Canadiens announce RBC as first official game jersey partner

Frankenheimer

Sir, this is an Arber
Feb 22, 2009
3,995
1,843
MTL
RBC is the biggest bank in Canada...they, the Montreal Canadiens, probably see a lot more opportunity there than you can. It goes way beyond the cheque RBC is cutting the organization to stitch their logo on it.

Right or wrong.

Also we know the Canadiens brand is synonymous with history and tradition...that's all we ever hear about.

What opportunities? It seems mostly financial to me, and RBC will get backlash on top of it. I don't see a partnership beyond branding. It's not like RBC is going to manufacture and sell hockey equipment, or sell food at the stands, or even a gateway for other sports related ventures. I can't think of a more conservative, empty, soulless branding than putting a big fat blue and yellow bank logo on the jersey.
 

Tripledeke333

Registered User
Jun 25, 2021
926
900
?

no I just meant, the Montreal Canadiens is a brand, just by wearing a habs logo you're already advertising for a purely private company whose only goal is profit
Yeah, I like the Habs brand because it respresents tradition, history and hockey culture. Now I am forced to advertise for RBC when I wear the Habs brand. As such, I no longer like the Habs brand and consider it tarnished.
 

Tripledeke333

Registered User
Jun 25, 2021
926
900
For themselves (the Montreal Canadiens) first.

Yes, agreed.

Nothing has been tarnished, all of the Habs records and accomplishments which make up their history and tradition are still intact.


See I guess it's a perspective thing...I don't view the Montreal Canadiens as an iconic historical cultural item.

Considering the Montreal Canadiens as an iconic historical cultural item is what we disagree on. IMO the Habs are one of if not the most prominent iconic historical cultural items in Montreal.
 

417

When the going gets tough...
Feb 20, 2003
52,471
30,335
Ottawa
This is all an exaggeration of the positions expressed. You don't need to view the Habs as a religion to take a negative position towards this move. There are countless reasons for doing so, among them an aesthetic one, but also a matter of principle.
You're the one whose been going on and on about comparing this to branding the Mona Lisa with a corporate logo and making links between the hockey club and personal identity.

So you're responsible for exaggerating those positions. I'm just responding.

Also, I don't see why I need to take a negative position towards this. This doesn't personally affect me in any way, the Montreal Canadiens are just one of the teams I cheer for, it doesn't go beyond that.

I have never even bought or plan to buy any jersey or merchandise, I find hockey sweaters ill-fitting it's not my thing.

So maybe that's a reason why i'm unaffected by this.

But I am definitely trying to understand why it seems to affect others, I just kind trail off when there starts to be mythical ties to the jersey and it being 'tarnished'.
We've all been exposed to the branding of jerseys in sports, this is nothing new. It would have been nice to protect this unique aspect of our league and, as many would argue, our culture/heritage, as the justifications presented fall short of absolute necessity.
This league is already way behind society as is, not saying that this is part of how things should be...but the sport of hockey is conservative and non-inclusive at root.

This desperate need to hold on to these meaningless, or maybe I shouldn't say that because it's meaningless to me, traditions and guidelines because it's "our" league, are off-putting if anything to me.

What opportunities? It seems mostly financial to me, and RBC will get backlash on top of it. I don't see a partnership beyond branding. It's not like RBC is going to manufacture and sell hockey equipment, or sell food at the stands, or even a gateway for other sports related ventures. I can't think of a more conservative, empty, soulless branding than putting a big fat blue and yellow bank logo on the jersey.
Once again.

Royal Bank of Canada is the biggest bank in Canada

You don't have to be an economics major to understand the potential opportunities there.
 

417

When the going gets tough...
Feb 20, 2003
52,471
30,335
Ottawa
Considering the Montreal Canadiens as an iconic historical cultural item is what we disagree on. IMO the Habs are one of if not the most prominent iconic historical cultural items in Montreal.
Yes...IN Montreal.

That doesn't make them "one of the most prominent brands in entertainment".
 

