News The AFL want names on jumpers

[Bacon Warrior]

I could barely read Hoskin-Elliott's name even when the camera did a close up on his back.

 

[joblo]

Already made my opinion clear on this - that I don't think it's a good or bad thing either way, but this was always going to happen in the AFL eventually. The AFL should focus on implementing a proper clash jumper system first though.

Yes names on back is about the money, but for over 100 years jumpers didn't have sponsors on them, now they do. Personally I find sponsors much more worse than a name on the back, and I'd much rather see the player's name above the number than another sponsor. I find it amazing how people get offended by a name on the back but are okay with sponsors. But I do agree it doesn't really bring much to the game, unless if you're up close you won't be able to clearly see the name.

The names looked okay on the Richmond, GC and Essendon jumper, it looked terrible on ours because of the arched back of the paddlepop jumper, it will look okay on our proper jumper as long as "BBFFC" is moved to the collar or removed. Norf should decide either to make the letters black or the numbers blue, one or the other, not a mix. Adelaide's looked tacky because the number had a white outline but the name didn't - again pick one or the other, not half and half. Also "BBFFC, SMFC, FFC, 1870" etc. should be moved to the collar when this becomes a permanent thing next season.

For those against names on top of the player's number on the back, would you rather have a name up there or another sponsor? I know what I rather have.

tl;dr: this would look okay if done properly, not bothered either way but I think this will be permanent from next year onwards.

Here are my 2015 Lions home, away and clash jumper mockups:

Names on jumpers have no real benefit and it is nothing more than a gimmick where as a sponsors logo is a matter of survival and another means to function as a club.

 

[____]

Names on jumpers have no real benefit and it is nothing more than a gimmick where as a sponsors logo is a matter of survival and another means to function as a club.

Clubs survived without jumper sponsors for 100+ years (Yes I know it's a different ball game today, but it seems to be the argument of the anti-change brigade).

Both names on jumpers and sponsors on jumpers have the same purpose as each other, but use different means of doing so. It just seems ridiculous to get worked up about one but be okay with the other.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Do you know why MW Jumpers are now bidded on and more expensive than other MW Jumpers?
Its the Names. The AFL are making a profit of it because the fans like the names that's why they bid more money on them. A normal Cox MW jumper is $200-$250. The MW with his name is $500 and to go more.

1. I would have thought a Cox MW would almost always go for more than that from the auctions website. $400+ seems more like it for any Cox MW.
2. Even if the Cox 'name' MW went for double what it normally would, what about all the name guernseys of the nobodies on the team that they either can't sell at all, or they end up giving them away for pretty much the retail price?
3. Since it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that they're bringing this in for 2015, regardless of the feedback from this round, why anyone would bother bidding a premium price for a guernsey that will be pretty much the standard next year is beyond me.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

I think there's a few problems with the baseball example. One is that the fields are significantly smaller, though not by as much as most other sports. The distance between home plate and the fence in centre field ranges from about 119m to 133m and the foul poles are often less than 100m apart. Secondly, like cricket, it's a sport where most of the players on the park aren't moving around a lot. Thirdly, I don't think any solution that suggests that the sponsor's logo simply be moved to a less prominent position will not work. And fourthly, AFL guernseys are designed to be skin tight. Baseball jerseys are comparatively loose-fitting and some of the guys wearing them aren't exactly like AFL players in build.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Hell, you couldn't even read the numbers from there, let alone names or ads, so that argument that the difference is the ground v. field and how well you can read the names/sponsors doesn't hold water.

Doesn't it? That picture is only showing us one side of the coin, as far as I'm concerned. What would an equivalent seat look like at the baseball?

I also think that comparing the sponsor's patch to the player's name is apples and oranges. The sponsor is a standard part of the uniform. Every player has the same thing there. You probably only need to see it a few times close up before it becomes embedded in your memory, then the briefest glimpse of the logo during play will trigger your memory so that you get a clear picture in your head. And that's probably why a lot of sponsors choose to go with borders on their logos, rather than letting them, blend into the guernsey. With my club, you just need to see a blue oval and you think 'Ford'...even non football supporters would often be the same.

It would be a similar process for supporters with the players, but since there's a different name on each guernsey, they'd have to go through the process with every unfamiliar player from their own team and countless unfamiliar players from opposition teams, until the name is linked with the number and then comitted to memory, so the name can be ascertained by simply seeing the number.

 

[Mr Eagle]

Both names on jumpers and sponsors on jumpers have the same purpose as each other, but use different means of doing so. It just seems ridiculous to get worked up about one but be okay with the other.

Sponsors bring in million dollar sums annually for bigger clubs and are a major source of revenue. Names would bring in...thousands?

 

[joblo]

Clubs survived without jumper sponsors for 100+ years (Yes I know it's a different ball game today, but it seems to be the argument of the anti-change brigade).

Both names on jumpers and sponsors on jumpers have the same purpose as each other, but use different means of doing so. It just seems ridiculous to get worked up about one but be okay with the other.

Sponsors first appeared on jumpers in 1977 and that is less than 100 years for the VFL/AFL competition with 1996 being the centenary for the league. Names on jumpers have not been used for 118 years because it has not been a necessity and as seen on TV and at the grounds, the names were just a blur and made the top half on the back of the jumpers look cluttered. If clubs were more business savvy prior to 1977, I guarantee sponsors logos would have appeared on jumpers much earlier because clubs were scratching to survive back then and still continue to fight for survival even in today's environment of dual sponsored jumpers. The main reason people get worked up about the idea is that it did not have overwhelming benefits to justify more clutter on the jumper.

 

[El_Scorcho]

I'm watching a replay of the Norwich/Liverpool game right now and I can't read any of the names unless there is a close up.

Readability doesn't matter.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

[NMFCMUFC]

Hell, you couldn't even read the numbers from there, let alone names or ads, so that argument that the difference is the ground v. field and how well you can read the names/sponsors doesn't hold water.

My pic from level 1 of the same game:

a little bit better.

 

[____]

Sponsors first appeared on jumpers in 1977 and that is less than 100 years for the VFL/AFL competition with 1996 being the centenary for the league. Names on jumpers have not been used for 118 years because it has not been a necessity and as seen on TV and at the grounds, the names were just a blur and made the top half on the back of the jumpers look cluttered. If clubs were more business savvy prior to 1977, I guarantee sponsors logos would have appeared on jumpers much earlier because clubs were scratching to survive back then and still continue to fight for survival even in today's environment of dual sponsored jumpers. The main reason people get worked up about the idea is that it did not have overwhelming benefits to justify more clutter on the jumper.

Australian football has been played since 1858, the VFL/AFL comp started in 1897, so they have gone without sponsors for over 100 years.

As I said I'm not for or against it either way, but I'd rather have a players name above the number than another sponsor. Both are there to make money, sponsors pay to get their name on the jumper and fans buy more jumpers (and pay for lettering etc.) with names on the back.

Honestly it's not a big deal either way.

 

[Bryce_Jersey17]

The width at the shoulders of a vest or sleeveless jumper is narrower than at the ribs, get it? It doesn't matter if it's baseball vest, basketball jersey, footy jumper or any shirt that is sleeveless. That's all I was saying. Take one out, lay it flat, and measure. There is much more room to put a name UNDER the numbers.

I have no idea what you're going on about, honestly. Cheers.

Don't bother mate. I made the same idea ages ago, and got shut down for even mentioning it. There are people on here who just hate ideas that are different to theirs.

 

[Groupie_]

It'd look much much better if the sponsor was moved down and they used the current afl number size and a larger name up top

 

[E92_]

The smaller numbers remind of the crappy unofficial heat pressed numbers some people put on their jumpers.

 

[Silent Alarm]

Australian football has been played since 1858, the VFL/AFL comp started in 1897, so they have gone without sponsors for over 100 years.

As I said I'm not for or against it either way, but I'd rather have a players name above the number than another sponsor. Both are there to make money, sponsors pay to get their name on the jumper and fans buy more jumpers (and pay for lettering etc.) with names on the back.

Honestly it's not a big deal either way.

A hundred years ago players played for nothing. It was a free event. You played for the reason people play amateur sport: for fun, for sociability, to have a win, to stay fit. You didn't have the redundant players on $50,000, have massive training facilities to purchase, girls manning the phones to flog memberships, people working full-time just to update websites... far out, even Sunday League sides need sponsorship revenue these days. The only teams I know who don't use sponsors are total recreational ones in niche sports. I think, even including Auskick and their Simpson/NAB deals, only my indoor soccer team (well we played astro-turf soccer for two years; Astro Boys were quite the side, I'll tell you that much – we were wordsmiths, too) in primary school didn't have sponsors. Even then, I tried rallying my uncle's business to pay for some England shirts to cover the $10 weekly rego and ref payment.

So if recreational sport need sponsors, the behemoths of the AFL do.

In fact I don't even know how this is an argument. Absolute, undeniable millions (most clubs surely flog a back/front of jumper sponsorship for like $800,000-1.5ish a year?) against potential thousands and millions in a premiership year when your star midfielder wins a Brownlow?

Come on man.

That's the worst argument ever. Clubs won't forfeit massive income and the AFL won't allow them, even if say Collingwood wanted to.

 

[____]

A hundred years ago players played for nothing. It was a free event. You played for the reason people play amateur sport: for fun, for sociability, to have a win, to stay fit. You didn't have the redundant players on $50,000, have massive training facilities to purchase, girls manning the phones to flog memberships, people working full-time just to update websites... far out, even Sunday League sides need sponsorship revenue these days. The only teams I know who don't use sponsors are total recreational ones in niche sports. I think, even including Auskick and their Simpson/NAB deals, only my indoor soccer team (well we played astro-turf soccer for two years; Astro Boys were quite the side, I'll tell you that much – we were wordsmiths, too) in primary school didn't have sponsors. Even then, I tried rallying my uncle's business to pay for some England shirts to cover the $10 weekly rego and ref payment.

So if recreational sport need sponsors, the behemoths of the AFL do.

In fact I don't even know how this is an argument. Absolute, undeniable millions (most clubs surely flog a back/front of jumper sponsorship for like $800,000-1.5ish a year?) against potential thousands and millions in a premiership year when your star midfielder wins a Brownlow?

Come on man.

That's the worst argument ever. Clubs won't forfeit massive income and the AFL won't allow them, even if say Collingwood wanted to.

I was using the exact same argument against sponsors on jumpers that people in this thread seem to be using against names on jumpers (and the same argument against clash jumpers as well).

Your arguments have pointed out why names on jumpers isn't a big deal either way.

 

[muggsy26]

this should not happen

 

[Klim]

this should not happen

He had his jumpers ripped. It happens.

 

[West_Coast_Eagles]

Juddys cooked

 

[Groupie_]

this should not happen

Kicked 5. They should let him wear it every week

 

[Dubelyou]

Only negative I can find with names being added is that the numbers are now smaller. Which could simply be solved by moving the names up on the jumper a little, the Geelong jumper today had heaps of room above the name. Oh and get rid of that NMFC, BBFFC and SMFC crap.

 

[Greater Gattsby]

Only negative I can find with names being added is that the numbers are now smaller. Which could simply be solved by moving the names up on the jumper a little, the Geelong jumper today had heaps of room above the name. Oh and get rid of that NMFC, BBFFC and SMFC crap.

Can understand BBFFC, SMFC and FFC, but yeah numerous logos and wordmarks should have been left out this week.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

The width at the shoulders of a vest or sleeveless jumper is narrower than at the ribs, get it? It doesn't matter if it's baseball vest, basketball jersey, footy jumper or any shirt that is sleeveless. That's all I was saying. Take one out, lay it flat, and measure. There is much more room to put a name UNDER the numbers.

I have no idea what you're going on about, honestly. Cheers.

That you're talking about the businesses that pay high six figures as a minimum for the privilege to have a billboard on an AFL club's guernsey being shifted to a less premium position on the guernsey for what is, more or less, a pointless exercise of trying to make names on the back actually useful for identification purposes.

 

[El Dubya]

Didn't care for it, can't see them for most of the telecast and can't see them at the game unless the action is right in front of you.

Sent from my GT-I9305T using Tapatalk

 

[____]

Only negative I can find with names being added is that the numbers are now smaller. Which could simply be solved by moving the names up on the jumper a little, the Geelong jumper today had heaps of room above the name. Oh and get rid of that NMFC, BBFFC and SMFC crap.

BBFFC, SMFC etc. would look fine if moved to the collar (e.g. my example the previous page).