Official: NYC Soccer Stadium

I am the opposite of a Red Bull fan. But having said that...For me, midweek friendlies rank somewhere below Reserve League games on the hierarchy of things I care about. Complaining about fans not showing up for them is like complaining that fans don't show up for Tuesday morning training. They can be fun to watch, but they don't matter, and the fans know that.

Now I feel dirty. We now resume your regularly scheduled Red Bull hating.

 

This is really it right here. If I were a diehard RBs fan, I would be angry that we're playing midseason friendlies with our stars. It doesn't affect the end goal but could result in an injury.

Personally, I hate these friendlies and try to stop going to them when they play MLS teams. You get people that would otherwise never be in an MLS stadium chanting for a team they play with in FIFA.

 

Agree!

 

Not saying I'm better than all these friendlies. I went to the same friendly last year (I think it was last year). But they lose their appeal...and frankly, i end up pissed because I'm surrounded by people who think they love soccer but don't watch the USMNT, MLS and lower leagues.

 

Should also mention that they also played Spurs 2 years ago so it wasn't like it was some sort of exotic club .

 

Agree again!!!

 

sorry...2 years ago. but you're 100% right. it's just overkill.

 

There is no right answer to this. But was it better before when the majority of European clubs came and just played each other and MLS was mostly shut out in its own country?

The fact is the large Euro clubs are going to schedule tours of North America during the summer to take money from gullible Americans. ESPN and the other glory hounds are going to care more about these stupid exhibitions than actual real MLS games. So it is better for MLS to be part of the charade.

Is it annoying to see a bunch of Eurosnobs cosplaying English soccer club fans at MLS stadiums? Yeah, but at least you are taking their dollars. And the games do tend to be better with MLS teams than two European teams. With two European teams you know that they are going to go through the motions. It is even better when the MLS team wins or plays well.

Although we probably won't see any French clubs for a while after drawing flies.

 

well said

 

Not to derail the topic at hand but it is Black and Gold for Steelers my friend. and frankly I live smack dab in the middle of Ohio and I have way more friends who are Steelers than fans than Browns or Bengals - by far. You see jerseys, hats, license plates etc all over Columbus. For that matter, I was in a Walmart on I-75 in Western Ohio and they sold almost no Bengals gear even thouch Cinci was just 45 min south - it was all Steelers. Point is I have never heard anyone say they wished Crew colors were Brown and Orange (Puke!) or any other color combo for that matter. We tend to like the Banana kits (although we love to draw up alternate kits). In fact being a Steelers, Pirates, Penquins and CREW fan I love it that they are black and yellow (er Gold) Bad analogy on your part.

 

Yes, that also explains why you never, ever see Air Jordans in New York.

Palm meet face.

 

I wonder if the Yankees fans stopped going to NY Rangers games after Texas knocked them out of the MLB playoffs.

 

I really dont - i mean maybe 15 years ago but many of the die hard Knicks fans i know - said they wanted the Bulls to beat the Heat in the playoffs- of course the Rose injury stopped any chance of that but many knicks fans i know are over that and have focused their hate on Miami.

 

And you have a terrible argument. Few think of the Chicago Bulls when they think of the Red Bull NY or the NY Red Bulls. You can argue about them being named after their sponsors, that's at least somewhat valid, if not overblown to an extent, but that... everyone with any modicum of sense associates it with the energy drink before they even begin to think about Chicago.

 

Well talk to him about that, it obviously doesn't bother him. But, in general, that's not the first thing that comes to mind when most people think about the New York Red Bulls. You really want to ask people, without leading them, what the first thing that comes to mind when they think of that team, I'll bet you $1 million that most of them do not even mention the Chicago Bulls. C'mon. It's a different sport. Who the fvck's thinking about the damn Bulls when they're going to a soccer game? Especially when Bulls is such a generic team name to begin with. And they're not even the Knicks' biggest rival these days. Shit, there are no real rivalries in the NBA anymore except the lingering legacy of Lakers/Celtics and even that's watered down.

 

Did I ever even bring that up ever? EVER? Damn, I must be sleep typing, maybe I wrote something about that while I was unconscious. Lemme look back on the 5 some odd years that I've been here and see if I've ever brought that up... nope, don't see it.

I'm just of the opinion that Red Bull has done a hell of alot more than the previous owners have to try to build that team. The only caveat is that they won't budge on the Red Bull name. No dice on that one buddy.

 

Link? Not being snarky, I'm genuinely interested.

 

Cool, thanks.

 

I think, over all, people make too much of naming conventions. Personally, I also prefer more traditional soccer naming conventions, and they do exist in our league. However I also understand the rationale for not having a league dominated by what are seen as "foriegn" names (I refuse to use the term Europosing bc I believe that's an inaccurate way of viewing this). I believe that a blend of traditional soccer names, American-type names, and historical NASL names are perfect for our league bc it best represents what our country and it's history with the sport is about.

