much as the suburb does. Hence the use of the city's name.

On 8/1/2010 at 4:01 PM, winters in buffalo said:
You manage to balance agitation with just enough salient points to keep things interesting. Kind of a low-rent DG_Now.
On 1/2/2011 at 9:07 PM, Sodboy13 said:
Today, we are all otaku.

"The city of Peoria was once the site of the largest distillery in the world and later became the site for mass production of penicillin. So it is safe to assume that present-day Peorians are descended from syphilitic boozehounds."-Stephen Colbert

POTD: February 15, 2010, June 20, 2010

The Glorious Bloom State Penguins (NCFAF) 2014: 2-9, 2015: 7-5 (L Pineapple Bowl), 2016: 1-0 (NCFAB) 2014-15: 10-8, 2015-16: 14-5 (SMC Champs, L 1st Round February Frenzy)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, "Royal" would make sense for a number of places including Charlotte, Cincinnati, (both call themselves the "Queen City"), St. Louis (named for King Louis of France) as well as any team in the states of New York or Georgia (Empire State of the South).

My problem with "Real" is that while you can find FC's and United's in most any soccer/football league, Real is tied into a specific league with a specific meaning. Having a team in MLS with the name doesn't make it look more credible. If anything, it makes them look like wannabes.

Real Salt Lake nearly became Real St. Louis too earlier this year when Checketts (also the Blues owner) was threatening to move them here. I thought it would have been kinda cool cause RSL would remain RSL...I'm lame I know. In reality though, I think Real St. Louis does at least sound better than the current name.

On a related note, I heard a pretty good idea for a St. Louis soccer team name... Olympique St. Louis. Ties in its use in the French LFP team names with the French history of the city. At least there's some logic to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't mind seeing the second club take the name. I also wouldn't mind seeing them take up the glorious history of the Cosmopolitans, either.

It can be theirs for only $2 million. I think it would be worth it for MLS if they get another team in New York.

That's presuming that Peppe actually owns it, which is in some dispute.

I say offer him 500,000 to go away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as Red Bull, if they want to be associated with New York so bad, they can take some of that corporate money, buy some land that's actually in NYC and build a stadium there. Although I seriously doubt hearing the name "Red Bull New York" is gonna actually help them move product. As if someone is gonna think "I should drink Red Bull because I hear people in New York drink it."

Technically, that's not what they're going for. Every time they appear on television, in print, on the radio, anywhere, you will see or hear "Red Bull New York," the key phrasing being "red bull." Red Bull NY on a national broadcast? That's 2 1/2 hours of ad time, right there, and all it cost them was the franchise fee.

Free advertising, plain and simple. Completely brilliant.

Welcome to DrunjFlix

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they do get another team they have to make it Empire Soccer Club, like the MetroStars were supposed to be. The coolest name in American soccer, and they had to change it with the most retarded name in major league sports history...

I've heard that claim, but never seen it actuall substantiated. It was the name of the parent company, but did they ever announce that the team would play under that name before adopting the corporate moniker?

I like the name, but wonder how much of that is fan revisionism.

I wouldn't mind seeing the second club take the name. I also wouldn't mind seeing them take up the glorious history of the Cosmopolitans, either.

Well the official site of the Red Bulls supports this claim, so I'll say it's valid: [link] Even if it wasn't it's still the greatest team name to never be used.

And using the Cosmos name again... I dunno I feel like that's right up there with using names like Arsenal or Real, they're legends in the world of North American soccer.

Quest2copy.pngnflseattlelr4.png

fifaunitedstateschampsnc4.pngTottenhamHotspur.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the link - that's exactly what I wanted.

I don't think "Cosmos" is in any way comparable to using "Arsenal" or "Real." In both those cases, that's adopting another area's heritage as your own.

A new MLS club going by "Cosmos" would be more like the Charlotte Hornets, Milwaukee Brewers, San Diego Padres (or, for that matter, Chicago White Stockings) - a new club adopting a traditional name for clubs in the same city.

