Portland Timbers to have a new logo for MLS Debut

[andrewharrington]

Totally agree.

Enough with the midget axe already. Incorporate a big boy axe or leave it out altogether. The ligature seems more like a big ":censored: Y*u!" to all of the guys that were booing and chanting at the unveiling. Are they really serious?

Part of me really wants to see the other logos that didn't make the cut, but its starting to seem like the other ones probably all looked just like the one they unveiled. I wonder if the designer even tried explore other options what so ever. He probably just made a hundred comps revolving around an axe with a circle and maybe one or two comps with a tree or a logger or something just to appease everyone. Not good.

First of all, the ligature not only wasn't a "big `:censored: Y*u!" to the logo's critics -- it was DESIGNED BY THEM. Crappy or not, it was included in the list of team marks because it was conceived and designed by members of the Timbers Army.

Second, I can almost guarantee that the designer didn't "explore other options," at least not so far as to stray from ax-and-circle logo. No loggers, no stand-alone trees, etc. The front office from the outset made it clear that this would be an update of the team's historic crest that they wear today. The argument here and among fans is whether the team strayed too far from that mission.

how

Third, what is with all this moaning about this "midget axe"? It's not as if the axe in the team's original logo was some giant, Paul Bunyanesqe axe, yet nobody complained about that.

As for the chevrons, I'm with Mockba: I think the three lines are the chevrons, not the space in between. But the case can be made that it would look better if they just added another line so the wider spaces could be seen as chevrons. Then it would be more apparent.

I think most of my response has already been documented in the subsequent posts. I guess my biggest problem with this logo is that they decided to base it off of a classic logo that really needed no update. It was fine as it was. The fact that they didn't even explore any other options was a waste IMO. Why hire a design crew and not have at least some other ideas or concepts? At least get a fresh new look at an identity, right? As a result they tried to tinker with a classic and they came up with crap.

I can almost guarantee you that there were additional options presented, even if only one design direction was specifically solicited.

[DrJack]

As a big Timbers fan my self, I can say that I like the revisions. I'm in the minority that thinks the "old" mark badly needed an update before the move to the MLS and this "revised" version is pretty solid. Its going to take some getting used to it, and I'm sure the Timbers Army is going to bitch and whine like they do about everything, but in time this new logo will be our mark and we'll all wear it proudly. Not perfect, but pretty damn good.

Thank god they tweaked the original release, that one WAS bad.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

The problem with Portland fans being upset stems not only from the Americanization of their crest, but also the fact that they were privy to a well crafted marketing campaign ("you can't fake this") along with the owner repeatedly stating that "they won't mess this up". The logo infringes on both of those statements being that the updated/new logo stands for everything that is fake about the sport and throws tradition out the window.

Nailed it.

This, in my opinion, is EXACTLY why people are so upset. I personally don't feel strong about the logo either way. At least the included the ax (or hatchet in this case) and the chevrons.

I just don't understand the negativity. They almost said they would change the logo, and they did. Along the way, they maintained the key elements of the old logo and included them in the new. I could see how you might think their tweaking wasn't awesome, but this is a far cry from the spit in the face so many Timbers fans make it out to be.

[jstraper]

also, Real Salt Lake? WTF?)

Not to get too off topic, but I agree with you on this. I had brought this up last week in another thread; "Real" is beyond silly and makes them look like worse poseurs than the blandest of them all (FC Dallas). I'll repeat what I mentioned previously: if the club was going down this path they should have at least "Americanized" it by calling themselves "Royal Salt Lake" instead.

Sounds better, works better, and they can still have their BS "partnership" with other "Real" clubs.

Secondly, I'm completely unfamiliar with the fan base and following of the LA MLS region, but do they really need two teams? Would it not be better to have Chivas play in San Diego?

[-kj]

Hurrrrr... I've never heard that about Salt Lake before... hurrr....

Man, I've been on these boards too long.

[jstraper]

Hurrrrr... I've never heard that about Salt Lake before... hurrr....

