Stadium Name?

CP_Scouse

Registered
Mar 27, 2014
1,950
1,187
163
Queens
The second thing people reckognize about soccer teams is their home. Places like Anfield and Ol' Trafford rings bells amongst many. places named "etihad stadium" not so much.NYCFC will be more successfull if they name their stadium not after a brand. my proposal:

Roosevelt Ground
 

franchise646

Registered
Oct 31, 2014
2,192
2,495
243
36
In the US, MOST stadiums have corporate names because they names are sold to the highest bidder. If the team would have gotten the Bronx site, as someone who grew up in Washington Heights and listening to stories of the place, I would have loved ( or maybe it is still possible) if the place looked like and was called The Polo Grounds. If it is still possible that they can have THAT site.

Edit: for non-New Yorkers or Non Americans who doesn't know what the Polo Grounds Mean
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polo_Grounds
And that location is currently in the Neighborhood called Washington Heights in Manhattan. (and yes it is the hood or getho) It is directly across the river form Yankees stadium and where the proposed NYCFC soccer stadium would have or could be.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: CP_Scouse

Ahab_Flanders

Registered
Aug 17, 2014
1,193
2,042
203
32
  • Like
Reactions: CP_Scouse

Vinjay

Registered
Mar 19, 2014
533
272
63
No doubt whatsoever it will be a corporate sponsor. Of course in the UK there would be a backlash if stadiums were renamed (unless they are relatively new or not so iconic) but why would anyone care in US concerning soccer? Its been said that LA Galazy have the most iconic soccer specific stadium right now yet it has a name which could be comical for some. Etihad will be more strongly established in a few years anyway so it could easily be another Abu Dhabi based corporation. Or something New York based of course but I'm sure when it comes to stadium issues the name is least of NYCFC's concerns right now.

Don't think Etihad sounds bland either it has quite a powerful/dominant ring to it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AndreT_NY

Ike Podell

Registered
Sep 30, 2014
177
194
43
28
I would like a unique name to the stadium, but like others have said its most likely gonna be a corporate sponsor name. If the Mets hadn't already taken the Citi master card sponsor, we could've gotten Citi Stadium which I think would've gone great with CFG's "it's about the city" campaign they have going on.

Also I would say Etihad does have a strong name. It's just a little too new to be iconic yet like Ol'Trafford. I think just the fact that it is referred to as "THE Etihad" by anouncers and such shows how it is pretty powerful sounding
 
  • Like
Reactions: AndreT_NY

MrE

Registered
Jun 1, 2014
866
362
63
55
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Soccer_stadiums

Most of the stadiums in MLS are [Sponsor Name] Stadium (or equivalent term), and none of the names are very exciting. Places like Anfield and Old Trafford would also have boring names if they were built today with corporate sponsorship rather than 100+ years ago.

Old Trafford is called Old Trafford because it is in an area just outside of Manchester called....... it is in an area of Stretford, within the bourogh of Trafford named OLD TRAFFORD (

Anfield is called Anfield because it is in an area of Liverpool called..... Anfield

Highbury was in an area of London called Highbury

Nothing romantic about the names it is just where the stadiums are / were.

History comes because the club deserve it, not because of the Stadium name..... That said I would prefer to play in a Stadium without the name of a corporate sponsor for reasons of longevity.
 

Across the Pond

Registered
May 31, 2014
220
146
43
23
New Moston, Manchester
It'll be the Etihad Stadium, most likely.

That doesn't mean you can't have nicknames etc, our Etihad (MCFC) was called City of Manchester Stadium or Eastlands, that's how most fans still know it as.
 