Many of us are recent immigrants and many are not. Many of us were fans of the NASL and many were not. Our league has a little bit of every culture which is quintessentially an American trait. I also would prefer that NYRB be called RBNY but I don't pretent not to understand why it was named the way it was named. I didn't like alot of the original MLS names, but a few of them have grown on me, in particular Fire, bc it relates to the city of Chicago in a way that not too many other names would have. I hated the Burn and Wizards, but I could relate to the SKC fans who wanted to keep KCW bc of it's history with them, but I also don't miss it one bit. There's no one-size-fits-all solution to how we do naming in MLS bc our country is waaay too diverse to ever satisfy everyone. Some ppl are going to be disappointed either way, but fortunately, few ppl will ultimately be kept away by these things alone.

It was more of an issue when we still had some of the worst names like Clash, Burn, and Wiz along with alot of other bad decisions that were made during the early years such as uniform designs and rules which served to put the league in a bad light. It was a perfect storm of well-intentioned bad ideas. The names merely highlighted the bigger problems that were there. Because they no longer exist, much of any power any type of name has to keep a fanbase away, is largely more benign. Now most of the teams are fairly used to their names and it's more of a matter of the product that they associate the name with rather than the name itself. KCW's nickname, despite being imo bad, wasn't what hurt that franchise before the rebranding. It was the years of subpar play coupled with years either placing tiny crowds in a huge football stadium, or placing tiny crowds in a tiny misshapen baseball field. So they associated the bad name with a bad situation. They could have changed the name to dogshit and it still would have been an improvement upon opening the new stadium to a new era. I think that the name Sporting did help, even though many KC residents thought it was "Euro-posing" precisely bc of the commentary, be it negative or positive, that it evoked.

 

I watched or listened on the radio to virtually every Knick game for most of the 90s, and I can tell you, it had never even occurred to me that "Red Bull" shared the word "Bull" with the Chicago Bulls. Not to mention the fact that Knicks fans hated the Pacers, Celtics, and later, the Heat more than the Bulls. I'm sorry dude, but that's just one of the silliest arguments I've ever heard.

PS and so far the so called NY Knicks / Brooklyn Nets rivalry is wholly manufactured, it does not exist.

 

I understand this and agree. As I said in my previous statement, it's an inaccurate way of viewing it. But many American soccer fans do not see it that way and to ignore that and dismiss it out of hand is also ignorance.

Fundamentally, it makes sense tohave a league that is eclectic, in a country with a history in the sport that is as varied as ours. The fact of the matter is that many of what I consider soccer-centric names are considered euro-centric by many. I don't agree with it, but I accept that it is and will remain a prevalent opinion. And we have a nice mix as it is. But while I prefer soccer-centric names, that definitively does not mean that I am against the old NASL names. On the contrary, they have history which is more important, imo, than any other consideration.

The same goes for much of the current MLS names. I don't prefer them, but they've grown on me and grown in relevence in their communities. I would have preferred a Montreal team called "Olympique" but given the near 20 years of successful and lauded history of the Impact name, you do not displace that. The ultimate judge of a team's name is it's relevance within it's community and how deeply it resonates with the culture of that community. It's up to them whether or not it's accepted in the end. And usually, in the end, the name becomes accepted based on the performance of the team and how well it's marketed rather than the actual aesthetics of the name itself. Now a name with history can help, but names rarely hurt a team unless they're culturally offensive in some way.

 

I find this type of attitude hilarious. This is the United States, every country is different, every region is different. The United States is much more diverse than other countries. We have a little bit of everything here. The US doesn't need to do everything like every other country. Soccer is a little different in Europe than it is in Central America, and a little different in Asia than it is in Australia. It makes sense that in a country much more diverse than than those regions mentioned we're going to have all types of naming conventions and a amalgamation of soccer customs.

If you're embarrassed by MLS please don't comment on it. The MLS is doing just fine without the very intolerant euro snobs who are so insecure about themselves that they are embarrassed by leagues they don't even actively engage in.

I actually follow a team that I live close enough to feel apart of, maybe one day you will get that.

 

You're absolutely right.

Signed,
Kashima Antlers
Orlando Pirates
Humble Lions
Ebusua Dwarfs
Nairobi City Stars
Mdina Knights
Tralee Dynamos
Yokohama Flugels
Santiago Wanderers
AS Dragons
UNAM Pumas
Chengdu Blades
Suwon Samsung Bluewings
Dingli Swallows
Pigotts Bullets
Pohang Steelers
Newcastle Jets
Go Ahead Eagles
Singapore Lions
Kaizer Chiefs
Arima Fire
Zimbabwe Saints
El-Kanemi Warriors
Wellington Tornadoes

And,
Hull FC
Bolton RUFC
Northern FC
Reading RFC
Plymouth Albion RFC
St. Helens RUFC
Wigan RUFC
St. Albans RFC
Richmond FC
Cardiff RFC
Newport RFC
Swansea RFC
Bannockburn RFC
Kilmarnock RFC
FC Grenoble
FC Lyon
Jersey RFC
Dublin University FC
Lansdowne FC
Ulster FC

 

I think the worst names are the native American nicknames: Redskins, Braves, Blackhawks, Chiefs, Indians, Warriors.

 

Yeah I mentioned that about cultural insensitivity. Houston avoiding the 1836 moniker was a wise decision as much of their current fanbase is Latino.