CorbeauNoir

Registered User
Apr 13, 2010
933
165
It hot markets, sports are a step below religion. This is true in all sports. Imagine a Bank of America logo on the Yankees jersey. That is almost as absurd as a sponsor logo on the Mona Lisa. There now will be jerseys with logos hanging in the Hall of Fame.
Okay, Don Quixote. Here on the mortal plane, the reality is that the entire rest of the planet doesn't have its head in the clouds about people kicking a ball or shooting a puck for a paycheck being some kind of morally-pure spiritual experience.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 417

Frankenheimer

Sir, this is an Arber
Feb 22, 2009
3,995
1,843
MTL
Considering the Montreal Canadiens as an iconic historical cultural item is what we disagree on. IMO the Habs are one of if not the most prominent iconic historical cultural items in Montreal.

It is an iconic cultural item, disputing this is simply being obtuse. It might not be for a single individual, in which case, fine, and one could even argue that it shouldn't be, in which case also fine, but to say that it isn't "in my opinion" is simply being obtuse. It is factually iconic. Or was before Molson/RBC decided to ruin it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tripledeke333

417

When the going gets tough...
Feb 20, 2003
52,471
30,335
Ottawa
It hot markets, sports are a step below religion. This is true in all sports. Imagine a Bank of America logo on the Yankees jersey. That is almost as absurd as a sponsor logo on the Mona Lisa. There now will be jerseys with logos hanging in the Hall of Fame.
Yankees can print their own money...they don't need that.
 

CorbeauNoir

Registered User
Apr 13, 2010
933
165
Considering the Montreal Canadiens as an iconic historical cultural item is what we disagree on. IMO the Habs are one of if not the most prominent iconic historical cultural items in Montreal.
There are numerous soccer teams that are older than Canada itself. They wear shirt ads. Why would that magically bar them from being "iconic historical cultural items"?
 

Frankenheimer

Sir, this is an Arber
Feb 22, 2009
3,995
1,843
MTL
You're the one whose been going on and on about comparing this to branding the Mona Lisa with a corporate logo and making links between the hockey club and personal identity.

So you're responsible for exaggerating those positions. I'm just responding.

Also, I don't see why I need to take a negative position towards this. This doesn't personally affect me in any way, the Montreal Canadiens are just one of the teams I cheer for, it doesn't go beyond that.

I have never even bought or plan to buy any jersey or merchandise, I find hockey sweaters ill-fitting it's not my thing.

So maybe that's a reason why i'm unaffected by this.

But I am definitely trying to understand why it seems to affect others, I just kind trail off when there starts to be mythical ties to the jersey and it being 'tarnished'.

This league is already way behind society as is, not saying that this is part of how things should be...but the sport of hockey is conservative and non-inclusive at root.

This desperate need to hold on to these meaningless, or maybe I shouldn't say that because it's meaningless to me, traditions and guidelines because it's "our" league, are off-putting if anything to me.


Once again.

Royal Bank of Canada is the biggest bank in Canada

You don't have to be an economics major to understand the potential opportunities there.
What I see in your position, overall, is a constant flow of post-fact justifications. You don't need to buy a jersey to be "affected" or have your identity wrapped up in the team, or that this is 2022 and the NHL needs to modernize, or whatever. We get it, you don't care, and even support it. Once these reasons are contested, you'll find other reasons, so no need to further debate it. You are fundamentally annoyed by others being annoyed. I sort of understand this? But I also think it's the weakest form of justification for taking a contrary position.

There are numerous soccer teams that are older than Canada itself. They wear shirt ads. Why would that magically bar them from being "iconic historical cultural items"?

Age is not the standard. Iconic refers to the prominence of the jersey, the meaning it has for many, and the place it holds within a given context. If an old item has no meaning, prominence, circulation, existence beyond being a historical fact, it is not iconic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeeto

417

When the going gets tough...
Feb 20, 2003
52,471
30,335
Ottawa
What I see in your position, overall, is a constant flow of post-fact justifications. You don't need to buy a jersey to be "affected" or have your identity wrapped up in the team, or that this is 2022 and the NHL needs to modernize, or whatever. We get it, you don't care, and even support it.
I'm not a shareholder...it's not my job to support what business decisions they do, never has, never will be.

