Bmac

NHL 2017-18

Recommended Posts

Thread's got "Neon Lights" by Kraftwerk stuck in my head now, which is not the worst fate, I love Kraftwerk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, spartacat_12 said:

Even if somehow Vegas loses the rights to the Golden Knights name, I highly doubt there will be any changes to the logo or uniforms.

 

It seems like the branding was done purposely to not put any emphasis on "Golden", in case something like this happened. My guess is they would just shift to either Sand Knights or Dessert Knights, and make a slight adjustment to their wordmark logo.

 

Given the historic start this franchise has had, they've already managed to build up quite a bit of brand equity with the current logo & uniforms. There's no way they ditch that to become the Neon Knights and bring magenta into the fold (or make any other branding changes that some have suggested).

 

I agree that the design team behind the logos did a masterful job of building an "escape hatch" into the brand. My hope is that if/when Vegas is forced to give up the Golden Knights moniker that they'll simply opt for Knights. Not only is it the simplest option, it would also be the least damaging to the brand. I'm sure plenty of individuals already refer to the team simply as the Knights, and nothing in their current branding would be undermined or out of place. 

 

As for the alternative names that are being floated, I only recall three names that were officially presented by the organization: Golden Knights, Silver Knights, and Neon Knights. Of the two remaining I actually think Neon Knights could be the most easily implemented. I don't know what the official pantone for the VGK red is, but it's fairly bright, especially next to the black and grey of their uniforms. I wouldn't call it magenta, but I suspect you could replace the red striping on the jersey and the red embroidery on the shoulder patches with magenta fairly easily. If you were feeling especially ambitious you could add a magenta border to the primary. Obviously it's far from ideal, but having to rebrand a team after just one season is far from ideal.

 

Compare this to the changes that would be needed for the Silver Knights. Simply swapping out gold for silver results in a color scheme of silver, grey, black, and red. Unless you increase the red significantly you're effectively left with an LA Kings knock-off. All of which is to say that changing to Silver Knights would require a significant change to both the logo and uniforms...which could seriously undermine whatever equity the team has generated. What's more, in light of the Raiders' pending arrival, I suspect Vegas wants to do everything it can to not be silver and black team #2 in the market. 

 

Even though Desert Knights and Sand Knights keep getting mentioned in various circles, I'm not aware of either ever being suggested by the organization itself. While the names would sidestep the challenges associated with Neon Knights and Silver Knights, neither strengthens the overall brand. Yes, Las Vegas is in the desert, and yes there's sand, but none of those aspects are associated with the current brand. As was noted, part of this is due to the overly generic nature of the logos. The current brand works because the color associated with the brand is present in the logo, but in its current incarnation the VGK branding could just as easily be adapted to Casino Knights or Oasis Knights as the proposed Desert Knights.

 

Which all comes back to just calling them Knights. It's a simple (but well executed) logo, with a great brand built around it. Don't try to dress it up by tacking on unnecessary adjectives. Embrace it for what it is. Simple, timeless, and effective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep everything in the identity, and just change the red to hot pink. There's your Vegas Neon Knights. Done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would Neon Knights need pink? Pink/magenta isn't the only color neon is available in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Thaumatrope said:

 

I agree that the design team behind the logos did a masterful job of building an "escape hatch" into the brand. My hope is that if/when Vegas is forced to give up the Golden Knights moniker that they'll simply opt for Knights. Not only is it the simplest option, it would also be the least damaging to the brand. I'm sure plenty of individuals already refer to the team simply as the Knights, and nothing in their current branding would be undermined or out of place. 

 

As for the alternative names that are being floated, I only recall three names that were officially presented by the organization: Golden Knights, Silver Knights, and Neon Knights. Of the two remaining I actually think Neon Knights could be the most easily implemented. I don't know what the official pantone for the VGK red is, but it's fairly bright, especially next to the black and grey of their uniforms. I wouldn't call it magenta, but I suspect you could replace the red striping on the jersey and the red embroidery on the shoulder patches with magenta fairly easily. If you were feeling especially ambitious you could add a magenta border to the primary. Obviously it's far from ideal, but having to rebrand a team after just one season is far from ideal.

