Gothamite

I mean, this isn’t even a close call. The NAL showed it has no integrity when they decided that Carolina’s refusal to play under unsafe conditions was the real problem, instead of the Street’s failure to maintain a safe workplace.

No employer with any integrity forces players to work in an unsafe environment. Teams refusing to play is a problem, to be sure. And in most cases deserves a high sanction. But in this particular scenario, it was done in response to a previous and far more serious violation, the Street’s inability to create a secure workspace. Everything stemmed from that prior failure, and that made Carolina’s actions entirely justifiable. The NAL showed that it has a total lack of integrity when they tried to “both sides!” this embarrassment, punishing Carolina for not tolerating an unsafe workspace.

When the environment around the game is not safe? They sure as hell can. And should.

Don’t drag us into the Westchester mess. They were a suburban team in “urban” cosplay drag.

And because Anaheim paid them to. Don’t forget that part of it.

What an amazingly terrible idea.

I didn’t read that as the City Manager alone made the request, I read that as the city itself. Which may have been the City Manager, or whomever is in charge of the negotiations. But didn’t think at all that was just one person’s ask.

It was one of the things Anaheim requested as part of the stadium upgrades. No name change, no public money. I'm sure Disney was more than willing, since for years Disney wanted to make “Anaheim” a synonym for their company the same way that “Hollywood” is for the film industry. Their interests were served by the deal, but it was still a naming rights deal.

The only reason they changed it in the first place was because Anaheim paid them to. So no, I’m not interested in seeing it come back.

No, good. I hate naming rights deals for stadiums. I detest them for teams.

Good.

I like it a lot, but the Georgia outline on the back is a misstep. Forces the numbers into too small a space, too low on the back.

And in a league of 32 teams, there will inevitably be a certain amount of overlap. But in an 8-team league? With centralized ownership? There’s no excuse for that.

I always felt that way about this Bucks alternate logo: That is so clearly a hunter's trophy.

Since 1999, actually. Chris migrated to a new platform in 2003 that forced us to create new user accounts, but many of us have been posting here for a long, long time.

Or could have been your snarky derision. We've seen that one before, think it was several years ago. Last time it surfaced at auction. I want to say that the consensus was it wasn't for the Mets, but I can't remember specifics.

Yeah, “forget what the locals like” is kind of an odd strategy.

Then you lose the connection to the DC flag. I think Washington’s color scheme is one of the things they actually got right.

That’s what is so offensive about the new Nike/MLB deal; the jerseys are exactly the same, made with the same materials on the same templates by the same craftspeople in the exact same factories as last year. Nike just has them sew on a different logo, and then charges fans an extra $119 for it.

You're right - condescension and personal attacks totally covers up the lack of a substantive argument. No, every major athletic team wears a brand logo because the brand pays them to do it. If it was the other way around, as you describe, then the NFL wouldn’t have blocked Nike from purring their swoosh on the front, as Nike so desperately wanted. The NBA wouldn’t have held out as long as they did, and MLB would have eagerly accepted New Era’s flag on the side years ago. Arsenal didn’t put the three stripes on their sleeves because they wanted to soak up some of that Adidas cred. They did it because Adidas pays them $78,000,000 every year to do it. Similarly, the Patriots don’t wear the Nike swoosh because they think it makes them look more professional, or because it’ll sell more jerseys. They wear the swoosh because Nike pays them an enormous amount money for the privilege. Manufacturers want to be associated with major teams, not the other way around. The proof of that is in the money. Now, some minor players do eagerly want that logo on their uniforms, to make them look more like the major teams. But those people have to pay to get it. [citation needed] The claim that the Packers would sell more jerseys branded by Nike than they would jerseys devoid of manufacturer’s logos is ludicrous on its face. Because this league is a relative non-entity. A minor league fueled by ego. That’s what’s ironic about it; the XFL actually does need the credibility of branding, unlike major leagues.

Absolutely. It’s ironic that the reason they don't have a manufacturer logo is not because they’re strong enough to have the power to protect their brand, but because they’re not worth the bother for a manufacturer to put it there.

Which is only impressive if they started with a whole lot of them on hand. “Selling out” a small quantity is not a big deal.

Most leaks come somewhere in the merchandise pipeline. It's much easier to play things close to the chest when you have very few merchandise contracts.

Holy . That's awesome. I want that on a t-shirt or cap.