NYC FC Branding

[Digby]

Well, I like Man City. But I really don't want a sky blue kit. I want navy.

Given that those early David Villa and Lampard shirseys were sky blue, doesn't it seem like sky blue would be the more likely color?

I know SKC has already owned the sky blue with navy trim look, but New England and Philly both already have navy shirts, and those are much closer regional rivals.

[Nyk33]

Again, I won't hold him responsible for the position of his family. Especially when he's done such good in the UK (and already in the US).

If we don't encourage moderates, they'll never be able to supplant the hard-line conservatives.

I understand the "Man City has done right by homosexuals in the UK" argument but that just feels more like a PR move to divert criticism from what is going on back home.

[Gothamite]

If you think so, then they can't win for trying.

Well, I like Man City. But I really don't want a sky blue kit. I want navy.

Given that those early David Villa and Lampard shirseys were sky blue, doesn't it seem like sky blue would be the more likely color?

Absolutely. They've more or less confirmed it.

[IceCap]

My mind's made up because the team has ties to a man who is part of a regime that's irremediably scummy I don't think I'm being unreasonable when I say that bothers me.

Again, it's not a judgement call on Man City or NYCFC supporters. That sort of thing is beyond anyone's control. And NYCFC has done enough things right to make me want to view them favourably. It's just not in the cards here thanks to that connection.

I'll never defend the UAE royal family (or any royal family -- people of my ilk tend to come over all head-chop-off-y around royals). But the excessive focus on the politics of the City owner is selective.

The nature of modern big-time sports is that only the super-rich can be owners. None of these people could withstand the scrutiny that you are giving to Sheikh Mansour.

The previous City owner was Thaksin Shinawatra, the former Thai prime minister who has been convicted of fraud. My favourite team, Chelsea, is owned by a Russian oligarch who has appropriated a natural resource, natural gas, that had been the common property of the people of the Soviet Union.

Another team that I support, the Nets, is owned by a Russian oligarch who has ambitions to be president.

George W. Bush owned the Texas Rangers before he became president. Indeed, many North American teams have over the years been owned by scummy and backward-minded rich people: Mike Illich, Dan Snyder, Donald Sterling, John Bassett, Mark Cuban, Rich DeVos, and Phil Anschutz spring to mind. There are many, many more. While none of these people hold/held elective office, they all are/were part of the sector of society which effectively owns elected officials.

(It's worth mentioning here that North Americans often make accusations about human-rights abuses in other countries with the unspoken assumption that their own country is free of this sort of thing. In fact, many comparably horrifying things occur right here, things that would elicit outraged claims of human-rights abuse if they were observed in any other country. I work in criminal defence; so I am thinking primarily of prison conditions and the lack of meaningful due process. But analogous problems can be found in all sectors of society. In the end, we're not so superior to those places which we like to criticise.)

The point is that all these people are disgusting; trying to claim that one of them is more heinous than the other is pure folly. You don't get to be rich enough to own a major sports team by behaving in a morally-sound manner.

Of course they should all go up against the wall after the revolution. But, until then, let's just realise that pro sports on the highest level require the participation of this criminal class as owners.

We as fans must understand that we're just using these scum to bankroll the entertainment that we enjoy; it's not necessary that we approve of them personally. So we should quit trying to make meaningless and arbitrary distinctions amongst them.

I'll just say I respectfully disagree with this on a number of levels and leave it at that

[Nyk33]

If you think so, then they can't win for trying.

Well, I like Man City. But I really don't want a sky blue kit. I want navy.

Given that those early David Villa and Lampard shirseys were sky blue, doesn't it seem like sky blue would be the more likely color?

Absolutely. They've more or less confirmed it.

Should I also be impressed that they don't take away the passports of Man City employees not from the UK?

Admiral put it perfectly in this post:

Little easier to be outspoken about gay rights in the UK than it is in the UAE. I'm sure he also feels that people in the UK should get paid for working, too.

I've talked to a few NYCFC fans to try to convince me to be a fan again but nothing has clicked so far.

[Tracy MidGrady]

Mark Cuban?

[Gothamite]

That's fair. As I said, once a mind is made up there's precious little to be gained by continuing.

I respect your opinions enough to not try and budge them on this. Just leave us who disagree to discuss the branding, please.

[The_Admiral]

I have a feeling this "moderate" wouldn't be so moderate if he didn't own a team you like.

[sozopol]

If you think so, then they can't win for trying.

Well, I like Man City. But I really don't want a sky blue kit. I want navy.

Given that those early David Villa and Lampard shirseys were sky blue, doesn't it seem like sky blue would be the more likely color?

Absolutely. They've more or less confirmed it.

What do you mean they've more or less confirmed it?

[Gothamite]

I have a feeling this "moderate" wouldn't be so moderate if he didn't own a team you like.

