MLS name, logo, kit speculation

I'm ok with Confluence. it would unique.

I would think the USOC or IOC might have something to say about using Olympic or a variant there of.

I am under the impression that St. Lois FC will continue to exist after MLS, and per the MLS4THELOU website re: St. Louis FC:
No. Saint Louis FC is not being promoted into MLS.

 

Right, this is true for all the USL/lower level ownerships that have gained MLS teams. The lower level team is never being promoted. It is a completely new team. That has nothing to do with the name.

However, everyone of the recent ownership groups to do this has kept the name. Actually, I don't think it is just the recent ones. I think every single lower level ownership group that has bought into MLS has used their lower level team name. Can't think of any that haven't. Some may have tacked an "FC" or "SC" on to the end but the name remained. Seattle tried to change but fans wanted it to stay Sounders. I feel like something similar happened with Timbers.

Vancouver Whitecaps, Montreal Impact, Minnesota United, Orlando City, Nashville SC, Seattle Sounders, Portland Timbers, FC Cincinnati...names remained.

I'm still betting it stays St. Louis FC. They would be first to not do so (I believe).

 

I prefer the name "Saint Louis Legacy". Saint Louis has a lot to be proud of their place in american soccer history.

 

I like the idea of "Legacy" a lot too, but I'll echo Sport Billy's opinion that I would rather have a 'plural noun' nickname, so I would suggest "St. Louis Legacies" instead.

I'd also love a revival of the "St. Louis Stars" name.

Others I've heard and would like are...
St. Louis Kings
St. Louis Metros
Spirits of St. Louis or St. Louis Spirits

 

The MLS St. Louis team is a different ownership group then St. Louis FC owners. So no, the MLS team will not be St. Louis FC.

 

Kind of, there is some overlap between the two groups. Jim Kavanaugh is the majority (sole?) owner of the USL team, academies, and youth teams. He is also a minority partner in the MLS group. He was involved in the last failed effort, and brought the Taylor family to the table this time. They could work out a deal fro the name if they chose to. The quote from their website, however, indicates this is not the current plan.

 

We'll see. I think it will be.
Almost everyone of the groups that have moved up have not been 100% the same people. Almost everyone has brought in other investors. St. Louis is no different.

The others brought in other investors and kept the name.

 

None of the others made a point of saying they wouldn't be keeping the name.

 

I cast my vote for Olympic St. Louis as a nod to the city's French founding (like Olympic Marseilles and Olympic Lyon) and the fact that St. Louis is the first city in the Western Hemisphere to host the Olympic Games.

Confluence is OK too. I wonder how easily it rolls off the tongue of broadcasters though. Maybe the supporter's group or the part of the stadium where they'll be could be called 'The Flood Zone'? I wonder when they'll announce to final choice and team colors?

 

Considering the team won't take the field until 2022, I'm betting that they're in no rush to get branding fully decided. I was gonna guess that late 2020 would've been a good expectation for a logo+name, but that was before they opened this poll. The fact that they're taking name suggestions now makes me think early- to mid-2020 might be the name+logo drop date now.

 

Seattle did.
They even went as far as having an official poll for deciding the team name and left Sounders off of it.

 

Alright, so I missed one from a decade ago, sue me.

Even then, though, there are some obvious differences between the two situations. STLFC has nowhere near the historic connections to the STL soccer community that Sounders did to Seattle's soccer community, and you can see that in social media discussions now - there really isn't a ton of support for keeping the STLFC moniker around.

 

Calm down. I didn't even make a big deal about it. Just stating the facts.
History is 100% on the side of the ownership groups moving up keeping the name. There is always a first but it is a good bet to bet on history repeating itself.
Nashville SC had no history...kept the name
Minnesota United didn't have much history. Just a few years. Orlando City only had a few years also. Same for FC Cincinnati. So there are plenty of examples of teams having only a few years of history and keeping their name.

 

History often repeats itself, but you also have to recognize when something different is happening, i.e. lack of precedent.

Here you're already moving the goalposts. I brought up the history thing directly with respect to STL vs Seattle. And Seattle was an absolutely fair counterpoint to my previous statement. And sure, there have been other newer teams to also keep their name. But none of the newer ones have tried to do otherwise. STL is the first case of a young team saying they're getting a different name upon jumping up to MLS. Seattle had a reason for fan backlash against an attempted rename. STL doesn't.

It just really annoys me that someone like yourself (and, AFAIK of anyone here in the STL subform particularly, only yourself) seems convinced that the ownership group is either lying or destined to have to backtrack when there's nothing about the current situation to suggest either. Like, why can't you just take the group at its word? What makes you so convinced you're right and they're not?

 

Just gut, history of teams keeping names and the current trend of using city name and FC or SC. Of the last 8 teams to be awarded expansion 5 have used city name plus FC/SC.

My points are all valid. Every ownership group to move up has kept name. Almost all of the recent ones had no real history. There is one that had history and said they were changing the name and didn't. Sorry I was not trying to move the goal posts. I agree that I did kind of now that you point it out.

I don't think anyone is intentionally lying or misleading. I think the league will push them to keep the name. I think some aren't accounting for that aspect. The league has to approve any name and actually owns the name.

I have been wrong more times than I can count, so I very likely am. And it is fine if I am. This is my last post on the topic (keeping the name). I am only posting on it again to reply to your direct questions.

 

Pink and black is unique until next year as that is Inter Miami's colors. Not saying they can't use it, but it won't be unique.

 

FWIW I read your original post as saying the female ownership was unique to MLS, not the color scheme, so it still was true in that sense.

But yeah, f*ck Miami

 

It is interesting how different people's taste/opinions are. I think St. Louis Shamrock is one of the all time worst/stupiest/terrible/silly/cheesy names I have ever heard, and I have heard some bad ones. It couldn't be worse IMO.

 

haha
I just know cheesy names when I hear them.
St. Louis Shamrock? Seriously? Its bad...real bad.
Using shamrock imagery in the logo is fine, but the name?

You said you wanted plural nouns, and then you say you like Shamrock?

 

Shouldn't ENTERPRISE be on the front as this will almost be a corporate owned team like Red Bull

 

I sent in St Louis Explorers. (I like Gateway as well)
Think of the French Explorers and all the other parties that headed west from St Louis or up and down the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers.