HatManTC Posted September 17, 2007 Share Posted September 17, 2007 i thought that Reebok had the license for the NFL for all Apperal. i know M&N does the throwback jersey but i didnt think they could do hats still. is this a case of Reebok just slapping the M&N logo to legitamizing it since many customers(atleast in my store) wont buy a hat with the vector logo on it. by RoscoeUA by gingerbreadman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
griffelh Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 There should be an announcement any day now that Reebok has purchased M&N, so it is kind of a moot point, they are one and the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuvTheNats Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 There should be an announcement any day now that Reebok has purchased M&N, so it is kind of a moot point, they are one and the same.God help us..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HatManTC Posted September 18, 2007 Author Share Posted September 18, 2007 There should be an announcement any day now that Reebok has purchased M&N, so it is kind of a moot point, they are one and the same.wouldnt it be ADIDAS that bought M&N, since ADIDAS bought Reebok last year? by RoscoeUA by gingerbreadman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac the Knife Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 There should be an announcement any day now that Reebok has purchased M&N, so it is kind of a moot point, they are one and the same.Ugh... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illwauk Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 There should be an announcement any day now that Reebok has purchased M&N, so it is kind of a moot point, they are one and the same.wouldnt it be ADIDAS that bought M&N, since ADIDAS bought Reebok last year?WTF? When did ALL of this s**t happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HatManTC Posted September 18, 2007 Author Share Posted September 18, 2007 some time last year. you didnt notice that all the NBA uni's went from Reebok to ADIDAS? this happened because ADIDAS bought Reebok and decided to split the two huge contracts they had(nfl and NBA) between the two divisions. by RoscoeUA by gingerbreadman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illwauk Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 some time last year. you didnt notice that all the NBA uni's went from Reebok to ADIDAS? this happened because ADIDAS bought Reebok and decided to split the two huge contracts they had(nfl and NBA) between the two divisions.I noticed, but I assumed adidas had bought out or subcontracted from reebok since I hadn't heard about this.Probably not much longer until our only choices are Nike and adidas-M&N-Reebok-Puma-New Era-etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fyrwulf Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 I hadn't a clue that Adidas was doing so well they could buy out Reebok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VitaminD Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 Could it be that M&N is taking liberties with the definition of "throwback" and just doing a nostalgia piece from a very - OK, verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry - recent era? I don't know that it has been formally codified exactly how far removed from the present day something has to be to be called "throwback". I have caps in my collection (O's, M's, Jays) purchased in 2006 or 2007 that were in everyday use by those MLB teams through the early '90s. I hate to think of my high school years as qualifying to be of a "throwback" era, but there it is. There are some that can make a case that hockey sweaters sold as recently as last year could qualify as throwbacks, since all the NHL teams adopted the EDGE template.So what is legally stopping M&N from taking this to the most ridiculous extreme and selling a "throwback" 2006 Reggie Bush rookie jersey? IIRC, the Browns don't use that font any more (a holdover from the Kosar years), and they may be (finally!) phasing out that dog's head which never should have ever appeared on any team -- all right, I'm stifling my Mother Of All Rants about the dog's head. For now. My question remains - could a 1996 hat be rightfully considered a throwback and thus be eligible for M&N to make and sell? And where is the line drawn? "Start spreading the news... They're leavin' today... Won't get to be a part of it... In old New York..."In order for the Mets' run of 12 losses in 17 games to mean something, the Phillies still had to win 13 of 17. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 M&N has done "inspired by" merchandise (as opposed to strict throwbacks) for a while now. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hacim419 Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 Replace the dog with the elf and I'd buy it...looks pretty good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
themightyspitz Posted September 19, 2007 Share Posted September 19, 2007 There should be an announcement any day now that Reebok has purchased M&N, so it is kind of a moot point, they are one and the same.wouldnt it be ADIDAS that bought M&N, since ADIDAS bought Reebok last year?WTF? When did ALL of this s**t happen?The day Rupert Murdoch bought the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.