2012 Jersey & Sponsorship Discussion

[Spitty]

My point is exactly the issue with Cronulla's was not even the jersey they wore - it was the fact they had a sponsor which is absurd when a larger issue of what jersey teams are wearing is in clear breach of the rules they set up.

I believe Newcastle, Roosters, etc. should be forced to wear their home or away jerseys every week with the heritage jerseys being allowed to be worn on one other occasion other than heritage round. Charity and indigenous jerseys should be worn in those rounds only.

I agree with you. What happened to Cronulla was disgraceful, i don't see any possible reasoning for the NRL to have an issue with Blade's getting an extra weeks publicity, yet it allows other clubs to wear whatever they want.

Obviously the NRL are being lenient with the jersey rules because they're trying not to limit the clubs earning capacity. But then they make a bad decision that affects Cronulla's earning capacity. The mind boggle's.

 

[Joker's Wild]

My point is exactly the issue with Cronulla's was not even the jersey they wore - it was the fact they had a sponsor which is absurd when a larger issue of what jersey teams are wearing is in clear breach of the rules they set up.

I believe Newcastle, Roosters, etc. should be forced to wear their home or away jerseys every week with the heritage jerseys being allowed to be worn on one other occasion other than heritage round. Charity and indigenous jerseys should be worn in those rounds only.

I understand your frustration with the NRL not allowing the Blades sponsorship but what exactly does that have to do with Newcastle and Penrith wearing their alternate jerseys?

 

[Dr_Deez]

I'm sick of seeing the Warriors at home in the away jersey , I say only wear away if it clashes, Herritage should only be warn for 1 round (herritage round)

 

[M2D2]

The home jersey is better, but the away jersey is better for the hot months.

 

[Cumberland Throw]

Sharks have no sleve sponsor either.

f**k me. Caltex own half the shire surely they could stump 300 k a year for a sleeve

 

[Dr_Deez]

The home jersey is better, but the away jersey is better for the hot months.

If it's a heat thing why the warriors are wearing white, why have a black Jersey in the first place.

 

[Stinkler]

Sharks have no sleve sponsor either.

f**k me. Caltex own half the shire surely they could stump 300 k a year for a sleeve

Won't be long... sponsors will be all over them after a win.... won't they? :sarcasm:

 

[thorson1987]

was it just me or did Manly have a plain blue box on their shorts where a sponsor usually goes tonight.

 

[hellteam]

If it's a heat thing why the warriors are wearing white, why have a black Jersey in the first place.

Rugby league is a winter sport.... they'll wear it the majority of the year.

Can't stand the Rabbitohs red green and black jersey this year, looks terrible. The white one is much better.

 

[Timmah]

If it's a heat thing why the warriors are wearing white, why have a black Jersey in the first place.

Because it's a winter sport, and only in the opening months is this really a concern.

 

[franklin2323]

The pessimist in me say's, thats the point.I expect Eels will play in blue on Friday (They did so in R2 last year during a night game) so if our White jersey still "Isn't ready" I expect we'll be in pink again. Oak must be loving this delay.....

I agree. The round 16 pink is ready but the round 2 away or the round 5 'white' heritage isn't?? Seems very strange. Why has no other club had this problem? The over use takes the prestige out of these special event jerseys. Especially given as clubs only finalised jerseys 1 month ago.

 

[Frailty]

I understand your frustration with the NRL not allowing the Blades sponsorship but what exactly does that have to do with Newcastle and Penrith wearing their alternate jerseys?

Because it is a related issue - The Sharks were told they could only have Blades on the jersey for one round - but then the heritage alternate jerseys were designed for one round (heritage and Women in League round) but allowed to be worn for more?

It boggles me considering the Sharks again wore the heritage jersey this home game as well. So the NRL has no problem with sides swapping jerseys but then has a problem with them putting a sponsor on the jersey until the main sponsor is finalised.

It is a joke.

 

[Pierced Soul]

i was watching the sharks go round without a major sponsor the past 2 rounds, and part of me likes the fact it doesnt look like a walking billboard whilst the other part of me thinks it looks empty.

i guess we're all used to having a major sponsor take up a quarter of the strip things look empty when there's nothing there. sharks should get northies as a sponsor

 

[Joker's Wild]

Because it is a related issue - The Sharks were told they could only have Blades on the jersey for one round - but then the heritage alternate jerseys were designed for one round (heritage and Women in League round) but allowed to be worn for more?

It boggles me considering the Sharks again wore the heritage jersey this home game as well. So the NRL has no problem with sides swapping jerseys but then has a problem with them putting a sponsor on the jersey until the main sponsor is finalised.

It is a joke.

Yes those jerseys were originally designed for 1-2 rounds a year but considering the popularity of the heritage designs over the last few seasons Im guessing the clubs have woken up to the fact that fans want to see more of them. In the case of Newcastle specifically, due to the silly 3 year home design rule we have to keep the ugly "bra" jersey on the books until the end of 2013 but the NRL rules dont state exactly how many times a year these jerseys need to be worn.

The Sharks non sponsorship issue is not really related to jersey design at all. I agree that the NRL is seemingly restricting the earning capacity of the Sharks if indeed XBlades are willing to pay for the jersey rights. Hard to work out whay they'd have an issue with it tbh.

