PDA

View Full Version : Toronto , Montreal & BMO



Max_TO
08-08-2011, 07:59 PM
I was wondering your thoughts as to both Toronto and Montreal sporting the BMO logo on there uniforms next year?

Yohan
08-08-2011, 08:24 PM
no rule against it...

Flint
08-08-2011, 08:26 PM
meh... its not the first time in history its happened.

nfitz
08-08-2011, 08:48 PM
Montreal used to be sponsored by the Government of Quebec. Just be glad they didn't sponsor us too ...

Redcoe15
08-08-2011, 08:49 PM
Rangers and Celtic both have had the same jersey sponsors for years.

rocker
08-08-2011, 08:50 PM
imitation is the sincerest form of flattery... thanks Montreal!

nfitz
08-08-2011, 08:51 PM
... thanks Bank of Montreal!fixed

Max_TO
08-08-2011, 09:08 PM
BMO also sponcers a large part of Vancover Whitecaps but currently Bell has uniform rights . But , BMO says that they would not mind being on the uniform of all 3 Canadian teams , could you imagine ?

prizby
08-08-2011, 09:15 PM
i made the same thread about a month ago...old news

Carts
08-08-2011, 09:16 PM
Here's a sponsor question...

Where would you draw the line and say 'no' to a sponsor, no matter how much money they were handing your club...???

Totally hypothetical, and would never happen, but I mean, if you're Columbus and broke, and TAMPAX wanted to give you some stupid large sum of money, would you say no so your club wasn't refered to 'Tampons FC'...?

Max_TO
08-08-2011, 09:19 PM
Think they would be more inclined To sponsor a women's team , no ? :D

Keyman
08-08-2011, 09:24 PM
Think they would be more inclined To sponsor a women's team , no ? :D

That's why Columbus is perfect :D

Yohan
08-08-2011, 09:25 PM
Here's a sponsor question...

Where would you draw the line and say 'no' to a sponsor, no matter how much money they were handing your club...???

Totally hypothetical, and would never happen, but I mean, if you're Columbus and broke, and TAMPAX wanted to give you some stupid large sum of money, would you say no so your club wasn't refered to 'Tampons FC'...?
ask all the teams who have 'Bimbo' as sponsor on their jersey :D

PopePouri
08-08-2011, 09:36 PM
I'm a fan if they're supporting local soccer which they are.

Super Cereal
08-08-2011, 09:58 PM
no rule against it...

Doesn't answer the OP's question.

I think it's bush league/Mickey Mouse, but so is MLS.

nfitz
08-08-2011, 09:59 PM
I think it's bush league/Mickey Mouse, but so is MLS.I only wish that MLS was as well run as the Disney empire ...

Yohan
08-08-2011, 10:07 PM
Doesn't answer the OP's question.

I think it's bush league/Mickey Mouse, but so is MLS.
so... SPL is bush league? Mexican First Division is bush league?

prizby
08-08-2011, 10:08 PM
Here's a sponsor question...

Where would you draw the line and say 'no' to a sponsor, no matter how much money they were handing your club...???

Totally hypothetical, and would never happen, but I mean, if you're Columbus and broke, and TAMPAX wanted to give you some stupid large sum of money, would you say no so your club wasn't refered to 'Tampons FC'...?

barcelona for a while...

GuelphStorm2007
08-08-2011, 10:20 PM
To me it is not a big deal, Hell Both Glasgow teams have had the same sponsor for years, whether it was CR Smith, or Carling, And I think Both Lisbon teams had the same sponsor also. and lets not forget about some of the teams in the Mexican league with Bimbo.

Blowing Bubbles
08-08-2011, 11:23 PM
Doesn't answer the OP's question.

I think it's bush league/Mickey Mouse, but so is MLS.

so was it bush league last year when Fulham and Aston Villa both had FxPro as their shirt sponsor?

Was the Premiership "bush league"? Good job bashing MLS just for the sake of it and looking like a fucktard in the process.

gmafb.

nfitz
08-08-2011, 11:32 PM
so was it bush league last year when Fulham and Aston Villa both had FxPro as their shirt sponsor?Bush family had 2 presidents only 8 years apart. Bush league is the tops surely ... same way Disney is.

