Expansion Rumors Megathread

[Shwafta]

Chicago Fire FC Get Caught In Fan Firestorm After Unveiling Their New Logo

Chicago Fire FC revealed their new look as they make their return to Soldier Field for 2020. However, controversy reigns as the fans have roundly rejected the new look.

www.forbes.com

there is precedence in other countries for switching back after a terrible rebrand. let's hope.

 

[SoupInNYC]

I hate that Chicago is the changing from soccer club to football club. I try never to force usage on anyone. You say soccer, great. You say football, good for you. Our team is NYCFC. Fine. But to switch an existing team name because you value world opinion and oikophobic affectations over what comes naturally to you in the most middle American city there is? It's just running away from who you are while pretending to be celebrating it.

"We represent Chicago (as long as Chicago means affecting non-standard American usage)."

And yeah, the logo is dumb, too..

I learned a new word today

 

[Schwallacus]

I learned a new word today

 

[SoupInNYC]

Chicago Fire FC unveil new badge, brand identity "inspired by the story and spirit of Chicagoans" | MLSSoccer.com

Chicago Fire unveil new badge, brand identity

www.mlssoccer.com

FUCK ME, IT'S REAL

Not that it makes the badge a good one, but I read online that the badge is also a big nod to Watertower Place, which is one of the few buildings that survived the Great Chicago Fire.

I think that is kinda cool and all, but still resulted in a terrible looking badge.

 

[mgarbowski]

View attachment 10498

Really guys, just figure it out. Oikophobia is obviously fear of yogurt.

 

[snugglefarts]

I don't think it's that bad tbh.

 

[adam]

Chicago Fire FC Get Caught In Fan Firestorm After Unveiling Their New Logo

Chicago Fire FC revealed their new look as they make their return to Soldier Field for 2020. However, controversy reigns as the fans have roundly rejected the new look.

www.forbes.com

there is precedence in other countries for switching back after a terrible rebrand. let's hope.

Leeds just did it. why not Chicago.

 

[moogoo]

I don't think it's that bad. It's very along the modern trend of flat logos/icons. it passes the google material design guidelines.

 

[Davo15]

It's shit but I understand the old logo being so close to the actual Chicago fire department logo resulted in players getting thanked for their service in airports and places when wearing their gear which embarrassed some of them.

 

[Christopher Jee]

Leeds just did it. why not Chicago.

I personally don't hate the new logo / rebrand for Chicago. It's pretty basic and flat but it feels run of the mill. They failed in a standard sort of way.

The Leeds rebrand on the other hand was a massive reach that failed spectacularly. I'm not sure if that makes me more or less fond of it. I think more.

Grail: https://www.teepublic.com/t-shirt/4193883-lufc-salute

 

[Schwallacus]

Always good when your logo can be connected to gang(s) around the Chicago area... (heavy sarcasm)

https://twitter.com/x/status/1197581321217945607

 

[SoupInNYC]

Always good when your logo can be connected to gang(s) around the Chicago area... (heavy sarcasm)

https://twitter.com/x/status/1197581321217945607

The logo is awful, no getting around that, but I'm trying to do some digging into this and have reached out to several Chicago folks on this specifically.

To me, I don't get it. The colors are different and the logo is completely different, so I don't understand what all the hoopla is about this being similar to the Latin Kings symbol. But I also realize that I likely don't have appropriate context on this. Looking forward to what several Chicago fans have to say on this that have IMO, very reasonable and thought-out opinions on these types of things.

 

[413Blue]

I remember some theme parks banned John Elway jerseys years ago because of some very loose connection between his jersey and a gang.

Not much you can do.

 

[Schwallacus]

The logo is awful, no getting around that, but I'm trying to do some digging into this and have reached out to several Chicago folks on this specifically.

To me, I don't get it. The colors are different and the logo is completely different, so I don't understand what all the hoopla is about this being similar to the Latin Kings symbol. But I also realize that I likely don't have appropriate context on this. Looking forward to what several Chicago fans have to say on this that have IMO, very reasonable and thought-out opinions on these types of things.

