Jump to content

2012-13 soccer kits


Saintsfan

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

The new owners of the club disagree with you. And I think I do as well.

I suspect they're counting on identity politics to sell their club in Asia. I don't know how well that will work, but I do know that many Americans follow Fulham not because they're a middling Premier League side, or even because their matches are easy to see in the States, but because they have arguably the most high-profile American player outside MLS.

"less easily identifiable"? They're bloody Cardiff City. How "identifiable" are they outside Wales?

And I definitely disagree with you about our hypothetical pink shirts. Any European club wanting to make the US a centerpiece of their marketing would be well-advised to change them to something most Americans find more pleasing to wear about town. Not saying it's right, or that I approve, but facts are what they are.

Well are fans really following Fulham or Clint Dempsey? And Fulham haven't sold their soul for foreign support, they've built a decent team to compete.

Wembley-1.png

2011/12 WFL Champions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is Andrew failing to disclose something?

In that post, yes.

Regardless, the fact that you're trying to make this about him, without addressing the actual facts of the situation, doesn't speak well to whatever point you're trying to make.

I am not making it about him at all. I made my point about his point of view and then I posted about the facts of the situation (which, conveniently, no one has responded to). Companies do this ALL THE TIME. Adidas has done it multiple times in recent memory and I don't remember him lashing out at them for doing so.

Can you think of any examples of this happening?

I already listd 2. Solomon and Greg Norman.

Did adidas pull valuable athletes or team contracts from those two subsidiaries before selling them off? (Honest question, because unless that happened, it's apples and oranges)

I don't know and don't care, to be honest. It's never going to be a perfect comparison. My profession is based on finding differences in 2 sitautions that seem exactly the same so we could keep going in circles if you want.

What should Nike have done? Cost it shareholders value by selling off a company with some valuable assests just because you thought it was the right thing to do? It's not like the buyer of Umbro won't know. Or that City didn't know. Or that City couldn't switch back to Umbro at the end of their current contract if they want to.

I'm not saying it was a bad business decision. It was a good one. That was probably the hottest contract out there at the moment. It's just not good for healthy capitalist competition when all the big guys are scooping up the little guys' contracts. Just because all the companies do it doesn't mean I have to like it. Walmart probably has its place in society, but I hate that it's taking down Bob's Market to do what it does.

I mean, isn't the fact that Umbro isn't profitable enough for Nike due in part to the fact that Umbro is having to compete against its parent company for lucrative contracts?

I still don't have a website, but I have a dribbble now! http://dribbble.com/andyharry

[The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the position, strategy or opinions of adidas and/or its brands.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is Andrew failing to disclose something?

In that post, yes.

Regardless, the fact that you're trying to make this about him, without addressing the actual facts of the situation, doesn't speak well to whatever point you're trying to make.

I am not making it about him at all. I made my point about his point of view and then I posted about the facts of the situation (which, conveniently, no one has responded to). Companies do this ALL THE TIME. Adidas has done it multiple times in recent memory and I don't remember him lashing out at them for doing so.

Can you think of any examples of this happening?

I already listd 2. Solomon and Greg Norman.

Did adidas pull valuable athletes or team contracts from those two subsidiaries before selling them off? (Honest question, because unless that happened, it's apples and oranges)

I don't know and don't care, to be honest. It's never going to be a perfect comparison. My profession is based on finding differences in 2 sitautions that seem exactly the same so we could keep going in circles if you want.

What should Nike have done? Cost it shareholders value by selling off a company with some valuable assests just because you thought it was the right thing to do? It's not like the buyer of Umbro won't know. Or that City didn't know. Or that City couldn't switch back to Umbro at the end of their current contract if they want to.

I'm not saying it was a bad business decision. It was a good one. That was probably the hottest contract out there at the moment. It's just not good for healthy capitalist competition when all the big guys are scooping up the little guys' contracts. Just because all the companies do it doesn't mean I have to like it. Walmart probably has its place in society, but I hate that it's taking down Bob's Market to do what it does.

I mean, isn't the fact that Umbro isn't profitable enough for Nike due in part to the fact that Umbro is having to compete against its parent company for lucrative contracts?

But it's not like Nike is ending Umbro as a brand (like Walmart is doing to Bob's in your example).

I think the more important thing (esp. for this forums) is how great the kits both companies have come out with lately, which was certainly not the case not all that long ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is Andrew failing to disclose something?

In that post, yes.