Everyone here seems to be trying to read negatives into this ... look for the positives. Bush league = top of the pack. Mickey Mouse is first-class operation.

werewolf
08-08-2011, 11:48 PM
so was it bush league last year when Fulham and Aston Villa both had FxPro as their shirt sponsor?

Was the Premiership "bush league"? Good job bashing MLS just for the sake of it and looking like a fucktard in the process.

gmafb.

Philosophical disagreements do not require personal insults.

habstfc
08-09-2011, 12:29 AM
I was watching the whitecaps chicago game last night and noticed BEST BUY is no longer on the fire shirt, wonder why? You would think in a country like the US there would be somebody stepping up for jersey sponsors. Revolution still don't have one. Are there more I cant think of?

Strikers
08-09-2011, 12:37 AM
Revolution still don't have one. Are there more I cant think of?

Actually New England have United Health Care on their jerseys.

Keystone FC
08-09-2011, 04:03 AM
I was watching the whitecaps chicago game last night and noticed BEST BUY is no longer on the fire shirt, wonder why? You would think in a country like the US there would be somebody stepping up for jersey sponsors. Revolution still don't have one. Are there more I cant think of?
I think the Best Buy sponsorship ran out, or they went through a 're-organization' of the company and pulled alot of money from places they didn't need to sponsor/advertise.

J .
08-09-2011, 04:50 AM
Dislike, but its not a big deal. Just because EPL, SPL etc teams do it doesnt mean its not retarded, but money is money.

I can see why BMO would sponser The L'Impacts of Mtl.

Lucky Strike
08-09-2011, 06:31 AM
I'd prefer that Montreal not have the same sponsor but there's no rule against it and it happens all over the world - so not many conversation points on this one, I feel.

canadian_bhoy
08-09-2011, 06:54 AM
Makes more sense for them to have a Montreal bank on their shorts than it does us.


Of course, it also makes a lot of sense for MLSE to have a bank as a shirt sponsor.

London
08-09-2011, 07:08 AM
maybe TD should have stepped up for montreal, that would be funny

zamperina
08-09-2011, 07:15 AM
Revolution still don't have one. Are there more I cant think of?

Dallas, Colorado, K.C. &

Shitlumbus has no sponsor and probably never will again!

ryan
08-09-2011, 07:19 AM
Not really a big deal. I think most people would prefer it wasn't that way, but I'd rather MLS clubs have multiple teams sponsored by the same corporation than not having them sponsored at all.

Why wouldn't Saputo put his brand on their kits I'm wondering?

Oldtimer
08-09-2011, 07:20 AM
Of course, it also makes a lot of sense for MLSE to have a bank as a shirt sponsor.

http://www.fraserfinancialservices.biz/images/goldcoins.gif

Derko
08-09-2011, 07:20 AM
I would rather the first year TFC jersey Pre- BMO, with Toronto across the front, The BMO logo spoils the jersey in my opinion.

As far as L'Impact, who gives a hoot anyway.

kodiakTFC
08-09-2011, 07:29 AM
Don't mind it at all, if anything I think we should be discussing how great it is that BMO is putting millions of dollars into Canadian club football each season. BMO sponsors all three Canadian sides in MLS, albeit a presenting sponsor for Vancouver not a shirt sponsor.

Fort York Redcoat
08-09-2011, 07:36 AM
I'd prefer our sponsor made no reference to Montreal obviously.

Pookie
08-09-2011, 07:37 AM
I'm more bothered by the fact that all teams have to use Adidas kit designs. Adidas has some terrific ones. So do other kit makers and it would be nice to see some variety.

Don't really care about the BMO double sponsor thing. Unless, the Impact change their colours to red.

Ageroo
08-09-2011, 07:44 AM
Why wouldn't Saputo put his brand on their kits I'm wondering?

It means no money. Saputo owns the team and basically he wouldn't have to pay anything to stick his brand on his jersey. Why not take a sponsor to the cleaners and make millions off them to slap a logo on for them. All about the benjamins here for sure.....

Ageroo
08-09-2011, 07:45 AM
I'd prefer our sponsor made no reference to Montreal obviously.

That may be why our team is so cursed......;) Any reason to blame Montreal I will take.

Eastend
08-09-2011, 07:57 AM
Here's a sponsor question...

