- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
MLS To Have Minnesota United Drop United; Effect For Atlanta United?
Posted on 3/11/16 at 6:44 pm
Posted on 3/11/16 at 6:44 pm
From the Minneapolis Star Tribune:
LINK
Get your Atlanta United gear now as it could become a collector's' item. Minnesota United FC actually makes some sense as it can be a moniker for bringing the twin cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul together. Atlanta United never made sense, regardless of the GM saying the name was "authentic" and "organic." Atlanta FC will be better. A little foresight and planning would have been nice so these clubs would not have to rebrand after the hoopla and fanfare of being announced as MLS clubs.
quote:
Just three seasons after creating the Minnesota United FC brand, local professional soccer seems headed for a name reboot.
quote:
Major League Soccer is taking steps to change the team's name in preparation for it joining a league that already has a franchise known as D.C. United.
quote:
“Minnesota FC” is the name Major League Soccer registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on Feb. 18, according to the Empire of Soccer blog. The filing occurred one day after a Sports Illustrated report that MLS did not want expansion franchises Atlanta and Minnesota entering the league with the same nickname used by its D.C. United franchise.
LINK
Get your Atlanta United gear now as it could become a collector's' item. Minnesota United FC actually makes some sense as it can be a moniker for bringing the twin cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul together. Atlanta United never made sense, regardless of the GM saying the name was "authentic" and "organic." Atlanta FC will be better. A little foresight and planning would have been nice so these clubs would not have to rebrand after the hoopla and fanfare of being announced as MLS clubs.
6
Posted on 3/11/16 at 7:09 pm to John Keating
quote:
Atlanta United never made sense, regardless of the GM saying the name was "authentic" and "organic." Atlanta FC will be better.
This is the reasoning they used for Atlanta United:
quote:
Atlanta is a modern, international city that embraces all its citizens, creating an inclusive fan base that is progressive and passionate. A fan base that becomes one voice. We all gather together and stand united.
ETA: So the Sports Illustrated story that's referencing only said MN would be changing its name. Atlanta seems locked in this close to an official start date. LINK
quote:
While Minnesota in penciled in for next year, Atlanta United FC’s entry is inked. And that apparently has caused some consternation among those who believe it might look strange to add two Uniteds in the same season or operate a league with three. The question of dibs (assuming D.C. didn’t exhaust the permissible number of Uniteds) is a complicated one.
Atlanta was confirmed as an MLS market in April 2014, nearly a year before Minnesota. But the latter began using ‘United’ in early 2013 and arguably has a stronger claim on the name. Owner Bill McGuire, who rescued the club in late 2012, spent more than 15 years running healthcare giant UnitedHealth and hoped his reborn, rebranded team would unify fans from the Twin Cities who’d cheered for the Stars, Thunder and Kicks. Atlanta had a clean slate and seemed to pull the name out of thin air. Its connection to one of soccer’s most common monikers is more tenuous.
“The word ‘United’ has long been associated with the beautiful game around the world,” AUFC president Darren Eales said upon the unveiling. “It has particular resonance for Atlanta, as a transport hub in the Southeast, as a multi-cultural, international city and as a club committed to community.”
Whether that’s sufficient isn’t the issue. In MLS’s eyes, Atlanta United was part of the league first and as one source said, “[Owner] Arthur Blank is very good at persuading people.”
This post was edited on 3/11/16 at 7:34 pm
Posted on 3/11/16 at 7:14 pm to WarSlamEagle
It will not change because Blank likes the team name.
Posted on 3/11/16 at 7:15 pm to Vicks Kennel Club
I like it, too, and that's all that matters.
Posted on 3/11/16 at 7:24 pm to John Keating
quote:
Get your Atlanta United gear now as it could become a collector's' item. Minnesota United FC actually makes some sense as it can be a moniker for bringing the twin cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul together. Atlanta United never made sense, regardless of the GM saying the name was "authentic" and "organic." Atlanta FC will be better. A little foresight and planning would have been nice so these clubs would not have to rebrand after the hoopla and fanfare of being announced as MLS clubs.
Posted on 3/11/16 at 8:21 pm to John Keating
Sucks. Minnesota United just sounds right.
Posted on 3/11/16 at 8:26 pm to John Keating
Not the biggest deal in the world but it's silly to use the United tag for any MLS team IMO. Same for Real _____
Just because Arthur Blank likes it is not a good enough reason, especially for an expansion team. And the official justification is awful as well. The entire country is a melting pot, not just Atlanta. Terrible reasoning, although Minnesota United isn't much better. Maybe if they were Twin Cities United or something.
This is the kind of thing that makes people look at MLS as pretentious.
