NHL 2018-19

[clonewars2008]

16 hours ago, Morgo said:

 

This.  The only aspect Reebok improved in 2007 was the collar treatment.

the Koho/CCM design on the 2.0, the fit I think was the best on the 2.0. 

[The_Admiral]

7 hours ago, Gothamite said:

I agree that it looks like something's missing.  Because something is.  

Their logo is an angry pig eating a hockey stick, what's missing is respectability

[monkeypower]

So what are the rules for how many jerseys a team can wear over the course of a season? Is is three (home, road, alternate) along with any special one-off jerseys (throwback nights, outdoor games, etc.)? I know an "alternate" has to be worn between 12 and 15 times a season and has to be worn for three years while a "heritage" can only be worn six times and only needs to be worn for one season. (I also guess the Ducks get a pass on the three year thing because their alternate this year is an "anniversary" jersey, because it's being worn 15 times but will only exist for this season)

 

Because the Ducks former paper guy turned Athletic writer tweeted this prior to the home opener and it set off a bit of a hullabaloo from people asking why the NHL wouldn't let this happen, but I assumed it was just poor wording on his part and it's because the Ducks already had their alternate which was announced in the summer. 

 

 

Another fun thing to read whenever the Mighty Ducks logo or jerseys gets brought up on social media or Reddit are the people who think Disney still owns the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim trademark. They believe the Ducks are either paying Disney out of pocket every time they want to use the Mighty Ducks stuff or that the Mouse gets a cut of all the money the Ducks make from Mighty Ducks merchandise. That's just not how these sports trademarks work when teams are sold.

[M4One]

10 hours ago, charger77 said:

 

Why not put the AHL logo in that dead space?

 

It wouldn't remain legible when shrunken down?  That's the only reason I can think of why the AHL or any of the junior leagues hasn't put their logos in that space.  For the junior leagues, it's possible that they wanted the league logos to be as noticeable as possible, though that means complete clutter when you add in anniversary patches or Memorial Cup patches.

[The_Admiral]

2 hours ago, monkeypower said:

Another fun thing to read whenever the Mighty Ducks logo or jerseys gets brought up on social media or Reddit are the people who think Disney still owns the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim trademark. They believe the Ducks are either paying Disney out of pocket every time they want to use the Mighty Ducks stuff or that the Mouse gets a cut of all the money the Ducks make from Mighty Ducks merchandise. That's just not how these sports trademarks work when teams are sold.

There was a longstanding belief on this very board that John Rigas and all successive owners of the Buffalo Sabres never bought the rights to the classic blue and gold logo from the Knoxes.

[monkeypower]

2 hours ago, the admiral said:

There was a longstanding belief on this very board that John Rigas and all successive owners of the Buffalo Sabres never bought the rights to the classic blue and gold logo from the Knoxes.

 

I am correct in saying that is not how it works though? I always assumed the rights to name, logos and all that branding stuff are part of the sale, that or the leagues take control of the branding of defunct teams that aren't around anymore for the most part.

 

In any case, the Ducks do own the trademarks to the Mighty Ducks branding, but you know, TRUCULENCE.

[Kevin W.]

8 hours ago, monkeypower said:

They believe the Ducks are either paying Disney out of pocket every time they want to use the Mighty Ducks stuff

Which wouldn't make any financial sense since they'd have to pay Disney for every game they play, considering that they've been wearing the Mighty Ducks logo on-ice in one form or another constantly since the 2014-15 season.

[Still MIGHTY]

10 hours ago, monkeypower said:

Because the Ducks former paper guy turned Athletic writer tweeted this prior to the home opener and it set off a bit of a hullabaloo from people asking why the NHL wouldn't let this happen, but I assumed it was just poor wording on his part and it's because the Ducks already had their alternate which was announced in the summer. 

 

 

Another fun thing to read whenever the Mighty Ducks logo or jerseys gets brought up on social media or Reddit are the people who think Disney still owns the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim trademark. They believe the Ducks are either paying Disney out of pocket every time they want to use the Mighty Ducks stuff or that the Mouse gets a cut of all the money the Ducks make from Mighty Ducks merchandise. That's just not how these sports trademarks work when teams are sold.

