- Messages
- 100,985
Literally what I just said in the post above yourslooks like the storm away jersey uses the coloured logo (the home uses a white logo fo anyone who hasn't seen it)
View attachment 27618
Literally what I just said in the post above yourslooks like the storm away jersey uses the coloured logo (the home uses a white logo fo anyone who hasn't seen it)
View attachment 27618
They weren't going for a V, this jersey is based on the Rabbitohs 'saddle' kit the club wore in the 50s & 60s, just with the Red being Green and Green being Red.
View attachment 27620
You do it all the time though.Literally what I just said in the post above yours
Exactly my thoughts. I reckon there'd be a huge range - gut feel would be Cronulla at the lower end of that.I'd love to know some of the values for sponsorships and how much each club values the different spots.
For example would the Sharks new gutter/roofing sponsor be paying more for a front of jersey spot than suzuki is paying storm for a shoulder spot and so on
I don't think there's an easy answer. There are probably a lot of factors that go into it - strength of the club's brand, reputation both on and off the field, level of free-to-air exposure, whether or not the club has high profile players, number of clubs nearby, etc. A club like the Broncos would definitely be able to command a higher asking price than the Sharks (or anyone, really) for the free-to-air exposure alone.I'd love to know some of the values for sponsorships and how much each club values the different spots.
For example would the Sharks new gutter/roofing sponsor be paying more for a front of jersey spot than suzuki is paying storm for a shoulder spot and so on
It's being shown that the NRL has way too many jersey spots for sale .. not many clubs have a full book to cover all slots..
Need to reduce it back to 4 apparel slots per team.. front ,back ,sleeve and shorts
Most teams will be able to fill all 4 , and the exclusivity should drive the price up
The clubs that do have a full kit would probably disagree, and off the top of my head that is probably most of them
not that I'm for the jerseys being covered in sponsors (I even kinda hope the front of the storm's stays empty for a bit so I can get myself a clean jersey) but the NRL shouldn't go back on a decision just to help out a select few clubs
Im not disagreeing with you I just doubt the NRL (and the clubs) would want to reduce the amount of sponsorsOh what like the salary cap does ??
They can still earn us much as they can, just only 4 slots..
It's a weak logo and the chevron style of the gap makes it less discernible.That sharks jersey has to be the worse in the comp
Was on the back when they played Canberra two weeks ago. Disappeared since then
It’s probably not a coincidence that not long after Amart Furniture signed a five year deal with Essendon in the AFL (allegedly for $2m a season) they walked from Parramatta.The white patch on the shorts would indicate that A-Mart pulled their sponsorship before the Canberra trial. A-Mart was previously on the front of the shorts but the jerseys weren't patched yet.
Also A-Mart agreed to a 2 year deal in June last year but have decided to pull the pin. Just shows that agreements are sometimes not worth the paper they are written on. The same could be said about Malkoun Associates who were the chest sponsor but also pulled out.
Exactly my thoughts. I reckon there'd be a huge range - gut feel would be Cronulla at the lower end of that.
I would think it depends on the club and company. I know the Bulldogs' KIA deal was big, for example.what would you say was low and what would you say was high?