NYC FC Branding

[Jer15]

I have to say all these ownership issues are so stupid.

First off, it's soccer not baseball.

Second, it's MLS not the EPL.

Personally I like Spurs from the EPL, but I am not a San Jose supporter because the 2 clubs developed a relationship.

I also didn't become more of a TFC fan (or vice-versa) with the whole Spurs/TFC advertising rights deal.

If I lived in NYC proper and liked/was interested in/was obsessed with MLS soccer I'd support NYCFC. Unless I was already a huge Red Bull supporter in which case I probably wouldn't change my allegiance.

But that's not exactly a similar scenario... Imagine if TFC was a new expansion team, only they were called Toronto Arsenal and they were joint venture owned by Arsenal and the Boston Bruins. As a Spurs supporter and (I presume) Leafs fan, wouldn't it be tougher to get on board?

Then again, this whole point may be moot 5 years from now. They may run the club as almost a completely separate entity and eventually the ownership becomes a distant focal point, or they could have Man City and Yankees viewing parties before matches and place their logos all over the stadium signage. I'd imagine the former is a much more plausible reality, but who knows at this point.

I'm not actually a Leafs fan, I'm an Avalanche fan. But I see what you are saying.

I guess it's easier to say when you are removed from the situation (in terms of not being a supporter) but it just seems like there is finally a club in NYC proper, support your local club.

[hawk36]

As another outsider here's my take:

1. Yankees ownership for Yankee haters could be a problem. Apples and oranges I know since Seattle doesn't have two teams but if a Seattle soccer team was owned by the 49ers that would be a tough pill to swallow.

2. Man City ownership is a problem since NYCFC could be seen as a second coming of the Chivas USA disaster. Hopefully for them they don't follow that "B" team concept. Helps that Red Bulls don't play in New York unlike Chivas and Galaxy playing in the same stadium.

All in all I guess it would be better for a New Yorker with big pockets and no existing ties to own the team. As it is, I bet the team will have enough support as the NYC team regardless of who owns them.

[Nyk33]

As another outsider here's my take:

1. Yankees ownership for Yankee haters could be a problem. Apples and oranges I know since Seattle doesn't have two teams but if a Seattle soccer team was owned by the 49ers that would be a tough pill to swallow.

2. Man City ownership is a problem since NYCFC could be seen as a second coming of the Chivas USA disaster. Hopefully for them they don't follow that "B" team concept. Helps that Red Bulls don't play in New York unlike Chivas and Galaxy playing in the same stadium.

All in all I guess it would be better for a New Yorker with big pockets and no existing ties to own the team. As it is, I bet the team will have enough support as the NYC team regardless of who owns them.

I know I've been a debbie downer on NYCFC, butI have to say that they are doing a better job than Chivas USA. You can't get much worse than having the coat of arms of Guadalajara on the logo of a team that is supposed to play in Los Angeles.

There is always going to be a connection between NYCFC and MCFC & Yankees but to what extent is going to remain to be seen. I don't think the two ownership clubs are going to cast as big of a shadow over NYCFC as Chivas de Guadalajara did that it eventually suffocates the club but they, especially MCFC, are always going to have a presence.

[Gothamite]

Imagine if TFC was a new expansion team, only they were called Toronto Arsenal

Got to stop you there, because there's no comparison. Man City may be the largest "City" team, but there are many others. And "New York City FC" is rather appropriate for a team that plays in... New York City.

[Nyk33]

Imagine if TFC was a new expansion team, only they were called Toronto Arsenal

Got to stop you there, because there's no comparison. Man City may be the largest "City" team, but there are many others. And "New York City FC" is rather appropriate for a team that plays in... New York City.

You can't convince anyone that the name of the team happens to be New York City due to sheer coincidence.

[kw11333]

As another outsider here's my take:

1. Yankees ownership for Yankee haters could be a problem. Apples and oranges I know since Seattle doesn't have two teams but if a Seattle soccer team was owned by the 49ers that would be a tough pill to swallow.

2. Man City ownership is a problem since NYCFC could be seen as a second coming of the Chivas USA disaster. Hopefully for them they don't follow that "B" team concept. Helps that Red Bulls don't play in New York unlike Chivas and Galaxy playing in the same stadium.

All in all I guess it would be better for a New Yorker with big pockets and no existing ties to own the team. As it is, I bet the team will have enough support as the NYC team regardless of who owns them.

I know I've been a debbie downer on NYCFC, butI have to say that they are doing a better job than Chivas USA. You can't get much worse than having the coat of arms of Guadalajara on the logo of a team that is supposed to play in Los Angeles.

