39 minutes ago, boydie said:

That's the one thing I've noticed about American sports, despite being so heavily commercial they haven't tarnished the uniforms with sponsorship aside from maybe the apparel maker which is pretty much all Nike.

It looks cheap with the sponsorship on back but it's the world we live in.

The NBA has moved in that direction alas. Small sponsor badges are on most uniforms now (like the ones they initially had on the guernseys in the 70's and 80's).

They haven't moved to back off jersey sponsorship yet but give them time.

58 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

That's horrible isn't it.

Which - the Essendon jumper, the amart logo or the Essendon jumper with the amart logo on it.

It’s pretty hard to fix a crappy jumper with a small image in the corner.

25 minutes ago, In Harmes Way said:

Which - the Essendon jumper, the amart logo or the Essendon jumper with the amart logo on it.

The last two.

1 hour ago, boydie said:

That's the one thing I've noticed about American sports, despite being so heavily commercial they haven't tarnished the uniforms with sponsorship aside from maybe the apparel maker which is pretty much all Nike.

It looks cheap with the sponsorship on back but it's the world we live in.

I agree.

As already mentioned the NBA has moved to adding in small sponsor logos which is a massive shame.

I would imagine they make far more from jersey sales than they do from allowing sponsors to have their logos on the jerseys.

42 minutes ago, Colin B. Flaubert said:

The NBA has moved in that direction alas. Small sponsor badges are on most uniforms now (like the ones they initially had on the guernseys in the 70's and 80's).

They haven't moved to back off jersey sponsorship yet but give them time.

The logos on the NBA singlets look great, and at least some of them are pretty much iconic brands in the city/region the team is in, e.g. Harley-Davidson for Milwaukee, Goodyear for Cleveland and GE for Boston. It's also a 3 year trial but I can't imagine it won't be continued.

Edited November 6, 20186 yr by Clintosaurus

15 hours ago, Demon Disciple said:

Look at the MFC homepage and you'll notice that it only has Zurich as a co-principal partner.

It appears we will be getting a new sponsor on-board, and with KLV saying that iSelect aren't renewing, maybe they were priced out of the market, which can only be a good thing $$ wise.

If you build it they will come.

They have some internal issues they are dealing with I believe. Thanks for the support from them, they came on as the AFLW sponsor then lifted to become a major sponsor for the men. 

1 hour ago, Colin B. Flaubert said:

The NBA has moved in that direction alas. Small sponsor badges are on most uniforms now (like the ones they initially had on the guernseys in the 70's and 80's).

They haven't moved to back off jersey sponsorship yet but give them time.

I think if they had to exist they've got it right, there's one sponsor which is quite small on the left side. I actually just noticed this today while watching some streams.

But it could worse, the A-League and NRL jerseys are littered in sponsorship so I'm glad the AFL ones aren't as bad.

7 minutes ago, boydie said:

But it could worse, the A-League and NRL jerseys are littered in sponsorship so I'm glad the AFL ones aren't as bad.

And yet clubs from both codes struggle to make a profit.

On 11/6/2018 at 11:46 AM, Pipefitter said:

When are we going to get Range Rover or Mount Buller as a major sponser? Time to profit off those lame jokes.

Audi sponsor Mt Hotham!

On 11/5/2018 at 9:13 PM, hemingway said:

I looked at the pics and wondered why the jumpers looked so good.

I pine for the days before marketing, advertising and entertainment.

Amen to that Ernest but it will never return so what's the next best?

45 minutes ago, old dee said:

Amen to that Ernest but it will never return so what's the next best?

Its a bit like harking back to the days when umpires wore white and were not miked up, when the football did not have a sponsors name, and the ground was unmarked except for boundary lines and centre circle, when goalies wore hats and long coats, when boundary fences and stands only had supporter banners, when there were no migraine inducing flashing advertising signs for Chemist warehouse around the ground, when we had a marching band rather than over-hyped manic loud ground announcers, advertising and other ground entertainment blasting us out of our seats and to the bar, when we had no betting advertisement bombarding spectators, when we could sit at half-time with our thermos and fruit cake and discuss the progress of the game with our family, friends or bloke sitting next to us. When we had time, space and peace to reflect on the game and when our senses for the contest were heightened by the lack of distractions, when we  had a reserves match or last quarter to watch to get us in the mood. 

