Correct, and tht is exactly what we have been doing on the grass roots group, and that is exactly why this issue came up.Rob Davey wrote:we need to come up with many ideas and plans of how to get people to come and play foos. And then put those plans into action.
Four names with TF in, one name with foosball in. Hardly a fair vote, as was discussed at the meeting.Boris wrote:The 'table football' options were not split, but were eliminated one by one until there was a straight fight at the end between the two most popular options, then the winner was ratified by a substantial majority.
Any winner would have been ratified by a majority because the alternative was leaving the name as the ridiculous "Bar Football Association" (can anyone explain why that was chosen in the first place ?).
In any case, which is a more important indicator : a vote held by around 50 people who are already known enthusiasts of the game, or the fact that MILLIONS of people know what TF is, and hardly any know what foosball is.
Why not have a different logo for promotional literature / business cards to send to the grass roots venues, and for contacting sponsors etc? That's where a logo and a name needs to add value and professionalism to the organisation... nobody outside the elite scene is going to see the national team kit. Keeping the current logo (and name) is not a no-lose option.Boris wrote:Putting a sticker over the old logo would look daft and amateurish, so a logo change is not a no-cost option.
And you're seriously arguing that is a <i>positive</i> for using "foosball" ??!! The fact that the word is 'alien', and nobody knows what it means? That's positive?DaveZ wrote:But as I recall the arguments that won the day at the time for foosball were: [...] as an essentially made up word foosball is alien to all cultures and hence more readily adoptable
ITSF don't agree with you there.DaveZ wrote:foosball [...] most likely candidate for a single global term