CreamSoda

Watching the Sharks highlights and I really don’t like the away uniforms.  
 

it comes across as two black stripes with a large white stripe between them.   Just not very aesthetically pleasing.   Absolutely should have made the middle teal.  
 

Get ready for that Little Caesars ad on the Red Wings sweater. 

3 hours ago, VancouverFan69 said:

 

Totally agree. I would add stripes to the pants. 

 

Always loved VGK's steel grey. Look forward to seeing them with the relegated steel grey uniforms as a 3rd(should still be the primary home look).

I believe they are using their black pants with the gray sweater still.  

Sharks look so good:

48 minutes ago, AFirestormToPurify said:

Wait, some people thought it was just gonna be a one-year deal?

I though most teams were announcing 2 year deals

10 hours ago, squamfan said:

Based on rumors here is what the coyotes third jersey is going to look like

 

And here is what the reverse retro is going to look like

 

I really like that burnt orange/rust Arizona sweater.  Such a unique color palette and fits the desert perfectly.  

Lol.  The Milk ad is hilarious.  
 

ifs unreadable from distance, it’s team colors and incredibly unnoticeable.   That’s about as good as it gets aesthetically if you have to have an ad.  

Canes are bringing back their original look as an alternate.   They really should just wear these full time….

Love the home teals.  Still think the away whites aren’t great.  
 

the teal equipment is perfect.  No reason to add black here, more color the better.   With all the horizontal stripes on the waist and socks it breaks up the monotone look so we don’t get a yoga look like the NFL. 

46 minutes ago, BBTV said:

 

I appreciate, but can't accept your apology.

 

Some people have been conditioned to accept "manufacturer" (lol) logos on sports uniforms.  That's fine - if it doesn't bother you, then that's your opinion and you're welcome to it.  But it's literally the textbook definition of advertising.  That's not debatable.  2+2=4, no matter how many times anyone says it's 5.

 

I have never said it wasn’t advertising.  I’m saying a sports uniform manufacturer logo is not the same as a random company from an outside industry.  
 

one fits and one doesn’t.  It’s that black and white, to put it in your terms. 

36 minutes ago, BBTV said:

 

 

 

The sweater / jersey is designed to represent the team's brand.  It has the mark of a completely separate brand that has nothing to do with the team.  That other brand paid for the right to put their logo there.  For decades, Ripon Athletic manufactured most or all NFL jerseys and put the swoosh (or whatever) logo on them.  

 

The swoosh is not part of the Yankee's brand, the space was bought and paid for, and even if Nike did make the jerseys (which I don't think they do), that doesn't make it any better.  You don't see executives walking into meetings with suits that have a big Hugo Boss logo on the lapel.

 

No matter how you spin it, it's advertising - this is black and white.  

 

 

The shoes are specifically designed to promote Nike, and nothing else.  Of course they'd have the Nike brand on it.

 

That's really a terrible comparison.  The sneakers are an ad for Nike, but that's what they're supposed to be, so there's no issue there.  I personally prefer logo-less designs, but at least in this case, the swoosh is applied exactly where it's supposed to be, and not infringing on anyone else's brand.

 

Again - black and white.  You'll never convince me that there's any brand synergy between the NY logo and the swoosh to the point where they should both share the front of the most classic uniform in baseball, and possibly in all of sports.

There’s nothing black and white about a bank logo being the same as a jersey manufacturer.  
 

sorry you can’t see the difference.  

4 hours ago, Digby said:

I do not understand how Seahawks in neon green is not considered a light uniform. Hard to watch against Denver in all-white. Horrible lack of contrast.

Interesting, I actually found it very easy to watch.  Clear contrast between Seattle and Denver.

Just now, DEAD! said:

Yes, which has their logo. A company logo is still company logo. 

Ok, I am done with this.  You can't see the difference between a manufacture logo and an Ad sponsorship.  No sense continuing here.

1 minute ago, DEAD! said:

Yes, Taylor Made PAYS the golfer to endorse and use their equipment during a tour event. 