 

[Spitty]

I agree. The round 16 pink is ready but the round 2 away or the round 5 'white' heritage isn't?? Seems very strange. Why has no other club had this problem? The over use takes the prestige out of these special event jerseys. Especially given as clubs only finalised jerseys 1 month ago.

We wouldn't have been able to wear white in R2 anyway, because Roosters were always going to wear white. So in that sense I understand why we wore pink, in a choice between pink and black on a hot Sunday arvo pink wins everytime.

Last year we weren't due to wear white until something like R16, but the NRL ruled we had to wear it in R2 and funnily enough it was ready. I don't think the club is out and out lying, but I also don't think the club is really "pushing" ISC to get them ready either, if you know what I mean.

The pink jersey looks way too much like a Strawberry Oak for it to be a coincidence and the length's the clubs gone to promoting Oak tells a story by itself.

 

[GAZF]

In the case of Newcastle specifically, due to the silly 3 year home design rule we have to keep the ugly "bra" jersey on the books until the end of 2013 but the NRL rules dont state exactly how many times a year these jerseys need to be worn.

The Knights can cry all they want about being stuck with a sportsbra but they allowed it in the end, Blades is just as responsible for shovelling the garbage their way as well.

There's no shortage of clubs with awful designs (Knights/Storm/Tigers/Titans) or good designs ruined by an awful template (Bulldogs/Rabbitohs/Warriors). It really makes the league look cheap and nasty combined with over the top sponsorship in garish boxes.

The NRL should be stricter on club uniform rules. Once a home/away uniform is used, it stays for 3/2 years, no excuses. The only exceptions being change in sponsorships or player comfort issues such as changing the material or collar of the uniform.

They would also need to close off the loophole where special uniforms are used constantly - one heritage and one special interest jersey (charity) used over two rounds in a year. Commercially driven uniforms such as the Avatar and Star Wars nonsense that the Dogs have come up with would not be allowed either. This would make clubs reconsider adopting ugly designs in the first place and dragging down the look of the league overall, given that merchandise sales would take a hit.

Heritage jerseys would need to be approved by the league for historical accuracy. At the moment we have teams like the Warriors using completely made up designs (as good as they may look) or teams like Newcastle altering the original design (sleeve stripes are vertical instead of horizontal, sock & shorts are wrong) or the Gold Coast using the wrong colours.

It isn't that hard to get it right but clubs find a way to screw it up every year, take the big decisions out of their hands and they might be wiser in the future.

 

[Danish]

My point is exactly the issue with Cronulla's was not even the jersey they wore - it was the fact they had a sponsor which is absurd when a larger issue of what jersey teams are wearing is in clear breach of the rules they set up.

I believe Newcastle, Roosters, etc. should be forced to wear their home or away jerseys every week with the heritage jerseys being allowed to be worn on one other occasion other than heritage round. Charity and indigenous jerseys should be worn in those rounds only.

FYI our "heritage" strip IS our away strip. We only have 2 jerseys this year (although I assume we'll have a pink and ANZAC jersey)

 

[Frailty]

FYI our "heritage" strip IS our away strip. We only have 2 jerseys this year (although I assume we'll have a pink and ANZAC jersey)

It was more to do with it being used last year rather than the russian away jersey.

 

[Danish]

It was more to do with it being used last year rather than the russian away jersey.

I thought it was more french than russian, but yes it was odd that we only wore than jersey I believe twice all year (against the sharks and maybe brisbane?)

Regardless of the lax rules on us and others wearing whatever alternate strip we choose, not allowing the sharks to have blades on their jersey is just disgraceful.

 

[Joker's Wild]

The Knights can cry all they want about being stuck with a sportsbra but they allowed it in the end, Blades is just as responsible for shovelling the garbage their way as well.

There's no shortage of clubs with awful designs (Knights/Storm/Tigers/Titans) or good designs ruined by an awful template (Bulldogs/Rabbitohs/Warriors). It really makes the league look cheap and nasty combined with over the top sponsorship in garish boxes.

The NRL should be stricter on club uniform rules. Once a home/away uniform is used, it stays for 3/2 years, no excuses. The only exceptions being change in sponsorships or player comfort issues such as changing the material or collar of the uniform.

They would also need to close off the loophole where special uniforms are used constantly - one heritage and one special interest jersey (charity) used over two rounds in a year. Commercially driven uniforms such as the Avatar and Star Wars nonsense that the Dogs have come up with would not be allowed either. This would make clubs reconsider adopting ugly designs in the first place and dragging down the look of the league overall, given that merchandise sales would take a hit.

Heritage jerseys would need to be approved by the league for historical accuracy. At the moment we have teams like the Warriors using completely made up designs (as good as they may look) or teams like Newcastle altering the original design (sleeve stripes are vertical instead of horizontal, sock & shorts are wrong) or the Gold Coast using the wrong colours.

It isn't that hard to get it right but clubs find a way to screw it up every year, take the big decisions out of their hands and they might be wiser in the future.

I agree with some of your points mate but I think clubs should have freedom of what jerseys they should wear and when, as long as said jerseys are approved by the NRL.

As for the Knights "crying" about the home jersey, well no one is crying about it mate but that design was approved by the old board and the new ownership sees it for what it is, absolute rubbish. I really cant fathom why anyone would want to force the Knights to use a shitty jersey when they have a much nicer one that has been approved for use. People whinge about ugly jerseys on these boards all the time yet dont want clubs to use alternatives? Doesnt make any sense to me.