2012 Jersey & Sponsorship Discussion

[bileduct]

If you can't tune into a random game and immediately recognise the teams playing by their jerseys then you've got a brand recognition problem.

I turned on the 5:30 game on Foxtel and there seems to be some new team wearing yellow!

 

[mn_tibor]

Broncos 2012 Women In League Jersey

 

[BDR]

Not the worst jersey, the maroon makes it look nice at least.

I can't wait until clubs get over this fascination with "themed" jerseys

 

[applesauce]

Fmd

 

[docbrown]

Broncos 2012 Women In League Jersey

If clubs were forced to only be able to wear a maximum of 3 jersey in any one year, do people think that things like this would get a run?

In the least if they were forced to wear a charity jersey for a few games then they'd at least put more consideration into it.

 

[carlosthedwarf]

Opinions obviously vary, but that sort of stuff is seen as sacrilege amongst sports fans in the US.

Probably because most of their jerseys have been the same for decades, with very minor changes (if any).

 

[firechild]

Titans and Storm are kind of lumped in together in that arrangement but that would be the most ideal situation for a single round. I'm sure fans like to see different matchups year by year with appropriate jerseys.

Broncos vs Knights/Titans (as Giants)
Bulldogs vs Dragons/Eels
Cowboys vs Warriors/Reds
Dragons vs Bulldogs/Raiders (as Steelers)/Storm
Eels vs Manly/Bulldogs
Knights vs Broncos/Manly
Panthers vs Sharks/Raiders
Rabbitohs vs Roosters/Tigers (as Balmain and Wests)
etc...

Lots of history missed if the same fixture is used yearly.

Parra and Manly have to play each other for heritage round to be taken seriously. Both entered the comp in 1947. Parra played their first grand final in 1976 against Manly before they played back to back GFs against each other in 1982/3.

 

[Henson Park Hornets]

Fmd

Yeah I'm with you. FMD.

It's an eyesore.

 

[GAZF]

Parra and Manly have to play each other for heritage round to be taken seriously. Both entered the comp in 1947. Parra played their first grand final in 1976 against Manly before they played back to back GFs against each other in 1982/3.

For heritage games to be taken seriously, ALL clubs deserve to get a fair matchup. The Sea-Eagles have a storied history of grand finals and could play any of their previous grand final opponents in retro gear (Eels, Sharks, Raiders, Dogs, Storm and now Warriors). Thinking that historic matches should be constricted to one opponent is silly and boring.

Probably because most of their jerseys have been the same for decades, with very minor changes (if any).

Exactly, something the NRL should aim for.

If clubs were forced to only be able to wear a maximum of 3 jersey in any one year, do people think that things like this would get a run?

In the least if they were forced to wear a charity jersey for a few games then they'd at least put more consideration into it.

The Broncos jersey is probably the best looking of all the pink jerseys to come out this year. It certainly doesn't mean its good though.

 

[firechild]

For heritage games to be taken seriously, ALL clubs deserve to get a fair matchup. The Sea-Eagles have a storied history of grand finals and could play any of their previous grand final opponents in retro gear (Eels, Sharks, Raiders, Dogs, Storm and now Warriors). Thinking that historic matches should be constricted to one opponent is silly and boring.

I disagree. For rivalry round, you'd be right, Manly could play Cronulla, Parra, Melbourne, NZ, Stains, Dogs, Raiders, Souffs, Easts, etc. Heritage though loosely refers to origins. That is where Parra and Manly are very much ideal opponents.

 

[GAZF]

I disagree. For rivalry round, you'd be right, Manly could play Cronulla, Parra, Melbourne, NZ, Stains, Dogs, Raiders, Souffs, Easts, etc. Heritage though loosely refers to origins. That is where Parra and Manly are very much ideal opponents.

I disagree. Heritage refers to the history of the game, not the origins of the club. Your definition leaves a club like Melbourne with no-one to play. I proposed two heritage matches a year per club (not restricted to a heritage round), Manly would be able to play Parra most years using that system. Rivalry round is a bit silly, rivalries between clubs can fluctuate depending on circumstance and I find that certain "rivalries" are forced. History is something that doesn't change.

