Jump to content


Right Back

Member Since 08 Aug 2005
Offline Last Active Today, 12:49 AM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Club America wants Kaku

18 January 2019 - 08:09 AM

Kaku noooooo

In Topic: Attendance again

11 January 2019 - 01:03 PM

The internet has dragged almost every discussion down to bar fight level. Why should MF be any better?


In that spirit, eff you!!!

*smashes bottle and jabs with the jagged remains*


In Topic: Attendance again

11 January 2019 - 12:26 PM

It's not a corporation, but it is a big business... as is every major sports team.    But I get it.    You are very angry about something.

I think this is one aspect of why we may have trouble drawing fans. I don't think it is a major factor for most, but I think it is significant enough to warrant consideration. You said young people (which I would still be interested to hear what age range you have in mind) don't care about our current name, I think I am an example that some do (if I'm included in the age group you're referring to), and that I am not alone given conversations I've had with other people in my age group. 

 

Additionally, I acknowledged that sports are big business and that a lot of teams have unsavory owners, and that this seems to have had a marginal impact on interest/support in soccer. I just noted how it is different being literally named after a brand vs. owned by a big business and how people react to that. The overt branding has a more negative impact on people's perception of the team than who owns them.

 

I'm saying the name has a negative impact. That's all. Maybe it's tiny, maybe it has only affected the handful on this board like me who have a problem and the individuals I've talked to. It's very anecdotal evidence. But it still is a net negative impact regardless, even if it is very small. My guess it is reflective of the opinions of more than just those people but it's a very subjective and debatable point. 

 

No need to be dismissive just because you disagree with me. 


In Topic: Attendance again

10 January 2019 - 04:33 PM

I'm probably naive, but I think the whole "named after a soft drink" argument is overdone. I seriously doubt that a meaningful number of potential fans have chosen not to support the team because it's a marketing vehicle, and I doubt rebranding would result in a noticeable increase in support.  At least it's a decent team name and logo!  It's not like it's the 'New York Coca-Colas' or the 'New York Snapples.'  And the argument about the team name having no connection to the community also rings hollow for me.  New York Giants? Skyscrapers, maybe.  New York Rangers? Nicknamed 'Tex's Rangers' after their owner, George 'Tex' Rickard, then president of MSG. 

I feel like your last example runs counter to your point, since it is a name that has a direct connection to the team's history and arose organically. Also just because the name could be worse, doesn't mean it's good or not having a negative effect either.

 

I know for a fact it is a factor that has contributed to my loss of enthusiasm, and I've experienced people dismissing the team on those grounds. I guess we just disagree on our perception of whether or not it is a big enough factor to warrant consideration. I think it is significant enough, a lot of people disagree. Fair enough. 


In Topic: Attendance again

10 January 2019 - 03:40 PM

This to me is also a very minority opinion, one that seems to driven more by people's inability to overcome their insecurities than what the names of the sports teams are that they support.

I mean think about it -- you are suggesting that the team being named Red Bull is driving away hardcore fans, as opposed to the club being named something generic like Harrison FC or Metrostars? You actually think there are that many people out there triggered by the name?

Who cares what other people think of the name? Do you think there are people who refuse to support teams like the Giants because they don't like the name Giants? I mean how insecure can you get.

I don't think it's about insecurity, it's about messaging. Clearly people's tolerance for large corporate influences are high in the sport, look no further than the ownership of most clubs. Still, the optics of having a soda brand be your symbol and name vs. knowing your team is owned by shady corporations are different. One is constant and in your face, and I do think it has an effect. Undeniably there will be people who don't give a shit one way or another, but you're kidding yourself if you think the team benefits from it's name or that the name is a complete non-factor. It may well be a minority opinion, but it is one of several things that hinders the team's efforts to expand its following/attendance. 

 

 

Also the name Giants doesn't invoke a soft-drink which is more widely known than the team itself. The whole purpose of branding the team the Red Bulls is to serve as an advertisement for the brand. The contexts of the two scenarios are different.