This is a common misperception of the history of teams named "United". See below for ManU name history. "It was decided at one of the early board meetings that the club required a change of name to reflect the fresh start they had been afforded. Manchester Central and Manchester Celtic were among the names suggested, before Louis Rocca, a young immigrant from Italy, said "Gentlemen, why don't we call ourselves Manchester United?"[14] The name stuck, and Manchester United officially came into existence on 26 April 1902. Davies also decided it would be appropriate to change the club's colours, abandoning the white and navy of Newton Heath,[15] and picking red, white and black to be the colours of Manchester United.[16]"
100% agreed. I'm trying to think of something constructive to add to this thread, but it's too far gone.
The only difference is that the nicknames of MLS teams and the clubs you named were that MLS actually makes them official. Manchester United Red Devils, Tottenham Hotspur (Spurs), Bolton Wanderers, Sunderland Black Cats, Borussia Moenchengladbach Foals, Everton Blues, Liverpool Reds, Arsenal Gunners, Fulham Cottagers, etc. That's off the top of my head, and some even have mascots. Why is it such a drastic difference between having an acquired nickname and an official nickname???
Milwaukee Lycans (based off the beast of bray road) San Diego Shockwave Tulsa Roughriders Bethelham Steel (Pittsburgh)
soon to be MLS: Portland Timbers FC (is fine, fits the Pac NW and has a long history) Vancouver Whitcaps FC (meh. i like this less but it is staying b/c it has a long history) Olympique Montréal (i mean their stadium is in the olympic complex for goodness sake. but they will likely keep that lame impact name like the above teams) possible MLS: AC St. Louis (they already picked it and it isn't bad) Phoenix Rising FC (this would be the coolest name in MLS) NSC Minnesota (eh. this sucks but it is a Red Bull situation since NSC owns the club) Miami FC (eh. it is already named this so whatever they will never get a team) re-named MLS: i am fine with most of the MLS nicknames as they relate to their city in some way for the most part. but there are some that i think are ridiculous or could change ... CD Chivas USA --> Club Deportivo San Deigo move to San Diego and become CD San Deigo ... every league needs a Deportivo right? KC Wizards --> Kansas City United Wiz/Wizards is easily the dumbest name in the history of MLS ... ok maybe not but one of the worst ... i mean how much gayer do you get than naming your team after The Wizard Of Oz? but with their new stadium i am hoping for a new name and a complete overhaul of team logo/badge/colours/kit. if any team ever should be called United it is KC ... Kansas City, MO + Kansas City, KS = Kansas City United. Great for marketing to the entire area. SJ Earthquakes --> San Francisco Wanderers ok, so the area has earthquakes but that is just grim. personally i think they should move to San Francisco and become another hipster Sea/Por/Van esque metropolitan team. and since they would have lost a team for the 2nd time for not having a home stadium then there is only one name to give them
Kansas City squared? with a chant Kansas Kansas City City City Kansas KANSAS CITY! I don't know, I'm just thinking about how the predominance of ___ City names for municipalities in the US automatically kills any euro-posing Man City imitating names. So any attempt to do so would have to evolve, and United is taken. While squaring isn't technically what two cities would be mathematically, it would be cool to just have a superscript 2.
Problems with that idea are that 1) there is no place to play in SF, 2) there's no place to build a stadium in SF that would be cost effective, 3) The team has been in San Jose for its entire history and have had the SJ Earthquakes name for almost all of that time. There's nothing grim about it, not any more so that names like Hurricanes, Lightning, etc... I know everyone is all fearing Earthquakes right now, but frankly they're part of our planets life giving process and something Californians live with and are partially known for. As for San Diego, as long as they're owned by Chivas it won't happen. Their target market is larger in LA than it is in SD. Plus they've got a decent setup at the HDC that will be very hard to get them out of unless a SSS is built in SD or elsewhere in LA.
i didn't say it would be easy. but they could demolish candlestick and build a very nice sss there. it could be the envy of every team. plus if SJ cannot get a stadium built or the best they can do is that el cheapo thing that their owner is looking at (but still cannot afford to build) then they deserve to be bought by somebody else, moved again, and called the San Francisco Wanderers. The league needs a Rovers/Wanderers and it might as well be the 2nd ex-san jose team.
A. the wizards, of all of the MLS names, is the one that most makes the MLS seem like little league. B. did i mention that the team name is inspired by the Wizard Freaking Of Oz? That had Judy Garland. That is like the definition of GAY! Not that there is anything wrong with that ... for a person ... not a serious sports franchise C. seeing as how there are two cities with the same name and the team should desire to be the Kansas City team for both the United name more properly suits KC than DC. D. there might not be a DC United for long when the move to Baltimore so there is that problem solved.
Not likely to happen. The current owner is in it for the long haul. And that "el cheapo" stadium is actually going to be a very nice venue better than several other venues in the league like Toronto and Columbus (not to mention the teams w/o SSS). As for demolishing Candlestick, that's already going to happen, but they won't be putting a SSS there. It's going to be housing or part of the Niners new stadium complex if they in fact don't leave SF. Either way that land is not available (nor desirable in any case since it's one of the worst stadium locations on earth. It's bitterly cold even in summer, windy, foggy, and very inaccessible both by car and public transit).
