That's a bad name for Atlanta. I expect a rebranding in 3-4 years.
Expansion Rumors Megathread
- Thread starter MagnusPax
- Start date
That's a bad name for Atlanta. I expect a rebranding in 3-4 years.
MagnusPax
Registered
Well the Atlanta newspaper said that Unity and Atlanta scored high. I am pretty sure if the survey asked "do you want the name to be Atlanta United" they would not have said yes.
Too bad, Atlanta was doing such a good job until now. Hopefully they make better decisions going forward. Although I wonder what no-management or experience Bocanegra will do as Technical Director. Reyna anyone?
franchise646
Registered
I don't think it takes away for the good moves but ...United is well know as a soccer identity and maybe they saw it as easy to brand..
over the past few years in westchester the county/state improved the white plains and tappen zee bridge /87 south exchanges(exit and on ramps) this was supposed to have cost 300 million and taken 2 years . from what i have read and been told the cost was close to 1 billion. a total of 6 on- off ramps. welcome to NY
That's funny because that's what the vast majority of the Internet people said about us!
ferrarinycfc
Registered
Atlanta FC would have been better. Put a pheonix in the logo and that could be their nickname like Orlando City has with the lions.
According to ESPNFC'S post about the announcement, "there are twenty 'Uniteds' in the top four divisions of American soccer". Sigh.
ouch that many? i just glanced at the top four english and they have about 14 or so in top four.
i would not of minded just atlanta sc or terminus, but i guess their SG already had that so that was probably scrapped.
And three of them will be in MLS: DC, Minnesota and Atlanta.
NYCFCFan10
Registered
Extremely dull.
I can't believe with Minnesota United also coming in they were like...how bout United?
Blows my mind actually.
Hopefully, the report is wrong.
I can't believe with Minnesota United also coming in they were like...how bout United?
Blows my mind actually.
Hopefully, the report is wrong.
Our club's name, like that of the Red Bulls, will only change if the owners decide to sell to someone else. It's part of the owner's "brand" -- City Football Group. However, unlike the Red Bulls, our club's name works no matter the owner and wouldn't have to change necessarily. No new owner would stick with the Red Bull name. In fact, Red Bull parent company would probably make it a contractual requirement.
Z4CH3B99
Borracho Aficionado
It looks really crappy when entire portions of NFL stadiums are covered up or left empty for MLS games.
jerseyhotspur
Registered
Why has MLS been softening their stance on sharing NFL stadiums instead of previously "requiring" soccer-specific stadiums?
Just speculation here but maybe Orlando's experience in the Orange bowl this year is a factor. The attendance and atmosphere have both been better than projected by just about anyone.
jerseyhotspur
Registered
I noticed before the beginning of this season. When Atlanta was first awarded the MLS franchise, part of their bid was that they'd be sharing the soon-to-be-built Falcons stadium? Ugh, I love the transparency of MLS.
MagnusPax
Registered
Because your not reading the fine print. Since 96, MLS teams have always played in NFL stadiums, where in many cases they still shared owners. MLS has never said they required soccer-specific stadiums, they've just always said their teams need to be in the best situation possible. Usually that means a SSS. But it doesn't have to. Just look at the Pac NW teams. Turf, shared with football teams, great support. Almost zero reason for those 3 teams to change.
Similar threads
