What is the relevancy in this? Antonio Cue has been the man behind the curtain from the beginning, Vergara has always just been a $$$/figurehead-type.
Tell that to Club America ... they're not only better than any one city, they're better than any one country or continent for that matter. Their "brand" says that they are the team of the entire western hemisphere, from the northernmost point in Greenland all the way down to the tip of Chile. </sarcasm>
Yea chivas usa is a stupid name/brand but what pro sports team name isn't stupid sounding? My team is Houston Dynamo. Most people in Houston call them the Dynamos and almost nobody knows what the hell a dynamo actually is. I think it's even spelled Dinamo in spanish sometimes. We still have a very strong following among latinos and non-latinos in the city. I mean what the hell is an Astro or an Oiler or a Laker or a Clipper. They're all stupid names and people don't really seem to care. In my opinion the whole concept of rebranding is way overrated by some people. What's the point of going from one stupid name to another stupid name? Identity is built by tradition, and tradition is built over time. Years and years of fighting to win championships and trophies. The up and downs, the joy, the pain, the good times and bad times, the stars, the controversies, the hype, the special moments. That's what matters.
Clippers are named after the great sailing ships that passed through San Diego Bay. Clippers were a type of sailing ship that were most notable for being fast. The team started in San Diego then moved to LA. The Lakers first originated in Minneapolis. The state has over 10,000 lakes. When the Lakers moved to LA, they simpily kept their name. The Lakers were named just like the Sounders were. Shouldn't have kept it when they moved to LA, but it made sense in Minneapolis. The Edmonton area is rich with oil, hence the Oilers. The Astros name was in honor of Houston's importance to the country's space program and to match with the meaning of the name, the Colt .45s were renamed the Astros because of the Astrodome. All of those have a connection with their city and is a way different scenario than Chivas USA. They have no connection with LA. How is the LA population supposed to care?
Oh boy its another "Change the name and all will be well thread". *sigh* Alright i'll bite. So, Chivas USA would have more succes attendance wise, as well as more fans if they simply changed their name to the Aztecs, hollywood united, shockers etc? is that the arguemnet? Really, people, what would that do? The funniest thing about this theory that if you change a teams name people will be more interested in said team is that there are apperently several people who are, or would be soccer fans that simply won't follow a team because they don't like their name. How shallow are all of these people? "Oh theres a pro soccer team near by? Oh I'm all for that! What are they called?... Chivas USA?.... oh,well I don't like that name very much. i'm not rooting for them!" one rebranding later " What you want me to go to a Chivas game? why would I ever... Oh they're called the Aztecs now? Well, count me in! Yeah! Aztecs all day!! Are people really this shallow? is the name really that much of a turn off? Sure, I've heard people say the Red Bulls may turn off fans with the name, and while I can get over it, i can understand why some can't. but whats wrong with Chivas? What would changing their name really do? is it that big a deal? Okay, one thing in their name should change. how about Chivas Los Angeles? I remember reading the mls satndings one day before I followed the league as i do now, and I noticed there were two names i had never seen before, Real Salt Lake and Chivas USA. While I did prononce the name Ree-l, I knew from the begining that there was a soccer team in Salt lake city. But, despite looking up the name on google earth to no avail, for the life of me I couldn't figure out where the hell Chivas was playing. I thought Chivas was the name of some small town they played in. They really do need to represent their city in the name. I don't have to look up where Manchester United plays, or where FC Dallas plays or even where Chivas Guadalajara plays. USA is too ambiguous. Whatever city or state or nickname of the city or state(looking at you Golden state Warriors) they play in should be in the name. Now, as for Alexi saying that the team shouldn't care where their players are from just because their name is supposed to cater to latino fans, I feel thats utterly out of character. because that would actually be a smart thing to say... Wait, Lalas said something, smart birds and fish are dying at random in Arkansas... the apocalypse is coming!
Two of the most popular teams in Mexico, Club America and Cruz Azul don't have any mention of the city they play in in their name. Rebranding is a dumb idea. Chivas usa is doing just fine, they just need to move to another part of town with their own stadium. Find something else to obsess over.
Welcome to the United States, which is not Mexico. Calling yourself "USA" up here is not going to have the same impact as naming yourself after your city or state. Edit: I'm presuming your argument is that if "Club America" works in Mexico, then there's no reason that "whatever USA" can't work in the United States. ------RM
Oh boy, it's another "let me mischaracterize the opposing argument" rebuttal. *sigh* Please quote me one damn post where anyone has said that rebranding is all that has to be done. It's one small step. It's one thing to get the hell out of the way so they can successfully market the team. Oh, you mean the name that several rebranding advocates, including myself, have suggested as a compromise? Why don't you try understanding the other side's argument before you rant about it? ------RM
No his "sarcasm" was stating that the name "Club America" smacks of arrogance: That was sarcasm. In other words, his argument is that the name Chivas USA does not smack of arrogance. But of course it does. The whole original idea behind Chivas "USA" was that every away game would be filled with throngs of screaming Chivas fans. Vergara believed the Chivas brand was that powerful. ------RM
hollywood united makes zero sense, they play in carson, to name themselves after a neighborhood they don't play in is retarded. i just don't understand. LA makes sense to me, they're serving the LA area.. would chivas be marketing to the hollywood population? just a pretentious name so now i just hate lalas a little bit more
Actually, they were the Buffalo somethings before they were the San Diego Clippers. Not sure if they were anything before the Buffalo somethings. Bill Walton was their marquee player and made a really stupid commercial for them. They lasted about five minutes and are far less significant than the multitudinous incarnations of soccer in San Diego. Next to Jean Willrich, Ron Newman, and, above all, "Double Deuce, Triple EEE, the one, the only Juli Veee," however silly the name they played under, the San Diego Sockers dwarf the artfully named not-the-Flash-in-the-pan known as the Clippers, who now should be known as the Staples Center Smog Breathers.
Yeah, they're doing great. I expect a book to be released soon about Chivas USA on how to successfully market and brand a team. Once that stadium gets built, hoardes of Hispanic fans will flock to the stadium and not care about Chivas being in the name anymore.
I never said they HAD to mention the city in their name. I simply stated the reasons WHY those teams were named what they were. You asked what a Clipper was. What's Chivas USA?
Kinda. I mean, the "H" in their logo stands for "habitants", right? As in, they consider themselves Canada's "home team". Yeah, "arrogant" pretty much covers it. But hell, they've earned it. So has Club America, actually. Both have long histories in which they have kicked copious amounts of ass. Arrogance isn't a problem when you're a legend. But to come in as an expansion franchise and slap "USA" on your name? That's the kind of arrogance that's just laughable and a turn-off. Especially when you spend your first couple of seasons as the league joke. I guarantee you we wouldn't be having this discussion if Vergara's absurd fantasy had turned out to be accurate. If Chivas USA was chewing through their opponents every year, selling out game after game, and attracting thousands of screaming Chivas fans to each and every away game, nobody would call their identity a failure. ------RM
But Club America chose that to be their name from day one. Therefore, by that rationale, and if Chivas USA doesn't rebrand by then, in the year 2099 they will cease to be arrogant?
Chivas and New England are often looked at as the two stragglers of the league...I'd say, though, that CDUSA's problems are far more serious. As a neutral, there's no genuine "identity" I can associate with the team. I can't really put a face to any of the fans or pin-down the club's playing style. The rivalry between LA and Chivas has always come across as forced to me. This is not a matter of just a name. The ownership needs to be serious about drafting a strategy to develop the club's identity. This entails building a stadium and engaging the local community. I'm not entirely comfortable branding the team the Aztecs, Chicanos Utd D) or anything else around those lines. I think that's being too exclusive in a league that can't afford to be. Also, I think clubs purposely divided on ethnic/national origins are in bad taste. If those divisions happen, let them at least happen naturally over time. Generally speaking, I don't know if MLS is capable of having two successful, well attended LA teams (just like I don't think NY is).
i'd have my doubts too, but if they want to try, there's a right way and a wrong way. i think in place like ny, where currently the team is located westward and outside the city, a second franchise in the eastern end might be almost like a different market. also, i think both teams in a city should have equal stature, because mls isn't popular enough to have a perennially lousy team compete with a successful one in the same city. in la neither of these things is done right, imo. not to mention the chivas brand...
They do this... a lot. They have players go to local schools, lead clinics at local parks to area youth soccer groups, attend fairs and the like, radio and T.V. interviews, they invite local high school bands to perform at every home game, public appearances at store openings, etc. It's not like like they're locked up on some practice field somewhere all day every day.I have no idea what you consider "engaging local community," but that's what all this sounds like to me. I'm not an authority on Galaxy public appearances but I don't hear about many in the (L.A.) area.