You can't tell me that for those that love the game and the spectacle we are better off. The seats may be more comfortable and the toilets better, and the food and bar facilities better, but is our experience of the game better?

Everyone says that its progress, that you can never go back, and that we are better off as spectators. 

In financial and materail terms, we are better off, but is the game and the spectacle better off?  

 

46 minutes ago, hemingway said:

Its a bit like harking back to the days when umpires wore white and were not miked up, when the football did not have a sponsors name, and the ground was unmarked except for boundary lines and centre circle, when goalies wore hats and long coats, when boundary fences and stands only had supporter banners, when there were no migraine inducing flashing advertising signs for Chemist warehouse around the ground, when we had a marching band rather than over-hyped manic loud ground announcers, advertising and other ground entertainment blasting us out of our seats and to the bar, when we had no betting advertisement bombarding spectators, when we could sit at half-time with our thermos and fruit cake and discuss the progress of the game with our family, friends or bloke sitting next to us. When we had time, space and peace to reflect on the game and when our senses for the contest were heightened by the lack of distractions, when we  had a reserves match or last quarter to watch to get us in the mood. 

You can't tell me that for those that love the game and the spectacle we are better off. The seats may be more comfortable and the toilets better, and the food and bar facilities better, but is our experience of the game better?

Everyone says that its progress, that you can never go back, and that we are better off as spectators. 

In financial and materail terms, we are better off, but is the game and the spectacle better off?  

 

i miss the players on the bench sitting there in their magnificent blue dressing gowns

3 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

i miss the players on the bench sitting there in their magnificent blue dressing gowns

Daisy, love this photo.

RDB glaring at the players, probably telling them that they are weak as p........ Yeah remember these terrible games under the great man when he must have been doubting the sense of his return as a messiah. 

No whiteboards or a myriad of hangers on,  just a few trainers. And bring back the dressing gowns! They look good, keep the players warm, keep out the wind chill, and, for the psychologically insecure,  make them feel secure and comfy.

The simplicity of it all!

8 minutes ago, hemingway said:

Daisy, love this photo.

RDB glaring at the players, probably telling them that they are weak as p........ Yeah remember these terrible games under the great man when he must have been doubting the sense of his return as a messiah. 

No whiteboards or a myriad of hangers on,  just a few trainers. And bring back the dressing gowns! They look good, keep the players warm, keep out the wind chill, and, for the psychologically insecure,  make them feel secure and comfy.

The simplicity of it all!

but most of all, ernie.................i miss the daisycutter(stab kick) and the drop kick..........but only by those who had the skill

1 hour ago, hemingway said:

Its a bit like harking back to the days when umpires wore white and were not miked up, when the football did not have a sponsors name, and the ground was unmarked except for boundary lines and centre circle, when goalies wore hats and long coats, when boundary fences and stands only had supporter banners, when there were no migraine inducing flashing advertising signs for Chemist warehouse around the ground, when we had a marching band rather than over-hyped manic loud ground announcers, advertising and other ground entertainment blasting us out of our seats and to the bar, when we had no betting advertisement bombarding spectators, when we could sit at half-time with our thermos and fruit cake and discuss the progress of the game with our family, friends or bloke sitting next to us. When we had time, space and peace to reflect on the game and when our senses for the contest were heightened by the lack of distractions, when we  had a reserves match or last quarter to watch to get us in the mood. 

You can't tell me that for those that love the game and the spectacle we are better off. The seats may be more comfortable and the toilets better, and the food and bar facilities better, but is our experience of the game better?

Everyone says that its progress, that you can never go back, and that we are better off as spectators. 

In financial and materail terms, we are better off, but is the game and the spectacle better off?  

