Bingo. Bingo, again. Damn, we don't have to have sponsors on the front of jerseys. They look like crap. Disagree with that if you want.
We all know that if it is done in Europe, then we should do it here. Europe is so much smarter than everyone else, so we better do whatever they do. I would love to have some lame company's name ruin the red and black stripes. (sarcasm) Does anyone remember when all jerseys looked like Barcelona (clean with no ad)? When teams put the sponsors on the front, the fans went nuts and said it disgraced the jersey and now you want MLS teams to do it? No thanx, I'll take the jerseys the way they are.
Your sarcasm is duly noted, but I'd rather have Pizza Hut's name on the stadium than their logo on the front of my team's shirt.
This discussion brings to mind the old Pennsylvania Stoners of the late '70s, one of, if not the, first modern US pro soccer team to adorn their jersey fronts with a sponsor logo. And what a sponsor. ALPO. Yea, proud to wear that one, I'm sure.
Frankly, if I could make an exception to my "no sponsors' logos on the fronts of the shirts" rule, it would be to put the SBC logo on the front of the Quakes' shirts. But that would only be to annoy the Quakes fans by having the logo of the San Antonio-based company formerly known as Southwestern Bell on their shirts.
I present to you, Minnesota Thunder: http://www.mnthunder.com/bios/nicolas_platter.shtml http://www.mnthunder.com/news/Display.php?NewsItemId=1004 http://www.uslsoccer.com/images/photos/2234722347.jpg
Arizonans are preparing for the day that California slips into the ocean after the big earthquake. Instant beachfront property. Lots of sunken treasures. (From the website: Join The Dive Shop for diving trips in Mexico and around the world. For more information on the trips listed below and other dive travel opportunities, give us a call at...)
Yes, once it has been discussed the subject is closed. Newbies go to the above mentioned thread and under no circumstances are you to bring up those topics or anything related to those topics. No matter how many new people have signed up since the last time the subject was brought up. Apparently, it is a surprise to longtime members of BS that they are not required to read every single post in every single thread. Maybe if each thread had its own title then people could judge whether or not they want to read it. Oh, wait, each thread does have a title.
yeah, to all the newbies: don't post here; go to some other forum. This forum is only for seasoned bigsoccer members
If buying sponsership of a shirt will help 1. Increase revenue 2. Increase salary cap to allow MLS to purchase better players 3. Improve the level of play (see #2) 4. Enhance MLS's bottem line Then I'm happy to agree I rather sell my shirt then my stadium. Your stadium is your home it is supposed to be an imposing place for your opposition to play. The name should give it some honor. The Azteca Anfield Old Trafford RFK St. James Not Pizza Hut Park ( Barra Brava and Section 8 are quaking in ther boots) The big chessy the big pepperoni or my favorite anchovey alley Name one MLS team that is too sacred to have a shirt sponser that could ultimately help them directly and the league indirectly. (DC United maybe, but that would be it)
Right, b/c Old Trafford is not becoming "The Big Burger Patty Stadium" the minute some shells out. Or the Premiership itself, or the FA Cup. Arsenal - case in point - sorry, Highbury, our new park will be called Fly Emirates Stadium. I love it when people talk about Euros' business smarts in selling the jersey fronts in one post, and then respect for the game's history by keeping stadium names in the next post. If you can watch Opel play Pirelli, why can't you watch it at Michelin Stadium? Reality is - sponsorship decisions are weighted against team identity. For ManU, demand is pretty inelastic (not like the stadium won't be filling up, after the loyal supporters got raped by a dirty American). And most exisitng fans are already used to it, so there won't be inital downward demand adjustment either. So, extra $15 mil per year from Vodafone won't hurt. For MLS, demand at this stage is fairly elastic and should be considered against additional revenue. I don't know how much MLS is getting from sponsors, but my guess is not that much. Additionally, that fee is for shirt, side boards, MLS website and telecasts. I just don't see that much additional revenue pouring in. If it does, well, maybe increased brand awareness may have to be put to the side for real $ from a corporation. But, personally, I just don't see it.
Personaly I prefer "Prawn sandwich Park" If MLS can sell the back of shirts surely the front must be worth more. My point is that if it can help the team first and then MLS second it should be considered. As far as brand awareness one word NASCAR
The fans and team and the surroundings make the stadium imposing, not the name. If home wins are automatic for FC Dallas at Pizza Hut Park, then opposition will fear coming here to play, no matter what the name of the stadium is. Or maybe you can try to sell me on the fact that despite not winning in Dallas since 1999 (an impressive 0-11-1 record since then), the Chicago Fire aren't a little intimidated about coming here to play, simply because the Burn/FC Dallas have played in a stadium named for a fluffy clothing material and for a mythical medieval creature. My team.
The stadium name should honor your club and have a sense of history and add to the charactor of the surroundings but if it is sold to increase revenue then it so be it as long is its good for the club and the league. Your team is so sacred that they changed the club creast and the colors. Wow thats great brand awarness. Maybe if you had a shirt sponsor you could pay for a roof to cover the fans in Anchovey Alley its gonna be hot down in Big D
Or it should refer to a company that will give out free slices to all fans after games where the FC score 2 goals, which is vastly more important. If no one will spend money to put an ad on the back of a shirt, why would they spend more to put an ad on the front?
What history? The stadium hasn't even opened yet! They could change the name, colors, and crest every year and I'd still rather have that than some goofy-ass sponsor's logo on the front of the shirt. I'm trying to figure out in real world terms what could be bought with the massive amounts of money that would be brought in by moving the Radio Shack logo from the back to the front. In any case, forget about something expensive like a roof. I don't even think that that incremental change would even cover Jorge Vergara's yearly hooker budget.
Nice! FC Dallas is much better, because we can't remember whose playing with all the uniform changes. (Should'nt that be SC we are in America)