I think Minnesota and SA should get in the 24, mainly because they have been in line longer and are for the most part "proven". While I'd love a Sac team now, I think they would need a good current season and next season in attendance and performance,and ,most importantly, get a big money owner while SA don't. Also, the enthusiasm alone should sustain us for a few seasons.
Well, the President of the Stars, the President of United, and the owner of United would all disagree with you--as would all the market research they conducted into the issue. Each has gone on record making the same material point you have highlighted in my post.
Red Star Belgrade ...North Star Minnesota? Don't know if that would infringe on the old NHL identity or who owns the rights.
When the Thunder went out of business, the National Sports Center actually contacted the NHL through the Wild on this very issue. There seemed to be some push-back from the league, but they were willing to play ball, so long as the club was run as a not-for-profit entity. My sense is, though, that they might be willing to settle out on the matter or to cut a deal if it was mutually beneficial for all parties. The problem, as I've stated time and again in this thread (though I don't expect anyone to have read the entire thing, in all honesty), is that any--and I do mean any--ties to the old NHL North Stars/Stars represents a serious branding problem. I say this, again, as the guy who suggested Northstar FC in a write-in campaign when the original team was searching for a name--and it went on to beat all of the other options combined by a ratio of nearly 10:1. In hindsight, incorporating the name "Stars" in any form was and would be a serious and crucial misstep for the club. My suggestion to anyone mulling over any name other than Minnesota United is that you go to a game, have a great time, and after having done so, see if the name is such a problem. I wasn't bowled over by it at first, but after one season and four games with this ownership group, I can safely say without any equivocation that this is my club and that is its name. Period.
I also want to say that for years I criticized people who would throw out the name "Minnesota United" in conversations like this. I thought the name was completely unimaginative, and what's worse, that it invited the nickname "Minn U" (which I still hate). I railed on people for suggesting the name Minnesota United--railed on them. Like a complete and total d@uchenozzle, I criticized the name and anyone who defended it. And when the team announced that they'd be named Minnesota United, I was really, really sad. I'd been a Thunder fan, an NSC Minnesota fan, a Stars fan. A season ticket holder. Everything, all the way through. But I can honestly say, as vehement as my distaste for the name was, I came around before the season even began. And I think that anyone who has any experience with this team will as well. Go to their Facebook page. Follow them on Twitter. Get to know a couple of the players' names. GO TO A GAME. Or just check out their YouTube channel and watch some of their videos (https://www.youtube.com/user/MNUnitedFC). Honestly, I defy anyone to go to that channel and watch that team play--to watch the product and the production that this ownership group is putting out--and not come around to the name just a little. If you love soccer and you love Minnesota, then this should be your team, and Minnesota United should be the group you hope to see in MLS.
This ownership group has worked really hard to place a great product on the field. In my opinion, I don't want to see them work so hard only to have another ownership group to guide this area into MLS. Unless of course United have no desire to play in MLS.
I totally wanted to do that this morning, but the stupid computers at work won't allow it. First thing that popped into my mind.
It's my understand within the MLS, under the current ownership structure. DC United holds all rights to the "United" name. Therefore if Minnesota United FC were awarded the expansion franchise, they would be required to change their name.
Since NYCFC and Orlando where admitted at nearly the same time no rights were given. Also DC United is one of the original franchises.
Even if that had been the case at some point, it's extremely unlikely that any such agreement would still be in play. If a club pays the league $100-110M to get in, they get to pick their name.
disclaimer: twitter rumor presser on Wednesday @12n Organization will be allowed to keep name, colors and logo
Congrats MN on becoming the first Grey team in MLS. Cheers to adding more to this colorful league's palette... More on the name... Source is telling me they believe MN United will be allowed to keep name, logo, special font when moving to MLS: pic.twitter.com/WcVJXv76GS— Brian Quarstad (@IMSoccerNews) March 23, 2015
Reddit has the Vikings trying to play spoiler since they did not get bid - another reason not to like them. http://www.reddit.com/tb/305niw
Not just Reddit; Patrick Reusse of the Star Tribune. The Wilfs are basically proving to MLS that they picked the right ownership group.