 

While I like your nostalgia, you do realise there is nothing stopping you from sitting at half-time with your thermos and fruit cake and discussing the progress of the game with your family, friends or bloke sitting next to you?

And I'll defend the game and the spectacle as it is today. Apart from anything else, getting to watch it played on grass instead of mud and while sitting undercover instead of standing in the rain help make the experience better. Players are fitter, stronger and on average, better skilled. It's the non-football activities which are spoiling the experience. For example, I'd much rather watch a Reserves match than a couple of mascots doing handstands.

32 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

but most of all, ernie.................i miss the daisycutter(stab kick) and the drop kick..........but only by those who had the skill

who were your favourites ? now that will date you and me.

31 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

While I like your nostalgia, you do realise there is nothing stopping you from sitting at half-time with your thermos and fruit cake and discussing the progress of the game with your family, friends or bloke sitting next to you?

And I'll defend the game and the spectacle as it is today. Apart from anything else, getting to watch it played on grass instead of mud and while sitting undercover instead of standing in the rain help make the experience better. Players are fitter, stronger and on average, better skilled. It's the non-football activities which are spoiling the experience. For example, I'd much rather watch a Reserves match than a couple of mascots doing handstands.

La Dee-your a bit soft I reckon. 

Going to the footy and enduring the hardships was a bit like camping. It was a bit of a pain at the time, but we went home and felt....well great, like the exhilaration of a cold shower. 

In regard to half-time, you have to shout to make yourself heard against the non stop barrage of noise from the latest mike moron or politically correct MCC bureaucratic asking that you report any anti-social behaviour which I will not do as I never see BBO or Biffen at the footy. Just digressing, I regard this anti-social policing abhorrent and against all the time honoured values of spectating. Getting beer or claret pored down your back was always a time honoured ritual and right of passage.  

Players are fitter and stronger on average, but for the skills they now have, there are many others that have been lost. Let players today try and drop kick, torpedo, stab kick, mark a wet muddy ball, even handle cleanly a wet ball, blind turn, baulk etc etc.

The skills of the best players were just as good as today although I concede that the fringe player is probably better skilled today. Yet we still see players that can't kick with both feet. 

I suppose that there is a half truth in everything or to quote someone wiser than me...""we are all embraced by the truth continually and sometimes we know it and sometimes we don''t."

3 hours ago, hemingway said:

Its a bit like harking back to the days when umpires wore white and were not miked up, when the football did not have a sponsors name, and the ground was unmarked except for boundary lines and centre circle, when goalies wore hats and long coats, when boundary fences and stands only had supporter banners, when there were no migraine inducing flashing advertising signs for Chemist warehouse around the ground, when we had a marching band rather than over-hyped manic loud ground announcers, advertising and other ground entertainment blasting us out of our seats and to the bar, when we had no betting advertisement bombarding spectators, when we could sit at half-time with our thermos and fruit cake and discuss the progress of the game with our family, friends or bloke sitting next to us. When we had time, space and peace to reflect on the game and when our senses for the contest were heightened by the lack of distractions, when we  had a reserves match or last quarter to watch to get us in the mood. 

You can't tell me that for those that love the game and the spectacle we are better off. The seats may be more comfortable and the toilets better, and the food and bar facilities better, but is our experience of the game better?

Everyone says that its progress, that you can never go back, and that we are better off as spectators. 

In financial and materail terms, we are better off, but is the game and the spectacle better off?  

 

Ernest you missed one. We could watch the reserves before ever game. We did not need all the other crap. It is like the GF we go to watch the game why the need for over paid singers etc. Is there anyone who would not attend the GF if the likes of Meat loaf were not there? If so I will take their ticket because all I need is the game.

The past is often imagined to be better.

Looked at objectively the players were far less athletic the skills generally poor the facilities were rubbish and the behaviour of spectators and players crude and often loutish. There were no tactics and little structure apart from "get on your man". Coaching was something else. 

