J
Jockstap
Guest
I think they're the only team in the world who don't have a Sponsor. Why?
-
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
J
Jer1cho
Guest
I never noticed that... Adidas sponsor the Kit, not sure about their official sponsor though.
W
William18
Guest
I think it adds to the brand. It sort of says the All Blacks are this traditional sort of the team and are kind of above sponsorship. It's hard to explain but I like it how it is. I guess when teams see the jersey they see a great rugby nation with all this history instead of the latest big name corporation. It sort of makes the jersey more powerful knowing it hasn't changed much in appearance over the years. That's what I think anyway.
J
Jer1cho
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (William18 @ Jul 28 2009, 10:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
wow. Just wow.
wow. Just wow.
W
William18
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jer1cho @ Jul 28 2009, 09:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
wow. Just wow.
[/b][/quote]
I certainly don't mean we don't need sponsorship or that the All blacks are just so good we are better then everyone else. Just that no sponsors sort of keeps things in a traditional way and adds to the prestige of the jersey. I mean, honestly, when you say the blacks jersey it probably has a lot more imagery with it then the Springbok's jersey. That's how I see it from where I am anyway.
wow. Just wow.
[/b][/quote]
I certainly don't mean we don't need sponsorship or that the All blacks are just so good we are better then everyone else. Just that no sponsors sort of keeps things in a traditional way and adds to the prestige of the jersey. I mean, honestly, when you say the blacks jersey it probably has a lot more imagery with it then the Springbok's jersey. That's how I see it from where I am anyway.
B
Bullitt
Guest
J
Jer1cho
Guest
C
Charles
Guest
France doesn't have a sponsor. We are above sponsorship. 
h34r:
h34r:
C
candybum
Guest
Hmm All Blacks definitely don't have other sponsor other than adidas on their playing strip. But their training gear has their other sponsors printed on them. I think the other sponsors don't mind that because players from the AB's are always doing stuff like the mastercard roadtrip thing and weetbix/powerade ads on tv. But that's pretty much the same for other teams right?
I.e i see vodafone on the playing strips on ANZcup teams and the warriors, but haven't seen those players doing any other sorts of advertising like how the ABs do. Almost like an alternative.
I.e i see vodafone on the playing strips on ANZcup teams and the warriors, but haven't seen those players doing any other sorts of advertising like how the ABs do. Almost like an alternative.
I
InsaneAsylum
Guest
the all blacks jersey hasn't changed much over the years..... except when they removed the collar.... and started making it out of nylon (Sorry "climacool") instead of cotton.... and when they added the silver fern embossing down the sides..... and when they removed the steinlager logo.... and when it suddenly became a skin tight fit.... nah it hasn't really changed much over the years
C
cyRil
Guest
Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooriiiiing.
C
C A Iversen
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cyRil of Ospreylia @ Jul 29 2009, 07:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Yet, you posted here, because of the gun to your head. I see that kind of post on other forums and it's not reflective of the more astute posters.
I see what William 18 is saying, but he didn't word things correctly and got shot down. I was going to put my thoughts down here last night but didn't have time to explain them delicately and carefully and knew I'd get shot down for it.
In New Zealand there was a bit of a furore for a while when the small Steinlager badge went on the front several years ago. This debate obviously evaporated over the few years that the All Blacks were sponsored by Steinlager and then gradually completely went away when adidas came along with their ideal solution. Having a black and white logo themselves and more keen for association and promotion than actual plastering of a billboard across the front of the jersey, they offered a solution which New Zealand as a public haven't ever fully appreciated (in my opinion).
If things ever end with adidas (and it's likely that one day they will), we'll likely be faced with the concern of who we need to go on the front of the jersey and how large that logo is.
In New Zealand the issue of having sponsors on our jersey is very important to us and we've done our best to keep our tradition.