Once these reasons are contested, you'll find other reasons, so no need to further debate it. You are fundamentally annoyed by others being annoyed. I sort of understand this? But I also think it's the weakest form of justification for taking a contrary position.
Not at all...i'm fascinated by why it bothers people. I find the discussion interesting and I happen to be bored.

Once hockey season actually starts and there's actual discussions about hockey that will take over filling the timeslot currently occupied by this latest "scandal", I won't even think about it twice.
 

CorbeauNoir

Registered User
Apr 13, 2010
933
165
Age is not the standard. Iconic refers to the prominence of the jersey, the meaning it has for many, and the place it holds within a given context. If an old item has no meaning, prominence, circulation, existence beyond being a historical fact, it is not iconic.
The Montreal Canadiens are a single team in a sport that in its entirety has less global recognition than some mid-Championship level soccer teams. If you really want 'prominence and circulation' to be the hill you die on you're not a fan of the right game.
 

Tripledeke333

Registered User
Jun 25, 2021
926
900
There are numerous soccer teams that are older than Canada itself. They wear shirt ads. Why would that magically bar them from being "iconic historical cultural items"?
Regarding the argument for no ads. Imagine being the one soccer team that never had an add. IMO the reckoning from that may compensate for the ad revenues.
 

Frankenheimer

Sir, this is an Arber
Feb 22, 2009
3,995
1,843
MTL
The Montreal Canadiens are a single team in a sport that in its entirety has less global recognition than some mid-Championship level soccer teams. If you really want 'prominence and circulation' to be the hill you die on you're not a fan of the right game.

I don't understand your point. I never said anything about what I wanted, I simply defined what it means to be iconic as opposed to a historical fact. Everyone in Canada recognizes the Canadiens logo, nobody recognizes the logo of the soccer club you cited. See the difference?
 

Tripledeke333

Registered User
Jun 25, 2021
926
900
Okay, Don Quixote. Here on the mortal plane, the reality is that the entire rest of the planet doesn't have its head in the clouds about people kicking a ball or shooting a puck for a paycheck being some kind of morally-pure spiritual experience.

I’m not saying sports are like religion because it is about morality or spiritual. I am saying it is a way of wife for many. Whether they be hockey families in Canada, football families in southern USA, or any other group, there are many in which a sport dominates their recreation, passions, entertainment and social life.
 

JoelWarlord

Registered User
May 7, 2012
6,451
10,187
Halifax
Nobody connects more emotionally to a sport than soccer fans. Look at their kits.
For sure, but that sucks to me. I realize it's normalized in soccer but I strongly dislike it, and the fact that uniforms are deeply enmeshed with a specific "era" demarcated by the team's giant sponsor is insanely sad and pernicious to me. This is exactly why I am so disappointed by this decision, it was the one thing in this sport that wasn't turned into a cheap ad and now that line is forever broken and it's only a matter of time before there's 4-6 ad patches or more on every uniform.

I agree that I and most fans will "get over" it in the sense of I won't be sitting on the couch raging with anger about it 3 months into the season, but I don't think I will ever get used to this being the norm. I do think at the very least the NHL will avoid the soccer style where the sponsor becomes the main crest, the NHL is so brand/team driven in its marketing that I don't think they would allow a sponsor to override the team crest, so the "worst" case scenario of a Euro hockey jersey won't happen, but I still am going to be disappointed about this forever and it is always going to bother me.

I've said it before but another part of it that bugs me is at the very least if you are a fan of European soccer or Formula 1 you can rationalize it as a bargain the sport makes with the fans, they'll cover the field/track and the players/drivers/cars with advertising, but you won't see any commercials at all during play. If that was the bargain the NHL was making, fill the ice up with ads and Euro hockey-style jerseys in exchange for no commercial breaks outside of intermissions I would probably take that swap as a fan to never see another f***ing gambling commercial ever again. But they're not going to do that, we're just getting the worst of both.
For the most part, those that hate it are going to see it as a nuisance , but I highly doubt most people are going to care enough to do anything meaningful about it (ie. A mass drop in viewership and sales).
I agree, I don't think it's going to move the needle at all, the most I think the public reaction could potentially "force" is a change to an all white colour-matched logo instead of using RBC's actual blue/yellow crest. They're not going to remove the ad and I don't think it's going to drive a change in sales, especially because the logos won't be on the jerseys fans buy for a while. Eventually it'll be like soccer where fans WANT the sponsor because that's the authentic kit - which I find extremely sad but it's definitely the long game here. Especially if the rebuild works out and we go on a run or win a cup, fans are going to want the jersey with the RBC or whatever logo on them. That's gross to me but it's definitely what's coming.
It hot markets, sports are a step below religion. This is true in all sports. Imagine a Bank of America logo on the Yankees jersey. That is almost as absurd as a sponsor logo on the Mona Lisa. There now will be jerseys with logos hanging in the Hall of Fame.
FWIW Major League Baseball is going to start selling jersey ads next year too. It's possible the Yankees will choose not to do it but I doubt it (and even if they do hold off, it will just be a matter of time so that in 2-3 years they can charge a higher price for the sponsor to be the brand that broke the seal on the Yankees pinstripes). The ad space on the Yankees uniform is going to cost "bank" money so I think a bank logo is pretty likely.

Not that they're in any way of equal standing to the Yankees but I'd assume the Blue Jays will get one of the Canadian banks as well. Rogers owns the team so they won't sell it to another telecom, nor would they "waste" the revenue opportunity. They own the team and it's already a Rogers Sportsnet broadcast at the Rogers Centre as part of Rogers Blue Jays Baseball Partnership full of ads for Rogers TV/phone service, so a bank would be the most likely choice since banks/telecoms are basically the only public-facing companies in Canada with the money for an MLB/Canadiens/Leafs jersey sponsor.
Not at all...i'm fascinated by why it bothers people. I find the discussion interesting and I happen to be bored.
I have all the stock anti-capitalist reasons to dislike it and they're a part of it, but at the end of the day it's just extremely ugly to me. I really like the aesthetics of most of the classic hockey uniforms including Montreal of course, and all the sponsors that can afford to pay for these spaces are going to be big brands that have well-designed ads specifically developed to draw your eyes. It is just a plain eye-sore to me and it makes me really disappointed that from this point forward every iconic hockey photo is going to have a big sponsor logo front and centre. Ovechkin is going to break Gretzky's goal record with a sportsbook ad front and centre, every big moment for the Canadiens going forward is going to include close-up pictures and video with the RBC crest front and centre immediately drawing your eye to the sponsor's logo, and so on. It was just one of the last things left where you wouldn't have sponsors up close and in focus and now that's gone and it's never coming back, and it makes me sad.

It's not so much about the storied tradition or whatever (that's admittedly still a small part of it for me but I think at this point we can mostly agree that the mystique of the Canadiens is waning or gone), I just plain and simply think it's an eye sore and I really liked that hockey jerseys were one of the few remaining
"public" design elements that weren't covered with advertising. Iconic timeless blue white and red design that now includes a big eye-catching yellow patch that is more visually distinct than the C or the A on a jersey. It's just ugly and looks extremely cheap and crass to me, and it is exhausting that every facet of life now involves constantly mentally filtering out advertising that is specifically designed to grab your attention. A less distinct colour-matched logo would be "better" to me but only by a degree as it's inherently going to involve a colour contrast.
 

