I know this has been brought up about a million times, but I was at the Backs web store and I noticed something odd. There are 7 items with the traditional Silverbacks logo. There were 17 with a new logo that has nothing to do with the Silverbacks.
I like the hat but there's nothing about the Silverbacks on there. Just looks like a generic ATL hat.
Agreed. I like the hat. You sound concerned about a rebranding. But at a glance, I think this makes perfect business sense. A have plenty of cursive "A" hats representing the Braves. It may feel a bit like putting the cart before the horse, but looking forward this style will be cool. I even mentioned to my wife that I would wear this hat even if I had no idea who the 'backs were. Think about the Oakland Raiders marketing strategy. Every gangsta rapper in Oakland plays the black and silver; football fan or not. There are plenty of other examples of marketing meaning more than play. I hope that doesn't happen here, but it will be fun to see if this logo has legs. Edit: on another note the polo jerseys (like Chacon wore last night) are great looking too. The marketing is ratcheting up pretty well it seems. Much better than I remember when I was in Atlanta.
That's what I thought when I saw it at the merch table on opening day. It's also why I didn't buy it. Some of us S-backs fans don't give a rat's ass about "the ATL."
Has anyone noticed that the Chiefs shirts they are selling on legacy night feature a partially revamped logo? The "Atlanta Chiefs" wording was not designed that way in either version of the classic Chiefs logos. No idea if this means they intend to keep this logo around, but I can hope, can't I? Lol...
If they do rebrand to the Chiefs, I hope they'll go with something that looks more like the first rendition(1967-72). I never was all that crazy about the cursive "Chiefs" because it looked more like minor league. Maybe they can retool the old logo similar to what the new Cosmos did. The logo they show on the 'Backs' website would look better if "ATLANTA" was on top. But that's just me.
The Apollos were essentially the Chiefs, but with a new owner, who owned both the Flames and the Hawks at the time. Most of the players who were on the Chiefs' roster were also players for the Apollos (Manfred Kammerer, John Cocking, Ken Bracewell (player-coach of the Apollos), Alan Hamlyn, Nick & Alec Papadakis, Paul Child, Art Welch, to name a few). The Braves had returned the franchise to the NASL after the 1972 season, and the owners of the Flames & Hawks picked it up, and changed the name. They were also the same colors as the Flames and the Hawks, who switched to red, white, and yellow, after being green and blue from the time they had moved to Atlanta in 1968 (I guess the Flames wearing green, blue, and white would have looked rather weird ) .
NASL News: Silverbacks Turning to Fans To Decide Team Name http://nasl.com/index.php?id=3&newsid=3219 Vote BARVES! http://www.wtsp.com/sports/article/254699/4/Atlanta-Barves-t-shirts-go-on-sale-yes-Barves
Stupid waste of energy by the front office. Why not fix the on field product and WIN some games. NOOO, let's change the name to an old name that BTW many now consider racist. The NCAA and just about every High School association have dropped the Native American names and logos and these bozos are going start using one.
Yeah, the Apollos had a bad ass lookin logo too. I could go for Chiefs or Apollos. Still has some historical significance as well. McGilla Gorilla just isn't doing it for me, lol. I emailed them and requested they add Apollos to the poll. Might not hurt for others to do the same.
