Ongoing Chivas USA Current News (Coaching Changes, Legal Issues etc...) Thread Returns

Word up!

I've nothing else to add to this discussion.

 

As I stated above I understood this was an old EPL. I stand corrected 5 out of 20. Sorry! I still don't see this as a "large percentage." I never said that other teams didn't do this. I just think the MLS teams that do look very different and clip artish than the EPL logos.

This has nothing to do with anything. I just posted an opinion and people jumped all over it, and for some stupid reason I felt like I needed to defend it. Not sure why I should be jumped for an opinion of MLS team logos with soccer balls look cheap in the way they do them.

If you guys like them that is cool. More power to you.

 

I completely agree with you when looking at the entire logo. I was just focused on the soccer ball specifically. The soccer ball in their logo looks like part of the logo and not clip art. The other MLS teams that have a soccer ball the logo would look fine without the soccer ball in at all. They look like a clip art ball stuck on top of the logos. That was my point.

 

i was not denying your argument, just refining it to be correct

math (and spelling) are hard.

 

I deleted my post before you replied. Just had a brain fart and realized it was way off. People here are too fast and like sharks smelling blood in the water. The spelling thing was just a slip of the fingers on the keyboard
I was just proving that Americans are in fact not smart by using myself as an example

 

Chivas USA comments, news???

 

The fact that MLSsoccer.com has, so far, ignored this latest development tells me there is something to it.

 

Um, FIVE by my count…

 

You are late to the party. While my count was off my point still stands 25% doesn't = large percentage.

The MLS percentage is 37 and would be 42 if Chivas use the SC logo they copyrighted. So only slightly higher. So the point that MLS isn't the only league that does this is understood.

 

As has been pointed out, the stadium change is more important than a rebrand (not that rebranding isn't important. Unfortunately, CUSA doesn't seem to have any desire to move into a stadium with lux boxes, stadium club, etc. If they did, they could move (tomorrow) to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weingart_Stadium

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_Stadium_(Cal_State_Fullerton)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_Stadium_(UCLA)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veterans_Memorial_Stadium_(Long_Beach)

The only reason Vergara is staying in the SHC is because it's cost effective RIGHT NOW. And, for the record, RIGHT NOW is pretty much all he cares about.

San Jose did just fine in Buck Shaw, and a couple of the stadiums I listed are superior facilities to that.

So, again, regardless of a rebrand, the problem with CUSA is an owner who has no vision and doesn't care about what happens tomorrow, let alone five years from now.

 

Frankly I prefer LASC, not because of the SC v FC thing (though SC does make more sense for American clubs doesn't it?), but because one of the first successful clubs in Los Angeles was Los Angeles SC, an amateur club around the turn of the 19th/20th century that competed in the original GLASL and in Cali amateur cup competitions. http://homepages.sover.net/~spectrum/losangeles.html

/historygeek

 

This is a legit point. I wonder how AEG can be OK with this.
Though I suppose if they can force Red Bull to deal with it maybe they can do the same to AEG. But it's kind of surprising to me.

 

Not to split hairs, but the Galaxy are pretty firmly "LA Galaxy," with the abbreviated form even appearing on the crest. Perhaps that is enough wiggle room to have a full-on "Los Angeles," as well. Said aloud, there may be even more distinction, depending on Anglo versus Hispanic pronunciations.

Also, the Southland is a market used to having multiple teams so it's not like the average person will be that confused. ExChivas will need a proper nickname, though.

 

Hasn't the Galaxy stopped using "Los Angeles" in its branding and now exclusively uses "LA"?

 

They're "LA Galaxy", yes.

 

Also, CUSA paid $25 million to AEG for the permission to impose on AEG's territorial exclusivity. The idea that they have the right to play there but not to use the name of the city/county would be strange.

 

I would ask the following questions though:

If the team name/ identity is "Anglo/Americanized", will the LA Hispanic population get behind it?

If the team name/ identity is "Hispanic themed", will the white/ non-Hispanic LA population get behind it?

The Americanized version, IMO, has way more universal appeal (and will have plenty of Hispanic support, as demonstrated by other sport team support). Will the non-Hispanic population support the "Hispanic theme"? Yes, but not as much.

The demographic that should be targeted (which I have stated over and over) is those with the ability to pay and likelihood of showing up; the economic middle class.

 

See: Anaheim, Los Angeles Angels of

 

I don't see using "LA" as piggybacking on the Galaxy. (Assuming a re-brand) They are piggybacking on the second largest city in the US name. That is the brand, not the Galaxy (a little Gal snobbery, I detect). Just like how the MLB Angels for the longest time used LA in some fashion in their name (LA Angels, Anaheim Angels of LA).

If the Goats are trying to distance themselves from Mexican farm team image, LAFC re-brand is a VERY good start. IMO, nothing to do with the Gals.

 

I don't know what's going on, but I am thankful that something is finally happening.

For all the whines about how the Don and league were ignoring this you KNOW it was a problem behind closed doors. Jose V is a league owner and just booting him would be almost impossible, financially expensive and possibly legally messy.

I'm sure this has been in the works for a while....we are just finally seeing an attempt that was deemed acceptable by all parties.

The sooner this goes away the better.

 

That's a pretty limited way of looking at marketing.

I do agree, though, that the name "Los Angeles" should be on a team based-in/playing-in Los Angeles, no matter the marketing tact you take. Still, just a name like Club Deportivo Los Angeles instead of Los Angeles Football Club, could create a differentiation in the marketplace.

I think looking at the Lakers/Clippers is a fine example, actually. The Clippers have always played in the Lakers shadow. That is based largely on performance on the court. The Clippers have stunk for many of their years in LA. But it's also the Lakers' market. It always has been and always will be. I would guess you could five years with the Clippers as a better team than the Lakers and surveys will still show the vast majority of LA sports fans identify the Lakers as their team.

I think that's what CUSA is up against. The Galaxy are LA's team. What makes LAFC different? What will it take to make them the favorite team of even 30 percent of that market? That's a very key question if the Chivas USA problem with attendance and community identification is ever going to be fixed.

 

I was addressing your thought about steering marketing toward the Hispanic community, which I find limiting.