Tripledeke333

Registered User
Jun 25, 2021
926
900
2022 Society: What kind of traditionalist loser wants to play hockey, consider it a way of life and have a significant portion of their social, recreation and entertainment life revolve around the game? Are they not aware life is much more rewarding if they get a job at RBC (or another corporation) and care more about that company’s profits and financial well-being of its large shareholders?
 

RC51

Registered User
Dec 10, 2005
4,952
809
mtl
Habs are a religion in MTL. In fact, I expect when its my time to pass and I am standing in front of the pearly gates I will take that last step through, my shoes will turn into skates and I will find myself at center ice ringed by all the HABS GREATS while the crowd chants ole ole to me. Like I said its a RELIGION to ME.:habs
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tripledeke333

Grate n Colorful Oz

The Hutson Hawk
Jun 12, 2007
36,335
34,650
Hockey Mecca
Okay, Don Quixote. Here on the mortal plane, the reality is that the entire rest of the planet doesn't have its head in the clouds about people kicking a ball or shooting a puck for a paycheck being some kind of morally-pure spiritual experience.

So culture and tradition is the sole purview of religion and spirituality?

Maybe you should broden your view to include anthropology and sociology, because your attempt to misdirect is completely devoid of the comprehension that sports are more often than not meant to channel our energies, but also meant as mechanisms for social bounding. With increase practice and visbility inside given communities through generations, it becomes part of those cultures and traditions meant to pass down behaviors and values. Those logos and shirts are an extention of this and exist because of this.

At which level one is more sacrosanct in the eyes of one versus the other is entirely irrelevant. Whatever is cultural and traditional will always seem sacrosanct for those practicing and believing in whichever values or symbols, whether it's deeply religious or simply traditional and cultural.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hacketts

CorbeauNoir

Registered User
Apr 13, 2010
933
165
I don't understand your point. I never said anything about what I wanted, I simply defined what it means to be iconic as opposed to a historical fact. Everyone in Canada recognizes the Canadiens logo, nobody recognizes the logo of the soccer club you cited. See the difference?
No, because you're suggesting that the likes of, say, Liverpool - a team decades older than the Canadiens - has no prominence or meaning based on absolutely nothing other than the presence of a shirt ad. Which is patently absurd.
Regarding the argument for no ads. Imagine being the one soccer team that never had an add. IMO the reckoning from that may compensate for the ad revenues.
If that was true teams would do it, there isn't a hard obligation to put an ad on a shirt. Off the top of my head Roma had sponsorship issues for a handful of years and wore brandless uniforms with no ads.
 

Forum93

Registered User
Feb 16, 2015
4,125
4,716
The blemish on the jersey looks like shit, no 2 ways around it. If you don't like it, don't buy it.
 

CorbeauNoir

Registered User
Apr 13, 2010
933
165
So culture and tradition is the sole purview of religion and spirituality?

Maybe you should broden your view to include anthropology and sociology, because your attempt to misdirect is completely devoid of the comprehension that sports are more often than not meant to channel our energies, but also meant as mechanisms for social bounding. With increase practice and visbility inside given communities through generations, it becomes part of those cultures and traditions meant to pass down behaviors and values. Those logos and shirts are an extention of this and exist because of this.

At which level one is more sacrosanct in the eyes of one versus the other is entirely irrelevant. Whatever is cultural and traditional will always seem sacrosanct for those practicing and believing in whichever values or symbols, whether it's deeply religious or simply traditional and cultural.
Using media to espouse useful ideas of untouchable sancity and cultural belonging is literally the oldest propaganda play in the book (in the Sumerian clay tablet?). The fact that you're extolling the virtues of a sports team as some pure, untouchable historical institution and that a taint on the brand is a taint on your very soul is in and of itself proof of good marketing - and all it cost them was a few cheques cut out to hospitals and community rinks. It's as fanciful and formless as believing in the Knights of the Round Table.

A professional team's purpose from day one is to win over money, it doesn't matter if it was founded 10 or 100 years ago. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, but I'm not going to humour fairy tales regardless of whether they come from a temple or a franchise's front office.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 417

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad