Posted by John Gerrr at 3/21/08 2:35 p.m.

Our athletic teams are a representation of our unique community, not some global trust. Imagine how lame it will be at games chanting, "Go FC! Go FC!". And imagine if we are playing another FC team. How confusing to the players that would be!

Posted by tallguy at 3/21/08 2:36 p.m.

We, the Emerald City Supporters, lament the fact that the new Seattle MLS team will not carry the "Sounders" name. We feel that the name is entwined with the soccer "soul" of the region. It is a representation of the Puget Sound area and an expression of Seattle's imprint on the world's game. Furthermore, we feel that it is by recognizing the past that helps move us toward the future. When Seattle MLS asked for team name suggestions after the expansion announcement, 60% and more of the respondents wanted some form of the "Sounders" name. If the team name vote is to be the decision of the fans, why is "Sounders" not on the list?

While we will support the new team regardless of name, we will also still lobby the front office to officially change the name to "Seattle Sounders." Please join us and let the front office know your position as well. If the Fans and Supporters are loud enough, the hope is the front office will come to share in our dream- Seattle Sounders, MLSCup Champions!!!

Thank you.

Posted by tim_p at 3/21/08 2:55 p.m.

I feel the businessmen are too worried about making the equation perfect for a successful soccer team in Seattle. Soccer is steeped in tradition and I think our heritage is already labeled here in WA as the "Seattle Sounders". If the governing body and business leaders want to create new beginnings they have to do worlds better than the lame ideas they have come up with already.

Posted by goldengod at 3/21/08 3:25 p.m.

yes they are worried about merch being sold.....They should worry about the fans who put deposits season tickets. Seattle Sounders!!!

Posted by unregistered user at 3/21/08 3:28 p.m.

I'm not a soccer fan, but I was when I was a kid, and I definitely think they should be called the Sounders.

And since I'm NOT a fan, I have no idea why we'd want to be "FC". In this state (and many others) FC is the abbreviation for a health insurance administrator. And "Seattle Alliance" makes me picture a pureed banana, and "Seattle Republic" makes me think of a 1980's Patrick Swayze movie...the one where they were yelling "WOLVERINES" all the time.

"Sounders" is the only decent choice.

Posted by unregistered user at 3/21/08 4:34 p.m.

Don't these people know that online polls to choose a team name have always been a bad idea?

Real Salt Lake?
Houston 1836?

Surely the fans' submissions for a team name on MLS Seattle's web site were better than this? My submission of 'Seattle Metropolitans' was leagues better than any of the ones we have to choose from right now.

Posted by RyanH at 3/21/08 4:38 p.m.

On the other hand, John, Seattle FC really puts the emphasis on Seattle. I kind of like that. (Although, I'm one of many who prefers Sounders.)

Either way, this will be the first team I've ever held season tickets for so I'm excited and will be happy with just about any name.

Posted by goodcop at 3/21/08 4:48 p.m.

I dislike the name "sounders" so much that I'll withdraw or won't pay for the season tickets I put a deposit in for. I'm not trolling, I hate that name. I read a lot of the posts here where people would talk about the "creativity" of the three choices then they'd trot out that tired old hag of a name "sounders". Call em the seattle smack addicts for all I care, just not sounders!

Posted by unregistered user at 3/21/08 5:01 p.m.

Sounders.

Posted by Will in Seattle at 3/21/08 5:12 p.m.

I still say Seattle Green River Killers.

But Seattle FC will do.

Posted by DoritosRock at 3/21/08 5:29 p.m.

I will be voting with my Wallet

Go Sounders

Posted by unregistered user at 3/21/08 5:39 p.m.

Seattle FC it shall be. I'm fine with that. It allows people who love the Sounders to keep their Sounders traditions, songs, etc and it is not confusing at all. When Seattle FC plays Toronto FC they will be refered to as Seattle and Toronto, you know, kinda like West Ham and Liverpool.

Novel idea that.
We dont need no stinking nickname added on, we have Sounders as our nickname. We dont need a silly mascot either. Soccer is for kids F.ootball C.lubs are for adults.

Posted by unregistered user at 3/21/08 5:52 p.m.

