Talk:New York Red Bulls/Archive 1

Archive 1

Merge

DO NOT ADD BELOW. Merge discussion at Talk:MetroStars

I would support merging the MetroStars article here. youngamerican (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC) I now oppose a merge, per comments on Talk:MetroStars. youngamerican (talk) 13:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC) As do I. StarryEyes 20:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC) No way in hell. DR31 (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC) I support merging the articles.SpikeZoft 07:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC) As a Metrostars fan for 10 years, no. Never. I'll edit that crap every day. This is not the Metrostars. User:Bonbag I support merging the articles.Gutbomb 14:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC) As far as the league is concerned, the games played and goals scored by the Metrostars are Red Bull New Yorks statistical records as well, as evidenced in Red Bull New York's 2005 Stats That is an example of history re-writing at its finest. Against, all talk at Talk:MetroStars. DR31 (talk) 15:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC) I support a merge 'cause metros history is the red bulls history.

Branding

This statement stood out to me: "The purchase by Red Bull marks the first time in American sport history when a club purchased by a corporation is re-branded in that corporation's image." Shouldn't the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim (owned by Disney) have a share of this dubious honor? Wild Goose 12:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The Ducks were formed by Disney. They did not buy an existing team and change it's name.

I would still doubt its truth. I would be willing to bet this has happened before, perhaps in the early years of the National Basketball League, one of the two progenitors of the NBA (most of the NBL was corporately named, and I doubt that was true from the inception of the team in every single case). Besides, there's no citation, and WikiPedia forbids original research. Deleted. Stancollins 21:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

New York Red Bulls=Red Bull New York

This is just a nip-in-the-bud note/gripe. I've already seen an edit changing a link from Red Bull New York to New York Red Bulls. Both names are correct. My feeling is that it doesn't matter which is used, regardless of context. But, if anyone wants to edit the form used, please don't point a link to a redirect. Please point it to Red Bull New York. --Elliskev 15:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, both are correct. The club name is RBNY, but the official nickname is NYRBs. It's confusing. DR31 _(talk) 15:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that this article should be titled New York Red Bulls. That is the name of the playing club and how the team is referred to it the media. KitHutch 18:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a confusing situation; the official site says "Official site of Red Bull New York", but its about section has "About the New York Red Bulls". Both names are correct. "Red Bull New York" is a lot like "Real Salt Lake"... I think it's fine for now. Unless "New York Red Bulls" becomes exclusive. DR31 _(talk) 00:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's the note from RBNY: The team should be referred to as the “New York Red Bulls”. In addition, you may also use simply "Red Bulls.” When referencing the organization as a whole, please use "Red Bull New York." Again, this is vague; is this page about the club or the team? I say, the club. There are really few parallels in American sports, as usually (almost always?) club name = team name. DR31 _(talk) 00:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Red Bull New York is the name of the whole organization. The New York Red Bulls are the actual team. It needs to note that in the intro paragraph. It has been there before, but has to be put back every so often when someone takes it out. Therefore, I would be fine with this page redirecting to New York Red Bulls. -Martin 16 April 2007

Boycott Red Bull

Evil bastards. This isn't the first time this company has done this. --Executive.koala 10:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a soapbox, not even in the talk pages. Sorry if this is late, but just wanted this down for the future. --Kitch ^{(Talk : Contrib)} 12:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Original Name

This club was founded as the New York/New Jersey Metrostars. The "NY/NJ" was not dropped until after the 1997 season. KitHutch 17:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

template

here is the new template!!!!!

TrackMonkey 21:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

NEW MERGE (Aug. 8)

STRONG MERGE MetroStars and Red Bull New York are the same team. If you don't like the name support another team. Red Bull has officially stated that they are keeping their old history. Comedy240 00:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep apart I say keep the two articles apart, but edit down the Metrostars article. You don't need the list of coaches, GMs, team records, or other lists on the Metrostars page. KitHutch 01:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

keep apart I'm a Metrostars fan and will always be. Red Bull New York is just a team with some guys that used to play for the Metrostars. Judging from their attendance, it's dropped from over 15,000 down into the 9,000's, a lot of people agree with me. (this comment by 24.187.110.156 04:20, 9 August 2006)

Is there any precedent for either keeping them apart or putting them together. For instance, Red Bull bought an Austrian team and those team pages are merged. I tend think that they should be merged, but if there is a history of football teams or other sport teams staying apart then I am fine with keeping this way.

• SV Austria Salzburg was merged into Red Bull Salzburg
• For an off-sport example that was the first thing to pop to mind: St. Louis Browns redirects to the Baltimore Orioles. I realize this is baseball, but the Browns had 20+ years before being moved and somewhat merged with previous teams. It seems most of these teams that moved and even changed names are merged, at least in Baseball.

Remember, this isn't a matter of whether you like the new name or ownership, this is about the history of the team.

--Rballou 13:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

MERGE - The team history is the same according to everbody in the organization and MLS. Definitely should be merged. 192.160.62.60 18:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge - I agree with Rballou. It is not about the fan's opionons, it is about the facts. (64.12.116.13 00:00 , 10 August 2006)

• Keep apart - different teams.--Kwame Nkrumah 02:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

KEEP APART - I discussed the issue at length on Talk:MetroStars when the team was re-branded. I also edited the MetroStars to not contain duplicate info, you can see the example here: [1]. It was called a good compromise on Talk:MetroStars. I will repeat again: there is enough history and enough difference to keep the two pages apart. It is not what "one fan" thinks, it is the opinion of a large percentage of fans, and it's also the opinion of Red Bull, who is trying their best to erase Metro history (just visit the RBNY office if you need a clue on what they think of Metro). There is NO HARM for Wikipedia in trying to preserve Metro history with their own page. As for examples of St. Louis Browns or whatever, there's always Quebec Nordiques and Hartford Whalers, which are much more recent and much more relevant. DR31 _(talk) 18:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I have read the discussion (which according to votes was in favor of a merge) and I stand by my vote above (for the merge). I'm not voting again or trying to start yet another heated discussion, but I wanted to say we should at least link the two similiar to the Anaheim Angels page if they are to remain separate (that is an example that Dr31 mentions on that talk page as a reason to keep the teams separate). Granted, this is one of the only team pages that does this, but I think it would help avoid confusion for those people searching for information and would be a good precedent. If we are to keep the separate, their needs to be a clear link between the two.

While I think the amount of history under the name "MetroStars" doesn't warrant it's own page (most teams that have separate pages have 20+ years worth history as one team or played in vastly different leagues (the Angels for instance were mostly a minor league team)), I can also appreciate the work that Dr31 and others have put in on both pages. I do think the teams are the same and that they share history (dispite some circumstantial evidence and negative fan support which suggest otherwise) supported on several fronts including news stories, press releases, staying in the same metro area, and very few changes in roster and support staff. If the pages are kept separate, I think it will also imply that pages like SV Austria Salzburg and Red Bull Salzburg should be separated. It's clear that there isn't a decided upon precendent with buyouts, perhaps it would be amiable to make the Metrostars page a history page related to RBNY (as I suggested with the link above). Besides, when they move the Wizards, I'll vote to merge that :) --Rballou 19:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Very few changes in support staff? You gotta be kidding me. The whole front office and coaching staff is overhauled. The roster turnover from 2005 is over 50% as well, and ongoing. I'm all for making MetroStars into a history page, and I will come back from my self-imposed exhile to write a detailed history of my team. DR31 _(talk) 13:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Rballou is correct. As much respect I have for DR31, he/she (sorry don't know) does not provide a single piece of evidence why they should remain seperate. What we should do is make a MetroStars section under Red Bull New York discussing how many fans feel upset about the move. Comedy240 14:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Evidence? As I said, visit the RBNY office and see if there is anything "Metro"-related there. As far as RBNY is concerned, Metro is erased. From newyorkredbulls.com: Over 750 people registered for a free trip to Washington to see the Red Bulls' first-ever game against D.C. United. As far as I know, the MetroStars and DC played at least 45 times through the 10 years. Red Bulls acquire Jolley from FC Dallas, headline from March 2nd... RB bought Metro March 9th. They are slowly erasing Metro history, and there is no reason why Wikipedia should do the same. DR31 _(talk) 13:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I didn't say that Dr31 has no evidence whatsoever for any claim they have made. That said, "visit the RBNY office and see if there is anything 'Metro'-related there" is not evidence of anything. I appreciate what it means if the office doesn't have anything up for MetroStars, but for all I know (having never seen their office) they might only have the RB logo on a wall with no history of Metro or RB NY. Now, if there is a "RBNY history" posted on a wall or a hall of fame that somehow misses everything regarding the MetroStars, then that is evidence of something suspicious (but that could also be pretty innocent). I do think that the press release Dr31 mentions is suspicious, but I also wonder if teams like the Washington Nationals played their "first-ever" match against teams in 2005. I don't know and honestly don't want to spend time looking for it, just a general question. I do think there is a lot of "reading into things" (on the part of many who claim the two are separate teams (and maybe on the other side as well to be fair)) that are strictly the whims of a PR person in charge of the website and not the organization. To me, you can argue that the history is not being preserved or that the two should be separate on some other grounds, but not because they are "separate teams". But then again, RB could be masterminding Orwellian deletion of MetroStar history (as people have pointed out... it might not be the first time). :) --Rballou 14:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The old MetroStars office was plastered in Metro photos, colors, and memorabilia. In the days following the sale, it was all removed. Wiped out. Erased. The difference is stark. In dealing with the club before and after the sale, RBNY has gone out of their way to remove everything Metro-related from every area they touch. And note how the Washintion Nationals page is separate from Montreal Expos. The Jaguar Racing - Red Bull Racing below is as good as a Wikipedia precedent as there is for this. I'm not saying they are different teams; they might or might not be; FIFA claims that Serbia national football team = Yugoslavia national football team and Russia national football team = USSR national football team, but they are obviously not; and even if they were, it makes sense to have both pages; also see Wimbledon F.C., Milton Keynes Dons F.C., AFC Wimbledon. And if you talk to most SV Austria Salzburg supporters, they don't think that their club is the same as the re-branded RB Salzburg. All I am saying there is enough history and precedent there to keep two pages and preserve Metro history like that. I said it during the sale, I'll say it now, I'll say it every other time this issue will come up. The MetroStars existed for 10 years, and no amount of corporate money should erase that. DR31 _(talk) 17:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I do appreciate the way the Nationals/Expos pages function. Having the MetroStars page play a main article role to that part of history would be an elegant way to handle the problem. The sticking point for me (I don't know about other pro-merge users) would be to make sure there is no talk about how they are separate teams. I understand the need to point of facts for and against the new name, new ownership, possible alienation of fan base, etc. on these pages, but I still can't wrap my brain around any argument that has been added that suggests that they are two teams. Most verifiable sources on the issue claim that they will preserve MetroStars current ties, their current playing field, etc. (at least this is how it appears to me and I think several other people). The buyout just needs to be treated objectively and with good faith for Wikipedia's sake. I'm willing to work through a compromise on this issue, as I discussed above. I don't know if we should start another section on this talk page or not – I haven't been on Wikipedia long enough how to play some of this. We can do the bureaucratic thing and vote on it whether to work on a comprise or to keep the merge talks open :) I do feel that is excessive, but I just want to avoid confusion and it would be good to get Comedy240's opinion as he was the one who brought up the merge. --Rballou 22:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Absoultely. Moving the rest of the response to the bottom. DR31 _(talk) 03:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

If it was up to me I'd include a MetroStars section under Red Bull New York History where it talks about the buyout, and all the changes and fan reception in a neutral pov. I think it is very fair to acknowledge the numorous differences the team underwent when it switched ownership. Comedy240 19:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

There is precedent for keeping two pages. In F1 racing, Red Bull purchased Jaguar Racing and renamed the team Red Bull Racing. Both maintain separate pages even though they are the same team. Incidentally, Jaguar Racing was originally Stewart Grand Prix before a name change. That means one F1 team has three different pages. KitHutch 02:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. These are much better examples; and yes, the Salzburg ones should be split too. DR31 _(talk) 13:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

If Salzburg is one article it serves as a better example than Red Bull Racing because one is soccer (just like Red Bull New York is soccer) and one is racing. Salzburg is the better example and applies to the merge side. Comedy240 18:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

KEEP SEPERATE! The Metros are a totally different team with their OWN fans, many fans who were there in the beginning are now GONE. And RB has gained NEW fans. This alone should keep the pages seperate as there is a group out there totally doveted to Metro and Metro alone. RBNY is not even a REAL team its a "product" and their fans arent "fans" are "customers". Why merge that shitty ass team with a team who atleast tried to be a REAL Soccer Club? User:Metro4LIFE

Previously, I had said merge outright, and still do. For a simple reason: the team _didn't move_, unlike other North American examples given, like the Quebec Nordiques/Colorado Avalanche, meaning that a highly distinct break between the old and the new doesn't exist. And European clubs and North American franchises are very differently organized (see Professional sports league organization for a good description), so a comparison between an American team and a European one is apples and oranges.

The idea of a short MetroStars page to commemorate the teams history under that name is a little iffy, as it was only 10 years, a very short time when dealing with something as long-lived as sports teams. I expect this team to be around for a long time, especially with the new stadium coming, and very shortly the fact that it originally had a different name will be about as remembered as the New York Titans.

Also having a separate MetroStars page helps reinforce the false notion that we're talking about 2 separate teams. For the last time, THEY ARE NOT SEPARATE TEAMS!!!! The old owners, the new owners, the league, the press all agree. The only ones who seem not to are a small but vocal group. Yes, the team was sold (happens all the time in N.A. sports), and yes, it was renamed (not unheard of), and in many ways, that's a good thing. The team was ridiculously poorly run for most of its fist ten years, and the Metro name had an air of losing about it. And it was corporate, too, being named for Metromedia, the company of original owner John Kluge. So while it may be fondly remembered by some, the team, the _same_ team changed its name. That's just the way it is. oknazevad 21:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah... They didn't move, but now they are referred to as "New York", and they were never referred to as "New York" before. It's a pretty key point when discussing the team; for example; the Washington Bullets becamse the Washington Wizards in 1997. So anyone who played for the franchise pre- or post- name change, played for "Washington". Not the case here. No one pre-2006, not Tim Howard, not Clint Mathis, not Roberto Donadoni, played for "New York". They played for "MetroStars", one name, and only for "MetroStars" (except in 1996 and 1997, when the team was "NY/NJ MetroStars"). An if you don't think that's important, ask George Zoffinger of the NJSEA. DR31 _(talk) 03:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for you support and insightful argument Oknazevad Comedy240 18:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Since there will obviously be no resolution here (the vote is 5:5) and the discussion has been going on for a week, I will use the Wikipedia policy (a few extra votes will not provide a clear majority; besides, Wikipedia is not a democracy), remove the merge signs, revert the MetroStars page to where to a compormised situation that worked for both sides. I know some have strong feelings about this one way or another, but I have worked on the MetroStars and the RBNY pages more than anyone else for the past 2+ years, so as the Wikipedia "owner" of the pages, and as someone who has worked with the club before and after it sale, I feel like I am a little more qualified to make the decision here than the others. When I have a little more time, I will add detailed Metro history into the MetroStars article. Of course, anyone with enough knowledge on the subject is welcome to do the same. DR31 _(talk) 03:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

A couple of things. First, as per your response above, it wasn't uncommon to hear the MetroStars refered to as New York early on, I distinctly remember the score boxes on MSG from the day using NY as the team abbreviation. As for Zoffinger, he's just showing his last gasp at his rapidly diminishing power, what with so 3/5 of the tenants at the Meadowlands intending to move out.

And they were incorrect in doing so after 1998. DR31 _(talk) 18:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Secondly, there are no owners of Wikipedia pages. It'd fundamental Wikipedia policy and philosophy. While I greatly appreciate the work that you've done, work that only you could add because of your work with the team, I think you may be a little too close to it to see things objectively. To that end, I propose that we post this discussion as a request for feedback and see what we get from the broader wiki community. I promise to abide by whatever decision comes from that. I hope you would do the same.oknazevad 14:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. Wikipedia does have page "ownership": Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. No, it does not mean that I "own" the article, but Wikipedia is NOT a demoracy, and per policy, the opinion of someone who has worked on the article is worth more than those who haven't. "When making large scale removals of content, particularly content contributed by one editor, it is important to consider whether a desirable result could be obtained by working with the editor, instead of against him or her - regardless of whether he or she "owns" the article or not." That is what I was alluding to.

I personally think it's ridiculous for the opinion of knows very little on the subject (I am not saying that you are one, but that's what throwing it to the broader community does) should count for something in this situation. And BTW... this was thrown to a request for feedback during the original merge talk. There were no replies.

Please understand: there is a large group of people out there who do not see the MetroStars and RBNY as one and the same. And since there are still Metro -- and not RBNY -- supporters out there, this situation will always be in dispute. However; what I am proposing -- and what worked until people (well, ONE person) started to revert the page -- is a COMPROMISE solution, with the MetroStars page dealing only with the team's original name and early history and the RBNY page dealing with the rest. I see absoultely no harm in that. DR31 _(talk) 18:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It isn't the worst compromise in the world, and it does work for now at least, but I think we should remain open to revisiting this somewhere down the line. Probably not for a while though, as we should wait to see the longer-term broad consensus view to emerge, amongst not just wikipedians or even local soccer fans, but the national and world media. oknazevad 23:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

"Metro" as nickname

1.) It's not the official name of the team, and never really was
2.) It's one of the most commonly used names for the team by fans and haters alike
3.) It is possibly used as often, in fan speech, as the actual name of the team
4.) It's as much of a "nickname" as many of the others listed for MLS teams
5.) The information is important to any reader of the article, as it lists the single most common unofficial name for the team, one which is used frequently and without explanation
6.) While the text of the article mentions the former name, it doesn't explain that many fans srill use "Metro" casually

As an 11-year fan of the team, I'd say there's no doubt that this is a real and major nickname that needs to be included. Bill Oaf 21:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Arena as GM

Should Bruce Arena be listed in the GM list?

Yes, he should. He is sporting director, which is head coach/general manager. KitHutch 13:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)