Discussion Round 5, 2016: Photos and Discussion

[akkaps]

Gold shorts. GOLD SHORTS. You know it's a good thing.

No, it's not.

 

[wing it]

No, it's not.

why not?

 

[akkaps]

why not?

Not for Hawthorn. In my opinion, it would be too shiny.

 

[wing it]

Not for Hawthorn. In my opinion, it would be too shiny.

surely not so shiny as the power ranger??

 

[mcgarnacle]

So in a nutshell you're saying that it's still important that teams can choose what colour shorts they wear at home, even if it means putting another team into white shorts for no good reason. I find that a pretty archaic viewpoint, most clubs don't seem to care at all about shorts — it's the jumper that's important.

So then last night, you'd prefer to lump the home team in Hawthorn with white shorts? Not even a club colour? and I've never said the away team or even the home team should be be put in white shorts. This is just an approach the VFL has adopted since 1924, the AFL 'embarrassingly' persists with in 2016, and is ingrained in the culture of the game - that one team is generally wearing white shorts. that's what's archaic.

Shorts contribute to the overall look of the kit. Club's should be able to determine the overall look of their kit with priority given when playing at home. They're the ones paying significant funds for stadium hire, and associated costs of pre and match entertaining to solidify relationships with sponsors both current and potential, as well as servicing their paid-up members.

These are not neutral matches.

The AFL can implement their archaic polices in finals which are neutral and we can get great international exposure of incompetence like it did in the 2011 GF.

 

[HTT]

No, it's not.

It'd look fantastic.

 

[HTT]

So then last night, you'd prefer to lump the home team in Hawthorn with white shorts? Not even a club colour? and I've never said the away team or even the home team should be be put in white shorts. This is just an approach the VFL has adopted since 1924, the AFL 'embarrassingly' persists with in 2016, and is ingrained in the culture of the game - that one team is generally wearing white shorts. that's what's archaic.

Shorts contribute to the overall look of the kit. Club's should be able to determine the overall look of their kit with priority given when playing at home. They're the ones paying significant funds for stadium hire, and associated costs of pre and match entertaining to solidify relationships with sponsors both current and potential, as well as servicing their paid-up members.

These are not neutral matches.

The AFL can implement their archaic polices in finals which are neutral and we can get great international exposure of incompetence like it did in the 2011 GF.

2011 GF? Sure you've got the right game? This (somewhat blurry, which IMO does a better job of determining a clash, but that's another debate) image seems to show very little clash, and certainly as good as any other option they had available

 

[MKMatty]

Full royal with new improved wings today. Get around it.

 

[akkaps]

Full royal with new improved wings today. Get around it.


View attachment 238866

You know you can post the link to the Facebook post here, and it will format it for you perfectly (like how Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube appear).

 

[Ahern2Boof]

Haha, Cockman.

 

[MKMatty]

You know you can post the link to the Facebook post here, and it will format it for you perfectly (like how Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube appear).

Didn't know that. Good to know :thumbs up:

Haha, Cockman.

She's a top chick.

 

[Gibbsy]

So then last night, you'd prefer to lump the home team in Hawthorn with white shorts? Not even a club colour? and I've never said the away team or even the home team should be be put in white shorts. This is just an approach the VFL has adopted since 1924, the AFL 'embarrassingly' persists with in 2016, and is ingrained in the culture of the game - that one team is generally wearing white shorts. that's what's archaic.

Shorts contribute to the overall look of the kit. Club's should be able to determine the overall look of their kit with priority given when playing at home. They're the ones paying significant funds for stadium hire, and associated costs of pre and match entertaining to solidify relationships with sponsors both current and potential, as well as servicing their paid-up members.

These are not neutral matches.

The AFL can implement their archaic polices in finals which are neutral and we can get great international exposure of incompetence like it did in the 2011 GF.

Respectfully, I think you've extrapolated my post a little bit. I didn't mention anything about my like or dislike for white shorts. I would have had Hawthorn in either of gold or brown shorts if they didn't want to wear white, although I think white shorts have become pretty synonymous with the Hawks, just as the unnecessary white number box did.

Imo there is no issue with two teams wearing dark shorts; we see it in other sports all the time.

 

[akkaps]

She's a top chick.

lol.

 

[rippersnipper]

Great matchup

 

[Hank93]

Blargh i thought about tipping all royal

 

[Dylan8]

Couple of A-grade footy jumper match ups today

 

[Klim]

Blargh i thought about tipping all royal

Dislike. . What's with the Clash promotion?

 

[Dylan8]

Dislike. . What's with the Clash promotion?

Red vs blue, guy, it looks great.

 

[Klim]

Red vs blue, guy, it looks great.

Prefer red v white.

 

[Heardy_101]

Full royal with new improved wings today. Get around it.


View attachment 238866

Umm, I'm still seeing blue side panels.

 

[Cody_]

ew at that matchup.


Tonight's match up looks brilliant. North's blue looks fantastic.

 

[NM_Mitchell]

RvB is way better.

 

[Dylan8]

Umm, I'm still seeing blue side panels.

Old photo pal

 

[MKMatty]

Umm, I'm still seeing blue side panels.

Try this then

 

[Cody_]

Gotta say Renault ditching that yellow box was such a good idea.