Toronto MLS research

[mlsintoronto]

GMan - I think you're misunderstood...Thats two constructive emails in this thread alone!

Are you convinced that it can't be done properly? or do you just feel like its never been done properly in North America?

This is a good discussion direction...when watching a game you like (from a production values point of view). You mentioned camera angles...what about them?

Others - please chime in here if you have opinions.

[ochico]

A lot is being said by Mlsintoronto

Be careful, the person in charge of MLS at MLS&E is not a male.

[Grizzly]

quote:Originally posted by mlsintoronto

Sorry for not sharing but you already seem to understand the reasons why I cannot. I can share my personal opinion: I'm in favour of Red and white, and I like Toronto FC.

I also would like to see us sell the front of a jersey to a sponsor ...not likely to happen...but my favourite all time kit is Kilmarnock (I think) - "Seriously Strong Cheddar"

Interesting idea of having the team in red and white. If you are marketing primarily to Toronto and trying to get in with Leafs fans than blue and white is the way to go. However, if you are trying to present yourself as Canada's team than red and white would be better. The other problem with blue and white is that it is the colour of the two other teams who might join the MLS in the future, the Impact and Whitecaps. Could you imagine three Canadian MLS teams all wearing the same colours?

I know you are a marketing guy but I can't imagine why anyone would want a jersey with a sponsor other then for financial reasons. Maybe some people want to look EURO but the advent of sponsor logos on jerseys was the worst development in European kit ever. Half the time you can not tell what team it is by looking at the shirt but you can read VOLVO as clear as day. Notice the difference in the crest size compared to the ad size on most jerseys. The team I support in Russia does not have a kit sponsor anymore and the fans all buy the shirt now to get it before half of it is covered with advertising again. Admittedly the lack of sponsor has ruined any chance of us winning the championship so I hope they can find a new sponsor but the shirt is much more attractive. How many people would buy Leafs jerseys if it was full of corporate logos like European hockey and soccer teams. If MLSE does not need the money of a shirt sponsor than it should not have one. This is more traditional and authentic than the European advertising shirts from clubs who have sold out their tradition.

quote:Personally I think the Marlies should be used again by MLSE or my second choice Universe but the moniker doesn't really matter.

It will never happen but wouldn't Toronto Centre of the Universe be an awesome name?

[Gian-Luca]

quote:Originally posted by mlsintoronto

Others - please chime in here if you have opinions.

I'll repeat what I mentioned on bigsoccer.com a week ago, that what is needed for television broadcasts is someone who can help sell the game and give it a professional feel, not the amateurish feel that Sportsnet Canadian soccer broadcasts can provide - in spite of the best efforts of Craig Forrest as an analyst - he is based in Toronto now, so I wouldn't mind if you used him as a colour commentator for Toronto MLS matches - he's knowledgeable, popular, well-liked by the fans and can bring some credibility to the sport. He can also by analytical and yet not afraid to criticize.

In my opinion the colour man is less important, and a good one less difficult to find, than the play by play man, as he (or she I guess) has the bigger job in selling the game, making it exciting. There haven't been many good play by play guys for Canadian soccer in the last 15 or so years. You need someone that will make it sound exciting, is knowledgeable about the game, and has a great voice. The current tv voice of soccer in Canada, Gerry Dobson, has none of these things IMO. If you can avoid using him, please do so. In my experience He's not generally well-regarded as a play-by-play man outside of this board (or even by half the people on this board). TSN's Vic Rauter is remembered fondly by some on this board, but again I think many outside this board found him to be a bit embarrassing, if fun to imitate.

I think G-Man's theory about Serie A not allegedly being all that popular because of television camera-angles is a wild one (I think there are more fundamental reasons why that might be the case, if it is) and as cynical as the rest of his post, but having said that it is important to get camera angles right as that helps with the professional presentation.

If they have a VCR handy at the Duke I could show you some very good examples of how not to do it. Generally you don't want to have too low of an angle, as it doesn't allow you to see the play on the far side of the field that well, nor does it allow you to see how the play builds up. A higher angle is better, though not one that is too far away obviously.

