Cruoninga Posted October 20, 2013 Share Posted October 20, 2013 It's kind of like the AMFers moaning about MODERN FOOTBALL then watching games on Sky. By that kind of reasoning it would only be allowed to protest either an abstract phenomenon (such as "modern football") in its entirety or not at all. You can argue with the AMF slogan, but it's ridiculous to suggest that someone that watches matches on Sky is a hypocrite when he has a problem with team names being changed to the names of companies. There are a lot of aspects that could be described as "modern football" that are very enjoyable, but I absolutely despise Red Bull's actions of just taking traditional names out of existence. It definitely is a few steps beyond having some foreign billionaire getting players in from all over the globe: personal identification with a club's name and colours is all there is to supporting a football team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meatwad Posted October 20, 2013 Share Posted October 20, 2013 This franchising element is something that is becoming more and more common in football these days, it'll inevitably happen in England and other countries too [There's a Red Bull team working their way up through the Brazilian system at the moment too] Tradition is dying on it's arse sadly and while we might not like it it's something that all football fans will need to begrudginly accept as an evolution of the game in the coming years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cruoninga Posted October 20, 2013 Share Posted October 20, 2013 Tradition is dying on it's arse sadly and while we might not like it it's something that all football fans will need to begrudginly accept as an evolution of the game in the coming years. I doubt that. The reason for franchising surely is to make a profit for the mother company by marketing their company name, but how much commercial value will all those Red Bull franchises have in the long run? People watch football teams for either being entertained by the quality of play or because they experience some irrational belonging to the name/colours of the team. The Red Bull brands lack the latter so have to make up by the former. The Red Bull Salzburg team has been very much doing this on a domestic level, so they are successful from a commercial point of view, but will all current and future Red Bull brands be able to remain interesting to the public? The game is also evolving from a national to a global scope. If you prefer, the option is open to see teams from all over the world. Nothing binds you to a local team if you don't want to. The only thing that keeps people involved in their national and local side is this irrational identification. It seems that it is a commercially better strategy to associate your company name with a club's traditional name, so that you can profit from the team's exposure that comes from both its name and its demonstrated quality. The names of many football clubs simply are stronger brands than companies as Red Bull. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stumigoo Posted October 20, 2013 Share Posted October 20, 2013 Reading that Red Bull has over £4billion turnover a year, but in terms of profit and the money they already pump into their other sporting exploits, would they have enough money to seriously take an English team and get them challenging for Premiership/Champions League glory? New stadium, new players, multi million pound wages? They would have a majority share so would have to do it all themselves, and they would be picking a team that doesn't yet have the 'brand' that say a Bayern or Chelsea have that can generate huge sums of sponsorships. A huge, huge risky investment for potentially not much return (how much extra money would Red Bull actually make for say taking Red Bull Charlton to the Champions League?), and if it all doesn't go to plan then what happens next? I could cost Red Bull a disastrous sum of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted October 20, 2013 Share Posted October 20, 2013 So you wouldn't mind Ross County being rebranded Red Bull Dingwall? I might be a bit annoyed over them being rebranded Ross-Shire Red Bull but I would still be supporting the same team and any annoyance would soon dissipate. By that kind of reasoning it would only be allowed to protest either an abstract phenomenon (such as "modern football") in its entirety or not at all. You can argue with the AMF slogan, but it's ridiculous to suggest that someone that watches matches on Sky is a hypocrite when he has a problem with team names being changed to the names of companies. There are a lot of aspects that could be described as "modern football" that are very enjoyable, but I absolutely despise Red Bull's actions of just taking traditional names out of existence. It definitely is a few steps beyond having some foreign billionaire getting players in from all over the globe: personal identification with a club's name and colours is all there is to supporting a football team. Right. So it's okay to have a billionaire owner who brings success but it's not okay to have a billionaire owner brining success and changing the name in return? Football fan principles: give us success but don't try and take something in return. The colours point is absolute nonsense. Ross County's current colours are not the same as the original colours, where does that fit in with the personal identification? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted October 20, 2013 Share Posted October 20, 2013 I might be a bit annoyed over them being rebranded Ross-Shire Red Bull but I would still be supporting the same team and any annoyance would soon dissipate. Really? If Celtic had been "rebranded" Red Bull Celts, with a new kit etc... I'd be done with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dindeleux Posted October 20, 2013 Share Posted October 20, 2013 Really? If Celtic had been "rebranded" Red Bull Celts, with a new kit etc... I'd be done with them. Really? If that was your opinion surely you'd have been done with them when they became a PLC? I appreciate that the strip etc didn't change (or the name) but its still the same idea. It becomes a corporate club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted October 20, 2013 Share Posted October 20, 2013 Really? If Celtic had been "rebranded" Red Bull Celts, with a new kit etc... I'd be done with them. Probably. Using County as an example: Changed colours on several occasions in the past. Rebranded the club crest a couple of times although the stag's head has remained consistent. Changed the stadium name for sponsorship reasons. County came about because three sides wanted to compete in the Highland League, so they effectively sold their souls to play at a higher level by creating a new club. If that happened now then there would be outcry from the AMFers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted October 20, 2013 Share Posted October 20, 2013 Fair enough, but for me that would be a step too far if a club went along that road I'd drop Celtic like a stone if they went through some commercial "rebranding" As for the point about it becoming a PLC, we do have a section of our fans who don't like the "PLC" doesn't bother me to be honest. But I don't like sponsors on the kit, especially alcohol as I think it sets a bad example. Never been happy with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cruoninga Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 I might be a bit annoyed over them being rebranded Ross-Shire Red Bull but I would still be supporting the same team and any annoyance would soon dissipate. Right. So it's okay to have a billionaire owner who brings success but it's not okay to have a billionaire owner brining success and changing the name in return? Football fan principles: give us success but don't try and take something in return. The colours point is absolute nonsense. Ross County's current colours are not the same as the original colours, where does that fit in with the personal identification? I probably would find it impossible to keep supporting Hibs if they would became Red Bull Leith or something, as I doubt I would feel any joy when such a brand would score a goal on the park (would only know for sure if it happened though). Supporting a football team is a very irrational affair. We feel joy or grieve because of results we don't have a part in whatsoever, by a bunch of players we are unlikely to have any personal affiliation to, and that are very likely to be at another club in the near future. The thing we cheer is not a bunch of people, but this abstract idea of a club. I find it strange that you can do this without identifying with "markers" as a team's name, colours and crest. Red Bull Ross-Shire/Dingwall might be the same club as Ross County officially, as it is a continuation of the same administration/company, but do we really experience a club by the organization behind the name? What we see and hear are the name and colours, which mostly remain the same over the years. To me it seems that you try to rationalize something that is a very irrational affair in itself: supporting a football club. I don't mind changes, but there has to remain something recognizable that undergoes that changes in order to experience it as the same entity over time. I would say this is the name and colours. And if not even the colours, then at least the name. Surely, teams often have had different names and colours in the earlier stages of their existence, but at one point they settled for something, which then grew to be a team's most defining outfit. Adding to that, a change to a Red Bull brand is a change to something that does not have connection to the place where the team is from. It's not just about the change, but also to what you are changing it. Ross County becoming Dingwall FC would not be the same as becoming named after an Austrian beverage company, would it? Personally I neither like this trend in which billionaires buy clubs and spend ridiculous amounts on players and salaries, (and I am quite sure the most fanatic AMF'ers are with me there) but I can see how something like that happening to your club would not make it a different entity in your eyes. It's likely that something like that would not set me off from Hibernian as would a Red Bull rebranding, as in the latter case there wouldn't even be something named Hibernian. If losing a name and colours for success on the pitch that's not a price I would like to pay. Why would I bother with such a club? If I want to see a successful team that is not named Hibernian I can just go and watch Real Madrid or Bayern Munich. By the way, in the Red Bull Salzburg case the club manifested itself as a new entity altogether, distancing itself from all the history of Austria and putting 2005 as the year of their foundation on the club's website. At the same time they refused access to anyone that showed up at the ground wearing purple, the colour of Austria before being rebranded. So although it might be the same club in your eyes, it was not in those of the people behind the rebranding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cruoninga Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 A little thought experiment in addition: how would you feel if Red Bull decided to buy Scotland (which in the alternate reality of this post is a possibility), rebranding it to Red Bull Nation, changing the saltire to the Red Bull company flag, and the national team's dark blue to Red Bull's white and red? Flower of Scotland is exchanged for the Red Bull company song. If this analogy seems ridiculous to you it is because of a couple of reasons. Identification with a country is much older than that with a football team. It is much more pervasive, as national identity also exists outside the world of football, and much more common throughout society (not everyone supports a football club, but the vast majority of the population feels some affiliation to what they regard as "their country"). Another major difference is that a national identity is largely imposed upon you by society, whereas the choice of your favorite football team is in most cases