 

[firechild]

When someone asks what your heritage is you don't tell them that you were born in Canada, spend your teenage years in England and then moved to Australia in your twenties. You tell them where you and/or your ancestors came from. You're right that heritage is about history but it is a specific part of history that relates to origins. Melbourne would play the GC because they are the only 2 clubs admitted to the comp since the formation of the NRL.

 

[GAZF]

That's one definition of the word. Is a heritage building listed on the sole basis of having been built? No. The history between its origin and present day is just as important.

Storm/Titans is a terrible fit by the way.

 

[firechild]

A building is only heritage because of its origin (and therefore age). Heritage listing takes into consideration other factors but a building is a heritage building based on nothing but age.

Storm and Titans has no meaning for their fans I agree but I think doing anything else negates the idea of heritage.

 

[GAZF]

If heritage is solely a function of age, does a 200 year old outhouse have more right to heritage listing than a 100 year old courthouse?

If you're so passionate about etymology we'll call it "History Round" (shit I know) just for you. Its boring and silly to have the same matchup year after year, ignoring the great history of clubs and rivalries, so that the word "heritage" is accurate (I still disagree on your definition). I'm sure the Bulldogs would love to have an 80's themed crack at the Eels, its kind of selfish to keep them to yourselves.

 

[carlosthedwarf]

Exactly, something the NRL should aim for.

Agreed 100%. I believe the NBA has a rule that if you move to a new uniform you can only wear the home/away versions for 2 seasons before adding any alternates. I'd love to see that over here.

 

[firechild]

If heritage is solely a function of age, does a 200 year old outhouse have more right to heritage listing than a 100 year old courthouse?

Heritage listing is quite different to just being a heritage building. Look at the pieces of crap they're working on in The Block, heritage buildings but not even close to be heritage listed.

If you're so passionate about etymology we'll call it "History Round" (shit I know) just for you. Its boring and silly to have the same matchup year after year, ignoring the great history of clubs and rivalries, so that the word "heritage" is accurate (I still disagree on your definition). I'm sure the Bulldogs would love to have an 80's themed crack at the Eels, its kind of selfish to keep them to yourselves.

Who cares really? Manly are going to play Parra at least once every season anyway (the same can be said about ANY potential matchup) so why is it boring if it happens in a designated round each year?

 

[GAZF]

Heritage listing is quite different to just being a heritage building. Look at the pieces of crap they're working on in The Block, heritage buildings but not even close to be heritage listed.



Who cares really? Manly are going to play Parra at least once every season anyway (the same can be said about ANY potential matchup) so why is it boring if it happens in a designated round each year?

]

I can't argue your first point other than to repeat that heritage extends beyond the origin.

It doesn't hurt to change things up. Commemorating different rivalries and matches keeps the idea of heritage round from going stale. As a Raiders fan, I'm sick of my team getting overlooked for heritage round. We didn't even bother against the Cowboys this year. Clubs like the Raiders and Storm get screwed so that Sydney clubs can repeatedly get their special matches each year. You have to think beyond the scope of your own club to realise this.

 

[Stinkler]

]

I can't argue your first point other than to repeat that heritage extends beyond the origin.

It doesn't hurt to change things up. Commemorating different rivalries and matches keeps the idea of heritage round from going stale. As a Raiders fan, I'm sick of my team getting overlooked for heritage round. We didn't even bother against the Cowboys this year. Clubs like the Raiders and Storm get screwed so that Sydney clubs can repeatedly get their special matches each year. You have to think beyond the scope of your own club to realise this.

Yeah, clubs like the Sharks?
Away in the "Heirtage" round.
Away in the "Women in League" round.
Away in the "Rivalry" round.
Away in the "Indigenous" round.
Heaps fair!!!

 

[Pierced Soul]

Yeah, clubs like the Sharks?
Away in the "Heirtage" round.
Away in the "Women in League" round.
Away in the "Rivalry" round.
Away in the "Indigenous" round.
Heaps fair!!!

and in return gallen will never again be suspended!

but it's a fair point you've made and the ARLC or whatever they're called needs to start treating all teams equally