I got an email from the Whitecaps today for a brand survey they are doing. It includes a choice of name for the MLS club. Survey - http://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/survey-intro.zgi?p=WEB229D6BQAX7Q Here is the name part of the survey - If you could name Vancouver's MLS 2011 team, what would you name it? Vancouver Whitecaps FC Vancouver FC Vancouver United Real Pacific Other, please specify
I filled out the survey. Chose Vancouver Whitecaps FC of course. I did have to put in this comment at the end... No more all white or all blue uniforms choices. Blue top and white shorts for away games. White top and blue shorts for home games. Trevor Whymark would have wanted it that way.
I put the same sentiment in the comments section. I also suggested going back to the old logo or at least moving away from the cartooniness of the current one. I also suggested replacing the soccerball in the badge with a gold sun (symbol of BC).
... and before ANYONE takes this survey too seriously, Whitecaps FO have already confirmed to the Southsiders that "Real Pacific" is a joke option.
I believe my comment was; "If this team is named anything other than Vancouver Whitecaps FC or Whitecaps FC there will be a riot. And I will lead it." Seriously, I will be pissed off. The 'Real Pacific' cracked me up a bit.
After completing that thing, does anyone else assume we are getting an auto manufacturer for a shirt sponsor?
Aren't you going to have a hard time getting 53,116 in BC Place on 4/2/11? Lenarduzzi told me that after the reno, the capacity would be 20k. Or is that just the lower bowl, the primary, normal usage and the other 33k would still be there if need be? (That said, yeah, it's gotta be Whitecaps.)
I said in the comments section to choose a combination of blues that is not already taken in the league.
For Kenn: Yes, BC Place will still have 60,000 capacity after the renos, about 30,000 on each level. The concept proposed for "soccer configuration" includes the installation of a removable or retractable O-ring sub-roof between the upper and lower levels... This means that if you are watching soccer and look upwards, you can see the sky above the pitch, but you cannot see the empty seating in the upper level. Soccer seating was going to be capped at 22,000 to 24,500, but given Seattle's success, we just might see the full 30,000.
Oh, that's what that meant? I wasn't sure what Lenarduzzi meant by the false roof thing. And it wasn't clear in the renderings. I was looking at that and saying "I don't see what he's talking about, 'false roof'." So you're saying that the upper and lower levels will be separated by something with hole in it that will obstruct your view of the empty upper deck, but allow you to see the sky? 'Cause it doesn't look like that in that rendering. Are there other renderings that more accurately reflect that?
This is a mock-up by Whitecaps staff, not a formal conceptual design... but you should get the idea... This photo should not be used to estimate seating proximity along the sidelines either... the seats will be brought much closer to the pitch. This picture is just a re-colourized version of the BC Lions football one posted above. That gap at the right is used by the TV camera trucks that roll up and down the pitch with the play during football. For soccer, that area will have seats.
Ahhhhh, it makes sense to me now. That should be unique and cool. as long as it functions better than Olympic Stadium's roof. I can see how (hopefully) you'd use all the capacity for huge games like the first game or games against Seattle or whatnot. Righteous. Anxious to see it.
Ah ha, I thought that was an actual mock up. I always wondered why we were sooooo far back. Thanks for clearing that up JM.