ksupilot

NYC FC Branding

Recommended Posts

I don't think there's any reason to believe that they'll die out. New Yorkers have shown that there's a market in this city for affordable minor-league sports, and the product is certainly much closer to MLS levels than the Cyclones or Baby Bombers are to the majors.

If the Cosmos never make it up to MLS, they'll carve out a niche offering family- (read that price-)friendly soccer to fans in Long Island, Brooklyn and Queens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So many people are unfamilair both with the Geography and Social boundries of New York City and Northern New Jersey.

The Meadowlands is in East Rutherford. Geographically it is in NJ but in the same way Auburn Hills or Landover MD are not in Detroit or Washington, it is simply there because there was not available, affordable, accessable land in NYC to build arenas and stadiums. So it is land just on the other side of the Lincoln Tunnel where NY teams can play. At the time, the Devils and Nets played there and chose to identify themselves as NJ because there were already NY teams (the Nets played in New Brunswick when they originally moved to New Jersey so it made little sense to change the name back to NY when they were technically still playing in NJ.) Again, the Devils and Nets choice At That Time was branding and was a choice of identification and representation.

The Giants and Jets who originally played in NYC continue to represent NY and the NY metropolitan area even though their stadium is geographically in New Jersey. Again, you have to just consider The Meadowlands as being built on cheap land, not a relocation.

HOWEVER having said all that - the Devils and Red Bulls now play in Newark, which I would consider a wholey NJ city. (please no one say Harrison) So when the Red Bulls played in the Meadowlands it was fine for them to be NY, and NY-NJ was fine too if they wanted to throw the city of East Rutherford a bone in the same way the Super Bowl is... but now that they play in Newark and Especially with a REAL NYC team on they way I do kind of agree it doesn't make much sense for them to be named NY.

I'd say its exactly the same as Los Angeles Angels playing so far away from Los Angeles. They are doing it stricly for marketing reasons even though its incorrect. The Jets and Giants are not doing it for marketing reasons, they DID NOT move out of NYC... they just built a stadium on available land that happens to be technically not within the city limits.

Gothamite and I have disagreed about this in the past but I respect his arguments (if I am correct the gist is that the "New York" that the NFL teams continue to use the moniker as representatives of a region, similar to "Tampa Bay", not to represent the city). Your argument, however, is deeply flawed, East Rutherford is simply empty land that is part of NYC but the distant outpost of Newark is NJ's cross to bear? That makes no sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not quite my position.

The Meadowlands lie within a New York suburb. Teams that play there are playing within the city's sphere, and have a right to use the name.

So long as they, unlike the Red Bulls, actually have a presence in the city. The Jets and Giants certainly do.

As for the Devils, teams have the right to select their appeal to part of a market. Sort of like how the Angels decided that they'd rather own 100% of Orange County than compete with the Dodgers for all of LA (that one didn't turn out so well for them). So I'm just as cool with teams in the suburbs saying "nah, we'd rather be a Jersey team" as I am suburban clubs taking the name of the city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not quite my position.

The Meadowlands lie within a New York suburb. Teams that play there are playing within the city's sphere, and have a right to use the name.

Since you can take a $2.25 PATH train from World Trade Center to Red Bull Arena in Harrison and be there in 25-30 minutes, I would include RBNY in the "city's sphere."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You left out the other part:

"So long as they, unlike the Red Bulls, actually have a presence in the city."

I have never questioned Red Bull's right to use the name, except for the 15 years they did their best to ignore the city while trading on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You left out the other part:

"So long as they, unlike the Red Bulls, actually have a presence in the city."

I have never questioned Red Bull's right to use the name, except for the 15 years they did their best to ignore the city while trading on it.

I see. We may have to agree to disagree on that one. The team has had at least 3 owners since 1996 and while you could maybe make that argument about Metromedia and AEG, there has been a marked change in the way the team has attempted to connect to the soccer community in NYC since Red Bull has come in. There are a lot of things that I find repellent about the Red Bull ownership but I can't fault their youth training camps or their player appearances. My friend's kids have more pictures with Thierry Henry than I had of myself with Roberto Donadoni when I was their age (I had 0).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish they were still the MetroStars. Perfect name for the team. The badge was great and the kits were spectacular.