Above all, I would hope MLSE will go for the largest possible Canadian tv audience that it can. No point in being cynical about whether people from other parts of the country will tune in - you won't know until you try.

[aussoccerfan]

Is there going to be a "Name the Team" contest ?

[aussoccerfan]

Does advertising on the back of a shirt look bad ?

The red and blue team is Scotia SC, and the white team is Cole Harbour SC (NSSL)

[Grizzly]

Advertising anywhere on the shirt looks bad. It may be a financial necessity in many leagues but it certainly harms the kit. Someone just looking at the jerseys would think that Samsung is playing Vodaphone instead of Chelsea vs. ManU.

[Grizzly]

Advertising anywhere on the shirt looks bad. It may be a financial necessity in many leagues but it certainly harms the kit. Someone just looking at the jerseys would think that Samsung is playing Vodaphone instead of Chelsea vs. ManU.

[aussoccerfan]

The ad on the Scotia jersey doesn't look too bad- right ?

[aussoccerfan]

The ad on the Scotia jersey doesn't look too bad- right ?

[Loud Mouth Soup]

How many folks here are aware that ZOOM Airlines, a Canadian airline, sponsor Motherwell's kit?

The sponsors are out there.

[Loud Mouth Soup]

http://www.motherwellfc.co.uk/squadlist.htm

EDIT: Feh-just click, already

[mlsintoronto]

quote:Originally posted by ochico

A lot is being said by Mlsintoronto

Be careful, the person in charge of MLS at MLS&E is not a male.

I am not in charge of MLS at MLSE. I guess you think that I am male? Is it the testoserone laden diatribes, or the lack of flowery embellishment?

[Grizzly]

quote: The ad on the Scotia jersey doesn't look too bad- right ?

quote:Originally posted by Loud Mouth Soup

How many folks here are aware that ZOOM Airlines, a Canadian airline, sponsor Motherwell's kit?

The sponsors are out there.

The ad on the Scotia jersey certainly doesn't look as bad as the Zoom logo. That Motherwell kit is one of the worst I have ever seen. That kit wouldn't even look good without the ugly zoom logo but in combination it is embarrassing.

[TOareaFan]

quote:Originally posted by mlsintoronto

Believe me this board is getting lots of attention around here - mostly positive. "Its not a chat room...its a message board!"

Sorry for not sharing but you already seem to understand the reasons why I cannot. I can share my personal opinion: I'm in favour of Red and white, and I like Toronto FC.

I also would like to see us sell the front of a jersey to a sponsor ...not likely to happen...but my favourite all time kit is Kilmarnock (I think) - "Seriously Strong Cheddar"

PokerRoom.tv on the shirts?

[RealGooner]

quote:Originally posted by G-Man

From the games I've seen on Fox World, MLS soccer offers a terrible TV package compared to what we see every week from the EPL. Long boring wide shots showing thousands of empty seats and apathetic soccer dads. The reason the EPL is so popular compared to Seria A is that the TV production is so much better. Better camera angles, a better understanding on how the game comes across on TV. The EPL is a slick product put together by people who understand the game. That's why it works.

I agree with G-man here, the TV production of MLS is uninspiring. For my money, EPL and Champions League broadcasts are the best ones of all. Even drab fixtures such as Sunderland vs West Bromwich Albion make for decent watching because of the quality of the production and commentating. North American soccer commentators can seem so monotone and passionless at times.

[sstackho]

Be careful, RealGooner. Max Bretos on FSC is certainly not monotone nor passionless, and he is a god-awful match commentator.

Well-placed microphones are also important for capturing the stadium atmosphere on a television broadcast. I find it very hard to get into a match if the stadium sounds aren't in the front of the mix.

[RealGooner]

Personally I don't care if there is a sponsor on the jersey front or not because I am young enough not to remember when European teams didn't have them.

