Name change won't do anything. You want to be relevant, play somewhere nearby and win. Games at Soldier Field and Fire are winning = people showing up. Then people around museum campus seeing everyone in their Fire gear get curious and may want to go next time. Also people downtown who see people going/returning from a game could have interest. It's all about exposure. Exposure + accessible = attendance. Honestly, I could totally see a situation where people say, "Oh we have a new soccer team? I bet this one goes out of business like the other one". If they didn't care to find out who the Fire were in the first place, they're not going to know a rebrand happened.
Or maybe I have an idea of how fascism and propaganda work, but a. I understand that I lack the power and authority for my hyperbolic comments to have anywhere near the effect that I would require for anything I say to qualify as propaganda, especially seeing as how the words are my own and not being parroted down from institutions with that type of power and authority and b. I’m talking about a ********ing soccer club’s brand identity. You want to talk about hyperbole while going from my “hey Allah is going to buy the team but Bridgeview still sucks!” to your “this is like Hitler, Mussolini and Trump” suit yourself, amigo.
Bullseye. That's exactly right. Longtime MLS fans hate hearing this, but arguing about how the franchise ought to have been run 12 years ago is inherently picayune and meaningless. The Fire were an MLS 2.0 failure and and remain an MLS 3.0 no-show. From the perspective of new ownership and new money, and IMO the perspective of fans who take an ambitious view of soccer in the United States, the only thing that matters is whether and how the franchise can invent MLS 4.0. Hauptman is an afterthought. I want him gone too, and remain dubious of the seriousness of this project as long as he's the controlling owner, but the project itself is what counts.
Yep, not only do long time fans hate hearing this, but they take it so personal as if saying these things is an attack on their very existence. Like, I get it, I’ve been a fan of the team forever and it’s brought me a lot of great memories and joy, but that doesn’t it’s perfect or can’t improve outside of just getting results and rid of Hauptman.
Even if Mansueto bought out Hauptman and kept the team in Bridgeview, the stadium would have still been a problem. Whatever community you can build there, you can build is that much bigger by being in Chicago. A name change does nothing though.
I doubt people would ask if I worked for the Fire department (or thank me for what I do lol- true story) if I was wearing a Chicago FC hat, and I doubt people would ask “why is your team named after a disaster?” if we were Chicago City, but otherwise, sure. Some people seem to love explaining the real meaning of the team to people, but my I still believe if requires an explanation, it could probably be improved ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Chicago FC has no meaning, no soul, nothing. Chicago City (to most of the nation) would entirely be named for a disaster.
I mean, that's the point of the generic names right? Soulless, meaningless, whateverless, but not overly confusing or buried in the collective consciousness by several similarly named entities to a city of 2.7 million potential ticket buyers. I didn't grow up a fan of the British footy leagues like many soccer fans my age, so I don't get the appeal, but that doesn't mean that I'm blind to the fact that the appeal is there and very strong, even among younger fans, for whatever reason. You know, I was against 'City' until just now. ******** that, Chicago vs. everybody, let those haters consider my city a disaster all they want.
That’s because the Fire haven’t had enough exposure. When they’re out there, people won’t ask if it’s the fire department, they’ll know who it is. The disaster part surely comes from people who aren’t Chicagoans. You can always asked them why Carolina hockey are the Hurricanes.
You can like the name, and that’s totally fine. But to say that’s it isn’t confusing to anyone not already familiar with the team is dishonest. This old commercial really sums it up (maybe it’ll get new airtime now!) If changing the name will convince more people to check out local soccer in Chicago I’m for it.
I'm against city. They call teams city, fc, etc to distinguish the club from the city because they don't officially name teams. It's basically a lazy way of saying "we are a football club playing in this city". It's like calling myself Chicago Man-Person. You get the point but,it's lazy as ********. As far as the location change ******** it I'll go to more games this way. As someone in the suburbs vehemently against paying for parking I'd rather give metra $10 then Hauptman $20 for a spot in a gravel parking lot and pay who knows how much in tolls to get there. Plus being able to sleep both ways or be stoned on the train is appealing to me. As far as a rebrand how about Chicago Fire but, all the jerseys are green and all the jersey numbers add up to 420. No?
As a Fire fan from day one, the name sounded cool and sounded like a men's "soccer team" in a way that "Burn" never could. It feels "American" without being a mascot name like the Rapids or Wizards. Sure, it follows the 90s trend of being a singular noun (Avalanche, Revolution), but in a way that feels right. It still feels like a soccer name the way that "Sporting," "Real," and "City" do, but without the falsity of those names. It has meaning and creates great visuals, which have consistently been represented by the home kit (except the bomb pop kit). The Fire name has allowed the team to be visually unique within MLS while still being a "red team." I say this as a fan from Iowa...
Exactly. Calling an American team Real, City, or Sporting is just ********ing lazy and stupid. Do they do any research at all when applying these monikers? Doesn't real imply that the king of Spain approves of your club? Does Spain even have a King? If so why would he start approving teams in a country he has no Dominion over? City? That's a way of saying "we are lazy and it looks European so the Euro snobs might come out". Fire at least represents the city in a way that FC or whatever never could. But maybe if you're thinking of filling a stadium with a capacity 4x what you normally draw maybe starting with a team name that doesn't share google results for top result might be a good idea.
Confusing how? Show me the confused fan the name has turned away. This is a red herring. It's not an actual thing that happens.
Do you really think changing the name would "convince more people to check out local soccer in Chicago"? I don't.
If you think it's confusing. Maybe if they put games on TV and market the team, there would be less confusion. Oh it would help that our owner (Andi) cared about his team.
Horseshit. People with some intelligence simply understand that putting lipstick on a pig doesn’t change the fact that it’s still a pig. We ALL know that the Fire have been a failure the last decade and changes need to happen. We’re just not all dumb enough to think that a name change will give more than the dead cat bounce like a new coach does.
if the fire won the last three mls championships, "brand confusion" would not be a point of contention. if ownership/ management does not change and they move and change the name but then lose the first three games, everyone will go back to, "well, same old fire" and it will be all for naught.
Thank you!!!!!! I would put Nelson Rodriguez in the center of blame as well. N-Rod has been a complete dick in the whole process and wants to rebrand the team so his sh*t is not blamed on him. What a complete Assh*le! You can't run something that was great into the ground and just call a do over. Life does not work that way.
The TV deal is just really really bad. They need to be on CSN. That is exponentially worse than the name, which isn't even a problem.