Seems like it may just be in a smaller area outside/in the burbs of Chicago where this may be a problem, if it even is one. Could be people trying to drag the logo in any way possible. I'm interested to see if your research brings anything up in regard to potential gang related activity. Let us know what you find.

 

[Ulrich]

When an ownership group buys in, they put up the expansion fee which goes to the league. What’s it at, $200-250k now, and that’s just for 49% of the ownership of the team, since MLS keeps 51%.

So what happens with a sale? If the price is for $200-250k, does that get split 51/49, essentially meaning the investor group doesn’t recoup their outlay unless the value doubles what they initially paid? Also would mean the league is double-dipping both ends of every franchise transaction with the expansion fee and sale. Not that there have been many recent sales, but seems like just one more avenue of revenue for the league’s blurry numbers of profitability.

 

[adam]

When an ownership group buys in, they put up the expansion fee which goes to the league. What’s it at, $200-250k now, and that’s just for 49% of the ownership of the team, since MLS keeps 51%.

So what happens with a sale? If the price is for $200-250k, does that get split 51/49, essentially meaning the investor group doesn’t recoup their outlay unless the value doubles what they initially paid? Also would mean the league is double-dipping both ends of every franchise transaction with the expansion fee and sale. Not that there have been many recent sales, but seems like just one more avenue of revenue for the league’s blurry numbers of profitability.

you mean $200-$250mm right? And all assumptions point to the owner recouping their fee by keeping all proceeds, while MLS retains their ownership position. I.e. i buy a franchise for a $50mm expansion fee in 2005. I’m now older and my kids have no interest. I sell for $250mm in 2020. I just made $200mm over 15 years (minus expenses). It’s why people buy the things in the first place.

 

[Ulrich]

you mean $200-$250mm right? And all assumptions point to the owner recouping their fee by keeping all proceeds, while MLS retains their ownership position. I.e. i buy a franchise for a $50mm expansion fee in 2005. I’m now older and my kids have no interest. I sell for $250mm in 2020. I just made $200mm over 15 years (minus expenses). It’s why people buy the things in the first place.

Yeah, millions.

Ha, yeah, I get why people buy in the first place, but there is ambiguity as to the direction the sale proceeds go, hence why I asked. i don't recall there ever being an article written that confirms the sale proceeds all go to the ownership group. not saying they don't, just don't think there's any confirmation of such.

 

[adam]

Yeah, millions.

Ha, yeah, I get why people buy in the first place, but there is ambiguity as to the direction the sale proceeds go, hence why I asked. i don't recall there ever being an article written that confirms the sale proceeds all go to the ownership group. not saying they don't, just don't think there's any confirmation of such.

it’s just common sense. You buy 49% in a corporation. You sell 49%. Whomever owns the 51% doesn’t get to touch your profits. Though they do benefit or lose depending on what price you sell your 49% at. Which makes me wonder if the market isn’t there to match current expansion fees, the league may buy you out at an inflated number. (Or give you an expansion team for free as a replacement?)

 

[Ulrich]

it’s just common sense. You buy 49% in a corporation. You sell 49%. Whomever owns the 51% doesn’t get to touch your profits. Though they do benefit or lose depending on what price you sell your 49% at. Which makes me wonder if the market isn’t there to match current expansion fees, the league may buy you out at an inflated number. (Or give you an expansion team for free as a replacement?)

You’ve missed the point though, if the value of the team had risen (or not), that’s the value of the combined 100%, not a portion of it. Forbes isn’t going around saying the value that Seattle’s ownership group paid for 49% has risen to $xx.xx, they’re listing the value of the team as a whole.

Which was my original point, does the value need to theoretically double for the ownership to recoup their investment before profit can even be entertained- they’re getting only 49% of the valuation with the sale of 49% of the ownership stock.

 

[Gotham Gator]

I've always imagined that buying a franchise in MLS is like buying a Coop in New York. While you are just buying shares in a corporation that owns the building, you have the right to your apartment, and you get all the profit or loss when that unit sells.