[Gian-Luca]

A couple of specific broadcasting points:

1. Don't pick up the annoying Sportsnet Canadian soccer broadcasts' habit of zooming in on player's faces who aren't involved in the play while the game is on. Soccer is a game without any natural stoppages during the play, but with Sportsnet the tendency is to pretend its hockey and have the camera zoom in on a player as though he's sittin on the bench in between stoppages in the play. Its very irritating when you can hear the crowd reacting to what is going on but can't see it because the camera is showing Richard Hastings' reaction to having just hoofed the ball a mile up the field. Also be quick with replays so that you don't miss any action - players can send the ball back in play very quickly nowadays, they don't have to wait for the Ref to drop the puck.

2. For the commentator, don't have him do a faux South American commentator style play by play - ie. no "GO-GO-GO-GO-GO-GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!" stuff. It will just look "wanna-be" and ruin credibility. Have the guy call the game naturally, similar to your typical hockey style of commentating except less descriptive. British commentary is generally the best example to follow in terms of English-language examples.

3. Try to get someone who is passionate about the game, very knowledgeable, a bit of a homer to generate excitement but not an un-reasonably biased one. A "Joe Bowen for soccer" might be a good way of looking at it. An example not to follow would be the guy that used to the Boston Bruins play by play (Fred Kulick (sic?)), who would scream "SCORES! CAM NEELY FROM RAY BOURQUE! YOU'VE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE IT IN YOUR LIFE!!!" at the top of his lungs when the Bruins would score, but then whisper "scores, Wendel Clark, Leafs win in overtime capping a 6-goal comeback to win the game" when a team scored against them, and would describe every Boston playing going to the ice as being "hauled down" but when a Bruin player would hook an opposition member off his feet would describe the player as "falling down" etc.

4. EPL broadcasts are a good example to emulate, but chances are you won't get there for some time (nobody can expect perfection & expertise right off the bat) - as long as it doesn't look amateurish though you should be fine to start with. The quality of the soccer should carry you through & the sell the game.

[TOareaFan]

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

A couple of specific broadcasting points:

1. Don't pick up the annoying Sportsnet Canadian broadcast habit of zooming in on player's faces who aren't involved in the play while the game is on. Soccer is a game without any natural stoppages during the play, but with Sportsnet the tendency is to pretend its hockey and have the camera zoom in on a player as though he's sittin on the bench in between stoppages in the play. Its very irritating when you can hear the crowd reacting to what is going on but can't see it because the camera is showing Richard Hastings' reaction to having just hoofed the ball a mile up the field. Also be quick with replays so that you don't miss any action - players can send the ball back in play very quickly nowadays, they don't have to wait for the Ref to drop the puck.

2. For the commentator, don't have him do a faux South American commentator style play by play - ie. no "GO-GO-GO-GO-GO-GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!" stuff. It will just look "wanna-be" and ruin credibility. Have the guy call the game naturally, similar to your typical hockey style of commentating except less descriptive. British commentary is generally the best example to follow in terms of English-language examples.

3. Try to get someone who is passionate about the game, very knowledgeable, a bit of a homer to generate excitement but not an un-reasonably biased one. A "Joe Bowen for soccer" might be a good way of looking at it. An example not to follow would be the guy that used to the Boston Bruins play by play (Fred Kulick (sic?)), who would scream "SCORES! CAM NEELY FROM RAY BOURQUE! YOU'VE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE IT IN YOUR LIFE!!!" at the top of his lungs when the Bruins would score, but then whisper "scores, Wendel Clark, Leafs win in overtime capping a 6-goal comeback to win the game" when a team scored against them, and would describe every Boston playing going to the ice as being "hauled down" but when a Bruin player would hook an opposition member off his feet would describe the player as "falling down" etc.

4. EPL broadcasts are a good example to emulate, but chances are you won't get there for some time (nobody can expect perfection & expertise right off the bat) - as long as it doesn't look amateurish though you should be fine to start with. The quality of the soccer should carry you through & the sell the game.

