bleuet

Atlanta in MLS

Recommended Posts

Well, no wonder MLS is forcing Minnesota United FC to change their identity. They already gave it to Atlanta. What a garbage move at all levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying I love the name (I think it's pretty harmless and I'm very glad it's not something corny like Firebirds) but I also don't think it's fair to say Atlanta ripped it from Minnesota. Atlanta has been MLS-bound for over a year and Minnesota was only just announced in late March. I'm sure this brand creation has been cooking for a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just heard from my inside source. The one who revealed earlier that they were going the "traditional approach" with the name, that the team is indeed going to have an unoffiical nickname, (i.e. Red Devils, Gunners, etc), but that to their knowledge, they haven't finalized what it will be yet.

Also they said that the team will probably have 5 stripes on the jersey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the team is working on finalizing an unofficial nickname, it's not unofficial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Atlanta United FC is a name of an amateur club already. Oops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the team is working on finalizing an unofficial nickname, it's not unofficial.

Yeah. We're Atlanta United, but you guys can call the us Silverbacks if you want. Please do, but we're not going to tell you to, but we are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, no wonder MLS is forcing Minnesota United FC to change their identity.

Do we actually know that to be the case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, no wonder MLS is forcing Minnesota United FC to change their identity.

Do we actually know that to be the case?

Twin Cities soccer fan here, and I haven't heard anything about a change in identity. But I'm not especially tapped into the local scene.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying I love the name (I think it's pretty harmless and I'm very glad it's not something corny like Firebirds) but I also don't think it's fair to say Atlanta ripped it from Minnesota. Atlanta has been MLS-bound for over a year and Minnesota was only just announced in late March. I'm sure this brand creation has been cooking for a while.

I refuse to dignify "X United FC" with the word "brand", even if the word "brand" has basically lost all meaning at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...and Minnesota was only just announced in late March.

Except that the name's been used by the team that's currently in NASL since 2013.

(I love the team, but still hate the name. Less "United", more #DETHLOON.)

As far as I know, MNU is still not planning to change name or logo upon entry to MLS.

---

As for Atlanta, the right answer was Silverbacks. But this is the US, where soccer ownership entities can't work together at all, so we end up with new names every few years while at the same time complaining about a lack of history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...and Minnesota was only just announced in late March.

Except that the name's been used by the team that's currently in NASL since 2013.

I get that, but at the same time, that's the kicker. Minnesota was an NASL team, not yet announced as MLS...whereas Atlanta was. If anyone should complain, it's definitely DC. At the same time, I think it's silly to debate because it's so generic. It would be similar to another red and blue team joining MLB and the other teams complaining.

As a side note, the AJC has an article with quotes from Darren Eales confirming the name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. Just wow. Could've used so many good names and they decided to go with this. I have generally been a fan of the traditional European names in MLS, but for some reason this bothers me. Here are some examples, while still incorporating the 'FC':

Atlanta Phoenix FC (the bird)

Atlanta Rise FC

Atlanta Terminus FC

And so on. There's three off the top of my head. Hugely disappointed by this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. Just wow. Could've used so many good names and they decided to go with this. I have generally been a fan of the traditional European names in MLS, but for some reason this bothers me. Here are some examples, while still incorporating the 'FC':

Atlanta Phoenix FC (the bird)

Atlanta Rise FC

Atlanta Terminus FC

And so on. There's three off the top of my head. Hugely disappointed by this.

Atlanta Terminus would be quite redundant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The European naming convention thing is getting way overdone, so much so it's now to the point they're repeating it within the MLS.

Atlanta United FC? I mean why stop at two naming conventions? Why not grab five while you're at it?

"Real Sporting Atlanta City United FC" just rolls off the tongue....

In all seriousness, they really dropped a turd in the punch bowl by not promoting the "Silverbacks" moniker from the NASL. A totally original name, not found in any of the major US sports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Silverbacks was the winner for me, but I'm OK with AUFC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really 100% sold on the name, but it could've been a lot worse, and I'm pretty sure that it'll grow on me more. I'm also going to reserve some judgement until I see the crest and uniforms. If they can differentiate themselves from DC enough (and I feel like the gold will help with that), it should be fine enough. I really don't have much of a problem with the European naming conventions here, although I would've preferred Athletic over United. As for promoting the Silverbacks nickname, I didn't think that they would've used it for the team, as I sort of got a red flag from when the colors were announced (particularly the gold). Also, on the subject of the Silverbacks, what'll happen to them? Will they merge with the new club (hence the name United)? Relocate elsewhere? Stay in the city?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to prove I'm not above making fun of my own favorite team:

BI6eFHUCYAAUWSJ.png

(Well, I didn't create it. But still.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Silverbacks was the winner for me, but I'm OK with AUFC.

They don't own that name. The NASL owns that team, and still thinks they can compete head-to-head.

Share this post


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