All Black jersey to have a sponsor

First topic message reminder :

Just got a wee bit of inside news. The ABs have inked a huge deal with AIG who will become the team's major sponsor and they will get their logo printed on the sleeve.

A sponsor's logo has been done before obviously with Steinlager adorning the jersey in 96-97. Interesting that it's on the sleeve and not the right breast though.

Obviously most Kiwis would rather just have the silver fern (not even the Adidas logo lol) but it was always going to happen again in this day and age. The Aussie league jerseys now look like the drivers' kits in Formula One they have that many sponsors. The sleeve isn't too bad.

Anyways thought that some people would like to know-Kiwis in particular.

Fair enough, but my point remains that the brand is almost the problem; think jordan for a sec...her assets are her brand, she cannot detract from that by advertising something else or endorsing other brands on them so she diversified and started selling products using her brand as the marketing USP. If you stick a logo on that ALL BLACK shirt you almost immediately attack dilute the brand. What they need to do is find a way of milking the All Black brand; perhaps All Black product development, boots, balls etc. I get that cashing in makes sense but any advertising exec will tell you it could be cutting off your nose to spite your face

I think you make a very good point, but I personally cant see them making more from keeping the all black brand pure than they can from advertising on it. They would have done all the market research as to what they may lose to the gain. What could they lose in the short term( a fraction of a percent of shirt sales, to multi millions a year from sponsership!!)

The all blacks as a global brand can only be a brazil or a spain if the game gets bigger. A good team and the occasional fan from a far but on the whole the sport is what it is because the fan supports there own team. The all blacks being the main brand of rugby is to short term and only apparant whilst they are the best. World rugby is needed. The all blacks need to just survive and make the most out of what they can whilst they have the leverage

How will world rugby benefit and develop from the All Blacks having sponsors...just don't see the connection and i don't think the game will expand in that way. The NZRFU will benefit and the grass roots in NZ will take their cut but again i would really liek to hear from a kiwi on this issue.
Remember Rugby will alway be a niche sport because football is the most popular sport in 95% of Africa, S America, Europe and S E ASia and i just don't see it taking off in China.
As for the USA like soccer, rugby is definitely growing but again plays 4th fiddle to hockey, football and NBA.
i honesty think there is more to it than money with the Blacks. I really do think that the shirt has to remain ALL BLACK. If Wales were known as the ALL REDS and you stuck a black logo on them it just wouldn't work. Er, these All Blacks...they aren't ALL BLACK.
This means that the only sponsors I can think off are vendors of shoe polish, black paint or Blacks camping equipment... hardly big money deals i suspect!

well i didnt make the connection that the all blacks being sponsered would help the world game(although it could)- i said the only way for the all blacks and the rest of rugby to grow is for it to become a more worldly game.

Teams/fans need to concentrate on that rather than talking about ways to keep this global brand of the all blacks as what everyone thinks of when they think of rugby..that holds the game backRugby is much bigger than the all blacks.. So if your saying that sponserhop will dilute the brand then yeah thats one start i suppose. Secondly the all blacks will have to possibly play in other places if they are sponsered rather than stick to the traditional fixtures that do not grow the game.

Worrying about what we call a team is pointless as well. its a name. thats all. They are a canvess to the sponsers, but the name can stay on.

when the all blacks fall from grace they could well just be known as NZ anyway. These names only stick when your the best. Otherwise your just another nation trying to be the best.

Any sport targetting and attaching themselves to one team is a dieing sport. its all about growing a game and competition

Ah but mystiroakey it isn't just a name that's the point.

The All Blacks are legends in world rugby. Everyone has heard of them, its almost of historical significance and I am sure it definitely is in New Zealand so that name has to be treated with kid gloves.

Do you recall Invictus, not sure if you have seen it (its carp) but Mandela goes to a vote proposing to abandon the name of the Springboks...now I don't know if this vote ever happened but what he said kind of reflects the significance of rugby in places like SA and NZ...Mandela understood that the most loved sport of the white minority was a hated symbol of apartheid amongst the black majority but he also knew that the name the Springboks has almost religious significance in SA and to abandon it would alienate elements of the Rainbow Nation. Brilliant politics but also the acceptance that rugby was/is part of the fabric of white South Africa without which his new nation would most likely not have survived. look what he did with it; for me the greatest moment in any sporting history was Pienaar and Mandela lifting that trophy.

Its a moot point for sure; I think you are right that the Blacks have a responsibility to grow rugby and some holy cows might have to be reassessed but i still think to advertise on that jersey might be a mistake.
That said if you get it right it can work a treat; i recall Wales not being able to use Brains on a trip abroad so they changed the name to brawn...very very clever!

To be honest I think rugby has its limitations as a world game because of it's very nature.....I can go and play a proper game of football in the park with mates but i couldn't do that with rugby and touch rugby doesn't count! But if youu look at soccer in the USA it has become big business and rugby has a strong base in Canada...the continent we need to target is the USA and things like the Vegas 7s will address that. Pro rugby is 17 years old, a baby really and if you look at how it has come on in that time the game has changed almost completely.