I am a fan of SOUNDERS. But I am cool with Seattle FC also, like RyanH said it does put the emphasis on Seattle.

Posted by J.P. Patches Pal at 3/21/08 6:02 p.m.

Since soccer leagues have a short shelf life in the USA, I see no problem with reusing the name "Sounders" each time the city gets a franchise in a new league.

Posted by Specialz at 3/21/08 6:14 p.m.

Seattle FC is the best name out there. The Seattle sockeyes sounds like rookie league baseball team. FC has been around um since late 1800's so its the most traditional name. The sounders, I thought was a train from Tacoma to Seattle. I like the new direction of the club and will fully support the SFC. And to all the whiners out there lets just give them the nickname of sounders. Who thought of Seattle Reign? That was from a folded womens pro basketball team. So no thank you. Stop with these lame names and keep FC going.

Posted by unregistered user at 3/21/08 6:15 p.m.

Since JP Patches Pal has no idea about the stability and longevity of MLS his suggestion should be null and void.

In short there has never been a soccer league in the US that:

a) Built and owned its own stadiums
b) Got paid broadcasting rights fees
c) Did well in regional international club competitions, winning them on several occassions.
d) Had the financial backing of billionares
e) Had clubs that turned a profit.

MLS has done all of the above in its short 13 year existance.
Now go here and educate yourself JP:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Soccer

Posted by unregistered user at 3/21/08 6:39 p.m.

I don't get it. What does FC stand for?

Posted by unregistered user at 3/21/08 6:53 p.m.

The Chicago 'FIRE', San Jose 'EARTHQUAKES', Columbus 'CREW'(miners), New England 'REVOLUTION', these are all names that equate to the area the team plays in. The 'SOUNDERS' is totally fine to be Seattle's name still.

Why does anyone outside of Washington care what are name is? Why do we have to appeal globally???

Now we're gonna end up with something stupid like 'REPUBLIC' and beat the K.C. WIZARDS out as the stupidest name ever.

Posted by unregistered user at 3/21/08 6:54 p.m.

Football Club

Posted by unregistered user at 3/21/08 7:27 p.m.

It's a new team getting a fresh start in a league which will hopefully endure. This name is not our nickname, just the moniker on a crest, or how the club will be listed in the standings. So to start, let's keep it simple, Seattle (FC).

As for the nickname, let it truly evolve from the supporters. No one can stop our songs, our cheers or our chants. Be it Sounders or United or Steelheads or whatever, may the best chorus prevail.

Posted by lite at 3/21/08 7:42 p.m.

Seattle Rain.

Need I say more? Ok, I will: it's short, simple, powerful, and it embodies the region perfectly! I think we should take pride in what we are known for the world over.

Posted by J.P. Patches Pal at 3/21/08 9:43 p.m.

Posted by unregistered user at 3/21/08 6:15 p.m.

Since JP Patches Pal has no idea about the stability and longevity of MLS his suggestion should be null and void.

In short there has never been a soccer league in the US that:

a) Built and owned its own stadiums
b) Got paid broadcasting rights fees
c) Did well in regional international club competitions, winning them on several occassions.
d) Had the financial backing of billionares
e) Had clubs that turned a profit.

MLS has done all of the above in its short 13 year existance.
Now go here and educate yourself JP:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Soccer

--------------------------------

Speaking of education, the word is spelled e-x-i-s-t-e-n-c-e.

Hey, I loved soccer when I was a kid. I was there at the Kingdome when Pelé and the New York Cosmos played the Sounders, but let's face the facts: without huge sponsorship deals or a major television contract (broadcast, not cable), American soccer leagues are on shaky financial ground.

Posted by unregistered user at 3/21/08 9:53 p.m.

Seattle Rain.

Need I say more? Ok, I will: it's short, simple, powerful, and it embodies the region perfectly! I think we should take pride in what we are known for the world over.

Women's "Professional" Basketball Team Name - Seattle Rain

Need i say more? NO! No two teams will have the same name.

