Gothamite

On 12/8/2019 at 12:30 PM, Tygers09 said:

Since when have we become a bunch of Tim Gunn's? LOL!!

On 12/8/2019 at 12:43 PM, MJWalker45 said:

Since 2003?

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.

2 hours ago, jsd1996475 said:

Recently I ran across what was advertised by Lelands Auctions as a 1961 Mets prototype.  I tried to submit this to Uni-Watch, but ... they weren't interested

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.

35 minutes ago, WSU151 said:

 

What DC doesn't need is another red white & blue team. I'm not sure it's the XFL's DC team's responsibility to resonate with Americans across the country and be America's team. 

 

It's DC's team. 

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

1 minute ago, Volt said:

Perhaps, but this should've been their logo, with either a White helmet or the satin Silver helmet that Houston is wearing, along with these uniforms:

 

Then you lose the connection to the DC flag. 

I think Washington’s color scheme is one of the things they actually got right.

2 minutes ago, Maroon said:

 I was not actually aware of that. Thanks for the information.

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.

43 minutes ago, Volt said:

Another one that doesn't understand the power of athletic branding. 

You're right - condescension and personal attacks totally covers up the lack of a substantive argument.

Quote

Pairing with a brand manufacturer and utilizing their product & brand value provides perceived value to the company you are building.  It's why every major athletic team in the nation, regardless of league or sport, all the way down to high school and even some middle schools, chooses to wear brand name uniforms & apparel.

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.

Quote

Outside of the perceived value that the brand partnership brings, it also is a major boost to merchandise sales.  The majority of the public is more inclined to buy a team apparel item if it's Nike, UA, or Adidas.

[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.  

Quote

They'll buy it, even at a higher cost, before Starter or Gildan or private label, because it's perceived to be more legitimate.  Which is exactly what this league needs:  legitimacy.  Failure to partner with a known brand is a failure.

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. 

Quote

I hope their logo doesn’t make it on the actual jersey. It’s refreshing to see a jersey that actually represents the team, and not an apparel brand. 

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. 

1 hour ago, Volt said:

Roughly 24 hours ago to, give or take, and no leaks or rumors.  XFL is decent at playing things close to the chest.

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.

How much do you think they pay these players?

Yeah, still not buying that.  Most MiLB players earn peanuts as it is, replacing them with players not under contract won't make much of a difference.

Why would MLB/MiLB want to create a league of players not under contract with them?  That doesn't make any sense at all.  

Le sigh.  Does this mean the Cyclones are sticking with that ugly Jefes thing again?

Quote

 

The new jersey is a simplified version of one the team wore last year. The 2020 version removes piping from the neck and buttons so that the Stripers logo is set against the navy pinstripes. (The piping was not removed altogether, though—it’s still there around the sleeves.) The new jerseys feature an Atlanta Braves created by the Braves, who own the club.

Might want to put in that missing word.

Think that’s most likely the case. 

The circus theme is promising.  

Amen. 

On 10/18/2019 at 6:22 PM, dont care said:

When stadiums cost billions even billionaires can’t afford it and keep their other businesses afloat.

Of course they can. 

Billionaires understand how loans work.  That’s how they (or their parents) became billionaires in the first place. 

On 10/14/2019 at 9:12 PM, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

According to the podcast This Is the XFL, the draft will not be broadcast.

On 10/14/2019 at 10:14 PM, MJWalker45 said:

Unless you plan on having the players there, it's not necessary.

Not necessary, but a good way to engage fans.  Even if it's just a livestream.

Ooo, that’s nice. 

9 hours ago, DouglasQuaid said:

If it is true, I wish they'd remove the side panels and put the tv numbers on the sleeves. 

What sleeves?

On 9/24/2019 at 8:32 PM, dfwabel said:

AAF also did not debut uniforms until November 28. Unless they are just going to online retail their goods, if XFL wants them in stores before the Holidays, they need to hurry to get them to wholesalers ASAP cause you are fighting for floor space as it is.

I wouldn't expect a lot of brick-and-mortar sales.  Not only is time running short (most December merchandise is already at the stores' warehouses), but it's also a huge up-front investment.   I think it's far more likely that most sales are online, starting with their own sites, to streamline the process and lower the costs.

I dunno.  It feels deliberately dorky to me, contrived and corporate.  There's precious little fun in it, just "this is what our focus group told us would seem like fun."

7 hours ago, mkg74 said:

Lots of people say this too. And if he doesn’t meddle in anything? You and the like will still try to find everything and any excuse to trash the league. Amiright? 

Nope.  But thanks for playing!