Calgary Oranje Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 quote:Originally posted by TOareaFan Seems to be a pretty overwhelming agreement here that there should be an avoidance of traditional North American style naming (ie. Cityname followed by "nickname"). I'm not against the city name-nickname combo, but again, let's get away from the awful trend of naming teams after feelings ("Shock"), weather phenomena (that includes "Blizzard," which I think should be ditched just so we can move on); or things that are intangible or ephemeral — sorry, that includes "Rush." Those sorts of nicknames don't translate well in normal conversations or written copy about the team ("Three Bears named to All-Star team;" "Vikings on sex cruise.") I mean, who says, "Daddy, I want to be a Rush when I grow up"??? There are plenty of cues from Toronto's history to draw a nickname from if that's the way MLSE decides to go. Failing that, they can opt for soccer tradition and go the FC/City/Inter route (again, with Inter being just about the only Euro label that wouldn't sound completely phoney). Please — no new-age nicknames! No dinosaurs! No double Xs or double Zs! End the madness! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealGooner Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Andrew W I think I'd rather be caught ripping off Inter Milan than Manchester City or Coventry City. God forbid Stoke City. Well if your going to 'rip off' you might as well rip off from the best. Mind you, I don't think that Inter Toronto sounds anywhere near as ridiculous as Real Salt Lake..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew W Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 quote:Originally posted by RealGooner Mind you, I don't think that Inter Toronto sounds anywhere near as ridiculous as Real Salt Lake..... Nothing, but nothing will ever be as bad as ReAL Salt Lake. [xx(] Toronto could be named Toronto St. Germain or Queen's Park Rangers and never be as lame as RSL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sstackho Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 The Toronto Pelés. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yob Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 Maple Leafs FC Not my choice, but could it happen? In Europe other sports teams owned by football clubs often share the same uniforms. http://www.fcbarcelona.es/eng/deportes/deportes.shtml Toronto City sounds good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOareaFan Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Andrew W Nothing, but nothing will ever be as bad as ReAL Salt Lake. [xx(] Toronto could be named Toronto St. Germain or Queen's Park Rangers and never be as lame as RSL. Actually QPR is close but we could call them Queens Park Leafs (as an example)....aren't QPR the exception that proves that old "British teams don't have nicknames in their official name" thingy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealGooner Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 quote:Originally posted by TOareaFan Actually QPR is close but we could call them Queens Park Leafs (as an example)....aren't QPR the exception that proves that old "British teams don't have nicknames in their official name" thingy. Thats isn't necessarily the case. Blackburn Rovers, Sheffield Wednesday, Glasgow Rangers, even Kidderminster Harriers. But they are rare over there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yob Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 A bit of info on English names from The Guardian: quote: KNOWLEDGE ARCHIVE "If you take a look at the teams playing in the Premiership for the 2001-02 season, you see nine different endings on twelve teams with more than one word in their name (Villa, Rovers, Wanderes, Athletic, County, Town, United (4), City, Hotspur). Has the Premiership or first division ever had a more diverse field of two-word teams?" asked Eric Jonathan Martin in 2001. "Pah!" was Andy Marsh's unnecessary response to Eric's innocent enquiry. "In 1892-93 there were 11 different endings in the first division, and in those days there were only 16 teams in the top division." And to show what a know-all he is, he names them: Villa, Albion, Wednesday, Forest, Stanley, County, Wanderers, North End, City, Rovers and Heath. Well "pah" yourself Andy, because Graham Lawton trumped you. "In 1920-21 there were 12 different endings in a 22-team division," he wrote. "Three Uniteds, two Citys and a Wanderers, Hotspur, Villa, Rovers, Albion, North End, Town, Athletic, County and Park Avenue." http://football.guardian.co.uk/theknowledge/story/0,13854,1600319,00.