The torpedo has disappeared apparently but frost hunt and dunne disagree and on the evidence it has a place. 

Drop kicks are gone but drop punts are much more reliable. New forms of goal kicking have evolved in the banana round the corner and the dribbler. 

We of a certain age hark back to the 60s and 70's more generally we live better longer and safer.

I miss seeing league teams and the replay after the game but i couldnt record the game see highlights on youtube or see interviews with favourite players and so much more

Sorry to rain on the nostalgia parade! 

1 hour ago, old dee said:

Ernest you missed one. We could watch the reserves before ever game. We did not need all the other crap. It is like the GF we go to watch the game why the need for over paid singers etc. Is there anyone who would not attend the GF if the likes of Meat loaf were not there? If so I will take their ticket because all I need is the game.

Don't forget the U19's. Used to go to the GF in old days early watching first, the U19's then the 2's and of course the big one if still sober!

54 minutes ago, Docs Demons said:

Don't forget the U19's. Used to go to the GF in old days early watching first, the U19's then the 2's and of course the big one if still sober!

In 64 I was there when the gates opened and stood in standing room through the three games as you mention.  Seems that now the game is not enough.

1 hour ago, dino rover said:

The past is often imagined to be better.

Looked at objectively the players were far less athletic the skills generally poor the facilities were rubbish and the behaviour of spectators and players crude and often loutish. There were no tactics and little structure apart from "get on your man". Coaching was something else. 

The torpedo has disappeared apparently but frost hunt and dunne disagree and on the evidence it has a place. 

Drop kicks are gone but drop punts are much more reliable. New forms of goal kicking have evolved in the banana round the corner and the dribbler. 

We of a certain age hark back to the 60s and 70's more generally we live better longer and safer.

I miss seeing league teams and the replay after the game but i couldnt record the game see highlights on youtube or see interviews with favourite players and so much more

Sorry to rain on the nostalgia parade! 

please do.

nostalgia only takes you so far.

staying in the present makes you  much happier.

9 hours ago, hemingway said:

Its a bit like harking back to the days when umpires wore white and were not miked up, when the football did not have a sponsors name, and the ground was unmarked except for boundary lines and centre circle, when goalies wore hats and long coats, when boundary fences and stands only had supporter banners, when there were no migraine inducing flashing advertising signs for Chemist warehouse around the ground, when we had a marching band rather than over-hyped manic loud ground announcers, advertising and other ground entertainment blasting us out of our seats and to the bar, when we had no betting advertisement bombarding spectators, when we could sit at half-time with our thermos and fruit cake and discuss the progress of the game with our family, friends or bloke sitting next to us. When we had time, space and peace to reflect on the game and when our senses for the contest were heightened by the lack of distractions, when we  had a reserves match or last quarter to watch to get us in the mood. 

You can't tell me that for those that love the game and the spectacle we are better off. The seats may be more comfortable and the toilets better, and the food and bar facilities better, but is our experience of the game better?

Everyone says that its progress, that you can never go back, and that we are better off as spectators. 

In financial and materail terms, we are better off, but is the game and the spectacle better off?  

 

 

5 hours ago, old dee said:

Ernest you missed one. We could watch the reserves before ever game. We did not need all the other crap. It is like the GF we go to watch the game why the need for over paid singers etc. Is there anyone who would not attend the GF if the likes of Meat loaf were not there? If so I will take their ticket because all I need is the game.

 

3 hours ago, Docs Demons said:

Don't forget the U19's. Used to go to the GF in old days early watching first, the U19's then the 2's and of course the big one if still sober!

You all missed the main one, playing kick to kick with your mates on the suburban grounds long after the game while your old man was knocking a few sherberts back in the clubrooms with his mates

20 hours ago, daisycutter said:

i miss the players on the bench sitting there in their magnificent blue dressing gowns

They look ridiculous. Go to bed.

5 minutes ago, A F said:

They look ridiculous. Go to bed.

Maybe, but it’s not about image, they are actually quite practical as a means of keeping warm on a cold day.