 

Compare this to the changes that would be needed for the Silver Knights. Simply swapping out gold for silver results in a color scheme of silver, grey, black, and red. Unless you increase the red significantly you're effectively left with an LA Kings knock-off. All of which is to say that changing to Silver Knights would require a significant change to both the logo and uniforms...which could seriously undermine whatever equity the team has generated. What's more, in light of the Raiders' pending arrival, I suspect Vegas wants to do everything it can to not be silver and black team #2 in the market. 

 

Even though Desert Knights and Sand Knights keep getting mentioned in various circles, I'm not aware of either ever being suggested by the organization itself. While the names would sidestep the challenges associated with Neon Knights and Silver Knights, neither strengthens the overall brand. Yes, Las Vegas is in the desert, and yes there's sand, but none of those aspects are associated with the current brand. As was noted, part of this is due to the overly generic nature of the logos. The current brand works because the color associated with the brand is present in the logo, but in its current incarnation the VGK branding could just as easily be adapted to Casino Knights or Oasis Knights as the proposed Desert Knights.

 

Which all comes back to just calling them Knights. It's a simple (but well executed) logo, with a great brand built around it. Don't try to dress it up by tacking on unnecessary adjectives. Embrace it for what it is. Simple, timeless, and effective.

I would prefer they just go with the adjective-less Knights name as well, but based on what I've read/heard, it doesn't seem like an option (otherwise Foley likely would've just adopted it when Black Knights got vetoed).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Thaumatrope said:

 

I agree that the design team behind the logos did a masterful job of building an "escape hatch" into the brand. My hope is that if/when Vegas is forced to give up the Golden Knights moniker that they'll simply opt for Knights. Not only is it the simplest option, it would also be the least damaging to the brand. I'm sure plenty of individuals already refer to the team simply as the Knights, and nothing in their current branding would be undermined or out of place. 

 

As for the alternative names that are being floated, I only recall three names that were officially presented by the organization: Golden Knights, Silver Knights, and Neon Knights. Of the two remaining I actually think Neon Knights could be the most easily implemented. I don't know what the official pantone for the VGK red is, but it's fairly bright, especially next to the black and grey of their uniforms. I wouldn't call it magenta, but I suspect you could replace the red striping on the jersey and the red embroidery on the shoulder patches with magenta fairly easily. If you were feeling especially ambitious you could add a magenta border to the primary. Obviously it's far from ideal, but having to rebrand a team after just one season is far from ideal.

 

Compare this to the changes that would be needed for the Silver Knights. Simply swapping out gold for silver results in a color scheme of silver, grey, black, and red. Unless you increase the red significantly you're effectively left with an LA Kings knock-off. All of which is to say that changing to Silver Knights would require a significant change to both the logo and uniforms...which could seriously undermine whatever equity the team has generated. What's more, in light of the Raiders' pending arrival, I suspect Vegas wants to do everything it can to not be silver and black team #2 in the market. 

 

Even though Desert Knights and Sand Knights keep getting mentioned in various circles, I'm not aware of either ever being suggested by the organization itself. While the names would sidestep the challenges associated with Neon Knights and Silver Knights, neither strengthens the overall brand. Yes, Las Vegas is in the desert, and yes there's sand, but none of those aspects are associated with the current brand. As was noted, part of this is due to the overly generic nature of the logos. The current brand works because the color associated with the brand is present in the logo, but in its current incarnation the VGK branding could just as easily be adapted to Casino Knights or Oasis Knights as the proposed Desert Knights.

 

Which all comes back to just calling them Knights. It's a simple (but well executed) logo, with a great brand built around it. Don't try to dress it up by tacking on unnecessary adjectives. Embrace it for what it is. Simple, timeless, and effective.