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealGooner Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 quote:Originally posted by RealGooner Actually QPR is close but we could call them Queens Park Leafs (as an example)....aren't QPR the exception that proves that old "British teams don't have nicknames in their official name" thingy. Thats isn't necessarily the case. Blackburn Rovers, Sheffield Wednesday, Glasgow Rangers, even Kidderminster Harriers. But they are rare over there. Yes, I forgot Bolton Wanderers, Charlton Athletic and Tottenham Hotspur, so they are there. The Brits just don't go in for New Age Concept/feeling names like Shock, Rock, Rage, or Mutiny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrennanFan Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 i dont see why we're shying away from the standard north american 'city with nickname' format. We're not european, were not british. Like what was written earlier, FC means nothing, we play soccer here. We're north american and we do things our own way, we should be proud of our own tradition and not be trying to be something were not. Enough with the Toronto City FC name, its never gonna happen because the kids wont relate to it, and yes the kids matter bc they are our future MNT players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew W Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 I believe this comes down to a damned if they do, damned if they don't scenario. If the team goes with a standard North American nickname, the purists and wannabes will be crying out about how the name isn't a "true football name". However, if they go with FC, United, City, Inter, AC, Bayern, (gag me) Real or anything remotely old world, they'll be slapped, by many of the same people mind-you, with the tag of euro-poseurs much like Dallas and Salt Lake were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealGooner Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 quote:Originally posted by BrennanFan i dont see why we're shying away from the standard north american 'city with nickname' format. We're not european, were not british. Like what was written earlier, FC means nothing, we play soccer here. We're north american and we do things our own way, we should be proud of our own tradition and not be trying to be something were not. Enough with the Toronto City FC name, its never gonna happen because the kids wont relate to it, and yes the kids matter bc they are our future MNT players. We all have our own tastes, BF and they are being expressed here. FYI Toronto City actually was a team playing in Toronto in the 1960's so it already happened. There's plenty of kids in the parks of Toronto wearing Manchester United and FC Porto jerseys, which suggests that maybe you don't know what kids relate to as well as you are suggesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOareaFan Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 quote:Originally posted by RealGooner Yes, I forgot Bolton Wanderers, Charlton Athletic and Tottenham Hotspur, so they are there. The Brits just don't go in for New Age Concept/feeling names like Shock, Rock, Rage, or Mutiny. Yea and no....when "new" sports come to Britain they tend to adopt the same naming approach we do. Had a great time one night at a Sheffield Steelers v Newcastle Cobras hockey game. Ever watch the Scottish Claymores play against the London Monarchs (I think that was their name) in the NFL Europe league and who would not want to be at this weekend's basketball game between the Manchester Magic and the Essex & Herts Leopards? Kidding aside, the Brits and Europeans (to their credit) have not undone decades of history by renaming existing clubs with snappy new "north american style" names. They have, however, quite readily used that system when new sports come along. Jeez, when Wigan Athletic aren't playing Bradford City, you might even see a Wigan Warriors v Bradford Bulls rugby league match in the same stadium! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrennanFan Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 quote:Originally posted by RealGooner We all have our own tastes, BF and they are being expressed here. FYI Toronto City actually was a team playing in Toronto in the 1960's so it already happened. There's plenty of kids in the parks of Toronto wearing Manchester United and FC Porto jerseys, which suggests that maybe you don't know what kids relate to as well as you are suggesting. i know european teams are gaining popularity here among the youth. The thing is, the kids who have Man U and porto shirts love soccer and will support toronto MLS regardless of the name, as will the purists/diehards who want a proper soccer name as they believe that to be. The team name is all about marketing, and will be aimed at bringing in the fringe fans who will make or break the teams success. Personally Id be overjoyed with Toronto Blizzard FC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealGooner Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 quote:Originally posted by BrennanFan i know european teams are gaining popularity here among the youth. The thing is, the kids who have Man U and porto shirts love soccer and will support toronto MLS regardless of the name, as will the purists/diehards who want a proper soccer name as they believe that to be. The team name is all about marketing, and will be aimed at bringing in the fringe fans who will make or break the teams success. Personally Id be overjoyed with Toronto Blizzard FC. Fair enough, but you are in Victoria and are not really this teams' target market. IMO