Then you obviously don't know me. This didn't come as some sort of late-sprung surprise I have to justify after the fact; it was all known before I chose the team. I had opportunity to consider your concerns and reject them, because I've never judged anyone by the actions of their family, only their own. His family's government is repressive and abhorrent, but the worst we can conclusively say for him specifically is that he hasn't single-handedly dragged his country out from fundamentalism.

We don't know what he's done there. It's a secretive government, hardly prone to transparency. All we really have are the actions we can trace directly to him, in the businesses he owns and controls, which are much more positive.

[Gothamite]

Well, I like Man City. But I really don't want a sky blue kit. I want navy.

Given that those early David Villa and Lampard shirseys were sky blue, doesn't it seem like sky blue would be the more likely color?

Absolutely. They've more or less confirmed it.

What do you mean they've more or less confirmed it?

Tim Pernitti was asked at a press conference a few months back if we should presume the shirt will be sky blue. He laughed and said "that would be a safe presumption".

I would be stunned if they chose anything other than sky blue for their home kit (hopefully not paired with sky blue shorts). If Villa is indeed wearing a navy or black shirt in that photo, I would bet it's a change kit.

[IceCap]

Navy and sky blue is such an inspired colour scheme for New York City. I'm a bit disappointed that orange was added. I get the civic and historical reasons for its inclusion, but it just looks out of place given the rest of the identity. Like it doesn't belong. I really hope it's used sparingly.

[Gothamite]

I'm pretty sure that it will be, although I'm expecting an all-orange third or keeper kit.

They had an opportunity to use orange on their own version of the new MLS logo, but decided to stick with the double-blues instead.

Orlando City got their gold in there, although it's otherwise almost absent from the uniforms.

As an aside, I love this graphic because it shows the color diversity in the league (especially helped by the introduction of Orlando City), not to mention how different KC's colors actually are from NYC. Hopefully either Atlanta or LAFC (if they keep their color scheme) will be a predominately-red team. And my gods, how desperately the Revs need a new logo.

[Gothamite]

I know this is a league-wide initiative, but NYCFC just unveiled their version of the promotion to feature season ticket holders' portaits on jerseys:

What's interesting here is that we have the same dark shirt with sky blue accents. A lot of people are reading into this, but I think it's definitely a feint.

Still using the old MLS logo, too, but not surprising since the graphic predates the logo release.

[leopard88]

I'm pretty sure that it will be, although I'm expecting an all-orange third or keeper kit.

They had an opportunity to use orange on their own version of the new MLS logo, but decided to stick with the double-blues instead.

Orlando City got their gold in there, although it's otherwise almost absent from the uniforms.

As an aside, I love this graphic because it shows the color diversity in the league (especially helped by the introduction of Orlando City), not to mention how different KC's colors actually are from NYC. Hopefully either Atlanta or LAFC (if they keep their color scheme) will be a predominately-red team. And my gods, how desperately the Revs need a new logo.

As a further aside, this graphic is now going to bother me because the Revs don't fit the apparent alphabetical pattern of the graphic.

The teams appear to be listed in alphabetical order by club name, running left to right and top to bottom (which would be why Sporting Kansas City falls after Seattle Sounders, F.C.). However the New England Revolution is (are?) shown before the Montreal Impact. What gives?

P.S. If the Impact are supposed to be Impact de Montreal, then the graphic is even more out of order.

[Nyk33]

Do any of you guys think they will go with a Sydney FC like route for the jerseys?

[Gothamite]

You mean using that template? No.

Pinstripes? Maybe. But not that template, and I'm betting no collar.

[hawk36]

Interesting with the City blue and Yankee pinstripes. Very interesting.

[dolfan13]

I'm pretty sure that it will be, although I'm expecting an all-orange third or keeper kit.

They had an opportunity to use orange on their own version of the new MLS logo, but decided to stick with the double-blues instead.

Orlando City got their gold in there, although it's otherwise almost absent from the uniforms.

As an aside, I love this graphic because it shows the color diversity in the league (especially helped by the introduction of Orlando City), not to mention how different KC's colors actually are from NYC. Hopefully either Atlanta or LAFC (if they keep their color scheme) will be a predominately-red team. And my gods, how desperately the Revs need a new logo.

As a further aside, this graphic is now going to bother me because the Revs don't fit the apparent alphabetical pattern of the graphic.

The teams appear to be listed in alphabetical order by club name, running left to right and top to bottom (which would be why Sporting Kansas City falls after Seattle Sounders, F.C.). However the New England Revolution is (are?) shown before the Montreal Impact. What gives?

P.S. If the Impact are supposed to be Impact de Montreal, then the graphic is even more out of order.

Ughhh....I cannot unsee this now. Thanks...now I'm equally perturbed.

[Gothamite]

I can't un-see any of that, either.

So, obsessive as I am, I made a new one.

Alphabetical by city name, unless I screwed something up.

New Crew logo and colors. LAFC is red and black, Atlanta is red and gold with a touch of black, and the league has a nice balance.