2021 New Kit Thread

[Hela Wigmen]

2 minutes ago, Eddie said:

I know it is, but is discrete and not in massive writing on the front. I really don’t know why you’re trying to argue with someone about their opinion though. 

So sleeves = no moral outrage. Got it. 

[Eddie]

2 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

So sleeves = no moral outrage. Got it. 

As I’ve said, I’m not morally outraged. Not being a millennial snowflake or member of the Twitterati there is little of that sort that would morally outrage or offend me.
 

Anyway as you’re so interested here’s a list of Saints main sponsors and whether I’d wear them or not;

St Helen’s Glass - yes of course

Pilkington - yes of course

McEwans - no, terrible drink, same with John Smiths  

All Sports - at a push

Typhoo - yes

Earth Money - yes

Medicash - yes

Crabbies - no

Have I missed any? 

 

[hunsletgreenandgold]

15 minutes ago, Eddie said:

As I’ve said, I’m not morally outraged. Not being a millennial snowflake or member of the Twitterati there is little of that sort that would morally outrage or offend me.
 

Anyway as you’re so interested here’s a list of Saints main sponsors and whether I’d wear them or not;

St Helen’s Glass - yes of course

Pilkington - yes of course

McEwans - no, terrible drink, same with John Smiths  

All Sports - at a push

Typhoo - yes

Earth Money - yes

Medicash - yes

Crabbies - no

Have I missed any? 

 

I was rooting for you all the way here, Eddie....until you said yes to Typhoo tea! I appreciate you don't make your decision based on any kind of moral outrage, but that p*ss water that calls itself a teabag should be up for crimes against humanity! 

[voteronniegibbs]

.

[Eddie]

43 minutes ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

I was rooting for you all the way here, Eddie....until you said yes to Typhoo tea! I appreciate you don't make your decision based on any kind of moral outrage, but that p*ss water that calls itself a teabag should be up for crimes against humanity! 

Must admit I don’t drink tea so have no idea if it’s good or bad, I just don’t morally object to it, and it doesn’t make me outraged. Mellow Birds coffee on the other hand... 

[Davo5]

13 hours ago, Eddie said:

I know it is, but is discrete and not in massive writing on the front. I really don’t know why you’re trying to argue with someone about their opinion though. 

It’s what he does,best to ignore it.

Many a good shirt design has been ruined by  sponsors logos or an unattractive sponsor so I can understand some fans not wanting to wear shirts with brands likes Cash Converters on the front.

[Hela Wigmen]

6 hours ago, Davo5 said:

It’s what he does,best to ignore it.

Many a good shirt design has been ruined by  sponsors logos or an unattractive sponsor so I can understand some fans not wanting to wear shirts with brands likes Cost Converters on the front.

But only if it’s a certain size. If it was small, it’s fine. Don’t forget that, David. 

[hindle xiii]

13 hours ago, Eddie said:

I know it is, but is discrete and not in massive writing on the front. I really don’t know why you’re trying to argue with someone about their opinion though. 

That's the internet these days, bro. It's best to imagine no-one else has any thoughts or feelings.

[Davo5]

59 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

But only if it’s a certain size. If it was small, it’s fine. Don’t forget that, David. 

What is your point exactly,main sponsors affect the design/ look of shirts with their logos,small sleeve logos generally don’t.

[Eddie]

13 minutes ago, Davo5 said:

What is your point exactly,main sponsors affect the design/ look of shirts with their logos,small sleeve logos generally don’t.

I’m sure 99% of people could grasp that simple concept. 

[Hela Wigmen]

17 minutes ago, Davo5 said:

What is your point exactly,main sponsors affect the design/ look of shirts with their logos,small sleeve logos generally don’t.

That’s fine. That’s a different topic altogether but don’t let that get in the way of having a pop David. 

[Davo5]

7 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

That’s fine. That’s a different topic altogether but don’t let that get in the way of having a pop David. 

Thank you.

This is a new kit topic of which sponsors logos/names play a part.

Having a pop

Who’s David ?

[RP London]

14 hours ago, Eddie said:

Where’s the abuse? You must use the confused emoji at least ten times more frequently than anyone else. And I’m not losing an argument because I’m not having one. I’m not morally outraged by Cash Converters, it’s just a rubbish sponsor and I don’t want to wear it, I wouldn’t wear it with Totally Wicked emblazoned on the front either, or Bet888 or various other sponsors that I could think of. 

what makes it a rubbish sponsor though?

unlike a lot of sponsors it fits, colour wise etc, in with the shirt itself for the most part.. I dont want to assume anything so its a genuine question of why you believe it to be a rubbish sponsor. 

