Discussion in 'Fugu's Business of Hockey Forum' started by LadyStanley, Sep 24, 2011.
What a load of crap!
Under these rules, I can't wear a beer company t-shirt. And I own a bunch of those.
That is just hilarious!. A Bail Bondsman?. The friendly type like Max Cherry in Tarantino's Jackie Brown?.
Sounds like a plan Ottawa and Buffalo could use, to ban Leaf Jerseys Your choice home team advertising, or just plain unmarked clothing.
This could prove to be intriguing...by argument "anything" advertising a product: be it a cartoon (spongebob) a beverage (beer) or anything that has a trademark advertising something can be banned.
I would HOPE that this is going to be "at their discretion" and not turning EVERYONE away with a trademarked shirt.
meh, seems like a pointless thing to waste time on, but really couldn't care less.
This reminds me of a fan in Vancouver that must have season tickets behind the Canucks bench. Everytime the camera zooms up on the bench the guy is always there wearing the same zipped up jacket with the logo of, what is no doubt to be, his pub.
It could, but I think its pretty obvious Max Cherry down there in San Jose' with his seat selection right behind the bench & outrageously loud custom designed over the top t-shirts is acting beyond deliberate. Im actually a bit insulted and I can certainly understand why the Sharks would be. What the Hell does that say about us, hockey fans, in being this idiots target market?. We might need a Bail Bondsman?. Do I look like Samuel L.Jackson to you Mothrfr....?!.
I posted this on the sharks board but thought I would share it here as well:
It is pretty obvious the intent of bad boys is to get the "free" advertising especially given seat location and number of seats. I see where the sharks are coming from from a business perspective but don't know if there is any way to enforce it. The Sharks would have been better off saying that they are no longer allowing him to do it because he did not renew the sponsorship; they then could take the angle that it was a benefit of being a sponsor. I have no doubt in my mind that the Sharks looked the other way because he was a sponsor previously.
Another stroke of genious concocted by the NHL Politboro and one of it's fine member clubs. You see folks, just because your money went to building an arena for this gang of skinflints, and just because the team gouged you as best they could for tickets, parking, concessions, and merchandise, it does not mean that their greed will stop there. Of course putting caps on any earning potential (well, except for player salaries but there is no hypocrisy in that right?) is socialism and these teams are just doing their best to turn an honest buck from the fans in to two crooked ones for them. I mean, perhaps the team should take things one step further in the name of fairness and have a wallet inspector at the entrance/exit to ensure that no dollar was left behind by some greedy and unapreciative fan.
Hopefully fans remember these things the next time the league tries to steal money from it's players and their families.
Would that prevent him from wearing a Canucks sweater as a protest?
Taking the "at their discretion" approach would run a risk of exposing themselves to lawsuits. It's also telling that according the article the wording on the policy is "other entities" and not specifically commercial ones. This means it could be applied to social groups, charities, political parties, etc. Technically anyone wearing an NAACP shirt, or a shirt with an Elephant/Donkey political logo, or a marijuana leaf for example would be subject to being banned under this policy. I think this is where the real issue for them creeps up. If they ban one shirt from one company, they need to ban them all on everyone or they will be DOA in court for a discrimination lawsuit. Those suits get legs from inconsistent application of policies and to adhere to the letter of the rules currently would be likely hundreds to thousands of fans over the course of the season would need to be denied entry. Piss off tons of fans, or face potential lawsuits - seems like a no-win policy situation here. Also, as Hockeyhopeful mentioned again this rule could technically be interpreted as a reason to deny entry to anyone wearing jerseys from other teams as well. Not saying any of this will happen, but this is going to be a very tricky situation to navigate for them.
This is one thing I want to know: Who else was behind this policy that the Sharks have instituted?
Think about it for a minute. If you are a business that is A.) paying for an advertisement (ice, boards, etc.) that is seen on TV all the time, or B.) paying for a commercial on Comcast Sports Net (which carries the Sharks), how ticked would you be to know that there is a business that is getting tons of free advertising every game by its own intentional planning?
Honestly, I would be absolutely shocked if this plan the Sharks have instituted is solely theirs alone. My gut feeling is other businesses have complained in private -- and I can't blame them for doing so -- and the Sharks are taking action to protect their advertisers, some of which I bet have surely been there pre-Bad Boys Bail Bonds' free advertising technique.
Now if you go back to Stanley, he feels his business is being singled out and targeted. Well, no one else has a business advertised like this on every Sharks game, so of course he is singled out. You can't just arbitrarily attack other businesses that aren't using the same techniques. Stanley should just be fortunate he got the business that he did as a result of his free advertising and leave it at that, and if he really wants to continue to advertise, work out a deal with the Sharks to do so. Surely by working out a deal -- even if it is paying a little bit more for those season tickets -- they can have a great partnership, people in those seats can wear those shirts, and BBBB can experience the perks that other advertisers get when working with the Sharks (whatever perks those may be.)
EDIT: My post is with the understanding he did it for free last year. Apparently, a later post has stated he didn't renew for this year. Nonetheless, the general points I make still stand.
What are you talking about? Your post makes absolutely no sense.
Oh c'mon, though eloquent & well said on several fronts linking all of the ills to this obvious faux pas is a stretch as clearly this is just outright Gorilla Marketing. Either pay for the privileges or take em' off & stop, though why the Sharks or any other organization would wanna tie their kite to that particular category as an advertiser/sponsor is just.... pathetic. Beyond even Detroits Scamway dealeo'.
Waiting for the next announcement involving premium seating areas and ticket surcharges if you want to wear a shirt with a logo.
I'd guess that they'll just check season ticket holders to make sure they aren't wearing the same advertising clothing over and over again probably. They'll likely just watch replays to look out for it or maybe assign ushers to glance over and check. They certainly won't turn away every fan in a tshirt.
next up, no opposing jerseys in the shark tank, no one that owns a dell or apple computer, and most of all, no one that dare speak of the Sharks' past playoff disappointment.
In Soviet San Jose, hockey plays YOU!
Jeez people... Here's how it goes: Bad Boys Bail Bonds used to be the sponsor of the Sharks bench and penalty box for the past couple years and have sat behind the players bench wearing their t-shirts to further promote their business. They paid $70,000 a year for it and didn't renew their contract this year, but still plan to sit behind the bench with those shirts.
The problem here? They're shown on TV constantly! Every time the bench is shown on TV, they're there. The Sharks were okay with that when Bad Boys was paying to sponsor the bench, but now Porche is, so the Sharks are defending their new sponsor against someone who decided he can get free advertising. The Sharks are well within their rights to tell people who are wearing advertising clothing and clearly wearing it to promote a business to stop, just like your place of work or school can tell you to wear a suit or uniform.
If you remember during the 2006 and 2010 World Cups, Bavaria Brewery bought out a huge section of seats intending to make everyone sitting there wear orange shirts advertising their product. This did not go over well with the companies that paid LOTS more money to advertise around the stadium and sponsor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavaria_Brewery_(Netherlands)#World_Cup_Ambush_Marketing_campaigns <--- Read this to see what happened.
The only people the Sharks care about what they wear are the people sitting in places where they'll be put on TV constant. They won't care if you're sitting anywhere in the arena wearing Puma everywhere so long as you're not going to be on camera. If you're dancing around wearing a Puma cape and a giant sign saying 'Buy Puma!', they'll stop you to protect their advertisers. It's their right as a business.
So stop you're *****ing about being told what you can't wear. The Bail Bonds guy owns season tickets behind the bench, they need to stop him from wearing his crappy shirts (Thank God, I'm sick of seeing those behind the bench).
Y'know, "back in the day", Conn Smythe used to cruise through the lower bowl Reds' at Maple Leaf Gardens in his spats & White Fedora looking for any patrons who were not dressed to his strict "Code". That would include a shirt, tie, blazer or suit jacket. Not to be removed for any reason whatsoever. If you were in any way sartorially challenged, perhaps an overly loud glen check or houndstooth, or God Forbid smelled of so much as a drop of Whiskey, you Sir would be escorted from the premises & right out into the freezing cold of Carlton Street. Seasons Tickets revoked. Persona non grata. Major Smythe would prefer to see you in Full-on Military Dress if you earned em Son. Hooo-ah.
What have you people done to this league?.
I would imagine they will keep an eye on the first 5 or so rows around the ice and especially areas that are susceptible to close ups on a regular basis.
There are no other instances that I can think of at this time. The Bad Boys shirts are so loud and couple the fact that they have 4 seats right behind the bench and there is no way at you don't look at it at least once a game thus taking your eyes off the paying sponsors. I would imagine if it was a normal and reasonable shirt you wouldn't even notice it. The shirts and seating location scream I am too cheap to be a paying sponsor but want the advertising.
For a long time, I thought that's what it was too. I thought it was a really cheap way of getting free advertising. Didn't know they actually were sponsoring the Sharks' bench and penalty box.
Ahh...I didn't realize they were an official sponsor previously.
This Murky News piece from the playoffs highlights the Bad Boys' people in T-Shirts and advertising placards which get set up behind the Sharks players bench and visiting penalty box.
Note that last season Bad Boys paid for the right to put up the placards - an arrangement I would guess has been discontinued. They have been up in previous years without payment.
From the Murky News piece:
Separate names with a comma.