Why don't we just call them NZ and be done with it.

International sides shouldn't have or need "brands".

Australia in particular should definitely get rid of the Wallaby thing, it sounds so wimpy

By all means, call ABs NZ gowales, no problem. Think gatland said something similar. Go to Egypt and mention the word 'rugby', see what they say.

I don't think anyone in Egypt has any idea who the "allblacks" are either.

They know them in Spain and they don't play rugby. I think you'd be surprised even with no exposure to rugby, people tend to know who the ABs are. I've travelled a fair bit and the AB brand seems to have reached obscure places.

gowales wrote:I don't think anyone in Egypt has any idea who the "allblacks" are either.

Guy selling me a tacky trinket on the streets of Cairo did, only after i told him i was wasnt from oz. i know it was an obvious sales technique, but you get it as a kiwi wherever you go, and not just from street hawkers. Go to any country and say you're from nz, which may be a struggle with your accent, and see what they say.

Anyways, not too fussed about a 'small' sponsor emblem on the shirt. Every other international side does, why not have a slice of the pie. And I'm surprised that some from other countries have such a strong opinion about it, who'd have thunk it.

I've seen AB shirts on sale all over the shop. Chile was one notable place-a fair few. Good sport's good sport and if there's one rugby team in the world people know it's the All Blacks. They'll know them in Egypt too lol-once they figure out you're a Kiwi they'll yell "Kia Ora" and "All Blacks" at you-anything to get you in their shop!

I didn't like that we cut the "New Zealand" part of the logo out. Still don't. I'd rather have cut the "All Blacks" bit out, or everything. We were still the ABs when it was just the silver fern.

EBOP wrote:

gowales wrote:I don't think anyone in Egypt has any idea who the "allblacks" are either.

Guy selling me a tacky trinket on the streets of Cairo did, only after i told him i was wasnt from oz. i know it was an obvious sales technique, but you get it as a kiwi wherever you go, and not just from street hawkers. Go to any country and say you're from nz, which may be a struggle with your accent, and see what they say.

Anyways, not too fussed about a 'small' sponsor emblem on the shirt. Every other international side does, why not have a slice of the pie. And I'm surprised that some from other countries have such a strong opinion about it, who'd have thunk it.

Oh don't get me wrong i'm in favour of them getting the sponsor.

I just find it hypocritical when people say they shouldn't get it and then at the same time they praise the Allblack brand.

Lets be honest it boils down to one thing at the moment- because the AB's brand is strong they can attract big money sponsership!

I cant see how keeping the AB brand pure is gonna help the NZRU's short term or long term finances

I don't see a problem with it really. New Zealand rugby marketing is there to make money like any other brand (just like Microsoft, McDonalds or Disney). If people want to buy their over-priced tat it's up to them.

Too right sugar. And if you still want to wear black but pay cheap as chips prices you can always buy the England away shirt.

Yup, and they're exactly like the shirts the England players wear because there are no numbers on the back.

The thing is though, a little logo or a sponsor name wouldn't be anything major. That's why I'm surprised there would be people against it. I was exaggerating when I was talking about plastering sponsors all over it.

But modern pro sport has a very important business sides. Even Barcelona have added a big money sponsor to their jersey. For years they proudly wore a UNICEF logo free of charge. But in the end, money talked.

FR, I actually think they paid Unicef for the logo.

It has actually been done with NZ before-the Steinlager logo adorned the black jersey from 95-97. Adidas got rid of it when they took over in 98. The deal was renewed a year or two ago and I imagine that was when Tew and company negotiated the right to add another sponsor.

Now they have the Qatar Foundation. Sounds more like a Middle Eastern rock band to me. They definitely get paid to wear that.

They're getting paid a fortune for that alright. 150 million euro or thereabouts.

And yet the Spanish clubs with even the global might of Barcelona and Real Madrid are still heavily endebted, albeit some more than others. So every year we see these games in the Middle East and Asia to soak up every available coin. The ABs hopefully saw the folly of these extra games against Australia in Hong Kong. I'd much rather have a sponsor than add unnecessary games to the calendar.

Agree mate. Ten tests a season is enough for me. Plus the Super Rugby schedule is a joke.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:And yet the Spanish clubs with even the global might of Barcelona and Real Madrid are still heavily endebted, albeit some more than others. So every year we see these games in the Middle East and Asia to soak up every available coin. The ABs hopefully saw the folly of these extra games against Australia in Hong Kong. I'd much rather have a sponsor than add unnecessary games to the calendar.

They have a lot of debt but the Madrid council usually subsidise them don't they? I think the same thing happens in Barca.

If they keep expanding Super rugby I see it might go a similar way to the ITM cup with top players being rested for large periods. 2 months is not an off-season.

Those days are over Thomond. The regional councils' budgets are being reined in and amnesties are not being granted to clubs now. Spain needs money desperately to keep turning a blind eye to clubs´inability to stay afloat.