 

The reason they are partly in this mess in the first place is because they can't use just the name Knights.  It's been discussed before, but the London Knights own the trademark to Knights in Canada, so they couldn't use it unless Foley paid them the rights to do so, which he had said it would be too costly.  Sand Knights seems to be the fall back since that is the only other alternative name that Vegas still kept trademarked, while allowing others to expire.  

 

I agree Knights would make the most sense.  Much better than Sand Knights.  But, Foley is going to have to pay up, and that price, whatever it was, probably went up with the success of the team and the current bind that they are in.  Unless its in the tens of millions, Foley probably should just bite the bullet and pay London.  Then again, most people probably refer to the team as the Knights, any ways.  They can save money by just going with Sand Knights officially, while unofficially be the Knights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Sand Knights" is a Short Season A team where Brandiose put a sand gnat in armor and made it ride a horse and also the lance is a baseball bat and also the horse is also a baseball bat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/13/2018 at 4:38 PM, spartacat_12 said:

I would prefer they just go with the adjective-less Knights name as well, but based on what I've read/heard, it doesn't seem like an option (otherwise Foley likely would've just adopted it when Black Knights got vetoed).

 

On 1/13/2018 at 5:00 PM, M4One said:

 

The reason they are partly in this mess in the first place is because they can't use just the name Knights.  It's been discussed before, but the London Knights own the trademark to Knights in Canada, so they couldn't use it unless Foley paid them the rights to do so, which he had said it would be too costly.  Sand Knights seems to be the fall back since that is the only other alternative name that Vegas still kept trademarked, while allowing others to expire.  

 

So this is where things get interesting. As far as I can tell the "we can't be the Knights because the London Knights wont let us" narrative has been pushed entirely by Foley. This is important because according to the London Knights there has been no communication between the two organizations about the name. Based on the quotes from London's governor, it sounds like they are open to making a deal, and I suspect that with enough negotiating the two sides could work something out. 

 

So what keeps Foley from picking up the phone? The money angle seems like a red herring to me. After all, Foley just spent $500 million to buy an NHL franchise. I find it hard to believe that he's leveraged himself to the point that he can't afford to throw a few more million London's way in order to secure the Knights trademark.

 

Which leaves me with another theory: I don't think Foley wants the team to be just the Knights. It's been clear for some time that Foley has a love (some might argue obsession) for the US Army, and West Point specifically. The fact that Foley originally wanted to call the team the Black Knights is a clear indication of just how "Single White Female" Foley wanted to get. When that idea was ultimately shot down (by some combination of the NHL and the US Army), the name Golden Knights ultimately emerged. It's worth noting that even when it was first announced there were people expressing concern about the Golden Knights being another attempt by Foley to ride the Army's coat tails. The fact that the US Army has challenged the trademark suggests that they may have come to a similar conclusion. 

 

So the question is, if Foley's team is legally prohibited from pretending to be part of the US Army...what option will they pursue? My guess (hope?) is that when faced with either going to the negotiating table with the London Knights, or saddling the team with the undeniably amateur Sand Knights that he'll do what's right for his organization (and his legacy!) and go with Knights.

 

PS - Kudos to the admiral...Sand Knights totally makes me think of Sand Gnats!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lbj273 said:

Why would Neon Knights need pink? Pink/magenta isn't the only color neon is available in.

 

It doesn't have to be magenta, but if the goal is to keep as much of the existing brand in place it would be easiest to change the red to magenta. As an added bonus T-Mobile (who has naming rights for the Vegas arena) uses magenta/pink as it's primary color so there'd be some tie-ins with the building as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Thaumatrope said:

So what keeps Foley from picking up the phone? The money angle seems like a red herring to me. After all, Foley just spent $500 million to buy an NHL franchise. I find it hard to believe that he's leveraged himself to the point that he can't afford to throw a few more million London's way in order to secure the Knights trademark.