As for Seattle FC, it is an awesome name. Same as Liverpool FC and Chelsea FC etc... they are called the reds the blues by their fans (original i know, but hey it was over 100 years ago...) so keep the tradition and be the greens? ;)

seriously it doesnt matter what out name is as long as we have awesome chants and we the fans will really choose our team nickname. so instead of whining about how the name you want didnt get on the list make up some sick chants about the team and call it whatever you want. the sounders or whatever [better] name you come up with, if it fits it will stick. so please stop whining and vote Seattle FC already.

Posted by unregistered user at 3/21/08 10:59 p.m.

Speaking of education, the word is spelled e-x-i-s-t-e-n-c-e.

Hey, I loved soccer when I was a kid. I was there at the Kingdome when Pelé and the New York Cosmos played the Sounders, but let's face the facts: without huge sponsorship deals or a major television contract (broadcast, not cable), American soccer leagues are on shaky financial ground.

---------------------------

Who cares how I spelled it, you know what was meant.

The point is you don't really know much about MLS:

"let's face the facts: without huge sponsorship deals"

You mean like the 150 million Adidas kicks in? Or perhaps you mean the $1-5 million a year for sponsoring the front of one team's jersey.

Or maybe it's the $25 million in naming rights for many of the new stadiums that are going up.

Or no, maybe its the fact that if you want to buy into Major League Soccer you must be a billionaire and willing to pay $30-40 for a team.

"or a major television contract (broadcast, not cable), American soccer leagues are on shaky financial ground."

The trend in all sports in America is that they are moving OFF of broadcast TV to cable. The fees paid are the same for the two nowdays. Have you lived in a cave since the 70s? MLS is not and has not been on "shaky" financial ground for 2, perhaps 3 years. 2006 was a turning point where profits started to come in.

You know, profit, something the NASL and USL lack(ed).

In case you didn't know MLS receives rights fees from ABC, Univision/Telefutura all of which are broadcast channels. Not to mention most MLS markets broadcast the games. Houston for example has Channel 55 as their local channel.

Again, MLS is miles beyond where the NASL was even at its peak. The NASL had to actually teach people how the game was played and so on. Now most of us grew up playing the game.

You're too old and burnt out from the NASL falling apart to see it though.

Like i said, do some reading on the league on wikipedia and in the American Soccer History Archives:

http://www.sover.net/~spectrum/

Posted by unregistered user at 3/21/08 11:05 p.m.

MLS Seattle says it wishes to give "power to the people." Then why accept their three below average names?

Sounders. The best and only choice.

Posted by Specialz at 3/21/08 11:58 p.m.

MLS turned down the sounders name! Not mlsinseattle. MLS wants to get rid of the silly names that are in the MLS and good, Sounders would have fit with the likes of the wiz, burn, fire, and all the others. I wish MLS would change all the lame names. Lets be classy and be FC.

Posted by unregistered user at 3/22/08 3:11 a.m.

I like Sounders. I don't like any of the ballot names. They are inexplicably lackluster, generic and pedestrian and this whole "name the team" will backfire since the base is very pro-Sounders. Why start out with a big flap with the fans on the name by taunting them with a "fixed" vote? Dumb. The vote has been labeled as "Democracy in Sports" by the team -- so why start by eliminating a legacy popular with fans as a ballot option? If the intent of the vote is to see what fans want, why not let them vote Sounders off it they don't want it? Holy Smokes, the Sounders name IS soccer in Seattle. And the league thinks we need something new? Goofy. The ballot really isn't a chance for fans to vote freely, but rather to ratify the club's plan of extinction of Sounders and the selection of a boring non-Seattle-specific name. That's not democracy. (Later, they say we'll get to vote on the GM -- wonder how that vote will be "fixed?") There already was an FC Seattle, so how is Seattle FC new? Why not name the team Seattle team as Dallas FC or FC Toronto? Those would be new unique names. If the league is Major League SOCCER, why do they name teams as "Football" Clubs? And why would they want 3 of them? Goofy. Count on this . . . the future of this team will begin with sizable griping and protest from fans about a non-Sounders name. Listen for the "Sounders" chants at every game. Really, do they think that if they name the team Sounders that that will turn people off? Are they nuts? The team will start off it's new "legacy" by hosting this fraud of a vote and alienating fans with this arogant approach. There is a reason that this league has been so stupid as to not tap into Seattle for a decade, and now we see it in action. The comments from the MLS chief that, "While we should celebrate the past, we believe the MLS Seattle team should be about where we are headed tomorrow and help position the club globally." is about as nebulous and goofy as I've ever heard. How can you say we should celebrate the past -- and then completely discount that in the same sentence? Just how does a name help position the team globally? What does that mean? For example, how do, for example, Hot Spurs or United or FC position a team? Isn't it the play on the field that positions a team? The team needs to add Sounders to its ballot. If it gets voted out, then it WILL be the fans that name the team. Without Sounders on the ballot, the fans will only be pawns in a fixed vote. That is not democracy.

