2022-2023 NHL Jersey Changes

[ebod39]

14 hours 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?

Meaning?    They don't own the factory the jerseys were manufactured in?  

[spartacat_12]

1 hour ago, DEAD! said:

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

 

You're right. These would be such nice sneakers if they didn't have the big Nike ads on the sides.

 

[AnPheitseog]

53 minutes ago, ebod39 said:

Meaning?    They don't own the factory the jerseys were manufactured in?  

They don't, in fact.

 

Nike baseball jerseys are made by a Fanatics owned plant. It's the old majestic plant.

Adidas NHL jerseys are made by SP, the same plant that made the jerseys for reebok as well.

 

I dont know on field, but all retail nike NFL jerseys are also made by fanatics and not nike.

[TBGKon]

Lightning have unveiled their 30th Anniversary logo

 

 

[habsfan1]

6 hours ago, CreamSoda said:

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:

 

 

The tricky thing is that even is Nike had no hand in producing these jerseys whatsoever, the swoosh may come off as a manufacturing tag, even if it isn't.

 

 

 

6 hours ago, B-mer said:

Good find. Teal gear looks pretty good there. 
 

I got a head start making these for NHL04 rebuilt and overall not bad. Just did a color and striping layout test. Starting my acceptance journey early 
 

 

If the mismatching crest that's still loaded with orange was fixed, it would be a lot better.

 

The crest should match the shoulder patches that contain thick black outlines with a thin teal trim. Secondary logos are totally devoid of orange.

[habsfan1]

3 hours ago, spartacat_12 said:

 

Except that manufacturers want to design products that are aesthetically pleasing. They use minimal, simplistic emblems (swoosh, 3 stripes, etc.), and they customize them to the teams' colour schemes. 

 

Banks/insurance companies/sportsbooks don't care about the aesthetics of uniforms/equipment. They just want to attract as many eyes to their logo as possible. That's why the Habs now have a bright blue & yellow patch on their jerseys.

 

Very good point. Manufacturers want to sell merchandise, which is why their label on the piece of merch doesn't take away from the visual aesthetics.

 

Corporations want to make money by turning soccer players and racecars into walking billboards and billboards on wheels.

[FiddySicks]

I’d be ok with the gross ass orange if it was just the stick. Logos often have colors that aren’t part of the scheme, and that’s ok. But adding it to the triangle outline was always a bad move. 
 

Really, they should swap to those new logos they released a few years ago and have hardly used and ditch the PikaShark altogether. 

[B-mer]

2 hours ago, habsfan1 said:

 

The tricky thing is that even is Nike had no hand in producing these jerseys whatsoever, the swoosh may come off as a manufacturing tag, even if it isn't.

 

 

 

 

If the mismatching crest that's still loaded with orange was fixed, it would be a lot better.

 

The crest should match the shoulder patches that contain thick black outlines with a thin teal trim. Secondary logos are totally devoid of orange.

It doesn’t bother me as much but I agree. That’s what I thought they did from those first leaked images but it must have been angle/lighting eye trickery. 

[ebod39]

3 hours ago, AnPheitseog said:

They don't, in fact.

 

Nike baseball jerseys are made by a Fanatics owned plant. It's the old majestic plant.

Adidas NHL jerseys are made by SP, the same plant that made the jerseys for reebok as well.

 

I dont know on field, but all retail nike NFL jerseys are also made by fanatics and not nike.

 

Yes, I'm very aware of all that, maybe more so than you know.

Also, Reebok did own CCM and the factory in St. Hy during their tenure.

 

My point for clarification was to ask the OP that if by not owning the factories, that means calling it the "manufacturer logo" is somehow wrong?   I don't see how it's any different than Polo or Gap doesn't own their factories.  

 

 

[Klondyke]

3 hours ago, TBGKon said:

Lightning have unveiled their 30th Anniversary logo

 

 

 

Too similar for my taste 

[CrookedThumb]

5 hours ago, TBGKon said:

Lightning have unveiled their 30th Anniversary logo

 

 

looks like a hybrid of their 20th and 25th

[BBTV]

22 hours 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. 

 

11 hours ago, CreamSoda said:

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. 

 

 

 

 

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.  

 

5 hours ago, spartacat_12 said:

 

You're right. These would be such nice sneakers if they didn't have the big Nike ads on the sides.

 

 

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.

[CreamSoda]

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.  

[BBTV]

7 minutes ago, CreamSoda said:

sorry you can’t see the difference.  

 

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.

 

[CreamSoda]

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. 

[dont care]

10 hours ago, CreamSoda said:

 

 

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.

If the golfer is sponsored by Taylormade and RBC, sure there is no difference. I bet the golfer will also have both logos on his hat and polo too it’s all advertisements

[dont care]

8 hours ago, ebod39 said:

Meaning?    They don't own the factory the jerseys were manufactured in?  

Correct, the license the manufacturing to other factories. 

[BBTV]

24 minutes ago, CreamSoda said:

 

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. 

 

I'll concede that IF something HAS to be there, the swoosh is more logical to be there than a random bank logo given that it's at least associated with sports merchandise and uniforms in general.  Honestly we're so used to seeing it that it almost disappears (except for when it's smacked on the front of the Yankees and similar uniforms, which is a disgrace.) 

 

As long as we agree that it's still advertising, we have some common ground.  It's my opinion that no  advertising "fits", it's just that some may be less bad than others, and given the choice (which we as fans shouldn't have to make), if one HAD to be there, I'd choose the swoosh / vector / starter logo / etc. over GoDaddy or Scotia Bank.   

 

I'll concede that there's at least some synergy with the athletic brands, but my overall point is that the uniform should represent ONE and ONLY ONE brand - the team.  It shouldn't be a platform to market a second brand that infringes on the primary one, and in some cases (Seahawks for example) has fully integrated itself with that brand.

 

I think we've resolved our differences on this matter.  We agree on the main point, which is objective (or... black and white!), but disagree on the importance of it, which is subjective.

[habsfan1]

I don't think this would be well received, if the Yankees did this, in 5 years from now...

 

[CaliforniaGlowin]

 

Teal and yellow teal and yellow teal and yellow

 

Primary uniforms dropping tomorrow!!!