Hell, just buy the damn team if they wanted to be a pain. Junior hockey, even in Canada, is not a huge money business. A study paid for by lawyers suing the league (with incentive to make franchise values as high as possible) put the London Knights at $23M CAD. Throw $25M at them and call it a day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Cosmic said:

Hell, just buy the damn team if they wanted to be a pain. Junior hockey, even in Canada, is not a huge money business. A study paid for by lawyers suing the league (with incentive to make franchise values as high as possible) put the London Knights at $23M CAD. Throw $25M at them and call it a day.

 

I've had the same exact thought. Even if the Hunters held out for twice that Foley would only be paying 1/10th of what he paid for his NHL team. What's more, there's nothing saying he couldn't negotiate a trademarks haring agreement (with himself) and sell the team to a new owner and recouping at least some of his initial purchase price. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Thaumatrope said:

So this is where things get interesting. As far as I can tell the "we can't be the Knights because the London Knights wont let us" narrative has been pushed entirely by Foley. This is important because according to the London Knights there has been no communication between the two organizations about the name. Based on the quotes from London's governor, it sounds like they are open to making a deal, and I suspect that with enough negotiating the two sides could work something out. 

 

So what keeps Foley from picking up the phone?

wildwing64 covered it pretty well in the NHL Anti-Thread...

 

On 1/11/2018 at 5:36 PM, wildwing64 said:

 

London Knights: We may or may not take issue with a pro team named the Knights, but if you ask us nicely -

 

Foley: What's that? We can't be just the Knights? Oh well! I guess we'll have to name ourselves the Golden Knights instead!

 

London Knights: Wait, we haven't even -

 

Foley: GOLDEN KNIGHTS!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone else think the gradients on the NHL shield are aging gracelessly and should be replaced by a flat grey/silver? They've bugged me from day one -- I don't see the other league logos usin' no gradients -- but as we've moved further into a minimalist era of design that we were emphatically not in 13 years ago, it looks worse than ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. They have a flat version that’s a thousand times better:

 

9gng0g4d3kmbxhazx71ubm51w.png

 

It still has the two extra, pointless outlines cluttering it up, but that’s a totally separate problem. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, the admiral said:

Anyone else think the gradients on the NHL shield are aging gracelessly and should be replaced by a flat grey/silver? They've bugged me from day one -- I don't see the other league logos usin' no gradients -- but as we've moved further into a minimalist era of design that we were emphatically not in 13 years ago, it looks worse than ever.

 

13 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

Agreed. They have a flat version that’s a thousand times better:

 

9gng0g4d3kmbxhazx71ubm51w.png

 

It still has the two extra, pointless outlines cluttering it up, but that’s a totally separate problem. 

 

They really just need to ditch the outer two key lines that they added while they’re at it. That inner black outline is the true shape of the shield. You can see how the nice curves that lead into the shield points on that inner black outline devolve into rough spikes on the outer silver and black trim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, andrewharrington said:

They really just need to ditch the outer two key lines that they added while they’re at it. That inner black outline is the true shape of the shield. You can see how the nice curves that lead into the shield points on that inner black outline devolve into rough spikes on the outer silver and black trim.

 

Yes, yes, yes.  

 

This shield has had a much more pleasing shape:

 

2049.gif

 

I understand them wanting to move to upwards-slanted text.  I understand them wanting a more neutral color than orange.   I think those choices are both mistakes, but I understand the thinking behind them. 

 

The two extra outlines, however, have to go.  They’re needless clutter and ugly to boot, spoiling the shape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The upward text bugs the hell out of me. Your eyes want to read top to bottom, left to right, and unlike, say, a baseball script, that angle is too steep. I can live with silver over orange, I appreciate the neutrality of it, but the upward text, the overoutlining, and the gradients, I cannot tolerate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, the admiral said:

The upward text bugs the hell out of me. Your eyes want to read top to bottom, left to right, and unlike, say, a baseball script, that angle is too steep. I can live with silver over orange, I appreciate the neutrality of it, but the upward text, the overoutlining, and the gradients, I cannot tolerate.

 

IIRC, the reason they changed it after the 2004-05 lockout was because the new logo needed to be symbolic of the "upward trend" that the NHL was on.

 

Or some dumb :censored: like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.