With Cardiff City, the owner just thinks red is lucky and will market better in the far east, as if anyone cares about Cardiff City outside of Wales. And with Hull City, the owner wants to call them the Hull Tigers. Very American. I don't know the nationality of the owner but he think City in the name is redundant even though it's quite common across the England and wants to tack on their nicknames into the official name. I'd be pissed too if someone was trying to rebrand my 100 year old team. MLS is about to move out of the so-young people-wont-care zone. About the only team in America that needs to be rebranded is the Washington Redskins.
Our situation isnt even close to theirs. They have big fan bases, 100+years of history and there original names dont sound "dumb".
"History" is a relative term, especially in the New World. Forty years of soccer history in a pueblo which isn't yet 240 years old (in a state barely 160) is at least as significant as a century of soccer history in a European city likely more than a thousand years old. As Gary Singh writes in a recent Metro column: ". . . throughout much of the globe, especially England, people are born with the neighborhood football club flowing through their bloodstream. And in most cases, the club has been around for a century, so the founding date is usually emblazoned on the team's crest. Historically speaking, in certain towns with absolutely nothing else to do, the club became everything to the people who grew up there, primarily because the club was all the town had. This is pretty much akin to San Jose in the 1970s. Except for prunes and a flavorless Dionne Warwick song, the town had no [] identity." http://www.metroactive.com/features...s-40th-anniversary-new-theme-song-jersey.html
What if I told you I think having "City" on the end of a team name does sound dumb and the only reason why I'd leave it is because I respect history and tradition. And that not hypothetical. I do think it's dumb.
For you that might be all that is necessary. But your opinion is only one of many. For some of us what they're called and its link to the history of the club is just as important as the fact that they're here. And frankly having lost them is WHY I feel it's so important that they be called Earthquakes. The continuity is part of what makes some of us fans, not simply the fact that they're an MLS team in San Jose. I know for myself I'm not a fan just because they're in San Jose, and I wouldn't have been a fan if the team that had come back in 2008 had been the San Jose Buttsniffers, I'd still be boycotting MLS like I did in 2006 an 7. And if all it took was being in San Jose I'd have been a fan of the San Jose Frogs when they were here or Real San Jose too, but I didn't give a shit about the former and don't give two shits about the latter. The Earthquakes name was and is integral to my own fandom. It may not be to you, but don't disregard others feelings on the matter just because you don't agree.
I never said I wont support the team, id support them if they were called McDonald's Fc. Im just pointing out my opinion on the name.
That's where I disagree. And frankly there are a ton of soccer fans all over the world who'd agree with me to. Just ask fans of the MetroStars, Austria Salzburg, Hull, Cardiff, etc...
I think you're hitting the nail on the head as to why branding is so important. The Cowboys, Steelers, Packers, 49ers, Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, Giants, Dodgers, Celtics, Lakers, Man U, and Real Madrid are all examples of teams whose brand is larger than the city where they reside. If one of those teams changed their name, they'd be doing irreparable damage to their established brand, in their community and abroad. When the Clash began in 1996, there was a segment of fans who could not be reached because the name meant nothing to the community. When they changed the name to Earthquakes, they were gambling that they'd inspire more fans than lose, and there were definitely fans who lost touch because there was no continuity in brand. When we lost our team entirely in 2005, fans were lost forever regardless, but some remained hopeful because SSV retained the name, colors, and history for when we might get a team back. At this point, the brand is established across 40 years, albeit not a continuous 40 years.
So the Dynamo was our club for those two first years in Houston? They certainly had about 80-90% of the same players and management, just a different city, name, and color.
Is "FC" really a name? And if you start rattling off nicknames be sure to include such awesome ones like "Potters", "Toffees", and "Baggies". (Yes, I know the history behind the names, and if you think they are appropriate than you should be campaigning for FUAEG's "Pickers".
I was a big Sounder fan back in the NASL days and was absolutely gutted when the Sounders folded in 83' and the league one year later. It put me in kind of a soccer-funk. I continued to play in adult leagues, but never really got back into watching it, even when Seattle had A-League teams. I moved to San Jose in 94' and was aware of the birth of MLS, but, the Clash never inspired me enough to become a fan again. It wasn't until they became the Earthquakes did I start to show an interest and started attending some games.
OK Earthshaker, now we're talkin.' Those Sounders were amazing. And what did they do, right before flaming out? A stupid, stupid rebrand. And what was the theme? Pretty sure it was "Red and White and Black and Blue." They definitely changed from the class of the league, in (awesome) white, blue and green, to the stooooopid "black and blue" tough guy concept. Like our own most recent stoopid rebrand. And fans did care. A lot of 'em hated it. Earthshaker, please vouch for me that I'm not making this up.
I agree. Till a big one hits again. Then we might feel funny doubling down with the name of our stadium. Anywho...
You are 100% correct. The team was sold by its original owners to a guy who was a former NFL player, I think his name was Bruce Anderson (or something like that). Anderson decided a new logo was needed as well as a new US-focused patriotic tough attitude, hence the "Red, White, Black and Blue" theme. (god, I still remember that awful ditty). I guess Sounder soccer as it was, (and the English imports the fans fell so much in love with) was too foreign and sissy for Anderson. He unceremoniously dumped some of the higher paid English players, like their brilliant midfield maestro, Alan Hudson, and signed more 'merican players. Needless to say the moves went over like a lead brick with the fan base and the team folded after one year with Anderson in charge.
The name is not dumb nor corny, and if I was choosing today I would still choose Earthquakes. What then is NOT cheesy? Any animal? Any force of nature? Any local historical symbol (49ers?). If you think Earthquakes is corny you are relegating yourself to only the "City Name FCs" of the world. So many people are biased by what they grew up with or what they associate with AYSO team names, but it's really across the board. If it's a dumb name, I wouldn't want to see what you thought was a "good" name.
I like the name Earthquakes, i just believe that there are probably other names I would prefer if choosing today and without the affinity I have for the Earthquakes name. I DO NOT want a name change bc of affinity for the name, no name is better. A name that I think is "good" ..... Sacramento Republic FC, that's a good name, and yes I am aware that it had FC in it - it's still cool.