• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

How long will the All Blacks remain all black? What the hell?

Dizzy

First XV
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
1,421
Country Flag
New Zealand
Club or Nation
Hurricanes
How long will the All Blacks remain all black?
It's a question that could be answered as early as next month, with suggestions that insurance giant American International Group (AIG) could become a shirt sponsor in time for the inaugural Rugby Championship match between the All Blacks and Australia in Sydney on August 18.
The NZRU confirmed yesterday that it was "in discussions with several potential sponsors across a range of categories", but would not give any details.
However, Wellington rugby commentator Jed Thian said one of AIG's Asia Pacific executives had told him the NZRU was considering the AIG logo for a strip on the front of the All Blacks jersey, a spot that has always been advertisement-free.
Other rugby nations have sponsors' logos on the centre of their shirts, but the All Blacks have so far confined advertising to a small logo on the chest, or a larger one on training jerseys only.
The AIG logo held pride of place on the front of Manchester United's shirts from 2006-10, but it was a "sellout" for the All Blacks to follow suit, Thian said.
"The thing is that the rugby union is telling fans we're not going to sell the jersey. They are treating the rugby public like fools."
He understood the sponsorship would start with the four-nation Rugby Championship and be in place for the next five years, including the 2015 World Cup.
But the two organisations were only now starting to "talk dollars" after four months of negotiations.
NZRU chief executive Steve Tew said the union could not discuss sponsorship details until both parties had reached an agreement.
"But let's be clear, adidas is our principal partner and that contract extends to 2019 and underpins rugby in this country."
Eugene Elisara, from Chartis Insurance in New Zealand â€" a division of AIG â€" would not comment on potential sponsorship deals, saying: "In the normal course of business we regularly consider opportunities to raise awareness of our brand and the unique strengths and range of insurance solutions our brand represents."
Veteran rugby broadcaster Keith Quinn said the move was "no biggie" and "this is the world we live in".
"I remember there was big concern when the All Blacks changed from two stripes to three on their socks in the mid-80s â€" since then there's been commercial endorsement."
But former All Black Chris Laidlaw said supporters would react badly to the move, in the same way they did when there was once talk of rebranding the team the Steinlager All Blacks.
"I don't think the mood has changed that much, even though adidas effectively have their identity on the strip," he said.
"It's the one thing that is sacrosanct. It's a comedown to have an American insurance company on it."
He said the rugby union was cash-strapped and casting around for money.
Brand strategist Wayne Attwell, of Bold Horizon, said the central spot on the All Blacks' jersey would be worth tens of millions of dollars, but more money and energy had gone into establishing the pure All Black brand.
Adidas was aligned with that, but involving a company such as AIG "smacks of commercialism", would dilute the brand and might be financially detrimental in the long term.
"It would take away some of the magic of the All Blacks."
The team is seen as a global leader in successful branding, with American online forum Brandchannel.com saying the brand was as powerful and focused as the team.
US BAILOUT KEPT AIG IN BUSINESS
AIG had to be bailed out by the United States Government in 2008, to the tune of more than US$250 billion. It has since sold several subsidiaries and other assets to pay back the loans.
The company was the subject of negative feedback after it used some of the loan money to pay bonuses to employees.
AIG New Zealand joined many Asia-Pacific countries in rebranding as Chartis. Chartis New Zealand is owned by Chartis Singapore, owned by Chartis in New York, which is owned by AIG.
What You Think Of The All Blacks' Jersey Possibly Having A Sponsorship Strip?
Garry Anderson, 43, software developer, Wainuiomata: "My preference would be not, because they represent New Zealand rather than a company. But it's probably inevitable given the lack of money around these days."
The Dominion Post asked people on the streets of Wellington what do they think of the All Blacks jersey possibly having a sponsorship strip.

Source: http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/7230434/NZRU-coy-over-All-Blacks-shirt-sponsorship
 
NZ got to feed their players. Things change with time.
 
The fact that it is a corrupt bank effectively owned by America is probably the biggest reason for not having it on rugby shirts.

Plus as soon as you start that sort of advertising, the NZRU accountants will use it as an asset and fiddle it for more money in all sorts of ways, then it will become the norm and NZ will never get away from advertising on its shirts again.
 
Personally, I'd pay more attention to the ad if it was plastered across their bums. *wriggles eyebrows*

;)


das
 
Not too fussed about it.

As long as it makes sense with the jersey i.e. the Adidas logo and the old Canterbury of NZ logo. We've also had a red Steinlager logo on the shirts before. If the logo is white/black then it's fine by me.

It really has been blown out of proportion.
 
It's not so much the colour of the logo I'm worried about, more so the placement and size... Nothing belongs on the centre of the All Blacks jersey!.
 
Last edited:
Not too fussed about it.

As long as it makes sense with the jersey i.e. the Adidas logo and the old Canterbury of NZ logo. We've also had a red Steinlager logo on the shirts before. If the logo is white/black then it's fine by me.

It really has been blown out of proportion.

I agree with the colouring, would also be good if it was a smaller one (like steinlarger was) under the adidas or something

like this but on the other side

View attachment untitled.bmp

i'm not keen on the actualy company though, i've always thought its a bit of a fingers up to the tax payer when these companies who have been bailed out then start spending on sponserships

so not against (although disappointed) in principle...just dont want these guys

also, i always though part of the adidas deal was they paid more to the AB's wouldn't get a shirt sponser :huh:

edit: i seem to have lost the ability to post a pic properly
 
Last edited:
To be fair to AIG, money spent on advertising is done in order to generate business and make the company more money. Their chief responsibility is to make money for their shareholders, so this is obviously part of that plan. The morality of the company as an insurance giant who took too many risks on derivatives in the lead up to 2008 is definitely something you'd want to consider before plastering it on the national team strip though.
 
