2015-16 NHL Uniform and Logo Changes

[The Giant Pacific Octopus]

Too early for the 2016-17 version of this thread? Leafs jerseys galore for their centennial!

http://bergerbytes.ca/leafs-to-wear-multiple-jerseys-for-centennial/

If the Leafs actually knew thier own history they would have celebrated thier cenntenniel back in 2012. The franchise was born as the "Blue Shirts" in 1912/13 in the NHA. Not in 1917 as the "Arenas".

Not really.

The NHA was trying to get the Blue Shirts' owner out of the league; so the Quebec, the two Montreal and the Ottawa teams created the NHL to squeeze him out, effectively folding the franchise. Then the NHL formed a new team in Toronto completely separate from the Blue Shirts, only connected by the new team being made up primarily of loaned players from the old Blue Shirts. Then in 1919 the team went bankrupt and had to be sold to another owner, who brought the same staff from the Toronto St. Patricks of the OHA to manage the new team.

So you could say the Maple Leafs were founded in 1917, 1919, or even maybe 1927 when the team was sold to Conn Smythe and the team was named the Maple Leafs (although that's just in the name), but the Blue Shirts are not the same franchise as the modern Maple Leafs, and they don't recognize them as such. 1917 is pretty much the accepted founding of the franchise though.

No the Blue Shirts did not fold. A lot of people think that the NHA folded when the NHL was formed. But that simply is not true. The NHA still existed as an entity until sometime after 1920. When the NHL was formed they awarded the group that ran the Arena in Toronto a franchise. Eddie Livingstone decided the best way to get any money for this season (since the NHA was dormant and he wasn't invited into the NHL) was to lease his team (not just players but equipment and uniforms) to the Arena Gardens Company for that season. The Arena Gardens Company agreed because they would have an established team from the get go instead of having to sign players from the other NHL clubs, and since the Blue Shirts had been a fairly strong entity the last few years of the NHA would have a good team to boot.

Why did Eddie do this. Lease his club to a league run by his enemies? Because he thought that the NHL was only going to be a temporary league and that there were plans to reactivate the NHA the following season, which was true. The NHL was never intended to be more than a one year entity. So Livingstone had no problem leasing his club to the Arena Gardens as long as they played in the NHL and NOT the NHA. That part of the lease agreement was explcit in the contract that the two parties signed.

The problem is the Blue shirts won the Cup that season. Not only did Eddie demand payment from the lease deal that was signed (which the Arenas never paid) but was even offering to sell the club outright to the Arena gardens for an inflated price (due to the fact that they became more valuable after the Stanley Cup victory). He knew that they wouldn't pay. He simply wanted his team back because he wanted to revive the NHA himself or create a new league with some allies he had gathered (most notably Mike Quinn) and that his Toronto Blue Shirts were going to be a part of that revived/new league.

The Arena Gardens didn't want to pay and simply created a "new" team called the Toronto Arenas (Arenas Hockey Club of Toronto) in December of 1918 that was quickly admitted into the NHL. But they were not a new team. They were the reorganized Blue Shirts. They even boasted that they were the defending Stanley Cup champions from the previous season in thier team photo. Which never made sense since they were supposed to be a new entity. Eddie Livingstone sued the group demanding either to get his franchise back or full financial compensation. The courts agreed with Eddie and he won his lawsuits. The Arena Gardens Company couldn't afford to pay (I think it was $200,000) so they went bankrupt. As a result the Arenas hockey team went dormant. The NHL (which had ended the season early because of the dormancy of the Arenas hockey team) seized the club and eventually brokered a deal to sell it to Charles Querrie. He renamed the club the St. Patrick's just before the start of the 1919/20 season. Eventually Livingstone went after him as well, but nothing came of that lawsuit because it was protracted (unlike the Arenas situation he never signed a contract with Querrie) and at that point Querrie had sold the club to Smythe.

Despite this (lease deal, Courts ruling in Livingstone's favour proving the entity was his), the Leafs don't want to acknowledge their connection with the Blue Shirts. The question you have to ask is why? It's probably because Livingstone's team was stolen from him and reconfigured into what is now the Toronto Maple Leafs. He was never paid for his team. It was simply taken from him. The Leafs franchise probably don't want to acknowledge this and want to pretend that it was a brand new entity that started fresh with the league. Maybe if they claim the Blue Shirts history as their own one of Livingstone's heirs could sue since the court ordered payment from the Arenas Company was never paid? To top it off they also claim that the team was called the Arenas in 1917/18. How could the Toronto Arenas have played the 1917/18 season if they were not founded until December 15 1918? Its like they don't want anything to do with the Blue Shirts history even going as far as to pretend the 1917/18 team was not called the Blue Shirts but the Arenas rewriting history in the process.

