were any of those clubs you listed founded after the year 2000? or in a league that founded in the early 90's?
For the record, I would be just as unhappy with 'United' 'City' 'Rangers' 'Athletic' or any of the other classic names if it was applied to us.
The name 'Real Salt Lake' is a joke to me for the same reason, it's trying to hard to be something it's not.
I think that F.C. is the only thing that is passable, because it's practically universal.
///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\
That's an assumption I simply don't share. It probably is the most generic of them all yes, but it isn't the only "passable" option. If that were the case, then every club after 2000 should simply not try at all and simply use it's city name + FC as their only choice in the matter. How boring will that get?Originally Posted by Parkdale
"Inter ___" comes with more cultural baggage than "____ FC" does. That seems pretty obvious to me.
"There are some people who might have better technique than me, and some may be fitter than me, but the main thing is tactics. With most players, tactics are missing. You can divide tactics into insight, trust, and daring." - Johan Cruyff
summed up nicely.
other examples of 'way too much baggage' would be:
______ United
______ City
______ Rangers
______ Athletic
Inter ______
///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\
Just seems like such a cop-out to say "FC" is the only option left. So the next 20 teams that get created around the world should just go with (City) FC? That's more lame...
Just because there is a dominant team with that name does not cancel that term for any other team that wants to look at it as a legitimate option for their team. I guess no team should ever look at putting "FC" in FRONT of their name because FC Barcelona does it?
haha... now you're jsut arguing for the sake of arguing.
FC is in almost every team name, even ones not based in English speaking countries.
Hell.... even Inter's full name includes an 'FC'.
I agree that because another more dominant team used a name (like United or City or Athletic) doesn't mean it should take it off the market, but using one of those terms in an effort to add credibility to a brand new expansion just seems like a bad move.
There is baggage associated with many of the names, and a new team doesn't need old world baggage. Hell, think of all the Rangers guys we know who don't even own anything green - If an MLS franchise walked into the middle of a divide like that, it would only hurt their growth.
///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\
The initial debate started, not over what TFC should have been called, but over "Inter" being not an "authentic" name. Whether it would've worked for TFC is another story. I totally agree that it's ignorant to say "Inter" is not an authentic name. Not a name I would have wanted or liked, but that is beside the point.
Period...
Single Table for me, why is it that MLS has to be different. Most countries outwith S.America have a league format, whoever gets the most points a season wins the Title, quite simple really......??????
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote