Comments on: Fans and supporters: Maintaining perspective on the Cascadia Cup conflict

By: genemerrill

genemerrill — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 03:47:36 +0000

What is the purpose/theme/point of this article? I would suspect any of us following this issue with “minute-to-minute intensity” would file this under simple link-baiting and move on. You add no original thoughts to the conversation; rather you offer frustrating I-can-understand-both-sides vagueness with no references to any specific points from either side. In the comments you go one step further in your mobius strip of analysis with the bold declaration “MLS has some points (at least from their point of view)”.

I’m not familiar with you or your writing so I will hold off on pronouncing judgement until I collect a larger sample size. But I would hope you would take the time to at least read the supporter websites (along with brushing up on trademark law and usage) before you attempt to add your voice to the myriad currently discussing this issue online.

By: corgster

corgster — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 03:13:56 +0000

You realize this is a non-league sanctioned competition. It is as simple as three fans using the table to determine bragging rights. The attention of MLS is irrelevant to the history and basis for the competition. It uses MLS only as the backdrop for the fan rivalry.

By: SD1 Timbers Special Forces

SD1 Timbers Special Forces — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 21:04:03 +0000

Unless you live you here, you don’t have enough information for emotional context. Don’t apply your values to Cascadia. If you don’t “get it” well, you’re obviously not from Cascadia. For those who don’t live here, you should read this.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/zachslaton/2013/01/24/honest-discussion-required-in-cascadia-cup-discussions/

By: crossmlk

crossmlk — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 19:21:38 +0000

I get it. The cup was created by fans of the three teams before MLS existed. It has special meaning to those who created it. But and this is where MLS has a stake, you’re using MLS matches to determine the winner of the cup. Therefore MLS has a stake albeit not as strong of one as the supporters groups. Common ground is available and needs to be found.

By: corgster

corgster — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 17:21:15 +0000

This “perspective” piece is trying to understand the scale of the groups involved and is only ancillary to the actual standard it could create if MLS does get complete trademark control over the phrase “Cascadia Cup”. That discussion is not present here. I’m not sure how you can divorce the organization of a supporter’s group from the fan base inside a stadium. I see the logic that all TA are Timbers fans and not all Timbers fans are TA. However, all Timbers fans are not interested in this outcome? That is a bridge too far.

Lets get some perspective. Question: MLS can appropriate any message or phrase used within the walls of MLS competition no matter the size? I’m not sure fans would be comfortable with that. “Be Massive” could be trademarked because in the logic of MLS: “To prevent the monetizing of a trademark that would not be in MLS’ interest.” You do not seek trademarks unless you were going to MONETIZE it. The fans never sought a trademark because they didn’t expect to ever monetize it. They have a stated integrity to keep the Cup a fan based trophy in the Northwest with no corporate trappings that American sports fans loathe but have come to expect.

Also, trademarks are not like internet addresses. You don’t squat on them, they must be used in order to assert the legal claim to it. MLS is trying to take a phrase and use it for monetary gain. Not only out of paternal attitude (because that is an effect) but to clearly make money on it. “Be Massive” would be torn from Nordecke supporters because it is used in MLS competition for the Columbus Crew. That is some powerful legal claim if it were true. That is a perspective.

By: SD1 Timbers Special Forces

SD1 Timbers Special Forces — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 13:14:11 +0000

This is bigger than the MLS, this is bigger than Soccer.

This is about our special part of the West Coast we regionally call Cascadia. The Cascadian flag flies next the U.S., and either the Canadian flag or the Oregon flag at every Cascadian match. Lots of people, not just supporters, attending games at all three understand that the term is identified as “our” region and take offense at having the term taken from them. You will find a much deeper and broader sympathy for the idea of Cascadia in regular fans than almost any other aspect of playing Soccer. This touched a real nerve in the people in this region.

It’s bigger than just supporters of Soccer teams. It’s as big as Cascadia.

By: claykavalier

claykavalier — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 02:30:30 +0000

The sunshiny happy face was supposed to be point 8.

