I don't think that's true. It means something different to people > 50 then it does to the people know who romanticize and hold it up as something it isn't now, and honestly never really was.
39 Trolling, caring about EA Sports more than soccer in the USA, and twitter rants about stuff beyond my comprehension.
38 here too, and to me, it is more, some "the good old days" fantasy, twisted so far from reality, and used for nefarious purposes that it's essentially a parody at this point.
39, and I couldn't put my thoughts on the Cosmos Brand to me any better then you fine gents already have. Honestly, The NY Cosmos, and their "Brand" are irrelevant to me. Always have been. The fact that their "Organization" blamed the refs for losing to the Union in the USOC back in 2014 says it all. They even tried to start a brawl late in extra time as well. Perhaps if they had focused all of their time and energy on building an actual club with actual infrastructure, today wouldn't have happened. But no, they spent all of their time and energy bloveating about the injustices of the USSF, the EVIL colluded partnership of SUM/MLS/USSF, hoe they were division 2 in name only (well actually.....they had that part right), how MLS couldn't thrive let alone survive without them, etc... The Cosmos and the NASL spent their time more concerned with the evil MLS and how Don Garber and company were holding them down. Never shying away from any opportunity to sling mud at MLS, and the USSF as well.....ll the while the USSF and MLS took the high road. Hell the USSF even gave them waivers for nearly 8 seasons!!! Anyways, this saga and this "brand" can't go away fast enough for me.
Wish I had the skills to photoshop Commisso and Silva into this poster... (or: whoever loses, we win)
What's amazing is his sense of entitlement considering he's owned a team in American soccer for exactly one season (you'd have a hard time destroying a team and league that fast if you were trying)... Meanwhile he's like "Why should I approach Cordeiro? Who the hell is Cordeiro anyway?"
His arrogance is truly impressive! New Drinking game: Take a drink everytime Rocco says "you know" during this conference call
Oh god, that audio is great, all riiiiiight. The first 10 minutes is Rocco's rambling intro thoughts, but then the Q&A is chaotic gold, okaaay
42. I don't have anything to add about the Cosmos, but at least I still have about 6 more months of being the answer to life, the universe, and everything.
No, "Geographic Area FC" or "FC Geographic Area" shows you put zero thought into your team's identity. This involved thought. Messed-up thought, but more thought than Geographic Area FC.
You know both of those teams moved before the trend of moved teams rebranding took hold, right? With few exceptions (like the Kansas City Chiefs, for one and the Baltimore Orioles for another, though there was ample reason for that one), when teams prior to about....oh, I don't know, maybe when Modell decamped for Baltimore, it's late and I'm too lazy to check...they kept their nicknames. No one really thought about whether they should have picked a name that was less Minneapolis and more Los Angeles in 1960 or whether they should have picked a name that made sense for Utah instead of New Orleans in 1979. Brooklyn-Los Angeles Dodgers New York-San Francisco Giants Boston-Milwaukee-Atlanta Braves Philadelphia-Kansas City-Oakland Athletics Cincinnati-Kansas City-KC/Omaha-Sacramento Kings among others. Now we think of it as "Of course, if a team moves, they almost never keep the name." It's not even an issue. But that wasn't the case then.
Yes agreed. One of those shows some imagination. Problem is it's so bad that it's actually ********ing worse than Place FC. I live in SD. My coworkers are American sports fans who casually engage with me about my interest in domestic soccer. Having to tell them/explain our new local team's name to them the next day at the office was someone playing a cruel joke on me.
Note that Silva tried to force pro/rel, while Commisso filed a lawsuit that, if successful, would forever end the possibility of pro/rel.
Cosmos 2.0 was all about talking like you're the second coming of the Pele-era Cosmos while putting out a team that might not even be on par with pre-Pele Cosmos. It's like thinking you're still Cosmo Kramer when you're Michael Richards at the Laugh Factory and a group of minorities arrived late for your set.
Cincinnati Royals became the Kansas City-Omaha Kings. Mainly because the Kansas City Royals already existed. Of course theme-wise Real Kansas City would've made more sense than Real Salt Lake. The American Royal is a livestock show that has taken place in Kansas City since around 1900. Throw in the (as far as I know) unrelated naming of the Kansas City Monarchs, then KC has a long history of names along that line for sports teams. The NBA team was originally the alliteratively named Rochester Royals before they became the Cincinnati Royals. The Kansas City-Omaha/Kansas City Kings became the Sacramento Kings.
Actually, many people did think that the team should have picked a name that was more suited to Utah, but they were so happy to get an NBA franchise after the Utah Stars were left out in the cold when the NBA-ABA merger happened that they kind of said "Who cares! We have an NBA team now!!". Personally, I thought they should have gone with the Utah Stars since the name was known and had some history behind it (they won the ABA title once).