[Davo5]

16 minutes ago, Eddie said:

I’m sure 99% of people could grasp that simple concept. 

I always liked the NSW shirts but wouldn’t buy any recent ones due to the huge Bryden’s logo on the front,with some NRL shirts following suit with huge logos that also spoil the design.

I couldn’t tell you who Wigan’s sleeve sponsors have been over the last few years.

[Hela Wigmen]

So, who are we waiting on now? Salford’s away shirt in Super League. Have we got a full compliment of Championship shirts?

[Eddie]

27 minutes ago, RP London said:

what makes it a rubbish sponsor though?

unlike a lot of sponsors it fits, colour wise etc, in with the shirt itself for the most part.. I dont want to assume anything so its a genuine question of why you believe it to be a rubbish sponsor. 

It’s just a low grade outfit, I wouldn’t wear something with a payday loan company on the front either, or ambulance chasing lawyers, or Farmfoods, or Mr Brains, or Skol lager, or White Lightening. No objection to those organisations, I just don’t want to wear them emblazoned across my front. Mad Dog 20/20 though, bring it on. 

[Damien]

Surely anyone has the pregatorive to not buy a shirt for whatever reason they choose. That may be issues with the sponsor, shirt design, poor quality manufacturers etc. The onus should be on clubs to produce quality kit and items that appeal to all fans so that fans are queuing to buy. Very rarely do clubs get it all right.

[Hela Wigmen]

10 minutes ago, Damien said:

Surely anyone has the pregatorive to not buy a shirt for whatever reason they choose. That may be issues with the sponsor, shirt design, poor quality manufacturers etc. The onus should be on clubs to produce quality kit and items that appeal to all fans so that fans are queuing to buy. Very rarely do clubs get it all right.

Essentially Rugby League fans will find something to moan about. It’s their default setting. 

[RP London]

19 minutes ago, Eddie said:

It’s just a low grade outfit, I wouldn’t wear something with a payday loan company on the front either, or ambulance chasing lawyers, or Farmfoods, or Mr Brains, or Skol lager, or White Lightening. No objection to those organisations, I just don’t want to wear them emblazoned across my front. 

so more a slight snobbery then about the company.. fair enough.. but i wouldnt get too defensive if someone says it is moral outrage then.. 

Personally i wouldnt want to wear one with a payday loan company on it as i think they are morally objectionable, ambulance chasing lawyers too. Not a big fan of alcohol advertising or betting either..  and that is "moral outrage" (its not really its just a stance but i know what people mean when they use the phrase). 

Your use of Farmfoods, Mr Brains et al is sad. Companies want to build and sponsorship is a way of doing that, what may be small time when they start become bigger because the sponsorship is part of a much wider plan to grow the brand and become more well know. but then you also say Crabbies who are a high end drinks manufacturer who spend a lot of money sponsoring a lot of teams and is a high quality producer.. doesnt seem overly consistent.

Just to add... I do understand where you are coming from as I dont buy Sheffield Wednesday Shirts as they the owners name emblazoned across them as some sort of vanity project instead of using one of the many companies he owns (all of which would look better).. i'm just givng my thoughts on your opinions of the companies. 

 

[RP London]

15 minutes ago, Damien said:

Surely anyone has the pregatorive to not buy a shirt for whatever reason they choose. That may be issues with the sponsor, shirt design, poor quality manufacturers etc. The onus should be on clubs to produce quality kit and items that appeal to all fans so that fans are queuing to buy. Very rarely do clubs get it all right.

not disagreeing with that, interested to know why when they say it isnt "moral outrage".. 

Interested because as someone who owns a business that has the opportunity to sponsor clubs I am interested in this type of information to know whether I should invest my hard earned money into this type of thing. The more i see those sorts of comments and general negativity about people investing in clubs etc, the more i think no i'll spend it in different areas. 

Also, as with free speech, of course you can have an opinion and what you do is up to you but people are also allowed to challenge it and to ask questions about it.. otherwise no one would learn anything or have "opinions" that are just incorrect changed/challenged and then we would live in a very weird world (just look at the USA over the last few years!). 

[Tommygilf]

5 minutes ago, RP London said:

not disagreeing with that, interested to know why when they say it isnt "moral outrage".. 

Interested because as someone who owns a business that has the opportunity to sponsor clubs I am interested in this type of information to know whether I should invest my hard earned money into this type of thing. The more i see those sorts of comments and general negativity about people investing in clubs etc, the more i think no i'll spend it in different areas. 

Also, as with free speech, of course you can have an opinion and what you do is up to you but people are also allowed to challenge it and to ask questions about it.. otherwise no one would learn anything or have "opinions" that are just incorrect changed/challenged and then we would live in a very weird world (just look at the USA over the last few years!). 

I think its a mixture tbh. Some sponsors, no matter how well integrated, still look a bit tacky.

That said, any sponsor that can either be well integrated or boldly simple (thinking JVC arsenal shirts) stands a better chance than one who isn't. 

Perhaps the worst shirt sponsor sin of all is having a white box. For some reason Wigan, who only have 3 sponsors on the front and sleeves of their shirts this year, have managed to include that with 2 of them

[Eddie]

10 minutes ago, RP London said:

so more a slight snobbery then about the company.. fair enough.. but i wouldnt get too defensive if someone says it is moral outrage then.. 

Personally i wouldnt want to wear one with a payday loan company on it as i think they are morally objectionable, ambulance chasing lawyers too. Not a big fan of alcohol advertising or betting either..  and that is "moral outrage" (its not really its just a stance but i know what people mean when they use the phrase). 

Your use of Farmfoods, Mr Brains et al is sad. Companies want to build and sponsorship is a way of doing that, what may be small time when they start become bigger because the sponsorship is part of a much wider plan to grow the brand and become more well know. but then you also say Crabbies who are a high end drinks manufacturer who spend a lot of money sponsoring a lot of teams and is a high quality producer.. doesnt seem overly consistent.

Just to add... I do understand where you are coming from as I dont buy Sheffield Wednesday Shirts as they the owners name emblazoned across them as some sort of vanity project instead of using one of the many companies he owns (all of which would look better).. i'm just givng my thoughts on your opinions of the companies. 

 

I said no to Crabbies, because I think it’s a ###### drink. You’re right though there may be an element of snobbery to it, not that I consider myself a snob, far from it in fact, but it’s probably natural to think that having for example a nice whisky or quality ale on the front of a shirt looks better than John smiths or diamond white, and likewise (though I couldn’t care less about cars) I imagine Audi looks better to most people than Dacia - that’s advertising. I also like the NZ Warriors and would buy some of their merch if it didn’t all have Vodafone all over it. 

[RP London]

Just now, Tommygilf said:

I think its a mixture tbh. Some sponsors, no matter how well integrated, still look a bit tacky.

That said, any sponsor that can either be well integrated or boldly simple (thinking JVC arsenal shirts) stands a better chance than one who isn't. 

Perhaps the worst shirt sponsor sin of all is having a white box. For some reason Wigan, who only have 3 sponsors on the front and sleeves of their shirts this year, have managed to include that with 2 of them

Its not that though, i totally understand this and when we have sponsored we always integrate in and it looks good. I also understand the need/want for someone like Hoover to use their logo without change. Its just there is a general attitude to certain sponsors just because of who they are. 

[Eddie]

12 minutes ago, RP London said:

not disagreeing with that, interested to know why when they say it isnt "moral outrage".. 

Interested because as someone who owns a business that has the opportunity to sponsor clubs I am interested in this type of information to know whether I should invest my hard earned money into this type of thing. The more i see those sorts of comments and general negativity about people investing in clubs etc, the more i think no i'll spend it in different areas. 

Also, as with free speech, of course you can have an opinion and what you do is up to you but people are also allowed to challenge it and to ask questions about it.. otherwise no one would learn anything or have "opinions" that are just incorrect changed/challenged and then we would live in a very weird world (just look at the USA over the last few years!). 

What’s this moral outrage all about, not thinking a sponsor looks good isn’t moral outrage, it’s just an opinion. Moral outrage used to be reserved for genuinely morally bankrupt things, now it seems to be applied to all sort of irrelevant b0110ck5. 

[Eddie]

Just now, RP London said:

Its just there is a general attitude to certain sponsors just because of who they are. 

Yes of course there is.