recognized as a matter of personal choice. Yet in its essence, identifying to Scotland is the same thing as identifying to a football club. It is a personal affiliation to some imagined entity. It is imagined in the sense that someone in Dumfries feels to have something in common with a stranger from Dingwall that he does not have in common with a stranger from south of the border. I would say that the supporter of a football team going nuts by the goal of someone he doesn't know personally stems from the same kind of imagined affiliation. There is an administrative reality behind both the Scottish state (or whatever official status it has within the UK) and a football club, but the Scottish identity (the connection of the individual to this administration) is created and perpetuated by symbols, rituals and narratives. Supporting a football club comes down to the same thing, be it in a much more moderate form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thisGRAEME Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 A huge, huge risky investment for potentially not much return (how much extra money would Red Bull actually make for say taking Red Bull Charlton to the Champions League?), and if it all doesn't go to plan then what happens next? I could cost Red Bull a disastrous sum of money. Yeah. Solely from a business and footballing point of view, before the whole shenanigans of rebranding a club, it is a huge undertaking. I mean, they run two successful F1 teams, which is a sport not exactly known for being particularly thrifty, but it is fairly simple in the way that it operates, relatively. Spend the money, hire the best people (Newey, particularly) and give them the resources they need to win. Football is a different beast entirely, as you can't simply go and hire the best people and go and win everything, for a multitude of reasons. They could drop any amount of money on a team down south and be fairly limited in what they achieve. Now, Aberdeen on the other hand... You drop a little bit of money there, you support the building of a new stadium, you improve the quality of player on a relatively low budget, you get into Europe, you take it from there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotThePars Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 If I was a Hibs fans I'd be delighted if someone bought my team over if we started smashing Hearts every derby and actually challenged for the league. Then again I wouldn't call myself a proud Dunfermline fan or whatever. I just like watching football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 The Guardian have an article on RB Leipzig on how they aren't breaking any rules but just aren't acting 'in the spirit' of German football. http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2014/mar/06/rb-leipzig-sending-shockwaves-through-german-football?CMP=twt_gu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 I still don't understand how anyone can support an energy drink football team Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 I still don't understand how anyone can support an energy drink football team Is it any different than: VFL Wolfsburg being 'owned' by a subsidiary of Volkswagen Bayer Leverkusen being owned by, and named after, a pharmaceuticals company Admittedly, they started in different circumstances (RB - unlike Bayer they aren't explicitly named after the company - weren't formed as a recreational team for company employees) but is it that much of a difference? Particularly in the case of Wolfsburg, when you are effectively supporting VW given that they even sponsor the shirt and the stadium. Interestingly, Wolfsburg changed their sponsor for one game last season. They changed from VW to GTI for a cup semi-final to promote VW's new car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forameus Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Is it any different than: VFL Wolfsburg being 'owned' by a subsidiary of Volkswagen Bayer Leverkusen being owned by, and named after, a pharmaceuticals company Admittedly, they started in different circumstances (RB - unlike Bayer they aren't explicitly named after the company - weren't formed as a recreational team for company employees) but is it that much of a difference? In my mind, I'd say that is the difference. The clubs named after companies started their life as that. In these cases, Red Bull would be jumping in and pretty much making a new club in their own image. I can see the difference there. I can sympathise with fans who would be massively against it, but you have to grudgingly admit that the change would be, for the most part, positive for the club, and could mean the sort of success you would never have had before. Is it worth it though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 I don't think it would be allowed in this country. Mainly as the SFA already blocked a suggested name change for a club already - Stirling Albion Meerkats on the basis it was purely for financial gain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ginge123 Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 You can't, or couldn't, have a company name as a club's name in Scotland and play in the SPFL, or previously SFL and maybe the SPL, I don't know if that was ever challenged or if there was ever a written rule against it. Ferranti Thistle were made to change their name upon entering the SFL as far as I'm aware because it was a company name. So I'd be surprised if this would be possible up here. Regarding the Vfl Wolfsburg and Bayer Leverkusen comparison, would people have as much of a problem if Red Bull started their own club, invested heavily into it and then entered it into the leagues? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 I don't think it would be allowed in this country. Mainly as the SFA already blocked a suggested name change for a club already - Stirling Albion Meerkats on the basis it was purely for financial gain. Billingham Synthonia are named after a fertiliser, produced in the local ICI chemical works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.