Daniel Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 quote:Originally posted by RealGoonerWell in Toronto there are huge populations of Canadians recently immigrated from Europe,Latin America, Asia etc (including myself) for whom FC Porto and Manchester City are names that resonate more than Anaheim Mighty Ducks. This is a team being marketed to Torontonians remember. Just felt compelled to point out that it's "The Mighty Ducks of Anaheim", technically. [}] Beats out the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthew Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 quote:Originally posted by DanielBeats out the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. There is at least a legal reason for that monstrosity of a name. I get a little nervous when MLS teams try gimmicky things to try to capture 'the ethnic market'. You put a good product on the pitch, play attractive soccer and strive for a good atmosphere in the stands where the game is the focus, I think you don't need to use FC or United or Sparta or whatever else. I don't mind AC for Toronto, but I wonder why a Dallas team's name is in Spanish. Same with RSL. I find ReAL Salt Lake stupid and I think other people might find it pandering. I like DC United, though they never actually united anything. FC Dallas sounds good to me, but is kind of dumb when you think about it. For me Houston 1836 sounds bad, but makes some sense the more you think about it. Not only is it a nod to some 'traditional' soccer names, but there's also a tradition of using significant dates in US team names. Because it's a historically significant date it conjured up something other than just the date the team was formed. And I suspect, as is with all names, this one will sound better given time. Forget the Nuggets. How about the New Jersey Nets (can you imagine a soccer team called the Nets?). Named after a two-dollar piece of nylon. I think MetroStars sounds better than Metropolitans. Expos? Named after a fair. Steelers? Isn't even a word. Wouldn't Blacksmiths have been cooler? Packers? Named after people who pack meat (there are some great, hip, edgy logo opportunities the Pack just aren't exploring). The Browns? Not just an ugly coulor, but named after their coach. Though it was by fan demand. Which just goes to show. There's no accounting for taste. cheers, matthew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loud Mouth Soup Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 quote:Originally posted by Daniel [quoteJust felt compelled to point out that it's "The Mighty Ducks of Anaheim", technically. [}] Not anymore. Anaheim Ducks it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 Not quite yet... Mighty Ducks of Anaheim to Change Name to Anaheim Ducks in 2006-2007 ANAHEIM, Calif., - The Mighty Ducks of Anaheim announced today that the National Hockey League club intends to officially change its name to the Anaheim Ducks at the start of the 2006-2007 season. The organization is also evaluating possible changes to its logo, identity and uniforms. “The process is still very much underway, and we do not expect to be ready to make any further announcements until the end of the season,” said Henry Samueli, who along with his wife Susan purchased the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim last year from the Walt Disney Company. Fan Feedback Factored Into the Decision “The Mighty Ducks organization very carefully considered the question of whether to change the team name, and spent many months evaluating various options,” said David Paine, CEO of PainePR, an Irvine, California-based public relations firm that coordinated the research effort for the Samueli family. “The process included both qualitative research and a formal quantitative telephone survey of Mighty Ducks season ticket holders. While there was support for keeping the current name, the majority of those surveyed, nearly two thirds, supported some sort of name change.” At the same time, the research found strong support generally for preserving the history of the team in some way. “In selecting the name the Anaheim Ducks, we are respecting the heritage of a tremendous organization that has been a very important and visible part of the community, not to mention Western Conference Champions and a Stanley Cup finalist,” Samueli said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoyleG Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 Real Salt Lake was chosoen because it told people in SLC that they were selling soccer. It actually meant something to people compared to the name Utah Jazz. San Jose Clash and KC Wiz are far worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soju Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 I think Dallas were being clever by using the FC to attract the die hard soccer crowd with a traditional name, but changed the football to "futbol" to not piss of American sports purists who would balk at calling soccer "football". I also like the North American tradition of giving logos and names to our sports clubs outside of the European style city name and crest only approach (with some exceptions). Since the excellent name "kickers" (brilliant because in soccer you kick!) was taken and so was Wiz (it's so short, it's easy to remember!) I propose the name Toronto Slidecheckers for the next great MLS team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjoni Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 Crap, there are clubs in Europe that have been around longer than the city of Houston. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealGooner Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 quote:Originally posted by mjoni Crap, there are clubs in Europe that have been around longer than the city of Houston. Not to nit-pick, but there aren't. The oldest professional soccer club still in operation is Britain's Notts County FC. They were founded in 1862, 26 years after Houston. TSV Munich 1860 weren't playing soccer in 1860. They were founded as a gymnastics club but only adopted soccer in the late 1890s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Start fan in exile Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S. The real question is grammatical: what is the noun and what is the adjective. The adjective cannot be pluralized. But I am not sure that the formula is reversed by some strange and ancient legal formula. What would you ask? How many Governors General has Canada had, or how many Governor Generals? I think the latter but I am not sure, like making a list of Attorney Generals or Solicitor Generals. Governor is the noun, General the adjective; so Governors General is correct... Btw. to Daniel who referenced the Ottawa U GeeGees...the name stands for Garnet and Grey, the team colours - not Governor General... Back to topic - Real Salt Lake is an awful name. Although I hear the lake is real salty... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jeffery S. Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 quote:Originally posted by Start fan in exile Governor is the noun, General the adjective; so Governors General is correct... Btw. to Daniel who referenced the Ottawa U GeeGees...the name stands for Garnet and Grey, the team colours - not Governor General... Back to topic - Real Salt Lake is an awful name. Although I hear the lake is real salty... Okay, so it is the syntax that breaks the traditional rule, or it is a concession to French syntax perhaps? But I am not entirely convinced. If the GG gave out an award, what would it be called: The Governor's General Award, or the Governor General's Award? And if the latter, how could you argue to have a genitive on an adjective? Perhaps the entire combination is the noun then, a compound noun, which would thus turn us back to the history of our Governor Generals and their "possessions", belonging to them, the Governor General's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RS Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S. Okay, so it is the syntax that breaks the traditional rule, or it is a concession to French syntax perhaps? But I am not entirely convinced. If the GG gave out an award, what would it be called: The Governor's General Award, or the Governor General's Award? And if the latter, how could you argue to have a genitive on an adjective? Perhaps the entire combination is the noun then, a compound noun, which would thus turn us back to the history of our Governor Generals and their "possessions", belonging to them, the Governor General's. It would be the "Governor General's Award", because "Governer General" is the entire title. Saying the "Governor's General Award" would imply that the award comes from the governor, and it's 'general' in merit. But when speaking in plural, they are indeed known as Governers General, using the same rule that dictates that "son-in-law" (for instance) becomes "sons-in-law" in plural form. Or to lower it to a standard everyone can understand, the plural to "son of a bitch" is "sons of bitches". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeta Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 quote:Originally posted by Rudi Or to lower it to a standard everyone can understand, the plural to "son of a bitch" is "sons of bitches". Ahhhhhhh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthew Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 Well said Rudi. There is only one Governor General giving out the award. So it's the Governor General's Award. According to the Canadian Press style book (for whatever it's worth), governors general is correct in the plural, despite how wrong it sounds/looks. cheers, matthew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RS Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 quote:Originally posted by matthew According to the Canadian Press style book Funny enough, that's exactly where I learned this particular rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 quote:Originally posted by Rudi Funny enough, that's exactly where I learned this particular rule. I'm laughing on the inside. On the outside, though, I need to hide this dead hooker. A hand, Rudi? I swear I didn't hit her that hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jeffery S. Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 Still like Toronto Governors General as the MLS team name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 Was there ever the "Toronto Towers?"? You'd figure it'd me a natural pic with the CN tower and the alliterration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealGooner Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 quote:Originally posted by Daniel Was there ever the "Toronto Towers?"? You'd figure it'd me a natural pic with the CN tower and the alliterration. I believe that was a proposed name for the team that eventually was named the Raptors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchboy Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Whether Houston 1836 is a silly name or not, I have participated in the vote for the name, and this was by far the best available option. For people with a sense of US soccer history, maybe the Stars would have been a viable option (early NASL members), but that name should be reserved for a Saint Louis-based MLS franchise. Other options included Generals, Mustangs, etc., which I think of as rather dull. I wonder why the Houston Hurricane wasn't an option. Money? About the Real Salt Lake name. How would you feel about Real San Diego, Real San Antonio, or something like that. I do feel positive about the Euro-style team names. I'm used to them, and I find some big league North American team names pretty corny. Here's a Dutch-style idea in case the Galaxy and Chivas USA should absorb one another: GCC Los Angeles (Galaxy Chivas Combination). It's completely in line with RKC Waalwijk, Roda JC, RBC Roosendaal, NAC Breda, and NEC Nijmegen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 quote:Originally posted by dutchboy I wonder why the Houston Hurricane wasn't an option. Money? Sensitivity I would imagine given the recent hardships caused by Hurricanes in the southern U.S. It would be the equivalent of calling a team from Sri Lanka the "Tsunami's" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante79 Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 its good that the MLS are beggining to get real soccer games! hope they all follow the example Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jeffery S. Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 quote:Originally posted by dutchboy Whether Houston 1836 is a silly name or not, I have participated in the vote for the name, and this was by far the best available option. For people with a sense of US soccer history, maybe the Stars would have been a viable option (early NASL members), but that name should be reserved for a Saint Louis-based MLS franchise. Other options included Generals, Mustangs, etc., which I think of as rather dull. I wonder why the Houston Hurricane wasn't an option. Money? About the Real Salt Lake name. How would you feel about Real San Diego, Real San Antonio, or something like that. I do feel positive about the Euro-style team names. I'm used to them, and I find some big league North American team names pretty corny. Here's a Dutch-style idea in case the Galaxy and Chivas USA should absorb one another: GCC Los Angeles (Galaxy Chivas Combination). It's completely in line with RKC Waalwijk, Roda JC, RBC Roosendaal, NAC Breda, and NEC Nijmegen. At least the cities named after saints in the southern US were named by a Spanish colonial power that was a monarchy. Or by orders that emerged out of Catholic Spain. So it would make a bit more sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchboy Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 The Hurricane was Houston's second NASL team, that's why I wondered. About Real San Diego, or Real San Antonio (or Real whatever), why doesn't anybody seem to have a problem with the LA Kings, or the Kansas City Royals? Who is the King, and who are the Royal Family of the United States? In that spirit, if the town has a Spanish name, I have no problem with a US-based soccer team being named Real. Another question, if MLS continued giving teams proper soccer names, which cities should be awarded the following names: -City (Toronto City used to exist in the late 60s); -Town; -Wanderers; -Wolves? Do make it sound good! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youllneverwalkalone Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Wednesday? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew W Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Looks like it may be a short-lived name. According to sources 1836 is on its way out. Houston name change? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.