Uefa are bringing in laws as well. Real are in more trouble over it I'd say. Barca do the whole become a member of the club thing and that generates a decent amount of pesos.

real and barca do that Thomond. the problem is that it doesnt generate enough money and they are just given free loan after loan from govt owned banks or local tax funding.. With the euro crisis as it is they may be a massive change in ownership and the way spainish teams are run which would be due to the EU rather than just UEFA.

The prem may be in debt- but alot of that is geared from owners rather than banks, and the bank loans are either paid back or refinanced

I read somewhere that the Spanish banks are so paralysed by fear that if they stop handing out money to the clubs, the customers who support these clubs would just get up and take their pesos elsewhere?

Spain had pesetas mintie but now they are in the eurozone. Not sure about that. BBVA is the second biggest bank in Spain and sponsors the league. They along with Santander have no solvency issues because of their global distribution and diversity. Caixa Bank has enough money to swallow any outstanding debt as it owns stakes in two cash cows: Repsol and IberDrola who are both in a spot of bother.

The big problem in Spain are the caixas or the savings banks equivalent to building societies elsewhere. Through political interference many (certainly not all) have overexposed themselves. The main merger between 2 major ailing savings banks - Bancaja and Caja Madrid - and a few smaller ones, which came to be known as Bankia, holds the most amount of toxic debt in the Spanish banking sector. Bankia had a promotion for young account holders that if they kept their money in their accounts they would get a free spiderman towel!

The housing boom in Spain saw construction out of control. There was more construction in Spain at the height of the boom than in France, UK, and Germany combined. Many German banks lent money to Spanish banks which had approved loans. Think of exposure to Greece and then multiply that exponentially. Politicians engaged in a P-ing contest and ill-advised airports in sparsely populated areas that could never justify having an airport and countless other grandiose and overly extravagant building and Spain is counting the cost of that excess now.

Couple that with a general flight of capital from overseas as well as national investors and the situation is dire. Don't even get me started on the unemployment figures particularly among the youth.

I feel like FallingTP talking about economics!

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Spain had pesetas mintie but now they are in the eurozone.

Sorry Kia, I was being slightly derogatory re pesos/pesetas! Living in UK and having travelled to Spain, I know they're in the Euro!

But for how long I couldn't tell you!

They could sell off all their shiny gold cups. What's the vibe over there like Kia after euro2012?

In times of crisis people turn to sport to forget about their personal hardships. I think the World Cup was more special in atmosphere and the Euro 08 came as a complete shock. But I watched the game in one of 4 big screens dotted around the Bernabeu stadium and there were plenty of people in the streets. I was happy for Spain to win. Lord knows they need something to smile about. The economic situation is really dire.

You should try and look around Ireland. It's arguably worse!

what about good old greece!

from a europe persceptive it wouldnt have been too nice if germany had won it!!

I noticed that Thomond. I was living in Ireland then spent 15 months in Aus/NZ/South America before coming back to Dublin. I could hear so many more Irish people talking in the street-previously most of what I could hear were Eastern European languages-and it's nice to hear to be honest-but after a while in D1 you cop onto the fact that those accents unfortunately belong to the knackers in tracksuits who are out in force.

Considering D1 is in the Northside I'm not too shocked

It's a different world once you get past College Green eh mate!

Ah it's not too bad, some places are worse like D8, a bit of a spot for the old upjohns and smack like.

There's enough smack in Gardiner St!

Finally made the news in NZ. Nothing juicy yet, just that it mentions AIG. Bang on Disney.

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10817634

I didn't get the info from Jed Thian though.

I can live with a sleeve logo and something on the shorts I guess. What I wouldn’t be able to tolerate would be a logo across the top like every other country has.

The article is a bit poor in my opinion. In one part it says since 1880 the black jersey has remained clear of sponsorship yet at the end it goes on about how steinlager had their logo on the chest (and was on the shorts at one point) in the 90’s. I could handle that then, if it’s much the same I’ll handle it now especially if it helps to put money back into the grassroots....

I'm ok with the logo on the right breast-where the World Cup logo was and the Adidas logo in the middle. Across the stomach-NFW.

Some pretty passionate responses from the public on Stuff

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/7230434/NZRU-coy-over-All-Blacks-shirt-sponsorship

disneychilly wrote:I'm ok with the logo on the right breast-where the World Cup logo was and the Adidas logo in the middle. Across the stomach-NFW.

Disney
How would you feel though if the company emblazened across the front was a New Zealand company?
Presuming the figures are somewhere in the 10s of millions of dollars, I can only think of one company that could write such a cheque, and could achieve beneficial mileage out of the exposure and that is Fonterra.

its allways nice to have a home sponser- but its highly unlikely

mystiroakey wrote:its allways nice to have a home sponser- but its highly unlikely

True, very unlikely especially if the sponsor has a name like American International Group.

I think AIG is half owned by the Japanese

nganboy wrote:I think AIG is half owned by the Japanese

So is Australia so they should probably pick someone else