It seems like the FO is being unnecessarily hardheaded about this logo and forcing a lot of changes (why alter the color scheme?!) that are not required to be successful and seem to be actively turning off segments of the existing fanbase and as well as potential ones. Neither are a recipe for filling Soldier Field. I went back and looked at how long it took Houston's FO to realize that the name "Houston 1861" would not work and rebrand as "Houston Dynamo" instead. It was 6 weeks. The clock is ticking for the Fire's FO.
Could the recipe be to move the franchise? Crew fans saved the Crew. If they run the fans off, it is pretty easy to move the team.
No, they would not pay $60 million to buy out Toyota Park and then enter into a Lease with the Chicago Park District just to move the team. The previous owner did a pretty great job running the fans off, since we did not even average 14,000 last season. If a move was in the works, it would have been announced over the summer.
14! Didn't even get close to 13. They averaged 12.3K for they year. Lowest average ever for the Fire.
What's remarkable to me is the disparity between the high levels of stated ambition by ownership, compared with the failing execution by management. We have no coach, few players, little time, and a botched rebrand. That's on Rodriguez and probably anyone who has partially paid attention to the Fire since he arrived could have seen that coming. I fail to understand why Mansueto would spend hundreds of millions on the team, followed closely by 60 million to get out of Bridgeview, only to hand over a critical reintroduction to Chicago to the one guy who has consistently demonstrated his inability to run a successful team from New York to LA to Chicago. Mind blowing
The Fire don’t want the fans they have. They want the fans they don’t. This new logo, this new name, this new club is about appealing to people who don’t care about the Chicago Fire. This is the message the Fire have to those who have supported the team for 21 years:
I'm not a twitterer, but I just noticed that the organization in the midst of rebranding, working to raise the clubs visability and build a juggernaut to reclaim league dominance has not posted a thing on twitter in three days. Isn't that like a year in regular time?
For a few days they were having to delete posts then repost them every few hours because the negative response were flooding in .
I’m almost certain that this was the plan before Mansueto became an owner. I think the team was destined to become “Chicago Football Club” before he arrived and kept the “Fire” name.
I think you're right. And for that reason, I'm kind of torn. On the one hand, perhaps I should be thanking Mansueto for saving the Fire name and by extension my interest in the team, but then every part of the rebrand doesn't feel like the Fire, so what's the point?! If the retention of the Fire name was a decision only made since Mansueto became full owner, they really should have just gone back to the drawing board and started afresh. As amateurish as the new logo is, I tend to think that if it was in original Chicago Fire colors and the jerseys were still red with a white hoop, that the anger would be diminished compared to what we see right now. It feels like they just threw "Fire" on the Chicago Football Club's logo.
It's just a continuation of management grasping at straws for anything to blame for the collapse of the club over the past 10 years that isn't them. Sure, it's the branding that's been pissing off the long time fans and making them leave and keeping new ones from showing up. It's completely idiotic and anyone that has sat in the stadium over the course of it knows exactly what the problem is.
Come on. It's just artists doing something they thought was cool. Let's not turn this into some agenda to drive fans away from the team! Pete (sure as heck feels like they want him around because they just gave him free tickets for the year)
I do not think that they did it as "some agenda to drive fans away from the team!" Maybe some do, I do not. I think it is tone deaf, irrational and stupid, but not think it was an agenda to drive fans away. The main arguments, to me, are: 1) The new logo (the "monstrosity") is butt ugly on its own. They tried to come up with something (as you say) "cool." They failed, miserably. 2) It is an insult to the perfectly serviceable logo and name that we had. They had flaws (mainly being confused on occasion with the CFD), but the flaws could have easily been fixed without resorting to a monstrosity. 3) They used nonsense corporate speak to try (in vain) to relate the monstrosity to Chicago and to the history of the City and the team. They failed, miserably. 4) They are not listening to the fans, both in Chicago and nationwide, who are decrying this move. It is the last part that seems to have sparked the most ire among us "wallowers." It is, also, precisely the playbook of the Front Office since the moment Nelson Rodriguez assumed the mantle of Chicago Fire (football club) head honcho. In fact, it really predated him by a bit over two years, with the reaction to the "Editorial." Make a decision, that decision was a bad decision. They receive push back, they attack or ignore those who push back. They double down and keep the bad decision. The difference between the "Editorial" and this monstrosity is that the monstrosity goes to the very core of the team, the essence of being the Chicago Fire (football club).
Why does this story and video seem appropriate here? https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...stmas-market-passes-drinking-mulled-wine.html
Why did they have to shoot the raccoon? If he was passed out, they could have just picked him up and relocated him, like we do with any drunk. Perhaps, put him in the "drunk tank" like the Andy Griffith Show. No need for violence.
If I get the analogy, then the raccoon is the Fire (or me), drunk and aimless throughout the Hauptman years, then Mansueto shows up and puts me out of my misery. I'm still debating what I'm going to do next season. I don't go to the MLS or Fire websites anymore, which used to be a near daily swing around the internet for me. I'm really kind of letting go. To those who might think this is an overreaction, understand that it's not just about artistic disagreement. Rather, the new logo/colors symbolize the disregard with which the Fire holds current fans of the team. And their silence on this issue and refusal to consider alternatives is further evidence of their disinterest in catering to the current fanbase in pursuit of those who don't care and who don't pay attention at present. Perhaps Nelson is right and they'll fill up NSF with navy and yellow clad football patrons, who never previously watched an MLS game-repulsed by the red and white of a silly soccer team. Rant over (for today I'm mad. Remembering this from a few years ago made me smile though: https://www.cbc.ca/news/trending/deadraccoonto-honoured-by-toronto-with-sidewalk-vigil-1.3146036
Ray Charles could see this team is coming together. Kudos to the Fire's TD for building a legit contender so quickly. Bravo! <wrong thread, sorry>
I guess another team is having its history scrubbed. https://apple.news/A8ZOh0zVcTcmmiZHv9oQ15A Now, I don’t remember seeing this elsewhere, (but I’ve recently been practicing my holiday drinking so I’m in shape for Christmas) but I have to say this is f’n awesome: Like many, the @ChicagoFire rebrand inspired me to create something. Here it is, and here's how I got there. #cf97 https://t.co/ftmzdYn4GY pic.twitter.com/25ODltQqB3— M. Willis (@M_Willis) November 29, 2019
you can buy a shirt with that logo until tonight https://cleansheet.co/products/the-...moiUmCLNqm395bA6NoI5eNHwGG59x0-sDEebOFH8bHf-I