 

I got caught up fighting that hullabaloo on Twitter. It's funny how quickly you realize that other people in the general public don't care/follow this like we do. Take that for granted.

 

The way I interpreted Stephens' tweet was that, based on these "Jersey Tribute" nights where they're wearing them in warm-ups, was that maybe the Ducks asked the league/adidas to have multiple throwback jerseys this season for the actual, i.e. wearing the white 1993 jerseys one night, wearing the eggplant jerseys one night, wearing the Nike alts each for a game, the Anaheim wordmark, etc. Which if that was the case, I would see why the NHL or adidas would shut that idea down.

 

Or as you said, maybe they were too far down the road regarding the alternate anniversary jersey.

 

Because as I had to tell multiple people multiple times who were yelling "why wouldn't the stupid NHL let us wear the jerseys for the whole season!!!", if the team asked the NHL to wear just the one throwback jersey as its alternate all season (as the Coyotes did), there'd really be no reason to say no.

 

(Carolina and the Whalers jersey threw a small wrench into the argument, but yeah, adidas hasn't been too forthcoming on the different designations. But I'd like to avoid an NBA jersey situation at all costs, so, maybe the less said the better.)

[BrandMooreArt]

Guess this belongs here, Brian Allen on “How I designed Gritty”. 

 

 

[IceCap]

12 minutes ago, BrandMooreArt said:

Guess this belongs here, Brian Allen on “How I designed Gritty”. 

 

 

Step One: Do all of the drugs. 

[Kevin W.]

On 10/22/2018 at 4:29 PM, M4One said:

 

It wouldn't remain legible when shrunken down?

That hasn't stopped the NHL.

[Beantown77]

11 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

Step One: Do all of the drugs. 

I was gonna say stay up 5 days straight and go on a coke binge while watching horror movies.

But yeah.

[M4One]

17 hours ago, Kevin W. said:

That hasn't stopped the NHL.

 

The NHL logo is pretty simple and the patch was obviously designed with for it.  The CHL and AHL and other leagues have logos that are quite different in shape, more horizonta, compared to the NHL shield.  I suppose they could try, but then why haven't they?

[ldconcepts]

Interesting Vegas warmup shoulder patch...

 

[TheGoldenTriangle]

Twitter says it was a specialty logo for Nevada Day.

 

[Mingjai]

On 10/22/2018 at 10:24 PM, monkeypower said:

 

I am correct in saying that is not how it works though? I always assumed the rights to name, logos and all that branding stuff are part of the sale, that or the leagues take control of the branding of defunct teams that aren't around anymore for the most part.

 

In any case, the Ducks do own the trademarks to the Mighty Ducks branding, but you know, TRUCULENCE.

 

In most cases, it’s probably true that the purchase involves purchasing the logos, trademarks, etc., but it’s not necessarily always going to be the case. I could see Disney retaining ownership of the marks while granting a royalty-free license with terms stipulating the new owners must create new logos and colors and limiting the ways the Disney marks can be used—limiting the games it can be used as a primary crest, etc. I’m not saying that’s the case here, but based on my experience working in IP licensing, I can see stuff like that happening, especially where the seller is as image-conscious as Disney.  

[spartacat_12]

On 10/26/2018 at 8:31 PM, ldconcepts said:

Interesting Vegas warmup shoulder patch...

 

 

It still bothers me that they have the black outline between the swords and the bottom of the star, but not between the swords and the top of the star.

[andrewharrington]

8 hours ago, spartacat_12 said:

 

It still bothers me that they have the black outline between the swords and the bottom of the star, but not between the swords and the top of the star.

 

It’s the star casting a shadow against the swords.

[WSU151]

10 hours ago, andrewharrington said:

 

It’s the star casting a shadow against the swords.

 

The shadow is on both swords?

 

Hopefully you're being facetious and I'm missing the sarcasm.

[aild87]

3 hours ago, WSU151 said:

 

The shadow is on both swords?

 

Hopefully you're being facetious and I'm missing the sarcasm.

Why wouldn't the shadow be on both swords? If you take the gold on the blades as shading, the logo is "lit" from top down/center, so they both would be affected by the shadow cast by the star. If anything the star itself is what is shaded inconsistently.