The Golden One Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 http://www.news10.net/news/story.aspx?storyid=128672&catid=2 Kings have filed for Los Angeles Royals and Anaheim Royals trademarks, same with reserving websites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omnivore Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Cheaper to use a throwback name than start over with a completely new name. Bleh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnclearInitial Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 And thanks to a lack of originality, this is what we can expect for a logo.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audiodrama Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 We'd better not end up with "L.A. Royals of Anaheim" crap. No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bosrs1 Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 We'd better not end up with "L.A. Royals of Anaheim" crap. No.Won't happen. The team's name if the contract is solid in Anaheim, will be the Anaheim Royals or Anaheim Royals of Southern California. They can't pull an Angels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illwauk Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Ironically, the reason they switched from Royals to Kings in the first place was to avoid confusion with another team in the same area they were moving to... now its come full circle. Even more ironically, if things don't work out in Anaheim, one of the places they could end up is Kansas City. Either way, I like it if for no reason other than consistency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C's Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 And thanks to a lack of originality, this is what we can expect for a logo..*shudders* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C's Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 I mean if nothing else this'll help open things up for another bay area team, in San Jose under Larry Ellison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bosrs1 Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 I mean if nothing else this'll help open things up for another bay area team, in San Jose under Larry Ellison.Assuming the Warriors don't successfully block a move to San Jose (or that the NBA allows in the twice spurred Ellison). Frankly I think if the league wanted a team in SJ and wanted Ellison as an owner they'd already have allowed it in Oakland or New Orleans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C's Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 I don't think the NBA wanted three franchises in the bay area. I don't know why they'd keep stuffing Ellison's bids with the Kings now out of the picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rams80 Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 And thanks to a lack of originality, this is what we can expect for a logo..Hey...it saves them half a million.We'd better not end up with "L.A. Royals of Anaheim" crap. No.Won't happen. The team's name if the contract is solid in Anaheim, will be the Anaheim Royals or Anaheim Royals of Southern California. They can't pull an Angels.Begging your pardon, but that is a textbook definition of pulling an Angels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee. Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 And thanks to a lack of originality, this is what we can expect for a logo.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C's Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 'Loose one turn'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC in Da House w/o a Doubt Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Do you think them ditching Kings has anything to do with the Los Angeles Kings hockey team? I may be reaching a bit here, but it does seem plausible right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnySeoul Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Do you think them ditching Kings has anything to do with the Los Angeles Kings hockey team? I may be reaching a bit here, but it does seem plausible right?Its very possible, but they were orginally called the Rochester Royals...then kept the name in Cincinnati and Kansas City (where it eventuilly switched to the Kings due to their MLB team with the same name). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bosrs1 Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 I don't think the NBA wanted three franchises in the bay area. I don't know why they'd keep stuffing Ellison's bids with the Kings now out of the picture.Sacramento is not in the Bay Area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uk-owns-iu Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 The Los Angeles Basketball not Baseball Royals of Anaheim and Southern California but not Kansas City or...... The Kansas City Basketball not hockey Kings of Missouri and partially Kansas but not Los Angeles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Do you think them ditching Kings has anything to do with the Los Angeles Kings hockey team? I may be reaching a bit here, but it does seem plausible right?facepalm.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadSeed84 Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 They should use this as the logo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC in Da House w/o a Doubt Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Do you think them ditching Kings has anything to do with the Los Angeles Kings hockey team? I may be reaching a bit here, but it does seem plausible right?facepalm.jpgGood one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.