[WSU151]

^because that looks dumb.

The Orca logo looks fine. Plenty of worse logos in the league.

Of course it probably will get changed eventually and the lack of a true identity will continue...

Why does it look dumb?

The only thing I don't like about the orca is blue+green+whale=way too Whalersish.

[Sodboy13]

It's interesting how people are still up in arms over the Orca Bay connection, but little to nothing is said about the similar nod to True North Sports & Entertainment found in Winnipeg's logo. I guess bringing back the franchise allows for leeway that bringing in Messier doesn't...

This is why I found Blake Wheeler railing against jersey ads hilarious. Dude, look down.

[Morgan33]

^because that looks dumb.

The Orca logo looks fine. Plenty of worse logos in the league.

Of course it probably will get changed eventually and the lack of a true identity will continue...

they currently look like the a rec-league team that bought blank logoless sweaters based off the design of a very nice looking blue/green team... then they screen-printed some cheap single color numbers and letters, and slapped a completely unrelated logo on top of it, despite the fact that it wasn't in the same color scheme as the uniforms by a long shot.

this isn't a blackhawks situation, where the very colorful and elaborate crest completes the look. a less colorful and basically drab graphic is stitched onto the chest of a very unique and brightly colored identity.

the canucks are so close, but so far.

So the uniforms are blue, white and green while the logo is blue, white and navy... It's not as if these elements completely clash, like Calgary's 'Alberta patch.' While the uniform set is hardly perfect, I think it's positive attributes greatly outweigh the negative

[ColeJ]

i honestly think it's probably their best color scheme, but their worst full-time uniform set since the flying-v. all because of the disjointed nature of the logo, and over-used and overly-fussy font.

[-kj]

Ok, I have to ask: "overly-fussy font"?

At least the orca's better than the stick-in-rounded-rectangle. But, again, that's not really saying anything at all.

[Chewbacca]

If the Canucks are going to stick with blue and green, they should bring this back. I absolutely love this jersey.

[ColeJ]

Ok, I have to ask: "overly-fussy font"?

At least the orca's better than the stick-in-rounded-rectangle. But, again, that's not really saying anything at all.

obviously "overly-fussy" is going to be an opinion, and not something that can be easily defined... but i'm generally a fan of block numbers, or at least fonts that are at least inspired by regular old block numbers. these are just obnoxious numbers to me. it's a really over-used font, for a reason i can't even understand. it's just not pleasing, aesthetically, to me. the 3's are the worst part (especially when paired with any thing else). it just seems overly fussy.... and doesn't match the traditional vibe i get from the blank sweater, nor does it have anything to do with the logos used. it just doesn't fit to me... it's one of the last fonts i'd ever use on a sports uniform. i can't think of a word that describes my feelings on it more than "fussy."

i tried to clarify hope it helps.

[IceCap]

Too early for the 2016-17 version of this thread? Leafs jerseys galore for their centennial!

http://bergerbytes.ca/leafs-to-wear-multiple-jerseys-for-centennial/

If the Leafs actually knew thier own history they would have celebrated thier cenntenniel back in 2012. The franchise was born as the "Blue Shirts" in 1912/13 in the NHA. Not in 1917 as the "Arenas".

Not really.

The NHA was trying to get the Blue Shirts' owner out of the league; so the Quebec, the two Montreal and the Ottawa teams created the NHL to squeeze him out, effectively folding the franchise. Then the NHL formed a new team in Toronto completely separate from the Blue Shirts, only connected by the new team being made up primarily of loaned players from the old Blue Shirts. Then in 1919 the team went bankrupt and had to be sold to another owner, who brought the same staff from the Toronto St. Patricks of the OHA to manage the new team.

So you could say the Maple Leafs were founded in 1917, 1919, or even maybe 1927 when the team was sold to Conn Smythe and the team was named the Maple Leafs (although that's just in the name), but the Blue Shirts are not the same franchise as the modern Maple Leafs, and they don't recognize them as such. 1917 is pretty much the accepted founding of the franchise though.

No the Blue Shirts did not fold. A lot of people think that the NHA folded when the NHL was formed. But that simply is not true. The NHA still existed as an entity until sometime after 1920. When the NHL was formed they awarded the group that ran the Arena in Toronto a franchise. Eddie Livingstone decided the best way to get any money for this season (since the NHA was dormant and he wasn't invited into the NHL) was to lease his team (not just players but equipment and uniforms) to the Arena Gardens Company for that season. The Arena Gardens Company agreed because they would have an established team from the get go instead of having to sign players from the other NHL clubs, and since the Blue Shirts had been a fairly strong entity the last few years of the NHA would have a good team to boot.