To use their EQUIPMENT that they make.  RBC had nothing to do with the process.  LOL...  yikes

44 minutes ago, DEAD! said:

No, I see no difference. Those sports companies paid money to the leagues and teams. It's still advertising even if they produce the uniforms and equipment. This is no different in hockey than it is in golf, or tennis or heck just about every sport. 

So the new TaylorMade driver just came out!  It has the TaylorMade logo on the bottom and a giant RBC ad on the crown.  That is the same to you?

Who cares!  it's just ads any way.  RBC totally makes sense to be on this new driver.

I would so much rather the NHL made a deal with Nike to put their logo on the front of all the teams' uniforms rather than allowing each team to make their own terrible sponsorship deal with huge multi-colored logos that have no business being on an NHL sweater:

1 hour ago, DEAD! said:

 

Nike pays MLB, NBA and the NFL to have their logo feature prominently on the jerseys and (collective) we threw a fit when Nike had their logo on the front of MLB and NBA uniforms. You would be doing the same had Adidas put their logo at that front as well.

 

Basically, if you pay anyone to get your logo on anywhere, it is advertising no matter how much you spin it. 

 

 

if you don’t see the difference between a sports company who has their single color logo on a  jersey they “manufacture” and a random bank who has a three color logo on a jersey and league they have nothing to do with….

Having a sports company on a sports uniform makes sense and doesn't look out of place.  Having a bank/medical center/insurance company/gambling site on an NHL uniform makes it look extremely cheap and tarnishes the brand of both the NHL and the team. 

29 minutes ago, Sodboy13 said:

 

What happens here when I tell you that, for decades, many of the "manufacturers" whose logos appeared on the sleeves or hems or wherever didn't actually manufacture those jerseys?

So?  They are still the brand name of the sweater.  That’s not the same as a hospital or bank logo being slapped randomly onto a jersey. 
 

private label is a thing across most industries.  Those private labels don’t then throw on a highest bid ad from a random industry onto their product.  
 

1 hour ago, spartacat_12 said:

You can’t compare a manufacturer’s logo with an ad. That’s like saying Mercedes using their logo as a hood ornament is the same as a realtor slapping their face on the side of their car. 

yup.  That argument never made sense.  
 

“There’s already two corporate ads!  Adidas and the NHL”

duh, one is the league and the other is manufacturer.  It’s the same as CCM having their logo on their equipment.  They made it, it should have their logo. 
 

RBC didn’t make the sweater and shouldn’t be on the jersey. 

excellent job screwing up a classic uniform.  All for a few bucks a billionaire doesn’t need at all.  
 

this one is really bad.  It’s a contrasting color to the main jersey.  It’s huge and ugly as hell.  Absolutely pathetic new ad program for the NHL.  Just trashing classic brands.  

6 minutes ago, DEAD! said:

I think we all do have our limits. But ads on uniforms are the same as being a hit man to take out Nancy Kerrigan.

why???  Why!!!

4 hours ago, Sec19Row53 said:

Please let us all know the next time you turn down money that's offered to you, like a raise at your job.

if that raise meant I had to something unethical, or made me feel slimy then I would turn it down. 
 

wow will people seriously do anything because of a dollar sign?  That’s really sad man. 

1 minute ago, _RH_ said:

If I were forced to have a jersey ad I'd allow it on the vaunted "hanger effect" inside collar in honesty the few I've seen haven't been the end of the world where colors match - I think those will be about as noticeable as SJ waves: not at all.  I think some of the contrasting helmet ones from last year were worse.  Also keep in mind from tV angle we'll probably rarely see the collarbone area

honestly that’s partly what pisses me off so much about the ads.  They aren’t that noticeable and prominent so why have them?!  It’s not like euro soccer where they are the main element of the jersey. 
 

Why screw up a jersey and all the history of the game for a small little patch.  Just so lame and greedy.  
 

46 minutes ago, GriffinM6 said:

Any chance we could get a look at silver in place of the white stripes?

Think San Jose could have kept the exact same striping pattern from the home onto the aways.   This is a terrible illustrator hack job but I think it gets the look across.   To me it really helps the color balance on the aways. The actual version has teal and black next to each other and they blend together.  This version separates the teal and black and lets the teal pop more: