Discussion Jumpers That Never Were

Remove this Banner Ad

I actually respect Gold Coast's initial decision not to adopt a moniker, obviously that went out the door, but I think it should be the way to go for future expansion clubs, an identity developing over time would help them feel like a club, more than a franchise.
And while I have no problems with Gold Coast or GWS, they definitely don't feel like clubs.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I actually respect Gold Coast's initial decision not to adopt a moniker, obviously that went out the door, but I think it should be the way to go for future expansion clubs, an identity developing over time would help them feel like a club, more than a franchise.
And while I have no problems with Gold Coast or GWS, they definitely don't feel like clubs.
This will never happen in the modern day though, where the public and consumers' views on a particular product are primarily formed by the branding around it.

The organic formation of monikers/nicknames that occurred with the old VFL clubs wouldn't happen in today's age; people will be told what and what not to call something, and they'll follow accordingly (and this isn't even a cynical view on my part, it's just how it is).

They absolutely had to come up with a nickname, otherwise they'd still just be known as GCFC. Mind you, in a league where every team has some sort of moniker or nickname, just for differentiation purposes, that may not have necessarily been a bad thing. But as far as the supporter base eventually coming up with a nickname organically? Never would have happened. I mean the only reason the expansion team in Western Sydney ended up being known as GWS is because that name had been reinforced into people's minds from the moment the 'bid' (I use that term loosely, but we'll go with it for the sake of my point) was introduced back in 2009 as 'Team GWS'.
 
We are the Sharks of the Gold Coast sky...
sharknado.jpg
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I can't imagine a parochially masculine sport allowing "Angels"... unfortunately it's not "macho" enough.
Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim
Not really sure, it came about when I created my own league for Australia and used the Angels nickname for GC. Since then, I've never had a problem with it.
 
Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim

Not really sure, it came about when I created my own league for Australia and used the Angels nickname for GC. Since then, I've never had a problem with it.
I personally don't have a problem with it. I follow a team called the Rabbitohs so I know teams don't have to have striking-macho-big-balls nicknames. But they obviously didn't want to go with something (potentially) relatively effeminate.
 
There was a competition held in 1914 whe Hawthorn were joining the VFA.
They were told they could not wear Blue & Gold, their colours, so they had to find an alternative. (Williamstown were already Blue & Gold)
Apparently there were over a dozen entries, and Brown and Gold won the competition because no other clubs wore Brown.
I have never found anything saying who proposed it, or how it was voted on, just that that combination won the competition.

References round to the colours of hawthorn suburb in spring (mayblooms) perhaps

Gold with a brown v change the nickname to mustard pots - very creative

Word is the stripes were adopted when they wanted to emulate collingwood as an organization

Theres conjecture that at merger time, the hawks anti merger asked why there was no brown in the proposed jumper. I thonk there was an offer that the hawk could have a brown eyej

You can speculate the rest of the conversation.

Apprently Don Scott adjused his merger night speech because the crowd was already "lively' and didnt need inflaming by certain comments which were planned but never spoken

Fwiw i actually liked the hawk design on the alternat jumper, even though I detested the merger
 
Adding options 2 and 3 below to this thread as proposed jumpers that will never see the light of day, option 1 will be worn by the Dogs in round 6 this year (unfortunately). They all stink.
BMBGuernseyVote-HeroWEB.jpg

No offence, but thats pretending to give fans a say when really, theres no choice
 
I personally don't have a problem with it. I follow a team called the Rabbitohs so I know teams don't have to have striking-macho-big-balls nicknames. But they obviously didn't want to go with something (potentially) relatively effeminate.

There are so many awesome team names that don't immediately evoke toughness or machismo.

It seems to be a really 90s thing that teams have to have some sort of toughness associated with the nickname.

Look at US sports in the 60s, 70s and 80s, with newly formed teams taking on names such as the Angels, Dolphins, Golden Seals, Islanders, Penguins, Saints, Cardinals, Jazz, Clippers, Nuggets etc etc etc.

There is so much more character in those names than Power, Jaguars, Panthers, Predators, Sharks, Lightning, Hurricanes, Avalanche.
 
I distinctly remember there being two versions of the 1999 pre season hawks with the feathers over the shoulder,

One with a gold back and the other brown

Cant find pictures of both though
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top