By: claykavalier

claykavalier — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 02:29:34 +0000

The facts are these:

1) The teams predate MLS
2) The supporters groups predate MLS
3) The Cascadia Cup predates MLS
4) The supporters groups created, paid for, and care for, the Cascadia Cup
5) MLS filed a trademark application in Canada without consulting with the supporters groups
6) MLS continues to use language asserting their right to trademark the Cascadia Cup which, as noted in points 3 and 4, they did not create or pay for
7) The Timbers Army (I can’t speak of Emerald City Supporters or Southsiders) is open to any fan who wants to participate.
8) The 107st Independent Supporters Trust funds, through membership and merchandise sales and, someone correct me if I’m wrong, a portion of Timbers Army section ticket sales, exactly the kind of atmosphere and game day experience that MLS is seeking to co-opt, monetize, and profit from. 107st makes away game travel arrangements, organizes community volunteering and charitable efforts, designs and creates merchandise and tifo, etc.
9) There are a variety of fans of each team that participate in supporting those teams to varying degrees and in different ways. Not every fan appreciates the level of dedication and passion brought to the matches by the supporters groups, but it is the environment created by the supporters groups that is going to grow the league.
10) It doesn’t matter what MLS’ dubious intentions are. They have no right. Hopefully that will be recognized legally, though the principle seems obvious in light of aforementioned facts 1-4.

Thank you. Drive thru.

By: Richard Farley

Richard Farley — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 01:59:30 +0000

I actually agree. I think what the post is trying to imply is that CCC can be seen as representing those who have official memberships in the groups under their umbrella; however, I can see how others see those groups as representing their non-paying views, which I tried to include a few sentences regarding similarly “aligned’ fans.

By: mpacific

mpacific — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 01:59:09 +0000

How you frame the story is your choice. Let’s pretend that your figure of 3,000 is at all accurate (which it’s not). Is it ok that the MLS is trying to strong-arm and screw 3,000 fans? Is that better than 20,000? 3 or 300,000, the narrative is the same: MLS is trying to lay claim to something they have no rights to and is trying to cash in on the supporters’ hard work.

By: spmcgraw

spmcgraw — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 01:56:38 +0000

Richard while I understand that you’re in agreeance with those of us in the Northwest I think that you still leave out some “supporters” by limiting yourself to those who pay dues to the trusts. I am not a member of the 107ist and therefore not a supporter based off your description. I follow news daily and am consistently reading articles about the Timbers and MLS in general. I, too, am passionate about the Cascadia Cup staying in the hands of those who created it. While I understand where you are coming from I just don’t think it’s fair to dismiss supporters who may not be members of the trusts.

By: Richard Farley

Richard Farley — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 01:41:58 +0000

Thanks. Please take a look at the pice linked at “Cascadia Cup controversy,” above. I didn’t want to repeat any of that. That fully outlines where I stand on this. They were fleshed out there, so I didn’t want to be redundant; however, if you just jump in at this post, it’s going to look … out of context, ironically. To a certain extent, that’s blogging.

And thanks for engaging, not raging.

By: Richard Farley

Richard Farley — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 01:40:35 +0000

I understand what you’re saying, but in a precious piece on this site, I wrote re: Garber’s comments last Thursday:

“It’s a compelling point, but the fact remains: The supporters in the northwest created the trophy. Major League Soccer may be better equipped to manage the brand, but it’s not theirs. With the recent creation of the Cascadia Cup Council — an umbrella organization that’s also seeking the U.S. and Canadian trademarks — fans finally have a singular entity that can make their ownership claim.”

This piece is more about perception. The way that we (myself, others) have depicted the disagreement to this point makes is seem the 80,000 (attendance #) who go to the three team’s games are up in arms and taking it to the streets and …

… and it’s not. The people directly represented by the CCC (the actual members) are number smaller.

Does that matter, in terms of the actual trademark case? No. That’s why those last two paragraphs are there.

It does matter in terms of how people like me frame the story.

By: theaxepdx

theaxepdx — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 01:39:50 +0000

i would suggest there is a greater number of offended individuals than the 6-8 that have posted. until this conversation, i really had no idea where you stood on the debate. and, as frustrated as i may have been/am by the articles, i try to be constructive in my conversations in order to obtain a better understanding of other positions. personally, i would have preferred to see you flesh out your arguments and express your position more clearly.

cheers.

