News Hawthorn and Adidas part ways in 2022…what next?

[wahawk]

low rent poor quality and very cheap

low quality low price

Skechers has just always been a low end poverty type brand with poor quality.

Skechers are a low end brand they do a commendable job providing a range for low socioeconomic groups to be able to afford shoes

But you still pay attention

 

[Boot Studder]

Hey there’s also the MLB and NFL that despite the crass commercialisation of practically everything in the US somehow have cleanskin uniforms.

However, we don’t operate in that reality and it is amusing that some people think we should tell multi-million/billion dollar companies to shove their funding offers up their ass because their logo won’t look exceptional with our fairly outlier colour combination.

Of course, most baseball and football clubs in the US are privately owned. They like having the clean uniform and just plaster their ball parks with advertising, instead.

 

[Bremner20]

So you pay attention to what’s available even though you said

“I wouldn’t wear any of their stuff if it was free or if I was paid money there’s got to be a line you don’t cross it”

Yeah I do so I look at what Skechers have on offer and think no thanks wouldnt wear them in a pink fit . Nowdays I’d still say no thanks but btw thanks for sponsoring my footy team . Still wouldn’t wear their mens shoe range though .Look mate if you want to bump previous posts to prove someone wrong and claim some moral high ground here I’m not sure what you’re getting at but it’s never been a subject to get upset about differing opinions I would’ve thought . If you want to do that maybe rehash the racism saga forum and see what’s actually transpired since there’s some absolute gold in there that was said in the heat of the moment.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Of course, most baseball and football clubs in the US are privately owned. They like having the clean uniform and just plaster their ball parks with advertising, instead.

Fairly certain they're not allowed to advertise on the uniforms in those codes is more the rationale. But yes, it helps when the clubs are insanely rich.

 

[Baz_hawk]

 

[wahawk]

Yeah I do so I look at what Skechers have on offer and think no thanks wouldnt wear them in a pink fit . Nowdays I’d still say no thanks but btw thanks for sponsoring my footy team . Still wouldn’t wear their mens shoe range though .Look mate if you want to bump previous posts to prove someone wrong and claim some moral high ground here I’m not sure what you’re getting at but it’s never been a subject to get upset about differing opinions I would’ve thought . If you want to do that maybe rehash the racism saga forum and see what’s actually transpired since there’s some absolute gold in there that was said in the heat of the moment.

I’m not upset mate, just having a laugh

It’s kinda funny that posters get so triggered over a sponsor & their logo

I remember a few getting triggered by a restaurant sponsoring our shorts a few years ago.

 

[Beandip]

View attachment 1548089

Perfect usage.

 

[Boot Studder]

Fairly certain they're not allowed to advertise on the uniforms in those codes is more the rationale. But yes, it helps when the clubs are insanely rich.

I'm sure that MLB and the NFL do control the image of the uniforms. Even with that control, I couldn't imagine sponsor logos on the pinstripes of the Yankees, for example, or the helmets of any NFL team, even the expansion sides. While they are allowed small rondells on sleeves etc. to pay tribute to people or anniversaries, they are usually small and unobtrusive. sigh It's still a pity we can't have a clean guernsey.

 

[Bremner20]

I’m not upset mate, just having a laugh

It’s kinda funny that posters get so triggered over a sponsor & their logo

I remember a few getting triggered by a restaurant sponsoring our shorts a few years ago.

Believe it or not that’s all I’ve ever been doing too there’s a humorous side to the fact that we went from having adidas on our jumper to Skechers kind of like going from Glenfiddich to wild Turkey but it’s a sponsor and brings n the $$$ . I just couldn’t believe that it offended so many that I said I hated the shoes they bought out .

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Believe it or not that’s all I’ve ever been doing too there’s a humorous side to the fact that we went from having adidas on our jumper to Skechers kind of like going from Glenfiddich to wild Turkey but it’s a sponsor and brings n the $$$ . I just couldn’t believe that it offended so many that I said I hated the shoes they bought out .

