MLS Moves: Cropper lands in New England MLS Week 24: Schedule & Standings CCL: Monterrey stunned by Panama's Arabe Unido Soccer America Concacaf headlines CCL2016 MLS preview: LA Galaxy are living in a Robbie Keane world The Guardian fourfourtwo MLS Headlines 442 Minnesota poised to get word that it will join MLS in 2017 Minneapolis Star Tribune With playoff hopes fading, Robinson urges Whitecaps to play without fear The Province Major League Soccer News and Scores espnfc L.A. Confidential: Can NYCFC beat the Galaxy? Lwos Frank Lampard pumped up to face Steven Gerrard in MLS Daily Mail The best goals of the week: David Villa, Will Grigg and Nick Powell guardian mls soccer
Feel very happy for the fans--definitely reason to celebrate. Also pleased with the league decision for a name change and not have 3 "united" teams in the league. Good news all around.
Not really on that last...we're still pretty pissed off about why it's ok for Atlanta and not for us since we were using it first, but that will just make for some very creative Tifo for Atlanta's first visit. The current over/under on how soon someone asks The Don that question tonight is currently 6 minutes. Take the under.
£2.5 billion investment, soaring attendance: Everything you need to know about MLS Daily Star And I really really like what's within the article . Portland Timbers battle against the soccer gods in quest for MLS Cup repeat FOXSports It's here: Minnesota's MLS announcement set for today Star Tribune
I agree making them change is ridiculous. But if Bruce "DuNord" McGuire is okay with it, I guess I'm not going to complain
Your sense of irony needs a tuneup, sir. First of all, there are one or two people in these very forums who can verify that Minnesota was not the"first"team in MLS to use the name "United". Don't take my word for it. Ask around. Secondly, there was a longstanding league agreement that NO team, aside from the one which has used it since 1996 -no, really - which everyone knew about for years. Nonetheless, when Minnesota was naming their team a couple years ago - their team which they were hoping to shoehorn into MLS - they went ahead and picked "United"despite the agreement. At the time,any number of people predicted that, if and when Minny got into MLS, they would have to change their name again because of the agreement, which seemed short sighted but whatever. Again, you can look it up. So for anyone to come along now and act like Claude Rains discovering gambling at Ricks is disingenuous at best. Your team knowingly picked a problematical moniker. Now it's come back to bite you and you want to whine?
You seem to be missing my point. Between us and Atlanta, we were using it first. I'm fine with only one United, if DC has veto rights. No issues. But if we don't get to use it, neither should Atlanta. FYI, when Dr. McGuire purchased the team, MLS was not on his radar. Only after the Wilf's made a bid for a 2nd tenant in their ark did MUFC respond, as a way to stay in business...which they would not have done if the Vikings got the bid.
I get your point, Bill, and agree that would be logical if, as Bluecat82 said, that Atlanta wasn't given a special provision. I don't get why 2 "United" teams is ok but 3 is too many. I assume Atlanta and Arthur Blank have more leverage and are pretty insistent. It seems we are in MLS 1.0 territory to say that the fans won't get multiple teams having the United name, IMO.
As an Atlanta fan, I wish the Don had said "No Atlanta, you cannot be United. This isn't England." I really wish that Atlanta would change their name.
At this point there's still only one "Real". They should think about grabbing that up before someone else does. You snooze you lose. Conversely, they could just come up with a name that isn't a faux-European club bastardization. Now THERE'S a thought.
Except United took over for two teams. That's how the English teams got their names. They would be the only United in the league that actually united anything. It's no big deal, anyhow. They will still be the Loons, which does have Minnesota authenticity.
Manchester United are actually only named that because they thought it sounded good. There was no club unification or anything.
Looking through Wikipedia (not the best source, I know) I'm not sure that West Ham United, Leeds United, Colchester United, Cambridge United (originally Abbey United), and Hartlepool United (united in this case being the union of town and original settlement) are from the union of two clubs.
I gave you rep for name checking Claude Raines. My god, the forties was a golden age of character actors and he may have been the best. (Or tied with Thelma Ritter, although she was more 50s) The man never had an onscreen moment that was simply great....
Maybe they can go old school like when the turned York into New York. So why not Minnesota New United.
What's the problem with using multiple 'United" monikers? I couldn't care less if there were ten Uniteds in the league... as long as the city's name is also there. Really, why is it that no one gets upset over the repeated use of 'FC' or 'City'?