Why did Eddie do this. Lease his club to a league run by his enemies? Because he thought that the NHL was only going to be a temporary league and that there were plans to reactivate the NHA the following season, which was true. The NHL was never intended to be more than a one year entity. So Livingstone had no problem leasing his club to the Arena Gardens as long as they played in the NHL and NOT the NHA. That part of the lease agreement was explcit in the contract that the two parties signed.

The problem is the Blue shirts won the Cup that season. Not only did Eddie demand payment from the lease deal that was signed (which the Arenas never paid) but was even offering to sell the club outright to the Arena gardens for an inflated price (due to the fact that they became more valuable after the Stanley Cup victory). He knew that they wouldn't pay. He simply wanted his team back because he wanted to revive the NHA himself or create a new league with some allies he had gathered (most notably Mike Quinn) and that his Toronto Blue Shirts were going to be a part of that revived/new league.

The Arena Gardens didn't want to pay and simply created a "new" team called the Toronto Arenas (Arenas Hockey Club of Toronto) in December of 1918 that was quickly admitted into the NHL. But they were not a new team. They were the reorganized Blue Shirts. They even boasted that they were the defending Stanley Cup champions from the previous season in thier team photo. Which never made sense since they were supposed to be a new entity. Eddie Livingstone sued the group demanding either to get his franchise back or full financial compensation. The courts agreed with Eddie and he won his lawsuits. The Arena Gardens Company couldn't afford to pay (I think it was $200,000) so they went bankrupt. As a result the Arenas hockey team went dormant. The NHL (which had ended the season early because of the dormancy of the Arenas hockey team) seized the club and eventually brokered a deal to sell it to Charles Querrie. He renamed the club the St. Patrick's just before the start of the 1919/20 season. Eventually Livingstone went after him as well, but nothing came of that lawsuit because it was protracted (unlike the Arenas situation he never signed a contract with Querrie) and at that point Querrie had sold the club to Smythe.

Despite this (lease deal, Courts ruling in Livingstone's favour proving the entity was his), the Leafs don't want to acknowledge their connection with the Blue Shirts. The question you have to ask is why? It's probably because Livingstone's team was stolen from him and reconfigured into what is now the Toronto Maple Leafs. He was never paid for his team. It was simply taken from him. The Leafs franchise probably don't want to acknowledge this and want to pretend that it was a brand new entity that started fresh with the league. Maybe if they claim the Blue Shirts history as their own one of Livingstone's heirs could sue since the court ordered payment from the Arenas Company was never paid? To top it off they also claim that the team was called the Arenas in 1917/18. How could the Toronto Arenas have played the 1917/18 season if they were not founded until December 15 1918? Its like they don't want anything to do with the Blue Shirts history even going as far as to pretend the 1917/18 team was not called the Blue Shirts but the Arenas rewriting history in the process.

Toronto's team didn't have an official nickname for the first NHL season. They were called the "Torontos" or "Blue Shirts" in the press, but neither was official. The Arenas name was adopted for the NHL's second season, and retroactively applied to the team's first season. See Maroons, Montréal.

As for the Blue Shirts being connected to the team's history? You're right...and wrong. Technically you're correct. The Arenas (and I'm counting the team from the NHL's first season in that) became the St. Pats in much the same way as Livingston's Blue Shirts became the Arenas.

The cut-off, however, centres around Eddie Livingston. It may be almost a century later, but the reasoning is still there. The league was formed to keep Livingston out. Therefore a Toronto team with him attached? Not part of the lineage. Everything after him? Part of the lineage.

The league is very keen about this sort of thing. They refuse to acknowledge the Sharks as a continuation of the Seals/Barons and they've refused to recognize the current Ottawa Senators as a continuation of the original Silver Seven/Senators/St. Louis Eagles team. My point being that when the NHL decides "this is what we're going to recognize" they stick with it. We just had a team return to Winnipeg and assume the Jets' name. And they didn't get the original team's records. Which is exactly what happened in the NFL and NBA. The NHL though? No. They stick to their established lineages.

With Toronto? That means keeping Eddie Livingston out. Which seems petty, but have you followed the NHL lately? It's kind of par for the course.

[VancouverFan69]

If the Canucks are going to stick with blue and green, they should bring this back. I absolutely love this jersey.

^^^^^^^

The Canucks got it right the first time, even though Johnny Canuck should have been used in one form or another. If this was brought back full time, I would add the skating JC as a shoulder patch and a green border around the font.

Ok, I have to ask: "overly-fussy font"?