I have wondered sometimes why one of the North American networks trying to broadcast games here doesn't just offer someone from the BEEB or Sky a 4 month paid vacation to tutor their own play by play guys....sort of an apprentice program for play-by-play guys.

[Cheeta]

quote:Originally posted by RealGooner

Personally I don't care if there is a sponsor on the jersey front or not because I am young enough not to remember when European teams didn't have them.

Yeah, when Grizzly brought it up I had to think real long and real hard to try to remember kits without sponsors. Late 70's? Memmory's foggy but I'm sure I remember front-and-centre sponsorships coming in by the late 70's (in England anyway) and totaly taking over by the early 80's. Damn if I can say for sure though. Sometimes I even think I remember 'keepers playing without gloves....

As to broadcasting I think people neglect to mention that the EPL uses a Hell of a lot of cameras during their broadcasts. A Hell of a lot, and very well directed at that. The generals who command these cameras and time their use during live broadcasts are very knowledgable about the flow and rythem of footie. Of course they've been practicing their craft for decades.

[Grizzly]

The sponsor logos are more recent than people think. It started in England with Liverpool in 79. Most English clubs did not have sponsors till the mid to late 80's and the continental teams even later. There was not a lot of European soccer on television in Canada in those times which may be why noone remembers this but many will remember the Soccer Made in Germany show at the time when the Bundesliga teams did not have sponsors. The Eastern European soccer teams of course did not have sponsors until the fall of the iron curtain, ie, early 90's. There are also many examples of teams playing without shirt sponsors although usually due to not finding a sponsor willing to pay the desired fee. Werder Bremen played recently for a year without a shirt sponsor. There are also a few clubs who refuse to allow shirt sponsors, most notably FC Barcelona. They have recently allowed a sponsor on their sleeve but at least are still not allowing one on the main body of the shirt. The European hockey uniforms are even worse, absolutely cluttered with ads. The hockey players look more like guys with cardboard advertising signs on the sidewalk than athletes. Regardless of whether one remembers the sponsor free shirts or not it is certainly preferable to have shirts without company logos. This is soccer tradition even if most of the soccer world no longer abides by it. It would be one area where we would be superior to the European leagues and would make our jerseys look nicer and give them more integrity. Here is a bit of information from: http://www.englandfootballonline.com/TeamUnif/UnifAdvert.html

Commercial advertisements are a universal feature on English football club shirts, but, apart from the manufacturer's logo, they have yet to appear on the national side's jerseys.

On 24 July 1979, a sad day for football purists, Liverpool announced their players' shirts would bear the logo of the club's sponsor, Hitachi, during the forthcoming 1979-80 season in all but televised matches, for which Football League rules still outlawed shirt advertising. The rest of the top-flight clubs soon followed suit in tapping this lucrative source of revenue, and the televised games restriction was dropped. On 19 March 1984, the Football Association agreed to allow sponsor names to appear on players' shirts in the forthcoming F.A. Challenge Cup final. UEFA prohibited commercial shirt logos in its European club competitions until the 1985-86 season, the first in which English clubs were banned from European competition following the Heysel Stadium tragedy.

[morrison]

Barcelona has yet to have a sponsor (could be wrong) and I know Athletic de Bilbao hasn't either... the former obviously makes lots of money.

This has nothing to do with the Toronto MLS, just interesting to point out.

[Grizzly]

This may all be a moot point because I don't think MLS allows shirt sponsorship at the moment. This is to their credit although many of the MLS teams don't have very attractive and well designed kits (What is it about Americans and ugly uniforms?). I think the only team with a decent looking kit is Colorado. I guess if the sponsorship money actually bought a higher level of play due to the extra revenue I would agree it is a necessary evil but it would be nice to have nice looking kit without corporate logos all over it.

[Guest speedmonk42]

I think corporate logos on shirts are going to be a reality.

I think they can look kind of cool when they are 'patchy' looking as opposed to some giant overpowering logo that takes over the whole shirt. Which...they would want to be seen on TV.