you are more the target demographic for the Vancouver Whitecaps, whose name I really like btw. I might also propose that Toronto's fringe fan population is much more ethnically diverse and naturally soccer-savvy than Victoria's , and therefore the legitimate marketing concerns you bring up are perhaps more valid in Victoria than here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morrison Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 quote:Originally posted by RealGooner Thats isn't necessarily the case. Blackburn Rovers, Sheffield Wednesday, Glasgow Rangers, even Kidderminster Harriers. But they are rare over there. Just to clarify one thing Glasgow Rangers is not the official name of the team. they are only being called that because English commentators want to differenciate them from Queen's Park Rangers. don't get the idea that because I corrected him that I'm a rangers supporter, on the contrary, it'd be an insult Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morrison Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Yob Maple Leafs FC Not my choice, but could it happen? In Europe other sports teams owned by football clubs often share the same uniforms. http://www.fcbarcelona.es/eng/deportes/deportes.shtml That's pretty easy when the team is named after the city, and that's it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeta Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Well, just to throw in a bit as the topic has broadened a little, as much as many of the EURO teams have stayed within their traditional limits with nicknames and what-not, modern marketing hasn't been lost on their board rooms that's for sure. When was the last time a big club (any big club in any league) kept the same kit two years in a row? Okay everybody, go drop ANOTHER $100 for the 2005-2006 shirt which looks mostly like the 2004-2005 shirt except there's that little red 2" strip on the left sleeve elastic and the juuuuust slightly different embrodery around the logo. When was the last time a big club had ONLY 2 kits? Or didn't put out a special European competition kit? Bloody pirates. Anyway. I like Maple Leafs FC more and more. Even non-hockey fans just about everywhere associate Maple Leafs with Toronto. Nice touch. Understated but smug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeta Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Well, just to throw in a bit as the topic has broadened a little, as much as many of the EURO teams have stayed within their traditional limits with nicknames and what-not, modern marketing hasn't been lost on their board rooms that's for sure. When was the last time a big club (any big club in any league) kept the same kit two years in a row? Okay everybody, go drop ANOTHER $100 for the 2005-2006 shirt which looks mostly like the 2004-2005 shirt except there's that little red 2" strip on the left sleeve elastic and the juuuuust slightly different embrodery around the logo. When was the last time a big club had ONLY 2 kits? Or didn't put out a special European competition kit? Bloody pirates. Anyway. I like Maple Leafs FC more and more. Even non-hockey fans just about everywhere associate Maple Leafs with Toronto. Nice touch. Understated but smug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealGooner Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 careful now Cheeta, that "FC" at the end seems make some people see red. But you and I both know that soccer really is the original football.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOareaFan Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 quote:Originally posted by RealGooner careful now Cheeta, that "FC" at the end seems make some people see red. But you and I both know that soccer really is the original football.... Not trying to be cute but I really thought that Rugby was the original football and all other games are derivitives of it? Anyway, it does not matter, no matter what traditionalists think it should be, the game is called soccer here. The league is MLS not MLF. So having a team with FC in there name just makes no sense at all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted November 10, 2005 Author Share Posted November 10, 2005 True - though unfortunately it didn't seem to stop them with FC Dallas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOareaFan Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca True - though unfortunately it didn't seem to stop them with FC Dallas. You are, of course, right...never thought of it...now that I have, it is dumb (IMO). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealGooner Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 I don't know if this is true but an American on BigSoccer said that the FC in FC Dallas stands for Futbol Club, because of the strong Hispanic presense in Dallas. So maybe FC might be silly in Canada, but perhaps it makes sense in heavily Hispanic texas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealGooner Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Ignore this post, just wanted to get to 400. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.