This one? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfTiYUNoV3w Taken from the upper deck, non player bench side.
A "retro" night, and fans being too cheap to pony up $79 to be current, are two totally different concepts all together... I could see if the team just changed colors or even logo design, but a different team name, color scheme and logo design completely? I better be sure to break out my Cleveland Browns jersey for the next Baltiomre Ravens game I catch, afterall, I should cherrish that history...
too cheap? do you work for Adidas or Nike? $79 for a shirt that probably cost $10 to make is hardly cheap and it's not even the issue.
First of all, there's no need to be current. It's still the same franchise, and I could not careless how their gameday wardrobe looks. Second of all, with the last sentence, you're going under the assumption that Ravens fans already had Browns jerseys laying around the house before the team moved. A more appropriate example would be Texans fans with Oilers jerseys.
$79 dollars is one game, skip it and buy the Red Bulls jersey, if you factor in food, gas, drinks and parking you could even buy two. And if you worry about how much something costs to make compared to how much it is to buy, I don't see how you ever buy anything... That's the nature of advertising and marketing... You have to pay for those commercials and billboards that Nike and Adidas spread around the globe. BTW, I live in a $400,000 home that probably costed $200,000 to build, should I move? What is the "issue"?
Any Browns fans that continued to support the franchise after they moved were in a way forced to buy new jerseys when the Browns were revived in 1999, if they wished to continue following the franchise that moved to Baltimore. (Sort of like how any Quakes fans that continued to support the franchise after they moved are in a way forced to buy new jerseys when the Quakes return in 2008, if they wish to continue following the franchise that moved to Houston.)
I understand the points that you're conveying... I just don't see how people can continue to adverstize an idea and a marketing concept that is no longer in existense... This, afterall, is not the same thing as an out of date Man U supporter that has an old Vodafone jersey that he wears to the games. This is like a Man U supporter wearing a Newton Health L&YR jersey.
I pay $18 for my tickets in 101. I try my best to get to the game early, drink my beer in the parking lot and give as little of my hard earned money as possible to the NJSEA. About your house example, I'd be happy if the shirts were only marked up 100%. That'd be a deal. The issue is that I'm at the match to watch my local soccer team, and support my team's players the best I can while having a lot of fun singing with people I've been standing along side of for 12 years. I can't bring myself to singing Red Bull because as I've stated before, it feels like I'm singing a jingle (I don't get paid to sell energy drinks) and I don't wear their shirt cause I still like my Metro shirts and just don't feel the need to purchase one. Staying "current" doesn't often cross my mind. I don't resent anyone who does those things, I resent anyone who tells me I have to do it too. If you don't like it when I sing for Metro, out sing me. The name may have changed on the front of the shirt just like it often does on the back but it's still the same franchise, playing in the same ************ stadium, and dammit, Clint Mathis is still magic to me.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but these all seem like good points. It's part of the reason I'm annoyed by the soccer practice putting a logo on the front of jerseys. I don't want to have to advertise for Herbalife or Amigo Energy to have to show support for my team. Hence I've never bought an MLS product with a prominent sponsor ad on it. Admittedly, the counterargument is that this just undermines MLS because when you resist corporate sponsorship, you marginally undermine the ability of your team to draw from a major source of income. Personally, though, I just can't get there.
Hmmmm . . . MLS on the ESPN top ten plays, 66K in the biggest market in the country (Pre Becks under 15K) and Soccer being talked about in almost every major newspaper . . . No!? When do you want him to do something noteworthy . . .
still he didnt really earn the armband thats a fact. he should had earned his teams confidence by now but the move was very premature.
i wonder if the fact that we don't play a home game in another 2 weeks will hurt or help us. on one side the buzz might die off during our road trip. on the other people might've gotten real excited about this game and will have time to tell people to goto this exciting product called the MLS and cause some positive hype!
that was definitely the best MLS game I had ever seen as well, and I'm a Revs fan. The game lived up to the hype, with Angel and Beckham having great games, along with Altidore and Donovan. The star appeal was there tonight. My ONLY complaint would be that from a tv viewing perspective we only really caught the aftermath of the Angel's first goal and Donovan's goal. They were still showing replays of the foul that led to Angel's free kick goal, and on Donovan's goal they were still showing replays of the Red Bulls last goal. I can't really complain about that, but it's unfortunate that it worked out that way.