Now they're just a nothing team that is pandering to NYC and making no headway there, while taking a s**t on Jersey, thus having everyone in the area despising them and dying for an alternative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there has been a marked change in the way the team has attempted to connect to the soccer community in NYC since Red Bull has come in.

I would take issue with that - there has been a marked change in the way the team has attempted to connect to the soccer community in NYC since The New York Cosmos came in.

The Cosmos came in and started doing everything in NYC that the MetroStars and Red Bulls had refused to do. And then all of a sudden, in 2010 the Red Bulls started taking phone calls from youth soccer organizations. In 2010 they started advertising in the city. Quite a coincidence, that timing.

They didn't realize what they had lost until it was gone. If they're trying to earn it now, good for them, but I suspect that once NYCFC comes in they'll lose whatever gains they're holding on to at the moment. I know for a fact that my sons' soccer league, which orgnanizes regular excursions to Harrison, can't wait to switch to the Bronx. I don't think I've seen more than two or three red-and-white jerseys on the soccer fields in Prospect Park over the past three years I've been playing there, and I'll be very curious to see how many sky blue shirts start appearing next year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is probably a little closer to the mark. Red Bull made an initial marketing push for a couple of seasons and then put things on autopilot for a few while they finished building the stadium. While I think the change of attitude in 2010 may have had more to do with the opening of Red Bull Arena that year, I agree that the Cosmos likely played a role as well. I don't agree that the team refused to connect with or ignored the city as a whole but I have felt that there was always a certain underlying ambivalence about the ownership. The sort of "if we build it, the thousands of soccer fans in the tri-state area will come" attitude that I for one hope disappears entirely now that direct competition has arrived. Time will tell.

Before I get further off track and lament the splintered sports allegiances of NYC (that have only been complicated further by the Brooklyn Nets and the upcoming relocation of the Islanders), let's get back to logos/uniforms. I'd like to see NYCFC's have more of it's own identity than to simply be an extension of Man City's brand (see Chivas USA).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is probably a little closer to the mark. Red Bull made an initial marketing push for a couple of seasons and then put things on autopilot for a few while they finished building the stadium. While I think the change of attitude in 2010 may have had more to do with the opening of Red Bull Arena that year, I agree that the Cosmos likely played a role as well. I don't agree that the team refused to connect with or ignored the city as a whole but I have felt that there was always a certain underlying ambivalence about the ownership. The sort of "if we build it, the thousands of soccer fans in the tri-state area will come" attitude that I for one hope disappears entirely now that direct competition has arrived. Time will tell.

Before I get further off track and lament the splintered sports allegiances of NYC (that have only been complicated further by the Brooklyn Nets and the upcoming relocation of the Islanders), let's get back to logos/uniforms. I'd like to see NYCFC's have more of it's own identity than to simply be an extension of Man City's brand (see Chivas USA).

The owners of NYCFC are actually going to spend money on their team. They also won't fill their team with Mexican's who are not good enough to play in the Mexican league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is probably a little closer to the mark. Red Bull made an initial marketing push for a couple of seasons and then put things on autopilot for a few while they finished building the stadium. While I think the change of attitude in 2010 may have had more to do with the opening of Red Bull Arena that year, I agree that the Cosmos likely played a role as well. I don't agree that the team refused to connect with or ignored the city as a whole but I have felt that there was always a certain underlying ambivalence about the ownership. The sort of "if we build it, the thousands of soccer fans in the tri-state area will come" attitude that I for one hope disappears entirely now that direct competition has arrived. Time will tell.

Before I get further off track and lament the splintered sports allegiances of NYC (that have only been complicated further by the Brooklyn Nets and the upcoming relocation of the Islanders), let's get back to logos/uniforms. I'd like to see NYCFC's have more of it's own identity than to simply be an extension of Man City's brand (see Chivas USA).

