St. Louis Football Club Logo Vote

[Gothamite]

Isn't Scott Gallagher the owners of the SLFC?

Yes, but I think St. Louis F.C. Is an attempt to say "We are not just a Scott-Gallagher team" and recapture some of the fans lost in the merger with St. Louis S.C. a few years back.

What's the story there?

[dolfan13]

In any event, they need an actual nickname. Using FC or SC seems so lazy. It would be like calling the Cardinals, St. Louis BC.

You don't say?

Using "FC" does not preclude a nickname. It just lets the fans create one organically rather than imposing one from the start.

St. Louis National Baseball Club was the legal name during the Anheuser-Busch ownership. The current legal name for the club is St. Louis Cardinals, LLC. Legal names are a whole different ballgame. Nobody refers to teams by their legal name, although nowadays more teams are using their nicknames in the legal names.

You missed the point entirely. I'll give it one more shot.

Having an "official" name of City Name FC does not mean a nickname can't grow organically from the supporters. In fact quite a number of the original clubs in most North American sports leagues had their nicknames grow organically. The current legal name for the Cards may very well be St. Louis Cardinals, but that wasn't their original name. For all we know, 20 years from now, St. Louis FC may be known as something else. That's how these things work.

[BigRed618]

http://uslpro.uslsoccer.com/teamdirectory/index_E.html

Somebody oughta tell Chris it's time to update the USLPro section.

[crashcarson15]

That roundel is much more PSG-esque than NYCFC-esque.

Regardless, it's the better executed of the two. The shield has the better ideas but it's just not there.

[ddub53]

In any event, they need an actual nickname. Using FC or SC seems so lazy. It would be like calling the Cardinals, St. Louis BC.

You don't say?

Using "FC" does not preclude a nickname. It just lets the fans create one organically rather than imposing one from the start.

St. Louis National Baseball Club was the legal name during the Anheuser-Busch ownership. The current legal name for the club is St. Louis Cardinals, LLC. Legal names are a whole different ballgame. Nobody refers to teams by their legal name, although nowadays more teams are using their nicknames in the legal names.

You missed the point entirely. I'll give it one more shot.

Having an "official" name of City Name FC does not mean a nickname can't grow organically from the supporters. In fact quite a number of the original clubs in most North American sports leagues had their nicknames grow organically. The current legal name for the Cards may very well be St. Louis Cardinals, but that wasn't their original name. For all we know, 20 years from now, St. Louis FC may be known as something else. That's how these things work.

That's not at all how things work. Name me one professional sports team, outside of MLS, that did not have a nickname before they played their first game in modern time. Typically you choose a nickname and then create a logo, not the other way around.

[wonderbread]

In any event, they need an actual nickname. Using FC or SC seems so lazy. It would be like calling the Cardinals, St. Louis BC.

You don't say?

Using "FC" does not preclude a nickname. It just lets the fans create one organically rather than imposing one from the start.

St. Louis National Baseball Club was the legal name during the Anheuser-Busch ownership. The current legal name for the club is St. Louis Cardinals, LLC. Legal names are a whole different ballgame. Nobody refers to teams by their legal name, although nowadays more teams are using their nicknames in the legal names.

You missed the point entirely. I'll give it one more shot.

Having an "official" name of City Name FC does not mean a nickname can't grow organically from the supporters. In fact quite a number of the original clubs in most North American sports leagues had their nicknames grow organically. The current legal name for the Cards may very well be St. Louis Cardinals, but that wasn't their original name. For all we know, 20 years from now, St. Louis FC may be known as something else. That's how these things work.

That's not at all how things work. Name me one professional sports team, outside of MLS, that did not have a nickname before they played their first game in modern time. Typically you choose a nickname and then create a logo, not the other way around.

Depends on what you consider modern, over the course of the last 100 years that is how the majority of teams got their names. Even i. Present days you have fan votes for a name which is similar to this naming system in which the supporter create a name, but instead it's done before the team plays a game rather than creating a name after organically.

[Evil Doctor]

Depends on what you consider modern, over the course of the last 100 years that is how the majority of teams got their names. Even i. Present days you have fan votes for a name which is similar to this naming system in which the supporter create a name, but instead it's done before the team plays a game rather than creating a name after organically.

Actually no. Three of the leagues came into being after the process of giving nicknames to teams were firmly entrenched. So no American football teams, no basketball teams ever had a situation were they didn't have a nickname. One lone hockey team predates the NHL in that era and it was born as the Canadiens and added Montreal later. I don't know about the oldest baseball teams but the only current professional team I know of that didn't start with the nickname is the Hamilton Tiger-Cats which came into being as the Hamilton Foot Ball Club in 1869 and didn't adopt a nickname until 1873, the same year the Argonauts came into being which like the Montreal Canadiens, started off with the nickname and added Toronto later.

[dolfan13]

You don't even have to look hard to find examples. People are just lazy or so set in their misguided ways...or both.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_baseball_team_nicknames

Let me quote it for you lazy folks:

Not all teams felt the need for a nickname. The supposed first recorded game of baseball took place between two teams called "New York" and "Knickerbocker"

Is it really so hard to accept that the modern tradition of City Name Nickname is in fact a modern tradition?

[ddub53]

In any event, they need an actual nickname. Using FC or SC seems so lazy. It would be like calling the Cardinals, St. Louis BC.

You don't say?

Using "FC" does not preclude a nickname. It just lets the fans create one organically rather than imposing one from the start.