Man, I've been on these boards too long.

Valuable insight. Thanks for sharing.

[knnhrvy16]

also, Real Salt Lake? WTF?)

Not to get too off topic, but I agree with you on this. I had brought this up last week in another thread; "Real" is beyond silly and makes them look like worse poseurs than the blandest of them all (FC Dallas). I'll repeat what I mentioned previously: if the club was going down this path they should have at least "Americanized" it by calling themselves "Royal Salt Lake" instead.

Sounds better, works better, and they can still have their BS "partnership" with other "Real" clubs.

Secondly, I'm completely unfamiliar with the fan base and following of the LA MLS region, but do they really need two teams? Would it not be better to have Chivas play in San Diego?

Well I can see where you're coming from, but as a Real fan, I really think "Royal Salt Lake" sounds much sillier than Real. It sounds like a "we're trying too hard" name. We've really embraced Real here in Utah, and any other name, at least in my opinion would just be too weird, especially where we've won a cup now. We had another team in a junior league before Real called the Blitz, and everyone hated the name because it was just too silly and sounded unprofessional (not to mention it was ANOTHER name that ended with a 'z' ) so that's another reason why something like Real works for us, because it sounds professional.

[illwauk]

Secondly, I'm completely unfamiliar with the fan base and following of the LA MLS region, but do they really need two teams? Would it not be better to have Chivas play in San Diego?

I think the idea is that half of the LA market is still larger than San Diego's. Plus if they were in San Diego, they'd have to play in a cavernous football stadium where in LA they can share Home Depot Park.

Not saying I necessary agree with this... just echoing MLS' logic.

[illwauk]

also, Real Salt Lake? WTF?)

Not to get too off topic, but I agree with you on this. I had brought this up last week in another thread; "Real" is beyond silly and makes them look like worse poseurs than the blandest of them all (FC Dallas). I'll repeat what I mentioned previously: if the club was going down this path they should have at least "Americanized" it by calling themselves "Royal Salt Lake" instead.

Sounds better, works better, and they can still have their BS "partnership" with other "Real" clubs.

Secondly, I'm completely unfamiliar with the fan base and following of the LA MLS region, but do they really need two teams? Would it not be better to have Chivas play in San Diego?

Well I can see where you're coming from, but as a Real fan, I really think "Royal Salt Lake" sounds much sillier than Real. It sounds like a "we're trying too hard" name. We've really embraced Real here in Utah, and any other name, at least in my opinion would just be too weird, especially where we've won a cup now. We had another team in a junior league before Real called the Blitz, and everyone hated the name because it was just too silly and sounded unprofessional (not to mention it was ANOTHER name that ended with a 'z' ) so that's another reason why something like Real works for us, because it sounds professional.

Salt Lake Royals still sounds pretty good to me, which is what the Europoser to Traditional American translation would be.

[-kj]

Hurrrrr... I've never heard that about Salt Lake before... hurrr....

Man, I've been on these boards too long.

Valuable insight. Thanks for sharing.

You're right; that's what I should have said instead. I used the wrong kind of sarcasm.

[taantumus]

I'll repeat what I mentioned previously: if the club was going down this path they should have at least "Americanized" it by calling themselves "Royal Salt Lake" instead.

Sounds better, works better, and they can still have their BS "partnership" with other "Real" clubs.

To continue your off-topic. If the team was called Royal Salt Lake I think people would be even more annoyed.

"What royal is there in Utah? Couldn't they just call it Real so people who don't know about the origin think it's like the real Salt Lake? And those who know can feel superior. Now the two teams kinda have the same name, but not really. Just stupid."

I don't know. But I do agree that either way it's a stupid name. It should be called Salt Lake Latter-day Saints. Or a co-op with Man City and a team called Salt Lake City.

Okay, that's enough.

[Mingjai]

Hurrrrr... I've never heard that about Salt Lake before... hurrr....

Man, I've been on these boards too long.