Regardless, the fact that you're trying to make this about him, without addressing the actual facts of the situation, doesn't speak well to whatever point you're trying to make.

I am not making it about him at all. I made my point about his point of view and then I posted about the facts of the situation (which, conveniently, no one has responded to). Companies do this ALL THE TIME. Adidas has done it multiple times in recent memory and I don't remember him lashing out at them for doing so.

Can you think of any examples of this happening?

I already listd 2. Solomon and Greg Norman.

Did adidas pull valuable athletes or team contracts from those two subsidiaries before selling them off? (Honest question, because unless that happened, it's apples and oranges)

I don't know and don't care, to be honest. It's never going to be a perfect comparison. My profession is based on finding differences in 2 sitautions that seem exactly the same so we could keep going in circles if you want.

What should Nike have done? Cost it shareholders value by selling off a company with some valuable assests just because you thought it was the right thing to do? It's not like the buyer of Umbro won't know. Or that City didn't know. Or that City couldn't switch back to Umbro at the end of their current contract if they want to.

I'm not saying it was a bad business decision. It was a good one. That was probably the hottest contract out there at the moment. It's just not good for healthy capitalist competition when all the big guys are scooping up the little guys' contracts. Just because all the companies do it doesn't mean I have to like it. Walmart probably has its place in society, but I hate that it's taking down Bob's Market to do what it does.

I mean, isn't the fact that Umbro isn't profitable enough for Nike due in part to the fact that Umbro is having to compete against its parent company for lucrative contracts?

But it's not like Nike is ending Umbro as a brand (like Walmart is doing to Bob's in your example).

I think the more important thing (esp. for this forums) is how great the kits both companies have come out with lately, which was certainly not the case not all that long ago.

True. I'm kind of interested in who might buy them. It's clearly a weaker brand with the loss of City, but you're right. It's not necessarily the end of Umbro in and of itself.

Kind of a corollary: did you see that article where some lab put all the Euro 2012 jerseys through physical and scientific tests? The Umbro's were at the bottom, performance-wise, with England's being the worst. I thought it was very interesting. The best looking kits perform the worst, allegedly.

EDIT: Another development. Interestingly enough, the Umbro teams are not mentioned here, meaning apparently there is a direct relationship between the performance of your soccer shirt and the toxicity of it. This is far sleazier than any business deal.

Link

I still don't have a website, but I have a dribbble now! http://dribbble.com/andyharry

[The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the position, strategy or opinions of adidas and/or its brands.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really like that. It's nice to see Chelsea with a white clash jersey again. I liked this jersey alot.

6077.jpg

.

That was a good looking shirt, but the thin blue wraparound stripe was overkill, totally unnecessary.

It would have looked superb without it, IMO of course...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was their third jersey, though. Their normal clash jersey this past season was black.

Mighty Ducks of Anaheim (CHL - 2018 Orr Cup Champions) Chicago Rivermen (UBA/WBL - 2014, 2015, 2017 Intercontinental Cup Champions)

King's Own Hexham FC (BIP - 2022 Saint's Cup Champions) Portland Explorers (EFL - Elite Bowl XIX Champions) Real San Diego (UPL) Red Bull Seattle (ULL - 2018, 2019, 2020 Gait Cup Champions) Vancouver Huskies (CL)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

article-2155253-1379B11C000005DC-831_468x470.jpg

I don't think they're that bad.

That is a bizarrely high position for the sponsor logo. Club logo isn't anywhere near the heart or the breast.

The higher you can place logos on the jersey, the harder it is for them to be cut off in head shots on TV or other media.

Wembley-1.png

2011/12 WFL Champions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New AS Roma primary. No huge Kappa logo= Awesome. The logo is waaaaay too high though, it'sw almost under the collar.

Seems to be a Kappa trend for this season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AuzkIjPCQAIufG1.jpg

Is that light blue sash historic or something? It just looks out of place on an otherwise nice design. Wondering why it was placed there.

No idea.

Just noticed the giant adidas stripes on th shoulders are gradients, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fulham's jerseys since they switched to Kappa have been brutal.

bryan_fulham_2012_balon1.jpg

That's not what I'd call brutal, unless you believe that any striping on a jersey is bad (as a few seem to in this thread).

Mind you, I could do without the big Kappa logo on the shoulders.

Buy some t-shirts and stuff at KJ Shop!

KJ BrandedBehance portfolio

 

POTD 2013-08-22

On 7/14/2012 at 2:20 AM, tajmccall said:

When it comes to style, ya'll really should listen to Kev.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.