Posted by unregistered user at 3/22/08 3:12 a.m.

Notice below how Sounders name is praised, and then rejected immediately. Both mention the need to be "global:" what does that mean in regard to the name? Where are we "headed" and how does the name affect that? If the Sounder name is worth praise to start these sentences, then aren't they acknowledging the appropriateness of the name? Wouldn't it make more sense in those sentences, to say the Sounder name is bogus and THAT's why we need to change it, if in fact that is the point? These statements are ambiguous and give rise to a real question about the motives behind the extinction of Sounders.

Part-owner and general manager Adrian Hanauer: ""I love the Sounders brand and the Sounders history. ... That will always be a part of Seattle soccer. ... This is a new team in a new league and we want to start fresh. ... This is a good opportunity for our fans to choose our name. We want to start a new tradition and a new direction and we'd like our name to reflect our attempt to have a global connection on and off the field"

MLS Commissioner Don Garber: "I have great respect for the Sounders and the club's history. While we should celebrate the past, we believe the MLS Seattle team should be about where they are headed tomorrow and help position the club globally."

Posted by lite at 3/22/08 3:21 a.m.

#110690, Actually the women's Bball team was Seattle Reign, but you're right, I didnt do my research ahead of time, so Rain is an instant NO.

I am glad they stuck with the unspoken trend of choosing soccer team names that concepts and not some creature or object in plural form (including Sounders, sorry). FC is definitely my fave, but what about something like Seattle Sound? It's a refreshed version of Sounders and perhaps could be a worthy compromise?

Posted by unregistered user at 3/22/08 3:34 a.m.

Seattle FC lovers:

Be mindful that even though "FC" has it's own storied past, it is also continually belittled in opponent stadiums by some bonehead's poster that says, for example, "Seattle F*C*." We saw that happen right here at Qwest last year when Dallas was the opponent.

Don't encourage them by naming the team "FC." You're just asking for this continual dirty mocking.

Posted by unregistered user at 3/22/08 3:47 a.m.

I'm really rethinking my MLS deposit. If this is the type of "democratic" voting they are giving us, what kind of flim-flam will the touted 4-year GM vote be? I think I might just get my deposit back and forgo MLS if Sounders is so unceremoneously de-selected prior to the vote by MLS honcos. It's a huge cheat to say you want the fans to vote and then don't let them vote on the legacy name. That makes this "democracy in sports" a total hypocracy. The fans aren't really voting on names, just ratifying names already selected by MLS. Only more of this charade to come from MLS, says I. Not a favorable start to trick the fans right out of the gate with this promise of a vote, but not really have one. Given that MLS frankly is not that great of a brand of soccer (not even close to ol' NASL), it wouldn't be such a jolt to skip MLS. Heck, Sounders USL-1 beat many MLS teams -- they just aren't that good.

Posted by NDSeahawker at 3/22/08 7:48 a.m.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but when the original Sounders (NASL) folded, other soccer teams emerged, with names like "FC Seattle" and "Storm". They failed, and like the great Pheonix, the name SOUNDERS was ressurected. Sounds to me like history is about to repeat itself...

Posted by jray at 3/22/08 8:40 a.m.

When the crowd starts chanting "SOUNN-DEERRRRS!" it doesn't matter what's on the shirt.

Posted by sgt.hartman at 3/22/08 9:06 a.m.

SEATTLE SIEGE!!

Posted by CascadiaNationalist at 3/22/08 9:53 a.m.