St. Louis National Baseball Club was the legal name during the Anheuser-Busch ownership. The current legal name for the club is St. Louis Cardinals, LLC. Legal names are a whole different ballgame. Nobody refers to teams by their legal name, although nowadays more teams are using their nicknames in the legal names.

You missed the point entirely. I'll give it one more shot.

Having an "official" name of City Name FC does not mean a nickname can't grow organically from the supporters. In fact quite a number of the original clubs in most North American sports leagues had their nicknames grow organically. The current legal name for the Cards may very well be St. Louis Cardinals, but that wasn't their original name. For all we know, 20 years from now, St. Louis FC may be known as something else. That's how these things work.

That's not at all how things work. Name me one professional sports team, outside of MLS, that did not have a nickname before they played their first game in modern time. Typically you choose a nickname and then create a logo, not the other way around.

Depends on what you consider modern, over the course of the last 100 years that is how the majority of teams got their names. Even i. Present days you have fan votes for a name which is similar to this naming system in which the supporter create a name, but instead it's done before the team plays a game rather than creating a name after organically.

What in the world do you mean by creating a name organically. When was the last time a major American sports team received an official name organically...the 1930s. There are essentially two ways teams are given nicknames. Either the owner(s) coins the nickname himself (i.e. St. Louis Blues) or there is a name the team contest. I consider the modern era essentially starting in 1920, but it's not an exact science. It's post World War I, the NHL is just a few years old and the forerunner to the NFL gets started. Also, as has been proven in Minor League Baseball, a great nickname can be the difference between selling a lot of merchandise and not. Granted it's the USL, but how many kids in St. Louis are going to want a Saint Louis FC t-shirt as opposed to a team with mascot in their logo.

[Gothamite]

Oh, I dunno. NYCFC is already selling pretty well, and across the East River most of the Nets merchandise I see uses the alternate logo, which omits the nickname altogether.

[ddub53]

Oh, I dunno. NYCFC is already selling pretty well, and across the East River most of the Nets merchandise I see uses the alternate logo, which omits the nickname altogether.

If the NYCFC gear is indeed selling like you say, it's because it's a new franchise. But if you had NYCFC shirts next to New York Cosmos shirts and the one that sold the most would dictate the name of the team, I'm pretty confident Cosmos would win out. It's all comparative. As for Brooklyn, that's an outlier and not the norm. For some reason buying something with Brooklyn on it is hip. Buying something with Manhattan, Queens or Staten Island not so much apparently.

[wonderbread]

The cosmos is maybe more popular because its a reboot of a franchise that was popular in the 80s, it came back this year and is selling because of nostalgia, but when NYCFC plays its first season people will flock more to the premier club in the MLS rather than a lower league club cosmos

[rcb05]

I like the roundel, even if it is a bit PSG-esque.

[Soarindude]

The cosmos is maybe more popular because its a reboot of a franchise that was popular in the 80s, it came back this year and is selling because of nostalgia, but when NYCFC plays its first season people will flock more to the premier club in the MLS rather than a lower league club cosmos

Very true, and besides the hardcore fans and hipsters, NYCFC will trump the Cosmos because of the MLS. Without the name, the Cosmos are just a second tier team without any chance of moving into the MLS. That fan base will slowly suffocate itself, which is rather unfortunate.

[NOppenheimer]

To me the round logo looks a lot like the type of logo that would be used on SB Nation.

For example:

[Gothamite]

NYCFC will trump the Cosmos because of the MLS. Without the name, the Cosmos are just a second tier team without any chance of moving into the MLS. That fan base will slowly suffocate itself, which is rather unfortunate.

It is indeed. As a Cosmos season ticket holder for both seasons so far, it breaks my heart.

Ddub, I think you're missing my point. Not every silly minor league name results in huge merchandise sales. So what you're proposing isn't a magic way forward either.

The St. Louis club has to make its own determination. Is a "Montgomery Biscuits" approach the way? Or do they sell the brand on the city itself, based presumably on its self-appointed role as the home of soccer in America? Either way is equally valid.

[dolfan13]

Oh, I dunno. NYCFC is already selling pretty well, and across the East River most of the Nets merchandise I see uses the alternate logo, which omits the nickname altogether.

If the NYCFC gear is indeed selling like you say, it's because it's a new franchise. But if you had NYCFC shirts next to New York Cosmos shirts and the one that sold the most would dictate the name of the team, I'm pretty confident Cosmos would win out. It's all comparative. As for Brooklyn, that's an outlier and not the norm. For some reason buying something with Brooklyn on it is hip. Buying something with Manhattan, Queens or Staten Island not so much apparently.

So by that same rationale, St. Louis FC gear should sell just fine without a moniker associated with it. See what I did there?

[The_Admiral]

I know soccer has a long history in St. Louis, but "the home of soccer in America" sounds as dubious as "the best fans in baseball." It's gotta be bigger somewhere else.

The logo is okay, but I feel like the green should be red to better reflect the flag, plus some yellow in there as well. And count me in for any St. Louis team using the Apotheosis as a secondary logo. Cool statue.

[Gothamite]

I'm not saying that self-proclaimed title is any less ludicrous than the other, only that it exists and a certain percentage of the St. Louis population is presumed to feel that way. So the city itself might be the basis for a brand identity.

[Viperking555]

I like the top crest way better than the bottom one. The bottom crest looks too much like the Paris St-Germain FC crest of France. Just my opinion though.