The best part is that after the league decided to do a badge, rather than a star in the season immediately proceeding the championship, the rowdies ignored league brand standards and tacked it on to their already controversial stars. Take them both off! Give them one in a year!
Nope, there may be next year as that's when the star is supposed to be added - since the rowdies are getting the badge.
No they don't have a star on their badge as far as I can tell. (Maybe I need to make it bigger so you can see it better?)
Well I see 2 stars; 3 if you count the middle one as 2 and then 1 on top of the I (etoile), but none on top of the badge to show their 2011 NASL Championship. BTW I would not mind if the Railhawks (2011) and the Scorpions (2012) had something to show their regular season best record.
HOLY CRAP ON A CRACKER...WHAT A BUNCH OF KILL JOYS...WHO GIVES A CRAP ABOUT THE STAR...LET US ENJOY THE CHAMPIONSHIP...CHILLLLL
Since you've set a precedent of adding fake ones - feel free to throw a third, fourth, and even fifth one on there.
So San Jose won MLS Cup in 2001 and they went defunct in 2005, and returned in 2008. so they don't get a star for 2001 according to you.
So the franchise switched back to the Earthquakes name in 1999. In 2005 the team relocated over stadium disputes - but the franchise brand did not shift to Houston. So Houston started as 1836, then became the Dynamo. Yeah, all told - 3 years went by with no team on the field to support the brand. Though technically it was just one year that they didn't have the Earthquakes in principal. That said, it did change hands like the Rowdies name did—so, duly noted. I think one of the biggest differences there would be that the original NASL Rowdies folded in 84. But then again, to be fair, they did live on in various other leagues till 93. That means there was at least a separation of 16 years (assuming it was a 93-94 final season) and at most 26 years of gap between the two brands—depending on how you look at it. That's a much bigger chasm then 1-3 years—both in terms of brand and community of support. Of course though, the biggest difference is that your team, ownership, franchise, brand, and even your league are not the same as the original rowdies and NASL—they are similar in name only. So I guess a more accurate comparison would be if any other NASL replica franchises were claiming their titles from the league of which ours is named in reference to. And nobody does that.* *Except you. P.S. Am I supposed to be in some kind of catch 22 because of the San Jose situation? That franchise is garbage anyways—I have little problem saying they don't deserve a single thing.
You do know that MLS held all of the Clashquakes' records, history and everything for their return, right? Houston didn't take them with them, you get that, right? Just like when the Browns moved to Baltimore - the NFL said the records and hardware and everything didn't go with them, they were basically a new franchise, as the Browns were going to be (and were) re-born three years later. Just like...wait for it...the 'Quakes. The 'Quakes didn't go defunct, jagov.
Well, the league did (in 1985, actually, but before the 1985 season). The club played a handful of exhibitions in 1985 and 1986 outdoors, then played indoors in the AISA in 1986-87, then went back outdoors in what became the APSL/A-League in 1987. But the business continued to operate, if at a low level, while they weren't regularly playing games from late 1984 to late 1986. The last actual game of the original Rowdies' franchise was played September 11, 1993 at home against the LA Salsa. So there was nearly a 17 year gap before a team that (tried to, anyway) called itself the Rowdies (albeit briefly) played again. And in that interim period, they did not exist as a business or anything else other than whatever Mrs. Corbett kept in her spare bedroom.
Fake ones? Like a championship in '75 and now in '12? Those did not happen? If we try to retain the cup in '13 why not 3 stars? It would be 3 Championships won. (in theory, of it happening) I miss your point on "added fake ones". In futbol, when you win a championship, you get a star. The team can choose to add a star or not. That is fact. Some teams do, and some don't. That is fact too. My other passion other than the Rowdies are Benfica. They just added 3 stars to their jersey to represent 30+ Portuguese Championships won. 5 years ago they had no stars. Does that take away any stars, now or previous after there 100+ year history? They legitimitely won those championships. They can choose to show them or not. Why can't the Rowdies to the same?
They did happen. The first one happened to someone else. 'Cause they're not the same club. I don't know how many times this needs to be said. These are the spiritual descendants. Spiritual. Accrington Stanley played from 1891 to 1966 before folding. A new club of the same name was formed in 1968. They do not claim the history of the original club. Their records and accomplishments date from 1968. Fans are free to do whatever they like. You can consider these to be the reborn Rowdies, ignore the 17 (or 26) year gap, cover your ears and say "La la la la la la la" when these discussions take place, and pretend that if you squint really hard, that's the club you remember from your youth. But the club itself - especially with non-native ownership - shouldn't officially try to pose as the original club. The star was ludicrous from the get-go. Now that they have a (well-deserved) championship of their own, they should absolutely have a star. For 2012. Not for 1975.
Tampa bay rowdies are the same thing. If our name this year was still FC Tampa Bay, then its different.
No shit when a team wins 30 years ago it's not the same team 30 years later. so when a EPL team goes into administration and then is liquidated but in 30 years they find owners and use the same name. The history doesn't count? If Northernwall and Kenn think that you guys live in a alternative universe.
Respectfully, that makes no sense at all. Let me brutally blunt here. If I have a child who dies, and I name a later child the same exact name, is it the same child? Should I put all the first one's trophies, bronzed shoes, and such in his room and continue on as if they are the same person? According to you guys, yes. Unless, I name him something else, then he is a completely different person. Ridiculous analogy maybe, but it points out the ridiculous pretentiousness of posing as the orginal Rowdies. By all means, pay tribute to the original Rowdies, which oddly enough, they haven't really done enough. Absolutely, let the narrative of this club be we are aspiring to rival the accomplishments of the orginal Rowdies. That would be fine with me. But I just won't ever get this willful denial of reality. Guess that is American's specialty these days. It shouldn't really surprise me.