Apparently, the PR meisters at the front office are trying to add insult to injury.

http://mlsinseattle.com/article.aspx?id=1096

"The Seattle club's founding fathers–Joe Roth, Adrian Hanauer, Paul Allen and Carey–have settled on the three finalists, which will be unveiled Mar. 25, and may or may not include a name you're fond of.

If not, get over it. And vote.

This is democracy. This process promises to be emotional. The club has taken every effort to make sure it is fair and transparent, yet democracy, like comedy, is not always pretty.

If you feel passionate for one finalist or against another, please feel free to climb atop the soapbox and expand an Insta-bench for your followers on any street corner. Take the debate online or up to the bar. State your case. Only refrain from spamming."

Get over it?!

Posted by unregistered user at 3/22/08 10:17 a.m.

SEATTLE SOUNDERS NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by unregistered user at 3/22/08 12:11 p.m.

The point of whether or not people want sounders is irrelevant. Unless the current incarnation of Seattle Sounders (the USL-1 club) decides to sell the rights to the name, MLS is SOL. It would be illegal to name the team that without first purchasing the rights to it. And considering that the Sounders are the defending USL-1 champs, I doubt they'll be interested in a rebrand very soon. Hence, MLS' club in Seattle will only be sounders if 1, the current club with the sounders name folds; or 2, if the current club sells the rights to the name. Doubtful that would happen; although if they did, and forged some sort of partnership, Seattle would have the best development program in MLS. If that happened, I would predict their winning an MLS cup within 5 years. if not sooner. Bottom line, in Dallas they don't shout go FC, they shout go hoops. In toronto, they shout go reds. Fans make the team, not marketing execs and league bigwigs. Remember that.

Posted by unregistered user at 3/22/08 1:22 p.m.

Get over it huh?

O.k. no problem I will be withdrawing my deposit a.s.a.p.

What a bunch of clowns.

Posted by unregistered user at 3/22/08 1:24 p.m.

@#110723

If you think F*C* is either original or the only cussing at a "soccer" game you are sorely mistaken. Its the spirit of soccer to get drunk and insult the other team, their players , and where they come from. As well as cheering and chanting about your own teams players and team. When you chant and sing about our team, we will not always chant about Seattle FC or SFC, but we can and will but we can also make up our own nickname. So be original and create your own nickname for SFC make a chat out of it and if its popular people will catch on and that what everyone will know us by.

Just so everyone knows, it is not possible, nor desired, for the Seattle FC to be called the Seattle Sounders. Please lets get past this mascotted past and name our team something respectable, call us what we are, the Seattle FC. With a name like Seattle FC we, the fans, can name them whatever we want.

-Treefingers

Posted by unregistered user at 3/22/08 1:32 p.m.

The "democracy" campaign is a smutty joke.

Even though Seattle Republic, Seattle Alliance and the "nickname-will-develop-through-the people" FC are all dipping thematically into democracy, the options are narrowed down to "choices" that are not intended to be any. The "democratic process" of their suggest-a-name campaign was eventually cut out, and the war cries for the Sounders moniker were neglected. Seattle Alliance was apparently force fed by Garber, and "FC" is just the other cookie cutter solution that MLS uses to name their franchises. And Republic is just so ridiculous that it is practically ineligible – especially in the democrats' turf Seattle and the North West, and especially having the current US presidential campaigns in mind. Not to mention their behaviour with the fans of the Sounders moniker after their decision not to put Seattle Sounders on the ballot…

MLS is going to get what they want: Either Alliance or their next FC. This is no democracy; this is putinism in all its sarcastic arrogance!

But alas, we'll eventually have to live with it. Thus I'm not crying havoc, but calling to vote for Seattle FC, so we can at least continue to call them Sounders unofficially – and maybe even evoke an "earthquake" like San Jose in 1999. Some argue that we could do that anyways, but voting for a different moniker sends the wrong message to the FO and the public: That you'd have finally given up on the Sounders!

Posted by mmbb at 3/22/08 4:28 p.m.

Seattle FC? *yawn*

I propose that we also rename the Sonics (for however much longer they're in town for) as the Seattle Basketball Team, the Mariners as the Seattle Baseball Team, and the Seahawks as the Seattle American Football Club.