There is always going to be a connection between NYCFC and MCFC & Yankees but to what extent is going to remain to be seen. I don't think the two ownership clubs are going to cast as big of a shadow over NYCFC as Chivas de Guadalajara did that it eventually suffocates the club but they, especially MCFC, are always going to have a presence.

They're playing at Yankee Stadium, They have done a wonderful job of branding, and they already have 55k worth of followers on Twitter(which is more than half the league). This is not Chivas USA all over again. They'll also likely get 3 big name DP's.

For one reason or another, there are a lot of soccer fans in NY that won't/don't support the Red Bulls.

The concept of the NY Cosmos is still intriguing. There is a possibility NY ends up with 3 MLS teams, although I think it would be best for them to merge with the Red Bulls

[Nyk33]

As another outsider here's my take:

1. Yankees ownership for Yankee haters could be a problem. Apples and oranges I know since Seattle doesn't have two teams but if a Seattle soccer team was owned by the 49ers that would be a tough pill to swallow.

2. Man City ownership is a problem since NYCFC could be seen as a second coming of the Chivas USA disaster. Hopefully for them they don't follow that "B" team concept. Helps that Red Bulls don't play in New York unlike Chivas and Galaxy playing in the same stadium.

All in all I guess it would be better for a New Yorker with big pockets and no existing ties to own the team. As it is, I bet the team will have enough support as the NYC team regardless of who owns them.

I know I've been a debbie downer on NYCFC, butI have to say that they are doing a better job than Chivas USA. You can't get much worse than having the coat of arms of Guadalajara on the logo of a team that is supposed to play in Los Angeles.

There is always going to be a connection between NYCFC and MCFC & Yankees but to what extent is going to remain to be seen. I don't think the two ownership clubs are going to cast as big of a shadow over NYCFC as Chivas de Guadalajara did that it eventually suffocates the club but they, especially MCFC, are always going to have a presence.

They're playing at Yankee Stadium, They have done a wonderful job of branding, and they already have 55k worth of followers on Twitter(which is more than half the league). This is not Chivas USA all over again. They'll also likely get 3 big name DP's.

For one reason or another, there are a lot of soccer fans in NY that won't/don't support the Red Bulls.

The concept of the NY Cosmos is still intriguing. There is a possibility NY ends up with 3 MLS teams, although I think it would be best for them to merge with the Red Bulls

It's not set in stone that they are going to play at Yankee Stadium since they are going to make an announcement sometime next month on the temporary stadium but it's the leading candidate by far.

As for the Cosmos, I don't really see them joining MLS as a 3rd NY team nor do I see a NY3 ever existing. I could definitely see Cosmos and Red Bulls merging or Red Bulls/NYCFC buying out the Cosmos to give them the same treatment as the Union do with the Bethlehem Steel.

[Gothamite]

Hmm. Sela Sport would have to be very desperate for that to happen.

Imagine if TFC was a new expansion team, only they were called Toronto Arsenal

Got to stop you there, because there's no comparison. Man City may be the largest "City" team, but there are many others. And "New York City FC" is rather appropriate for a team that plays in... New York City.

You can't convince anyone that the name of the team happens to be New York City due to sheer coincidence.

Yes, I can. Presuming an objective and open mind, of course.

1. Because "City FC" (along with "Empire FC") was one of the two names trademarked before they had a deal with Manchester City. Back when PSG was still in the running, and

2. Because "New York City" is an absolute natural for a league desperate to gain a foothold in NYC after its first franchise chose to focus on the western suburbs.

[Nyk33]

Yes, I can.

1. Because "City FC" (along with "Empire FC") was one of the two names trademarked before they had a deal with Manchester City. Back when PSG was still in the running, and

2. Because "New York City" is an absolute natural for a league desperate to gain a foothold in NYC after its first franchise chose to focus on the western suburbs.

No I'm sorry.

It is no coincidence that Man City buys a team called New York City Football Club with sky blue being the main color. MLS may have trademarked the name "City FC" earlier than that but we all know what City portion of the name and sky blue is connecting the team to.

What's your reasoning as to why the team isn't named Empire FC?

[hawk36]

To me New York CITY is the best name in the MLS, simply perfect, fits. I just happens to have Man City owners but even if Barca owned them, I'd still think NY CITY is the best possible name for the team.

If they named them Yankee City that would have been contrived, but NYC, perfect.

[Gothamite]

Yes, I can.

1. Because "City FC" (along with "Empire FC") was one of the two names trademarked before they had a deal with Manchester City. Back when PSG was still in the running, and

2. Because "New York City" is an absolute natural for a league desperate to gain a foothold in NYC after its first franchise chose to focus on the western suburbs.