Hmm... I've been here long enough that I'm waiting for someone to make the inevitable comment about Utah's NBA team...

Not to add fuel to the fire, but this biased fan would have liked the nickname Salt Lake Pumas. But I'm fine with the RSL, because I like their colors and logo and they've developed some brand equity with their identity.

[Droost]

Greatly apologize for bumping this semi-old thread, but after the possible Cosmos re-launch and their inclusion into MLS in as soon as 2013, I was wondering if the possible reasoning for the Timber's essentially adopting one of the colors of their chief rivals (sounders) and ditching the traditional yellow is to differentiate from the inclusion of Don Garber's dream franchise. Watching Pele @ the Cosmos relaunch and due to the glut of blue teams currently in the league it appears that the NY franchise will be sporting the

Kelly Green / Yellow of old while Portland is relegated to the Forest Green / Moss.

Teams using blue in jerseys:

Vancouver

New York RB (aways)

Dallas (royal away)

Earthquakes (electric blue)

RSL (blue secondary & have used navy homes in the past)

Kansas City

Chivas (aways)

Philadelphia

New England

Colorado (logo, Sky blue on jerseys)

L.A. (logo and aways)

Sounders(royal aways)

Montreal (I am assuming a light blue / red color scheme in 2012)

Thats 13/19 by 2012. I am assuming NY2 will adopt at least some semblance of a uniform as used by the old cosmos, thus ruling out the inclusion of purple and/or black .that the MLS desperately needs.......

For fans of the old galaxy sash kit - I could potentially see it being adopted into the cosmos home jerseys similar to those that they wore toward the end of the NASL........

[Slickster]

The Montreal Impact wears blue and white, but has silver and black in their logo. I'd imagine the MLS office could convince them to make a switch for the good of the league.

[Gothamite]

Here's the first look at the Cosmos Academy jerseys (the only team they'll be fielding for a while).

It appears to have green sleeves, but I'm not sure. Could be a singlet.

Personally, I'd like to see the Cosmos adopt the Ralph Lauren away kit:

Sure, it's similar to the Galaxy, but no matter what happens that will be an issue - the Galaxy has already stolen the Cosmos' uniform in toto.

Whatever the Cosmos do, hooped socks are an absolute must.

[Droost]

Agree on the hoops - would love to see a modern version similar to Man City's new ones in yellow and kelly green.

2013 isn't that far away, and all signs point to either NY2 being the Cosmo's or else a different team run by the Wilpons.

Since the Cosmos re-launch is headed essentially by Beckham's right hand man, and Beckham has an option to buy a team @ a lower price when he retires - The launch of the Cosmos to MLS in 2013 is not out of the question.

Academy jerseys do look pretty nice, and I have always loved the cosmos simple look & I am hoping that the addition of the 3 adidas stripes running down the sleeves doesn't ruin it.....

I also love the Ralph Laurens, but I don't see MLS going w/ two major market teams donning the Navy/Gold

[Gothamite]

Ah, give it 20 minutes - the Galaxy will change their colors.

So long as the new Cosmos group can raise the financing, the MLS club is theirs. The Wilpons had their time, but couldn't get it done. I just can't see this league snubbing Pele, with a solid academy organization behind him.

[BrySmalls]

If my astronomy is correct, Cosmos are bigger than Galaxies, right?

[Gothamite]

If my astronomy is correct, Cosmos are bigger than Galaxies, right?

If the team was named after the Universe, they would be. But they're not. Käz-mōs, not ˈkäz-məs. Plural of "Cosmo", short for "Cosmopolitan," and not a singular noun.

So on the one hand, we have:

and on the other:

[TruColor]

If my astronomy is correct, Cosmos are bigger than Galaxies, right?

If the team was named after the Universe, they would be. But they're not. Käz-mōs, not ˈkäz-məs. Plural of "Cosmo", short for "Cosmopolitan," and not a singular noun.

So on the one hand, we have:

and on the other:

Now, dat right der is funny.