As far as Red Bull, if they want to be associated with New York so bad, they can take some of that corporate money, buy some land that's actually in NYC and build a stadium there. Although I seriously doubt hearing the name "Red Bull New York" is gonna actually help them move product. As if someone is gonna think "I should drink Red Bull because I hear people in New York drink it."

Did you pay ANY attention to the massive resistance/debates that New York City proper residents put up to getting a stadium for the Jets and then the Olympics in the city? How about the resistance the Nets are encountering in Brooklyn for their arena? If those aren't/didn't fly, there's no fracking way a soccer specific stadium will either.

Apples and oranges. The West Side Stadium failed only because the Dolans saw it as a threat to Madison Square Garden's concert revenue. A soccer stadium not in their neighborhood and without the large capacity would not raise the same concern.

The resistance to the Atlantic Yards project, to the contrary, is extremely minor, a nuisance to the developers at worst. The project was never in any danger of being scrapped.

If the proposal is sound, and the area is chosen carefully (think: Long Island City), then there's no particular reason that a soccer stadium would have a harder time getting approval than any other public/private project.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, "Royal" would make sense for a number of places including Charlotte, Cincinnati, (both call themselves the "Queen City"), St. Louis (named for King Louis of France) as well as any team in the states of New York or Georgia (Empire State of the South).

My problem with "Real" is that while you can find FC's and United's in most any soccer/football league, Real is tied into a specific league with a specific meaning. Having a team in MLS with the name doesn't make it look more credible. If anything, it makes them look like wannabes.

Real Salt Lake nearly became Real St. Louis too earlier this year when Checketts (also the Blues owner) was threatening to move them here. I thought it would have been kinda cool cause RSL would remain RSL...I'm lame I know. In reality though, I think Real St. Louis does at least sound better than the current name.

On a related note, I heard a pretty good idea for a St. Louis soccer team name... Olympique St. Louis. Ties in its use in the French LFP team names with the French history of the city. At least there's some logic to it.

Methinks that if the franchise were to move to St. Louis, it would be more appropriate to "go French" and change to "Royale St. Louis". :D

It is what it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of the team nickname follies MLS teams have gone through and will continue to go through, I still think the league has legs and will last. Of course thats providing that they avoid NASL-itis and start plopping franchises all over the place before establishing a strong foundation.

I don't mind "REAL Salt Lake" as long as I don't see "Inter Albuquerque" anytime soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Royale with Cheese? :D

Damnit! I was soooo close to posting that, but I talked my self out of it.

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

Actually, "Royal" would make sense for a number of places including Charlotte, Cincinnati, (both call themselves the "Queen City"), St. Louis (named for King Louis of France) as well as any team in the states of New York or Georgia (Empire State of the South).

My problem with "Real" is that while you can find FC's and United's in most any soccer/football league, Real is tied into a specific league with a specific meaning. Having a team in MLS with the name doesn't make it look more credible. If anything, it makes them look like wannabes.

Real Salt Lake nearly became Real St. Louis too earlier this year when Checketts (also the Blues owner) was threatening to move them here. I thought it would have been kinda cool cause RSL would remain RSL...I'm lame I know. In reality though, I think Real St. Louis does at least sound better than the current name.

On a related note, I heard a pretty good idea for a St. Louis soccer team name... Olympique St. Louis. Ties in its use in the French LFP team names with the French history of the city. At least there's some logic to it.

Methinks that if the franchise were to move to St. Louis, it would be more appropriate to "go French" and change to "Royale St. Louis". :D

Good point :grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something that MLS might want to do is concentrate on markets that are A) smaller or B) don't have a slew of other professional sports teams. So, for instance: Portland, Albuquerque, Milwaukee, and maybe something in the Dakotas. I would have also listed SLC in that list but they moved in already. :)

For the doubters, I think that a Dakotas based sports franchise (either in Fargo, ND or Sioux Falls, SD as the primary two locations) would do extremely well. The Bismarck based Dakota Wizards in the NBA D-League are real popular and, while they don't sell out, draw quite a crowd to their games. When the Bismarck Roughriders (Indoor Football League team) was here, they were almost able to sell out. I don't know much about Sioux Falls, but I know that SF is the hub for the postal system for this region (as I am a postal employee).