At least the orca's better than the stick-in-rounded-rectangle. But, again, that's not really saying anything at all.

obviously "overly-fussy" is going to be an opinion, and not something that can be easily defined... but i'm generally a fan of block numbers, or at least fonts that are at least inspired by regular old block numbers. these are just obnoxious numbers to me. it's a really over-used font, for a reason i can't even understand. it's just not pleasing, aesthetically, to me. the 3's are the worst part (especially when paired with any thing else). it just seems overly fussy.... and doesn't match the traditional vibe i get from the blank sweater, nor does it have anything to do with the logos used. it just doesn't fit to me... it's one of the last fonts i'd ever use on a sports uniform. i can't think of a word that describes my feelings on it more than "fussy."

i tried to clarify hope it helps.

The only things that prevent this Canucks uniform from being one of the worst in the NHL are the colours and the Stick In Rink shoulder patch. I don't know any other uniform in pro sports that is so copy & paste.

Apart from the ugly and corporate orca, which doesn't even come close to resembling true Haida art and doesn't reflect the origins of the Canucks' name, the "VANCOUVER" is cluttering, the striping template is a ripoff of the mid 70s SIR uniforms, there is no green in the collar, no green font bordering and as ColeJ very well stated, the Agency font is weak and looks so out of place.

Unless the SIR is promoted to primary status, it's high-time to give JC the primary status that it deserves. West coast or no west coast, the orca has to go. Want a logo that represents where the team is from? Then why not try a 'V' logo with "CANUCKS" inscribed on the inside and JC on the shoulders?

C S

A K

N C

U

[Ark]

The stick in rink logo is dumb but if they wear it for 100 years it will look classic and great. Just stick with the original.

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

The stick in rink logo is dumb but if they wear it for 100 years it will look classic and great. Just stick with the original.

[Chromatic]

The orca is a terrible logo. Completely ignoring the whole "A whale is not a Canuck" point, its just a bad logo.

First of all, while I like the Haida art style, the way the Canucks use it does not look good as a logo.It has too many superfluous lines and details for a sports logo. If you're going that route it should be simplified to the same degree as the Seahawks logo.

Second, the entire concept behind the logo is dumb. An orca, being birthed out of a 'C' made of ice. Its just an overly complex and abstract idea for a logo. The orca clearly is trying to convey momentum, but it being anchored by the C just throws the equilibrium of the logo completely off. It looks weird. Like the Orca is somersaulting or something. The fact that there is no green, but it includes silver and a blue so dark it might as well be black just makes the Orca look more and more like it was just copypasted onto the jersey (which it was).

The whole thing just looks really cheap and cartoonish to me. Its an extremely 90s logo thats lasted a bit too long. It doesn't look like it belongs to an NHL team, more like a Junior B lacrosse team called the "Canux". Or a whale watching company or something.

[CreamSoda]

The Orca logo is way way way better than the bland and boring "stick in rink" logo.

[daniel75]

The Orca logo is way way way better than the bland and boring "stick in rink" logo.

Agreed. IMO all the Orca needs is some green in it.

[Morgan33]

Personally, I think this looks fantastic. I'm glad the Orca's not going anywhere but it really is time to ditch the arched script. As for the so called "fussy font," I would advocate a new font but not a white bloc, outlined in green as many have suggested.

[CreamSoda]

Personally, I think this looks fantastic. I'm glad the Orca's not going anywhere but it really is time to ditch the arched script. As for the so called "fussy font," I would advocate a new font but not a white bloc, outlined in green as many have suggested.

Yes, they just need to remove the script above the orca. The Orca is a strong logo and should be alone as the crest.

[T-ROY]

It would look much better if the white in the striping with thickened as well.

[habsfan1]

It would look much better if the white in the striping with thickened as well.

So basically go with the alternate.

[ColeJ]

i had no idea people were so split down the middle on the canucks identity. i always considered them to be one of the edge disasters, and figured it was pretty widely accepted that the only thing they did right was the color scheme. boy was i wrong.

back to that eddie lack example that keeps floating around... the text-free orca doesn't look bad on the sweater at all... it just doesn't fit the identity to me, the way it is presented. ideally, I'd just slap the blue/green/silver mock-up I posted last page in place of the navy/white graphic, and be done... but if you could find SOME way to fit navy blue ANYWHERE else in the identity, and i'd be okay with the navy and white primary. logo.

it really does just look like someone took a mostly colorless stamp of the old messier-era logo, and printed it on top of some new fresh sweaters.

-edit-

using the canucks logic of taking their 90's logo, dumbing down the colors, adding a useless wordmark, and slapping it on top of a uniform style/color scheme from their past, here is what the washington capitals would look like... if this had been their "edge" redesign, we'd all have said it was a disaster. it's ugly. the logo doesn't fit the sweater at all, and it lacks direction. that sums up my thoughts on the canucks uniforms. credit to the washington wizards for their WASHINGTON wordmark... it sufficed in a pinch.

the use of navy blue as the primary color in the logo, when there is no other navy blue anywhere else in the identity, just kills me. it just looks like someone stitched the wrong logo on the front of the sweater.