Arthur Crabtree wrote:Sports teams' names are always cringeworthy apart from the ones that have some historic thread, typically the old seventies rugby league names aren't too bad, that point to the works teams that spawned them. Names that evoke climate extremes or combat are better ignored. And usually are- T20 names are normally tactfully overlooked.
I am not overtly fond of these Franchise names in sports, but at least in the NFL for instance the vast majority of teams tap into a regional identity for their name. Even in cricket, something like "Kent Spitfires" at least provides some link, some reasoning. Spitting out cliche nonsense like "braves", "invincibles" and "rockets" makes the whole thing sound like it is a cricket version of Roy of the Rovers.
If they were looking to engage people who need convincing towards the brand and get them involved, then the branding couldnt have been worse. Its atrocious. It looks cheap, nasty and thoughtless. The kits are terrible. Orange and red random squares? Two shades of green with a navy blue, and a quarter of the shirt randomly chequered? One is lion printed in toxic yellow and pink if memory serves. They look horrendous. All the club badges are the same colour of monotone black and white. There is no character at all. Its like an 8 year old produced it all as part of a school project.
And why not just name the places after the venue towns? They for instance changed Leeds to Northern at the last minute, but do people in the "north" like our Durham boys get attached to a team 80 miles away just because its called "north"? Or is it more likely you call it Leeds team, in a town of nearly a million odd people, and get better interest from that area? Because my guess is, the success of the franchise is going to be largely based on people next to the stadium, I doubt many people are driving down to Leeds from Newcastle for an evening match in the week.