http://www.rochdaleafc.co.uk/news/article/dan-fradley-accepts-role-at-new-york-city-fc-2569414.aspx
Dan Fradley accepts a position with NYCFC
Via @NYCFCWatch
Dan Fradley accepts a position with NYCFC
Via @NYCFCWatch
Nycfc 2 In The Works
- Thread starter BlueWarrior
- Start date
this ends the rumors with other guy then. although this news probably means they really are going for the nycfc 2 then.
Nah, the Fradley guy is in a completely different analytics role. Not sure why SayWhat44 posted it here.
I'll call them this as a nickname no matter what they're officially called.
I wouldn't mind seeing an annual "Los Dos" v "Two York" USL championship game.
so maybe he can use his analytics to convince kreis to stop using grabavoy
Yeah didn't really know where else to put it. I just made another thread.
Ferdinand Cesarano
Registered
I have always found the practice of minor-league baseball teams having their own identities to be terribly cheesy; and I have argued that the teams should just be called "Yankees AAA", "Yankees AA", and so forth.
For those not from North America, I will note that the mentioned Yankees' affilliates are called "Scranton/Wilkes Barre RailRiders", "Trenton Thunder", and "Staten Island Yankees". This last one is a relatively uncommon case of a minor-league affilliate using the parent club's name. (I believe that it is also one of only two cases of a minor-league affilliate playing in the parent club's home city, the other being the Brooklyn Cyclones, which are an affilliate of the New York Mets.)
The history of minor-league baseball is very interesting. Today the minor leagues consist mainly of teams that are affilliated with teams in the Major Leagues. Owners of minor league teams negotiate affilliation agreements with Major League clubs, under which the Major League club stocks the minor-league team with players and a coaching staff. Thus the players and the coaching staff of a given minor-league team are employees of the parent club; the minor-league team's ownership deals only with ticket sales, local television and radio, and stadium issues. These affilliations can run for any length of time; and each year a number of affilliations will change. (Note: there are a few instances of Major League clubs owning their own minor-league teams outright.)
Up until the 1930s, the minor leagues consisted of independent clubs. Under this system, a Major League team, if it wanted to hire a player whom it had scouted in minor league action, had to buy the player from the minor-league club. And the minor-league clubs made money by selling players. This arrangement mirrors the situation of football around the world.
That began to change when the Brooklyn Dodgers created what is now known as the "farm system", by establishing the first affilliation agreements with minor-league teams. The Yankees soon followed suit, as did other Major League teams, until affilliations eventually became the norm.
When minor-league teams were independent clubs, then of course each would have its own name. But, this practice of minor-league teams having unique names makes no sense in the context of affilliation, in which the minor-league team's only function is as an outpost for players employed by a particular Major League team. The act of giving minor-league teams their own locally-based names is useful as a means of selling tickets to the people in the towns where these teams are located. But it a kind of scam, designed to promote the idea that the minor-league team is a real club.
In reality, not only is the minor-league team not a real club, it is barely a real team in that winning is not its primary function -- it exists exclusively to train players for promotion to the next level and eventually to the Major Leagues. Indeed, while each minor league stages a full season and crowns a champion, these championships are largely illusory because every team's best players are removed during the final part of every season, as they are called up to the next level in the Major League team's farm system. Also, Major League teams routinely assign their own players to their AAA or AA affiliates to do injury rehab, with no regard for how this might disrupt the functioning of the minor-league team.
So, all of this is to say that the name "NYCFC II" would make perfect sense for the same reason that "Yankees AAA" and "Yankees AA" would be preferable to the ridiculous (but, unfortunately, entrenched) practice of minor-league baseball teams having their own names: in each case, the lower-league team is stocked with players employed by the parent club, and exists not as a separate entity but as a way of developing players for the parent club.
Gavin23
Registered
I want to say Polo grounds. I know there team was all Uruguayan though...lol
Great explanation of the history of minor league baseball.
However, I disagree with your conclusion. As you correctly point out, minor league teams are not owned by their major league parent club. They are separate entities. In minor league baseball, parent clubs can come and go. The local fans stay the same. This is the group you're catering too, and you must have a clear and attractive brand image to do that effectively.
So this is a branding exercise above all. I'm not a marketer, but there are tons of reasons to maintain brand distinctions. Large consumer packaged goods companies will own multiple brands in the same category. For example, I think Unilever owns a couple different brands of butter. When it buys those brands, it doesn't change all the names to "Unilever Butter." They might have one brand that caters to health nuts, one brand for price conscious consumers, and a premium brand. Point is, they're selling to different marketing segments, and diversifying their brand to do so.
For our purposes, if NYCFC can probably do a better job of raising gate revenues and building a minor league fanbase by putting the team outside the range of NYCFC ticket holders, and catering to those fans. That means building a brand image specific for that market.
I mean, under your logic, Chivas USA got it right, and NYCFC got it wrong. In both cases it was a larger club putting a smaller sister team in a different market. And we are clammoring for even more brand separation from Manchester City, not a rename to Manchester City NY or City Football Group NY. We want a *local* team, and so will the market we put "Two York" in.
Ferdinand Cesarano
Registered
I do understand that the reason for the separate names for minor-league baseball teams is to appeal to the local fans. And it is true that it would be disruptive for fans in, let's say, Columbus to have been rooting first for "Yankees AAA" but now for "Indians AAA"; it's simpler to call the local team "Columbus Clippers", even if this consistent naming doesn't really represent any continuity.
And you make a good point about companies using various brand names for their products in order to appeal to different markets.
But the examples of Chivas USA and NYCFC aren't really comparable to the questions of minor-league baseball and football reserve clubs. Despite those MLS teams having ownership in common with other, bigger teams playing in higher-quality leagues, those MLS teams were/are not reserve teams for Guadalajara and Manchester City. For me the valid comparison is to Barcelona B. As has been noted, L.A. Galaxy II and Red Bulls II have already followed this pattern, as have Cosmos B.
Of course, each of those teams plays in the same city -- in the same arena -- as its parent club. If NYCFC's reserve team plays in New York City or in the immediate area (such as Westchester or Long Island), then we can bet that it will be called simply NYCFC II. But, if it is in another city, then I suppose that it could get a localised name, à la minor-league baseball, for the reason that you mentioned.
Last edited:
Agreed.
I don't know analytics and I can tell you Grabavoy is tuuuurrrbuuulll
NYCFC 2: Electric Boogaloo
kun
Registered
I'm with you on this one.
I really hope it's not called something cheesy like Blue York City or 2 York City
kun
Registered
That would actually make a lot of sense.
It would to an extent, though for the record it's not how Melbourne City do it. Their B-team just goes by the name of Melbourne City FC, or Melbourne City (NPL) when a distinction is necessary (though not in club sources).
For the record, it probably doesn't make a huge amount of sense for the EDS style to be copied. It makes more sense for the senior academy side to take that name when the academy is up and running, but the EDS at the end of the day is a non-competitive outfit. It competes in academy competitions, but is not part of the official league pyramid, unlike Melbourne City (NPL) and unlike NYCFC B would be. There's been some talk in the UK of EDS-level sides being allowed to enter the Football League Trophy to compete against League One and Two sides (because the Football League won't agree to letting them join the league itself) and if this happened, it would probably go by the name Manchester City B, though we would have to see.
Shawn Ryu
Registered
With all due respect, we aren't Europe. Not saying there is anything wrong the way they do it, but we should incoporate N.American sports culture in to soccer.