The owners of NYCFC are actually going to spend money on their team. They also won't fill their team with Mexican's who are not good enough to play in the Mexican league.

I'm talking about design. Anyone who knows how to run a professional sports organization (don't see Chivas USA) would know not to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before I get further off track and lament the splintered sports allegiances of NYC (that have only been complicated further by the Brooklyn Nets and the upcoming relocation of the Islanders), let's get back to logos/uniforms. I'd like to see NYCFC's have more of it's own identity than to simply be an extension of Man City's brand (see Chivas USA).

Can't agree with you there, in part because Man City has such a gorgeous uniform.

manchester-city-fc-unveils-first-ever-ni

Of course, Reebok will :censored: up their version with pointless stripes, but even so. That's a thing of beauty, and that'll look great in the Bronx.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no doubt that New York should have its own idea. To be a rip-off form Man City is a terrible idea. However, using the same color scheme and other small connections would be better then a complete extension;.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there's any reason to believe that they'll die out. New Yorkers have shown that there's a market in this city for affordable minor-league sports, and the product is certainly much closer to MLS levels than the Cyclones or Baby Bombers are to the majors.

If the Cosmos never make it up to MLS, they'll carve out a niche offering family- (read that price-)friendly soccer to fans in Long Island, Brooklyn and Queens.

So the Cosmos will be irrelevant. They'll be relevant in the 20,000 people or however many care about them, but outside of that, I doubt anyone is interested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this Meadowlands talk is making me want to listen to the Wrens again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there's any reason to believe that they'll die out. New Yorkers have shown that there's a market in this city for affordable minor-league sports, and the product is certainly much closer to MLS levels than the Cyclones or Baby Bombers are to the majors.

If the Cosmos never make it up to MLS, they'll carve out a niche offering family- (read that price-)friendly soccer to fans in Long Island, Brooklyn and Queens.

So the Cosmos will be irrelevant. They'll be relevant in the 20,000 people or however many care about them, but outside of that, I doubt anyone is interested.

That would still put them higher than the Red Bulls. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know double blue's a given considering the Man City/Yankees connection, but it's a shame that light blue's been overused in MLS.

Apart from darker blue, light steel blue also looks very nice when combined with brick red and gold:

Light_Steel_Blue_429808_i0.png

colors2.jpg

So, considering the many brownstone houses in New York City, maybe that might be a nice fitting color scheme...

newyork-brick.jpg

I like the thinking but not sure the Yankees would welcome a Mets-like color scheme.

Huh? How is brick red a Mets-like color? Or gold? :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They also won't fill their team with Mexican's who are not good enough to play in the Mexican league.

As opposed to Guatemalans, Nicaraguans or Panamanians?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They also won't fill their team with Mexican's who are not good enough to play in the Mexican league.

As opposed to Guatemalans, Nicaraguans or Panamanians?

Kev is referring to Chivas USA, which has a policy of only signing Mexican nationals (or sons of Mexican nationals).

The problem with Chivas USA isn't necessarily that it's owned and operated by a professional club in a more established league, but that the professional club MLS chose to associate with is very, very scummy. There's no inherent problem in Manchester CIty owning a franchise in New York.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They also won't fill their team with Mexican's who are not good enough to play in the Mexican league.

As opposed to Guatemalans, Nicaraguans or Panamanians?

Kev is referring to Chivas USA, which has a policy of only signing Mexican nationals (or sons of Mexican nationals).

The problem with Chivas USA isn't necessarily that it's owned and operated by a professional club in a more established league, but that the professional club MLS chose to associate with is very, very scummy. There's no inherent problem in Manchester CIty owning a franchise in New York.

None yet. if they act as Chivas has in regards to its staff and fan base it will be different. However, I do think City looks at this as a good way to identify and filter talent to their youth and reserve teams and not a simple brand expansion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.