Posted by unregistered user at 3/23/08 12:47 a.m.

FC doesn't mean anything but Football Club... It isn't a nickname and doesn't preclude the fans from naming the team anything they want, heck even multiple nicknames that all stick and grow with the team.

examples from england.
West Ham United FC... "Irons", "Hammers", "The Academy of Football"
Manchester United FC... "Red Devils"
Leicester City FC... "Foxes", "Filberts", "Fosse"
Nottingham Forest FC.. "Reds", "Forest", "Tricky Trees", "Garibaldis"
Arsenal FC.. "Gunners"
Aston Villa FC.. "Villians", "Lions", "The Villa"
Leeds United AFC.. "Whites", "United", "Peacocks"
Tottenham Hotspur FC.. "Spurs", "Lily Whites"
Middlesbrough FC.. "The Boro"
Newcastle United FC..."Magpies", "Geordies"
Everton FC.. "Toffees", "Blues", "The People's Club", "The School of Science"
Coventry City FC.. "Sky Blues", "Bantams", "Singers"
Chelsea FC.. "Blues", "Pensioners"
Manchester City FC.. "Citizens", "Blues", "City"

so your Seattle FC can be damned anything the fans pick up on and grow with. They can still be the Sounders, and the Rain, and the "anything you wants"

Posted by unregistered user at 3/23/08 1:15 a.m.

From other North American Sports here are 2 examples...

baseball: Cincinnati Reds....
started life as the Cincinnati Base Ball Club, wearing Red socks.. they eventually picked up the nickname the "Red Stockings", from fans... as you see the nickname became the teams name and was truncated to Reds.

hockey: Ottawa Senators..
started life as the Ottawa Hockey Club, and earned the following nicknames from fans, "Generals", "THe Silver Seven", and "Senators"... having both the nicknames "Silver Seven" and "Senators" at the same time in the early 1900s. Officially the club eventually became "Ottawa Senators HC"

its not a foreign concept that fans name the teams over time in North America.... it's a dying one though, with franchising and the want to impact with a catchy brand right away. With franchising also comes the ideas of teams moving away for greener pastures and new stadium deals, now true enough this MLS team will also be a franchise.. but don't get stuck with some trivial horrible name shoved down your throat. But it come with no nickname, let time and the fans decide... it will be much more your club then.

Posted by unregistered user at 3/23/08 1:17 a.m.

"But it come with no nickname, let time and the fans decide... it will be much more your club then."

should read... "Best it come with no nickname, let time and the fans decide... it will be much more your club then."

Posted by unregistered user at 3/23/08 1:47 a.m.

The real story is that the majority of fans want Seattle Sounders as the name, and the owners/league will not put it on the ballot so we can vote for it.

An intrepid PI reporter should get to the bottom of this. What are the owners true intentions? Why do they feel they can get away with ignoring what the fans want? I'd love to see a story in the Monday edition.

Posted by unregistered user at 3/23/08 9:12 a.m.

unfortunately, they cannot put it on the ballot if the name is not for sale. the name is currently owned. Unless they are able to buy the name, they CANNOT name the team that, meaning they cannot put it on the ballot.

Posted by unregistered user at 3/23/08 9:17 a.m.

How 'bout the Tree Huggers?

Posted by unregistered user at 3/23/08 10:39 a.m.

Since Adrian Hanauer is both part-owner of the MLS team and majority owner of the USL team, I don't think there is a problem transferring the name to MLS.

The current excuse they are shoveling is that the Seattle Sounders trademark is currently unfiled, so that makes it "dangerous" to use. I contend that they can still file the Seattle Sounders trademark just as they did in the past. And they can easily defend it (against what challengers?) as they have consistently used the trademark for the past 15 seasons.

Posted by sgt.hartman at 3/23/08 7:45 p.m.

My Dad had a great idea. We should go with the Seattle Sooners since Oklahoma will soon be getting our Sonics. Fair is fair.

Posted by unregistered user at 3/23/08 8:31 p.m.

"Posted by Specialz at 3/21/08 11:58 p.m.

MLS turned down the sounders name! Not mlsinseattle. MLS wants to get rid of the silly names that are in the MLS and good, Sounders would have fit with the likes of the wiz, burn, fire, and all the others. I wish MLS would change all the lame names. Lets be classy and be FC."

I call BS on that one. MLS is an American soccer league, not British. Sounders is miles ahead of Burn, Wiz and the other crap MLS names, and also miles ahead of the "poser" European wannabe names. Vote for Seattle FC, and then ring the rafters opening night with the Sounders. Maybe the owners will get the hint.

Posted by unregistered user at 3/23/08 9:48 p.m.

"I call BS on that one. MLS is an American soccer league, not British. Sounders is miles ahead of Burn, Wiz and the other crap MLS names, and also miles ahead of the "poser" European wannabe names. Vote for Seattle FC, and then ring the rafters opening night with the Sounders. Maybe the owners will get the hint."

When will people understand the idea of nicknames as opposed to team names? The owners got the hint, they wanted to pick Sounders but MLS doesnt want mascotted team names. In terms of football what league is the best league? the highest paid league? the most watched league? yeah thats right the Barclays Premiere League. who wouldnt want to try and emulate the greatest? Get over the fact that lame names like Sounders and Rapids and Dynamo are childish and dont speak volumes about how serious we are about our football franchise. Seattle FC describes us and we need to stop whining about how we need to be named the Sounders, its not going to happen. In the words or our owner "get over it". I really dont care if our nickname is sounders but as a team name is not what we need.

Posted by unregistered user at 3/24/08 2:49 a.m.

Oh, no! Nicknames aren't European! I guess Rangers, Celtic, Bolton Wanderers, Blackburn Rovers, and Tottenham Hotspur will have to change their official names to things like "North London FC" now. My team is FC Dallas, which by the way is not English at all since FC stands for "Futbol Club." Dallas has a great Hispanic flair to its culture, so the FC Dallas moniker is much better than the old "Burn" name. Go with Sounders. It's tradition and culture, plus it's not boring like "City Soccer/Football/Sport Club."

Posted by unregistered user at 3/24/08 12:06 p.m.

My suggestions for other exceptionally bland team names:
Seattle Soccer Players
Seattle Kickers
Seattle Professional Athletes
Seattle Eleven
Seattle Nondescript Conglomeration of Athletic Individuals

Posted by unregistered user at 3/24/08 1:10 p.m.

Oh, no! Nicknames aren't European! I guess Rangers, Celtic, Bolton Wanderers, Blackburn Rovers, and Tottenham Hotspur will have to change their official names to things like "North London FC" now. My team is FC Dallas, which by the way is not English at all since FC stands for "Futbol Club." Dallas has a great Hispanic flair to its culture, so the FC Dallas moniker is much better than the old "Burn" name. Go with Sounders. It's tradition and culture, plus it's not boring like "City Soccer/Football/Sport Club."

Who are you making reference to? I dont think anyone here saying nicknames are bad. Everyone has been praising nicknames. But your comment on how we should "go with sounders" shows your lack of knowledge about our situation in Seattle and your lack of ability to read this forum. MLSinSeattle is not allowed to use Sounders. Simple as that. Secondly ill have you know that originally Tottenham was originally known as Hotspur F.C. and then they changed their name to Tottenham Hotspur F.C. keeping Hotspur as tradition. As for the Bolton Wanderers F.C. when was the last time they won anything besides being League Cup Runner-up 1960? Then there's the Blackburn Rovers F.C., they had to have two names because when they were founded there were 2 Blackburn teams, them and Blackburn Park Road F.C. (both founded in 1875). Obviously you cant have two "Blackburn F.C." teams. I dont get your mentioning of Celtic F.C. or Rangers F.C. as they are both from Glasgow, Scotland and would need to have differing names...

Posted by unregistered user at 3/28/08 7:43 p.m.

We got our chance with the write in.
The people will speak for the Sounders....hopefully.
I have been rooting for Sounder's soccer for almost 30 years now. Not really looking to start rooting for a football club that plays soccer.

Posted by unregistered user at 7/20/08 12:39 p.m.

I am a talented player who really want to join your academy.my email address is ziblimjoel@yahoo.com hope to hear from u soon