Just because Arthur Blank likes it is not a good enough reason, especially for an expansion team. And the official justification is awful as well. The entire country is a melting pot, not just Atlanta. Terrible reasoning, although Minnesota United isn't much better. Maybe if they were Twin Cities United or something.
This is the kind of thing that makes people look at MLS as pretentious.
This post was edited on 3/11/16 at 8:44 pm
Posted on 3/11/16 at 10:22 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
Just because Arthur Blank likes it is not a good enough reason, especially for an expansion team.
So what you are saying is that you have no idea how any of this works. Also, it was a lot more than just one person who decided this. Potential names were polled among local supporters groups.
quote:
And the official justification is awful as well.
Cool, no matter what name any teams chooses will always have detractors.
Posted on 3/11/16 at 10:32 pm to John Keating
This whole knocking off European names just doesn't make sense to me. "United" "Real" "Sporting"
Real means royal in Spanish ffs. How in any way does that make sense for a soccer team in Salt Lake City Utah
Real means royal in Spanish ffs. How in any way does that make sense for a soccer team in Salt Lake City Utah
Posted on 3/11/16 at 10:49 pm to WarSlamEagle
This is what I was referencing regarding the name:
I am not too much of a purist. It just seems a little silly that Minnesota would be forced to drop United while Atlanta is not. Why bother?
quote:
“We wanted a name that is authentic,” Eales said. “It’s a very traditional name, but there will be so much more (about the brand) that will be led by our fans as we ramp up to 2017.”
quote:
Eales said the name is authentic because it reflects the voices of the team’s supporters, some of whom were used in focus groups and surveys designed to get a sense of what they thought about Atlanta and what elements of the city and soccer they wanted associated with the club.
I am not too much of a purist. It just seems a little silly that Minnesota would be forced to drop United while Atlanta is not. Why bother?
Posted on 3/11/16 at 11:18 pm to Draconian Sanctions
Real doesn't really work for an American team. But at least United is an English word, and it makes sense.
And while America is a huge melting pot, there's no denying Atlanta is one of the most diverse and internationally minded cities in the country. That's why "United" still makes sense for Atlanta, even though people like you will think it's silly. A lot of branding stuff sounds pretentious for new sports teams.
I just think the main problem is having a red and black United team with DC already that way.
And while America is a huge melting pot, there's no denying Atlanta is one of the most diverse and internationally minded cities in the country. That's why "United" still makes sense for Atlanta, even though people like you will think it's silly. A lot of branding stuff sounds pretentious for new sports teams.
I just think the main problem is having a red and black United team with DC already that way.
Posted on 3/11/16 at 11:20 pm to John Keating
quote:
It just seems a little silly that Minnesota would be forced to drop United while Atlanta is not. Why bother?
I completely understand that. It's weird, but this is MLS. They make up the rules as they go along.
Posted on 3/12/16 at 9:52 am to John Keating
Wish they would change it, honestly. The "united" explanation for Atlanta is idiotic drivel with no actual meaning.
Posted on 3/12/16 at 11:00 am to Riseupfromtherubble
quote:
This whole knocking off European names just doesn't make sense to me. "United"
It sounds better than something corny like the Galaxy
Posted on 3/12/16 at 11:11 am to WarSlamEagle
quote:
It's weird, but this is MLS
Best explanation yet
Posted on 3/12/16 at 11:12 am to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
It sounds better than something corny like the Galaxy
Yeah I remember even as a 12 year old or whatever I was when MLS started, I thought Galaxy was an awful name.
Surprised no one has used AFC ________ yet
This post was edited on 3/12/16 at 11:20 am
Posted on 3/12/16 at 1:31 pm to StraightCashHomey21
LAG should have been named Hollywood FC.
Posted on 3/12/16 at 2:57 pm to Riseupfromtherubble
quote:
This whole knocking off European names just doesn't make sense to me. "United" "Real" "Sporting"
SKC is using "Sporting" like it's supposed to be, or at least it's their intent.
Posted on 3/12/16 at 3:14 pm to pvilleguru
I have no issue with Sporting or FC or ____ City other than potentially littering the league with only 2/3 team names.
Posted on 3/12/16 at 3:52 pm to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
It sounds better than something corny like the Galaxy
I disagree. Ive always like that. Maybe just nostalgia.
I think it would be cool if the MLS had attempted to develop its own naming styles. Different from City Name Mascot that all other US sports do. But also different from traditional than foreign leagues. But i guarantee people would shite on them if they had tried that.
One solution could have been just to flip the mascot city order.
Saints New Orleans vs the Falcons Atlanta.
Then the language could change. Player X has signed with Saints.
This post was edited on 3/12/16 at 3:54 pm
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News