No I'm sorry.

It is no coincidence that Man City buys a team called New York City Football Club with sky blue being the main color. MLS may have trademarked the name "City FC" earlier than that but we all know what City portion of the name and sky blue is connecting the team to.

What's your reasoning as to why the team isn't named Empire FC?

Wait, what does sky blue have to do with anything? You're introducing new elements that weren't in the original question.

Why not Empire FC? Other than it sucks? It was a terrible name in the 90s and is a terrible name today? Because the "City" branding that works so well for New York City also reflects well upon the ownership group.

But could the team have been named "New York City FC" without Man City's involvement? Absolutely. Because it's a great name for a football club from New York City.

I swear, I thought the Cosmos got under the skin of Red Bulls fans....

[Nyk33]

Yes, I can.

1. Because "City FC" (along with "Empire FC") was one of the two names trademarked before they had a deal with Manchester City. Back when PSG was still in the running, and

2. Because "New York City" is an absolute natural for a league desperate to gain a foothold in NYC after its first franchise chose to focus on the western suburbs.

No I'm sorry.

It is no coincidence that Man City buys a team called New York City Football Club with sky blue being the main color. MLS may have trademarked the name "City FC" earlier than that but we all know what City portion of the name and sky blue is connecting the team to.

What's your reasoning as to why the team isn't named Empire FC?

Wait, what does sky blue have to do with anything? You're introducing all sorts of new elements that weren't in the original question.

Why not Empire FC? Other than it sucks? Because the "City" element that works for New York City also reflects well upon the ownership group.

But could the team have been named "New York City FC" without Man City's involvement? Absolutely. Because it's a great name for a football club from New York City.

Because Sky Blue is the dominant color of the team which happens to be MCFC's main color.

I'm not stating that New York City Football Club isn't a good name or that it couldn't have been thought up without MCFC. I'm just stating that I don't believe it to be coincidence that the MCFC owned club in New York is called NYCFC.

Also I don't think Empire FC is all that bad. The name could work with the right amount of branding and so forth.

[JTernup]

I think the fact that MCFC has been referring to both NYCFC and Melbourne City as SISTER club says a lot about how they are interacting with the clubs. MCFC wants to create a global brand of successful football clubs and that serves all of the clubs well. NYCFC is named City and has sky blue as a color for a reason, its smart branding and synergy. If NYCFC werent connected to MCFC I wouldnt care, but they are so I will support this club. I'm not ditching my rapids but I will support this city because of the connection. Also I'm sure New Yorkers who don't have an epl club will gain some interest in MCFC. It's good for everyone from a branding and support perspective.

[-kj]

Melbourne City

That club is technically still called Melbourne Heart. (There's also already a sky blue team in the A-League; it'll be interesting to see if MC/Heart decide to go the co-branding route.)

[SDX]

Melbourne City

That club is technically still called Melbourne Heart. (There's also already a sky blue team in the A-League; it'll be interesting to see if MC/Heart decide to go the co-branding route.)

There is already a club called Melbourne City who play in blue and white stripes.

[-kj]

So there is. Seems they're trying to keep a Heart renaming from happening (perhaps successfully?).

[Jaffa]

So there is. Seems they're trying to keep a Heart renaming from happening (perhaps successfully?).

Given the fight at my local club to keep 'City' in our name, this is interesting reading.

I don't know what the rules are in Australia, but here Melbourne Heart wouldn't be permitted to change their name in this way as the original Melbourne City has the name registered with the local FA.

[JTernup]

Melbourne City

That club is technically still called Melbourne Heart. (There's also already a sky blue team in the A-League; it'll be interesting to see if MC/Heart decide to go the co-branding route.)

There is already a club called Melbourne City who play in blue and white stripes.

That's the first time I haven't put Heart in parentheses lol you guys caught me jumping the gun on that one!

[Gothamite]

I'm just stating that I don't believe it to be coincidence that the MCFC owned club in New York is called NYCFC.

Then we are all in agreement - nobody has ever suggested it's 100% coincidence.

I'm only saying that the name might well have still been chosen if some other club, PSG or West Ham, had won the bidding. Or even if a new ownership group, unaffiliated with any other club, had been so lucky. Because it's a perfect name for the club on its own, the reflection of the parent company is a bonus.

[Digby]

Do Colorado soccer fans have a problem with Kroenke owning the Rapids and the St. Louis Rams (and part of Arsenal)? And I'd imagine that there are plenty of Timbers supporters who also go to to Trailblazers games, even though they share an owner with the dreaded Sounders.