Mate - nobody had an issue with your taste in footwear, going on and on about it and acting as though our players were going to be forced to wear said footwear is what people took you to task on.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

I'm sure that MLB and the NFL do control the image of the uniforms. Even with that control, I couldn't imagine sponsor logos on the pinstripes of the Yankees, for example, or the helmets of any NFL team, even the expansion sides. While they are allowed small rondells on sleeves etc. to pay tribute to people or anniversaries, they are usually small and unobtrusive. sigh It's still a pity we can't have a clean guernsey.

Oh 100% I would prefer a clean strip - or even like the big European football clubs who can just have the semblance of logos but can have them blend into the jersey a bit more rather than slapping a red or white panel on ours like KFC/iiNet have to. Sadly we rely on sponsorship $ exponentially more than US/European dominant sports leagues so it is what it is.

 

[lollihawk]

It’s interesting that the Melbourne Storm guernsey is smothered in logos, but they are all (in this example at least) in white, rather than their true colours. It does make them slightly less of an eyesore.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

View attachment 1548141
It’s interesting that the Melbourne Storm guernsey is smothered in logos, but they are all (in this example at least) in white, rather than their true colours. It does make them slightly less of an eyesore.

Definitely cleaner - the AFL needs to look into this type of option.

 

[bradburygold]

The singlet isn't so bad - I have never seen the club put out a brown polo that looks halfway decent though no matter who the branding partner was.

Also - did nobody at ISC have a steamer they could run over that stuff real quick to make it not look like it had been buried in a drawer for 6 months.

yes exactly - embarrassing they couldn't even use a steamer and have a semblance of professionalism

 

[bradburygold]

Sure you are not just having a whinge for the sake of it?

Yes - check my history I am fairly positive all things hawks even the board who gets wacked but this is a poor start. I am confident ISC/Sketchers will improve the offering in future seasons.

 

[KermitJagger]

View attachment 1548141
It’s interesting that the Melbourne Storm guernsey is smothered in logos, but they are all (in this example at least) in white, rather than their true colours. It does make them slightly less of an eyesore.

Erm.

 

[pattymalone00]

Erm.

View attachment 1548334

So really no different to hawthorn really…?!?

 

[lollihawk]

Erm.

View attachment 1548334

Did you miss where I said “in this example at least”?

 

[KermitJagger]

Did you miss where I said “in this example at least”?

No, but you're talking about what a lot of AFL clubs already do. The thing is that while most companies have different brand marks for different backgrounds, some companies where colour is an identifiable part of the brand do not - companies like KFC and McDonalds with their golden arches.

 

[Xtreme]

Erm.

View attachment 1548334

Tradie's get the ladies!

 

[lollihawk]

No, but you're talking about what a lot of AFL clubs already do. The thing is that while most companies have different brand marks for different backgrounds, some companies where colour is an identifiable part of the brand do not - companies like KFC and McDonalds with their golden arches.

If you’re referring to having white logos on the front of their guernseys, then by my count I believe it’s only Adelaide, Carlton and Essendon.

Just to clarify, I’m absolutely fine with our guernsey, our sponsors and their logos. I just happened to notice all the white logos in that photo of Pap, and thought it was interesting.

 

[KermitJagger]

If you’re referring to having white logos on the front of their guernseys, then by my count I believe it’s only Adelaide, Carlton and Essendon.

Just to clarify, I’m absolutely fine with our guernsey, our sponsors and their logos. I just happened to notice all the white logos in that photo of Pap, and thought it was interesting.

And us, given that we've managed to get the Tasmanian logo with the black background removed and the Skechers logo is white.

I agree the white looks better but having spent a lot of time dancing around branding guidelines I just know that a lot of brands don't compromise.

 

[Bremner20]

And us, given that we've managed to get the Tasmanian logo with the black background removed and the Skechers logo is white.

I agree the white looks better but having spent a lot of time dancing around branding guidelines I just know that a lot of brands don't compromise.

The Tasmanian logo with the black background is still there if you look at the hawks nest ISC onfield range .

 

[Flukey!]

From what I have seen so far, all the new gear looks pretty good.
It feels fresh, if that's the word for it. A nice change from the very traditional Adidas gear.

And cheaper which is always nice.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

The Tasmanian logo with the black background is still there if you look at the hawks nest ISC onfield range .

Looks brown to me. Might just look that way online but it seems to blend in with the brown stripes.