Falastur

Registered
Donor
Seasoned Supporter
Mar 20, 2014
3,389
4,580
353
35
Herts, UK
Don't forget that every stadium has a unique name, it's just that when sponsors buy the naming rights they also buy into an agreement that the club, TV commentators and other licenced products agree to use the sponsor name, but that sponsor name is temporary and the stadium has to have a name in between. The Etihad's real name is "City of Manchester Stadium". The Emirates is " Arsenal Stadium". If you don't like the corporate identity then simply use the original name.
 

einwindir

Registered
Donor
Seasoned Supporter
Mar 19, 2014
2,620
2,483
323
39
Queens, NY
Companies pay a lot of money to have their name on a stadium. It will without a doubt be something along the lines of Etihad Stadium.
 

JCizzle

Registered
Nov 18, 2014
252
186
43
Wish it didn't have to be about corporate sponsor names of stadiums. I long for the days of stadiums names after teams or a person of significance. But, it is what it is. First things first, we need a stadium in order to name it. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: mgarbowski

mgarbowski

Registered
Elite Donor
Donor
Seasoned Supporter
Jul 16, 2014
15,873
45,303
353
Queens, NY
mgarbowski.com
Just as note I found kind of interesting about how petty all this corporate naming stuff gets. It seems that UEFA Champions League does not recognize sponsored stadium names unless the sponsor also pays UEFA. My friend/co-worker is a Bayern Munich fan who just came back from a trip to Europe where he saw attended 3 Bayern games including the Champions League match in Manchester. As part of his tour he was given a special gameday scarf for that game that calls it Manchester City Stadium, and he said he was told it was because UEFA didn't want images of fans holding up the scarf with the words Etihad Stadium on it appearing on TV, no matter how small those words might be:
IMG_2421.JPG
 
  • Like
Reactions: einwindir

whill4

Registered
May 29, 2014
697
1,341
123
Los Angeles
We'd be dumb not to sell the naming rights of the stadium. I'm not sure how much MLS teams are getting, but for the most part it's usually a club's biggest sponsorship. Etihad Standium wouldn't be too bad. At least it's not something like Pizza Hut Park
 

Vinjay

Registered
Mar 19, 2014
533
272
63
Just as note I found kind of interesting about how petty all this corporate naming stuff gets. It seems that UEFA Champions League does not recognize sponsored stadium names unless the sponsor also pays UEFA. My friend/co-worker is a Bayern Munich fan who just came back from a trip to Europe where he saw attended 3 Bayern games including the Champions League match in Manchester. As part of his tour he was given a special gameday scarf for that game that calls it Manchester City Stadium, and he said he was told it was because UEFA didn't want images of fans holding up the scarf with the words Etihad Stadium on it appearing on TV, no matter how small those words might be:
IMG_2421.JPG

Strange that they seem bothered by that yet haven't forced clubs to change usual shirt sponsors for CL games. After all the usual advertising boards are replaced by their corporate partners mastercard, heineken, etc. So couldn't they impose some legal restrictions over the kits? Its not like UEFA aren't capable of imposing ridiculous sanctions. Not all clubs with relatively new stadiums have an "official name" either and actually never did. I think MCFC fans are used to calling it "Etihad" now (its not like there were protests over COMS being renamed) perhaps will even refer to it as that if the sponsor changes at some point.
 

Falastur

Registered
Donor
Seasoned Supporter
Mar 20, 2014
3,389
4,580
353
35
Herts, UK
Strange that they seem bothered by that yet haven't forced clubs to change usual shirt sponsors for CL games. After all the usual advertising boards are replaced by their corporate partners mastercard, heineken, etc. So couldn't they impose some legal restrictions over the kits? Its not like UEFA aren't capable of imposing ridiculous sanctions. Not all clubs with relatively new stadiums have an "official name" either and actually never did. I think MCFC fans are used to calling it "Etihad" now (its not like there were protests over COMS being renamed) perhaps will even refer to it as that if the sponsor changes at some point.

If they ever tried pulling that stunt, they'd end up in court. It's one thing obliging broadcasters to say one thing when you already tell them what to do. It's another thing forcing a club to violate the terms of their sponsorship agreement.