By: themightythor666

themightythor666 — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 01:29:28 +0000

Ill copy and paste where a put my rationale in the above comments
“Sounds to me like he’s pulling a divide and conquer, trying to separate the “supporter” from the rest of the “respectable” customers. “Don’t worry about the hubbub coming from those dastardly folks who occasionally say rude things down in the north end. there aren’t very many of them. We’ll take care of the cup”. Maybe I am being paranoid but then again this is being hosted on nbcsports.com, who has a markedly vested interest in being able to promote their coverage of the Cascadia Cup, seeing as their coverage of the league barely makes the meter move on the ratings unless its a C. Cup match”

By: themightythor666

themightythor666 — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 01:28:11 +0000

Is he actually advocating for the SG’s position? Sounds to me like he’s pulling a divide and conquer, trying to separate the “supporter” from the rest of the “respectable” customers. “Don’t worry about the hubbub coming from those dastardly folks who occasionally say rude things down in the north end. there aren’t very many of them. We’ll take care of the cup”. Maybe I am being paranoid but then again this is being hosted on nbcsports.com, who has a markedly vested interest in being able to promote their coverage of the Cascadia Cup, seeing as their coverage of the league barely makes the meter move on the ratings unless its a C. Cup match.

By: Richard Farley

Richard Farley — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 01:28:05 +0000

I appreciate that, but in my experience, the problem w/ the previous piece was that I acknowledged that MLS has some points (at least from their point of view). In interacting with people on Twitter, that view was unacceptable. I couldn’t both say CCC was right to defend what they created and acknowledge Garber made an interesting point last Thursday.

Thankfully, the people who are willing to talk like this have vastly outnumbered the 6-8 who interacted with me who said they are upset by the posts, but that’s the line of work this is You have to be willing to accept that.

By: pensfan603

pensfan603 — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 01:24:04 +0000

how is this at all garber propoganda, why would garber want the fans thinking he didnt careif he lost 3 thousand fans as long as he retains the majority if your garber you want people thinking you love them all

By: themightythor666

themightythor666 — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 01:21:50 +0000

Joy, another piece of drivel from Garber’s propaganda shills.

By: theaxepdx

theaxepdx — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 01:20:48 +0000

i think many have had difficulty deciphering the fact you are actually advocating for the supporters groups’s claims when reading this and your prior piece, and they would appreciate it being articulated the way you have just now. i am sure you are aware this is a very sensitive area of discussion amongst incredibly passionate fans. all 3 groups love their clubs and place great importance on the cup.

By: Richard Farley

Richard Farley — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 01:14:33 +0000

Absolutely. In a previous piece, I said I see MLS’s point of view, I agree with the CCC’s stance. And I don’t think the numbers game matters at all.

By: theaxepdx

theaxepdx — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 01:10:37 +0000

ok, so, you would agree that, regardless of the number of people who actually have memberships within the respective supporter groups, the fact the cup has pre-existed don garber’s knowledge of the 3 clubs that the cup belongs to those supporters? in other words, it would not matter if only 3 people lay claim to the cup the fact those 3 people created it well before any connection with MLS would be sufficient to support their claim.

By: Richard Farley

Richard Farley — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 01:04:41 +0000

I mean in the legal sense. The legal merits may (or may not) find the base of support meaningless to the claims of either side as it concerns awarding the trademark.

Thanks for asking.

By: theaxepdx

theaxepdx — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 01:02:35 +0000

richard–i am trying to understand what you mean when write the large number of supporters does not diminish claims to a cup but is nevertheless irrelevant. before i take an even harder critical look to your article, i would like to have some clarification on these antithetical and seemingly incompatible ideas.

By: Richard Farley

Richard Farley — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 00:53:35 +0000

No. The last couple of paragraphs should clear up that confusion.

By: buckyball77

buckyball77 — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 00:36:31 +0000

So, you’re saying that if the MLS does a smash and grab of the trademark of a competition that was organized before ANY of the three teams was even part of the MLS, that’s kinda ok because MLS is really only screwing a few thousand people rather than many thousands of fans?

Just want to make sure I understand your point.

By: pensfan603

pensfan603 — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 00:34:20 +0000

ya but the supports atmosphere is what brings in alot of other fans and the teams that have the biggest supporters sections are the teams that have the best fan bases.