As for naming conventions, I am all about branching out the names. As long as a company like Office Depot doesn't try to rename (for instance) the Houston Dynamo to the Office Depot Dynamo or the Houston Hands I am ok with whatever.

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something that MLS might want to do is concentrate on markets that are A) smaller or B) don't have a slew of other professional sports teams. So, for instance: Portland, Albuquerque, Milwaukee, and maybe something in the Dakotas. I would have also listed SLC in that list but they moved in already. :)

That is a reasonable strategy, but only to a point.

MLS can make a pretty big local impact in markets where it is one of the primary teams, such as Salt Lake City. However, if it puts together a whole league comprised primarily of markets like that, it will be perceived as minor league. Cities like Wichita, Sioux Falls, Bismarck and Albuquerque may provide rabid fan bases, but, for better or worse (and no offense intended whatsoever), they are perceived as second-tier (at best) cities.

MLS could get away with locating in a few smaller cities, but Rochester is probably the only viable one that has no other major league sports teams. Cities like Milwaukee, Portland and Salt Lake City at least have other teams to provide a major league presence. Beyond that, though, MLS has to maintain a strong presence in major markets such as New York, Boston and Los Angeles to continue to draw media attention.

Indoor soccer may not be the best analogy, since the MISL is still mostly a blip on the national radar screen. However, the MISL is at least a little more visible now with teams in Philadelphia, Detroit, Chicago and Baltimore (and Newark next year) than it was when it had teams in Tulsa, Dayton, Canton, Wichita and Harrisburg/Hershey.

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

Something that MLS might want to do is concentrate on markets that are A) smaller or B) don't have a slew of other professional sports teams. So, for instance: Portland, Albuquerque, Milwaukee, and maybe something in the Dakotas. I would have also listed SLC in that list but they moved in already. :)

For the doubters, I think that a Dakotas based sports franchise (either in Fargo, ND or Sioux Falls, SD as the primary two locations) would do extremely well. The Bismarck based Dakota Wizards in the NBA D-League are real popular and, while they don't sell out, draw quite a crowd to their games. When the Bismarck Roughriders (Indoor Football League team) was here, they were almost able to sell out. I don't know much about Sioux Falls, but I know that SF is the hub for the postal system for this region (as I am a postal employee).

As for naming conventions, I am all about branching out the names. As long as a company like Office Depot doesn't try to rename (for instance) the Houston Dynamo to the Office Depot Dynamo or the Houston Hands I am ok with whatever.

:)

I respectfully disagree with you completely. This is exactly what the MLS should NOT do. MLS needs to establish strong foundations in major markets like LA, NY, Chicago, or D.C, anchor a national fan base, and keep the level of gameplay up by not diluting it through too many teams. Although fans in Rochester or the Dakotas might enjoy watching a major sports team in their hometown, I doubt having a team in those small markets would do much for the national exposure of the league. This is one reason why I'm really curious to see how Real Salt Lake does in their market. If they do well, then you may see a proliferation of teams in smaller soccer loving markets...although I'm still not too sure if that is a smart idea at this point in the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that leopard88 has the perfect balance.

You need some big cities. More to the point, you need the vast majority of clubs in big league cities.

Ideally, I would start with as many markets as possible that have some big-league presence but are not already represented in the four major sports. That means I would look at Milwaukee, Cincy, Pittsburgh, cities like those.

The Dakotas? No way. Surest way to brand MLS as a minor league. I love South Dakota, but it's just not a major-league sports market.

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.