A. crew stadium is 10 years old so building a new stadium that is "nicer" than it is a decade later is not setting the bar very high B. i don't know how "nice" BMO field is but i do know that it will soon hold 24K fans and TFC has a STH waiting list as big as the capacity to your whole new stadium 15K C. you keep telling yourself that your 15K seat, barely professional little band box is going to be a super nice stadium ... compared to your current situation i can see why one would desperately try to ... but i hope those delusions keep you comforted when your team is stuck at the ass end of the league forever because of your stunted stadium revenues and your owner's short sightedness ... and remember the real stadium always turns out to be even crappier than the sales pitch renderings so good luck with that. D. i didn't know that the candlestick location was such a bad one? would it still be bad for a smaller crowd of only 20-30K? or is it just bad for a 49ers sized crowd? why is it a bad location (i am not from SF so i don't know but i thought it was downtown and thus easy to get to). E. how big is the area once the old candlestick is demolished? is it not big enough for the 'complex' to have both a pointy ball and a smaller sss? i would guess not being downtown but you never know. F. aren't the 49ers coming to SJ? it is only fair then if SF steals your real football team =).
A. The bar is for everyone to have their own stadium and control revenue. Everything else is gravy B and C. The capacity of the Quakes stadium is actually 15k for regular games 18k for big games. That part keeps getting glossed over however. And the fact that the Quakes will control the stadium and its revenues, which will be in the range with the rest of the league will ensure the team isn't in "the suck" as you call it. Hell the Quakes are nearly profitable now in Buck Shaw. They'll be more than profitable in the new place. D. It would still be an access nightmare even for a stadium half Candlestick's size. But it's big issue is the weather. Candlestick is an odd place in that it is cold (and I'm talking real cold) most afternoons and nights particularly in summer where the difference with surrounding areas is more pronounced. The wind moves up the neighboring hill and picks up speed creating terrible vortexes off the back side of the hill and down on to Candlestick Point. It's literally the worst place to build a stadium in the Bay Area. E. The area would be big, but they have plans slated for most of it that don't include a SSS at this point. F. The Niners are exploring moving to Santa Clara (near SJ), but the stadium there must go before a public vote since half of the stadium is up for public funding. And the latest poll had the stadium only getting 45%-45% support-against right now. And that's a drop from previous polls so support is dropping fast as people realize the true costs of building it. The other alternatives are near Candlestick and up in Oakland (which they'd share with the Raiders)
look. i understand that your current stadium situation is bad, so bad that almost anything looks better. but you cannot honestly tell me that when you first heard the "new stadium" would only be 15K (and sometimes 18K which i tend to doubt but) and have no luxury suites and other of the amenities of the newest shinniest sss that you weren't just a wee bit disappointed? a wee bit, "well if we are going to build a new stadium why not one better than all of the rest that came before (maybe RBA excluded) instead of barely equal to some of the oldest ones"? i hope that it turns out to improve over the process. i don't know the area or the market or the feeling for the team to know if SJ can support averaging 20K+ per team but that is really what MLS needs to be shooting for for each of its teams. i hope it works out because it would kind of be a bummer to see SJ lose a team ... again. but if they did eventually get sold and moved to SF would you or most fans still follow them and go to games? and what is wrong with some cold and rough weather? it is often considered an advantage by the teams in Northern England who use the grim climate to their advantage during the coldest part of the EPL season. i guess i am just daydreaming to imagine some architecturally stunning stadium in downtown SF that rivals RBA playing to a packed house of 30K every game. i guess 15K fans in a "best we could do for 60M" stadium will have to suffice
I personally would not follow an SF team. I never have and I never will. I'm sure some SJ fans would follow the team to SF but many would not. SF and SJ while part of the same metro region are also fairly adversarial cities, politically and socially. And you can bet many current SJ fans wouldn't consider a team moving to SF as their team anymore. Just look at the reactions to the A's and Niners possibly moving to Fremont/SJ and Santa Clara respectively to see how those moves are going over in their respective cities. For a big metro region the Bay Area is actually a very divided area. And as for the weather at Candlestick you'd just have to go and experience it to understand. But for a region that has mild summers and winters it is an extreme weather oasis in a region that doesn't have extreme weather. The wind chill can often make it 20 degrees colder than it is a few miles north. It was one of the reasons the Giants GTFO of the area and went to downtown SJ. As for getting a downtown SSS in SF you're right it is a pipe dream. You'd have to have a massive chunk of change to purchase a prime piece of downtown real estate (and you'd need all private financing because SF would not provide a cent of public money) and then fight the SF city gov't anyway which could take decades if it passed at all. Just ask the Giants. They practically had to move heaven and Earth to get their privately funded baseball park built 12 years ago.
eh. you are probably right. you live there so you'd know better. i just thought it would be nice to have another "urban chic" team since they seem to be such smash successes ... but i guess that if i think about it more while Seattle and Portland are a liberal like SF they are more down to earth and/or hippy liberal where as SF strikes me as maybe a bit "old rich money elitist" liberal. eh. i just want to see every team in MLS averaging 20K+ (or as near to as possible) ... but at least your guy is talking about some kind of stadium being possible ... NE and DCU look like they are going to be the last two standing without SSS. which is sad for what should be two flagship franchises.
well i loved the idea of Phoenix Rising FC that i had to whip up a badge and kit. PHOENIX RISING FC Team Colours: Deep Flame Red, Deep Flame Orange, Deep Flame Yellow, Dark Turquoise PHOENIX RISING FC Badge: PHOENIX RISING FC Home Jersey: (the jersey's design is supposed to be evocative of a phoenix ... i think it works)
Why do people think San Francisco is some kind of magic? Their football team is looking at Santa Clara and Oakland and their baseball team almost moved to Toronto, Tampa Bay, Santa Clara and San Jose in the past. Oh, and the Warriors left because they didn't want to play in an agricultural exhibition hall or a 5k-seat gymnasium. I don't mean this as a knock on the die-hard sports fans who do live there, but these are just facts you have to weigh. It's way too easy to say "San Francisco is kinda like Seattle so soccer would work just the same."
While that is both a cool badge and name I'd wager that Montreal will be sticking with Impact when they move up.