I agree with the colouring, would also be good if it was a smaller one (like steinlarger was) under the adidas or something

like this but on the other side

View attachment 1832

i'm not keen on the actualy company though, i've always thought its a bit of a fingers up to the tax payer when these companies who have been bailed out then start spending on sponserships
Me neither.

Finance companies have helped screw the world for the longest time.I'm not saying have a "Greenpeace" logo there; or that any company is morally perfect; but wouldn't be cooler to have a TSB Bank or Rebel Sport logo on there somewhere. :)
 
Last edited:
This was inevitable. I hear Man U is going public on the NYSE to tackle some of its 600M debt. Though sports bring in huge sums of money, they also pay out huge sums. Once rugby went pro all the costs went up, and someone has to pay for it. If not the fans, then the advertisers. I'm not fond of the idea, but if they keep the logo black and white (or just white letters on the black jumper), then I guess it'll be okay. Biggest fear is that it'll be bright pink, or something. ;)


das
 
a jersey sponsor is a jersey sponsor as far as i'm concerned, now if they tried to sponsor the haka that would be a different story
 
Me neither.

Finance companies have helped screw the world for the longest time.I'm not saying have a "Greenpeace" logo there; or that any company is morally perfect; but wouldn't be cooler to have a TSB Bank or Rebel Sport logo on there somewhere. :)

Way to use the last 10 years as a representation of "the longest time"
 
I'm not a fan. If any company should be on the middle of our shirts it's Adidas, as they are the chief sponsor. That being said, all this is speculation, as Steve Tew has maintained they are looking at options rather than making any final decisions.
 
Way to use the last 10 years as a representation of "the longest time"
Way to have a go for the sake of having a go. :lol: :rolleyes:

Talk about nitpicky. Would you prefer I have said "for a long period" or "an extended amount of time"? It's semantics - don't stress yourself out over the little stuff, mate. ;)

I'm not a fan. If any company should be on the middle of our shirts it's Adidas, as they are the chief sponsor. That being said, all this is speculation, as Steve Tew has maintained they are looking at options rather than making any final decisions.
Yep - I'd rather Adidas as well.

If some LTTP company wants to do so, they'd have to take a smaller real estate on the jersey.

In either case, really, the public doesn't have much of a say; and apparently the players don't really mind too much.
 
Last edited:
Way to have a go for the sake of having a go. :lol: :rolleyes:

Talk about nitpicky. Would you prefer I have said "for a long period" or "an extended amount of time"? It's semantics - don't stress yourself out over the little stuff, mate. ;)

I'm not stressing about anything, I'm just not a fan of people regurgitating stuff they see/hear without thinking about what they're saying. I don't even agree with your view that finance companies have helped screw the world, let alone doing so for an extended amount of time or however long you think it's been going on.
 
Last edited:
If the All Blacks go, France will be the only national team without a big name on their chest. An interesting turn of events to say the least.
 
I'm not stressing about anything, I'm just not a fan of people regurgitating stuff they see/hear without thinking about what they're saying. I don't even agree with your view that finance companies have helped screw the world, let alone doing so for an extended amount of time or however long you think it's been going on.
Ok. I beg to differ - you really are stressing about it! :lol: (I think my earlier points are arguable but that is another matter). Again, semantics - and I don't think 10 years is a dismissable amount of time either.


I didn't know that posting on forums requires time and deliberation like an essay. Would you like it typed, formatted (I'm guessing left-aligned? Or would you like justified?) and 2.5 cm margins as well? Also at 12pt font? Times New Roman or Arial? I'll go with New Roman - it's classic, without being too over the top. Though I prefer Book Antiqua myself... ;)




Seriously though, you're a very defensive and intense (seemingly) dude and maybe it's to do with my stance on SBW? I dunno. I tend to take poster's on their posts rather than on how they've agreed/disagreed with me on the past. I mean no disrespect , just an observation.
 
Last edited:
Ok. I beg to differ - you really are stressing about it! :lol: (I think my earlier points are arguable but that is another matter). Again, semantics - and I don't think 10 years is a dismissable amount of time either.


I didn't know that posting on forums requires time and deliberation like an essay. Would you like it typed, formatted (I'm guessing left-aligned? Or would you like justified?) and 2.5 cm margins as well? Also at 12pt font? Times New Roman or Arial? I'll go with New Roman - it's classic, without being too over the top. Though I prefer Book Antiqua myself... ;)




Seriously though, you're a very defensive and intense (seemingly) dude and maybe it's to do with my stance on SBW? I dunno. I tend to take poster's on their posts rather than on how they've agreed/disagreed with me on the past. I mean no disrespect , just an observation.


I'm really not that intense, or defensive. And I am not stressed at all. I think I said at the time I don't even like SBW that much so I definitely don't have anything against you on that matter by the way.

I get that your comment was a throwaway type comment, and I shouldn't have bitten on it. Just something that annoys me, like if you had said for example "john key is selling the country's assets" I would be similarly annoyed, seems to be a popular thing people have seen or heard a few times and like to repeat. Anyway, this isn't really the place for a debate on finance/insurance companies so I'll let it be.
 

Latest posts

Top