The All Blacks as a brand are one of the most marketable in international rugby, due mostly to the success they've had and challenge they bring to any team they face over the last century or more now. All sponsors are eager to acquire a successful brand and it just seems that the other more successful international teams didn't have a public who cared enough as a whole nation to resist the branding that exists now in the earlier days of professionalism.
None of what I've said is about a superiority complex, but I'm bracing myself for the childish effort to label it as such.
Yet, you posted here, because of the gun to your head. I see that kind of post on other forums and it's not reflective of the more astute posters.
I see what William 18 is saying, but he didn't word things correctly and got shot down. I was going to put my thoughts down here last night but didn't have time to explain them delicately and carefully and knew I'd get shot down for it.
In New Zealand there was a bit of a furore for a while when the small Steinlager badge went on the front several years ago. This debate obviously evaporated over the few years that the All Blacks were sponsored by Steinlager and then gradually completely went away when adidas came along with their ideal solution. Having a black and white logo themselves and more keen for association and promotion than actual plastering of a billboard across the front of the jersey, they offered a solution which New Zealand as a public haven't ever fully appreciated (in my opinion).
If things ever end with adidas (and it's likely that one day they will), we'll likely be faced with the concern of who we need to go on the front of the jersey and how large that logo is.
In New Zealand the issue of having sponsors on our jersey is very important to us and we've done our best to keep our tradition.
The All Blacks as a brand are one of the most marketable in international rugby, due mostly to the success they've had and challenge they bring to any team they face over the last century or more now. All sponsors are eager to acquire a successful brand and it just seems that the other more successful international teams didn't have a public who cared enough as a whole nation to resist the branding that exists now in the earlier days of professionalism.
None of what I've said is about a superiority complex, but I'm bracing myself for the childish effort to label it as such.
S
shtove
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Teh Mite @ Jul 28 2009, 09:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
It can cut off your air supply.
Please please don't do that again.[/b]
It can cut off your air supply.
S
shtove
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (C A Iversen @ Jul 29 2009, 08:20 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
The silver fern is the instant "oh yeah!" symbol in RFU - when they see it opposing fans claim they want to go out and kill "these ********" while secretly ******** themselves. Bouncing animals don't have the same impact. And the plant and farmyard logos of Europe are more about enjoying a good meal.
Maybe sponsors prefer to associate themselves with the fern rather than plaster their logos all over and dilute the impact? Simple is good - so long as they have an association (with a RWC winning team ... cough).
Would plastered logos take away from the haka? I think so ...
Don't know much about this.
The silver fern is the instant "oh yeah!" symbol in RFU - when they see it opposing fans claim they want to go out and kill "these ********" while secretly ******** themselves. Bouncing animals don't have the same impact. And the plant and farmyard logos of Europe are more about enjoying a good meal.
Maybe sponsors prefer to associate themselves with the fern rather than plaster their logos all over and dilute the impact? Simple is good - so long as they have an association (with a RWC winning team ... cough).
Would plastered logos take away from the haka? I think so ...
C
C A Iversen
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Jul 29 2009, 08:36 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
The silver fern is the instant "oh yeah!" symbol in RFU - when they see it opposing fans claim they want to go out and kill "these ********" while secretly ******** themselves. Bouncing animals don't have the same impact. And the plant and farmyard logos of Europe are more about enjoying a good meal.
Maybe sponsors prefer to associate themselves with the fern rather than plaster their logos all over and dilute the impact? Simple is good - so long as they have an association (with a RWC winning team ... cough).
Would plastered logos take away from the haka? I think so ...
[/b][/quote]
You make some very significant points there. Takes my own point that little bit further and fleshes out a bit more of what I believe would've been involved in the NZRFU/adaidas discussions.
Don't know much about this.
The silver fern is the instant "oh yeah!" symbol in RFU - when they see it opposing fans claim they want to go out and kill "these ********" while secretly ******** themselves. Bouncing animals don't have the same impact. And the plant and farmyard logos of Europe are more about enjoying a good meal.
Maybe sponsors prefer to associate themselves with the fern rather than plaster their logos all over and dilute the impact? Simple is good - so long as they have an association (with a RWC winning team ... cough).
Would plastered logos take away from the haka? I think so ...
[/b][/quote]
You make some very significant points there. Takes my own point that little bit further and fleshes out a bit more of what I believe would've been involved in the NZRFU/adaidas discussions.
C
cyRil
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (C A Iversen @ Jul 28 2009, 09:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Yet, you posted here, because of the gun to your head. I see that kind of post on other forums and it's not reflective of the more astute posters.
[/b][/quote]
Sowwy :mellow:
I was referring really to the way the conversation had gone, rather than the topic itself.
I was initially going to defend the first NZ poster and agree that they may in some respect be 'above' advertising, but lost heart in it.
So yeah, ignore mee!!
Yet, you posted here, because of the gun to your head. I see that kind of post on other forums and it's not reflective of the more astute posters.
[/b][/quote]
Sowwy :mellow:
I was referring really to the way the conversation had gone, rather than the topic itself.
I was initially going to defend the first NZ poster and agree that they may in some respect be 'above' advertising, but lost heart in it.
So yeah, ignore mee!!
S
shazbooger
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cyRil of Ospreylia @ Jul 28 2009, 08:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Agreed. The conversation got pretty dull pretty quickly.
To answer the original question .......... New Zealand dont have a logo on their Jersey cause they choose not to have a logo on their jersey. As the most marketable brand in World rugby they do not need to have a logo on their jersey. They could earn more by doing it, but they choose not to.
I've never objected to logos actually. If some sponsor is willing to pay the salaries of the players by spraying their logo on the jersey, bite their hand off I say. In the same way, if new Zealand decide to turn that down, then more power to them. Same thing for Barcelona football club. They choose not to do so (apart from Unicef) though they could earn an absolute fortune if they did.
Spose the one difference is that Barcelona are never short of money, while New Zealand could do with the extra cash to keep a few of their better players. Good for them either way, if its important to them then good for them.
Agreed. The conversation got pretty dull pretty quickly.
To answer the original question .......... New Zealand dont have a logo on their Jersey cause they choose not to have a logo on their jersey. As the most marketable brand in World rugby they do not need to have a logo on their jersey. They could earn more by doing it, but they choose not to.
I've never objected to logos actually. If some sponsor is willing to pay the salaries of the players by spraying their logo on the jersey, bite their hand off I say. In the same way, if new Zealand decide to turn that down, then more power to them. Same thing for Barcelona football club. They choose not to do so (apart from Unicef) though they could earn an absolute fortune if they did.
Spose the one difference is that Barcelona are never short of money, while New Zealand could do with the extra cash to keep a few of their better players. Good for them either way, if its important to them then good for them.
O
O'Rothlain
Guest
The real reason is.......drum roll please...
Adidas are their main sponsor and said sponsor is already on the jersey.
The contract adidas have with the All Blacks is probably one of the most unique in the world of sport. In order to keep it up NZ have to maintain a 75% win ratio and stay in the top 5...as I've been told by an insider.
Adidas are their main sponsor and said sponsor is already on the jersey.
The contract adidas have with the All Blacks is probably one of the most unique in the world of sport. In order to keep it up NZ have to maintain a 75% win ratio and stay in the top 5...as I've been told by an insider.
C
C A Iversen
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O'Rothlain @ Jul 29 2009, 12:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
I certainly hope no one was ever in the dark that they are on the jersey, but I think the greater question that's being asked is why it isn't plastered across the front of the jersey in large print. Mind you I think thats been answered too.
I certainly hope no one was ever in the dark that they are on the jersey, but I think the greater question that's being asked is why it isn't plastered across the front of the jersey in large print. Mind you I think thats been answered too.
I
InsaneAsylum
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O'Rothlain @ Jul 29 2009, 10:23 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
is that why graeme henry's facial expressions always look like he's squeezing out some cable?
is that why graeme henry's facial expressions always look like he's squeezing out some cable?
Similar threads