Where would you draw the line and say 'no' to a sponsor, no matter how much money they were handing your club...???

Totally hypothetical, and would never happen, but I mean, if you're Columbus and broke, and TAMPAX wanted to give you some stupid large sum of money, would you say no so your club wasn't refered to 'Tampons FC'...?


I think VAGISIL would be more appropriate for Columbus.

kodiakTFC
08-09-2011, 07:57 AM
Why wouldn't Saputo put his brand on their kits I'm wondering?

The BMO sponsorship is around 4 million a year. Do you understand now?

kodiakTFC
08-09-2011, 07:58 AM
I think VAGISIL would be more appropriate for Columbus.

That or Preperation H.

Ageroo
08-09-2011, 08:09 AM
I think VAGISIL would be more appropriate for Columbus.


That or Preperation H.

I would prefer Columbus to be sposored by ASILONE suspension....Antacid and Antiflatulent relief. :)

http://www.pharmacyfirst.co.uk/images/uploads/asilone.jpg

Oldtimer
08-09-2011, 08:31 AM
I would prefer Columbus to be sposored by ASILONE suspension....Antacid and Antiflatulent relief. :)

http://www.pharmacyfirst.co.uk/images/uploads/asilone.jpg

Anything would be better than their "Village People" logo.

Well... actually that's not quite true...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/13/KKK-symbol.jpg/70px-KKK-symbol.jpg


The league would have to step in if these guys ever tried to sponsor them. :D

__wowza
08-09-2011, 09:23 AM
i made the same thread about a month ago...old news

yup, i remember, but that wont stop the comments debating the same point. EPL teams have shared sponsorship before, so i enjoyed reading the "this is so bush league!" comments.

Ageroo
08-09-2011, 09:28 AM
i made the same thread about a month ago...old news

Not sure why this is relevant or needed to be stated? Anyway....carry on with the discussion all.

lobo
08-09-2011, 10:00 AM
as long as we don't share BELL on our kits!

ryan
08-09-2011, 10:38 AM
I'm more bothered by the fact that all teams have to use Adidas kit designs. Adidas has some terrific ones. So do other kit makers and it would be nice to see some variety.

Don't really care about the BMO double sponsor thing. Unless, the Impact change their colours to red.

No kidding. The 3 stripes down the sleeves across all MLS teams HAS TO FUCKING GO. Talk about Bush League, that's it right fuckin there.


It means no money. Saputo owns the team and basically he wouldn't have to pay anything to stick his brand on his jersey. Why not take a sponsor to the cleaners and make millions off them to slap a logo on for them. All about the benjamins here for sure.....

Makes sense.


The BMO sponsorship is around 4 million a year. Do you understand now?

Yep. Didn't realize it was so high though, I thought I had once read it was 500K to do it.

Maybe 500K for everyone but Toronto because MLSE is well...MLSE?

Oldtimer
08-09-2011, 10:44 AM
Yep. Didn't realize it was so high though, I thought I had once read it was 500K to do it.

Maybe 500K for everyone but Toronto because MLSE is well...MLSE?

$500k is the minimum under league rules. Many sponsorships are for more than that.

canadian_bhoy
08-09-2011, 10:48 AM
Revolution still don't have one. Are there more I cant think of?

Dallas, Colorado, K.C. &

Shitlumbus has no sponsor and probably never will again!

The sponsor free shirts look the best.

Here's my preference order

1. No sponsor no nothing, just a regular badge over the heart.
2. Sponsor
3. no sponsor with cheesy looking team name across front.

Roogsy
08-09-2011, 10:56 AM
I think it's bush league/Mickey Mouse, but so is MLS.


Bush league is having NO sponsor.

Strikers
08-09-2011, 01:50 PM
Revolution still don't have one. Are there more I cant think of?

Dallas, Colorado, K.C. &

Shitlumbus has no sponsor and probably never will again!



Actually New England have United Health Care on their jerseys.

zamperina
08-09-2011, 02:17 PM
Actually New England have United Health Care on their jerseys.

Yes they do which begs the question why in the heck don't they have gillette as the shirt sponsor?

Roogsy
08-09-2011, 02:36 PM
Yes they do which begs the question why in the heck don't they have gillette as the shirt sponsor?


P&G bought the Gillette brand a few years ago and kept the sponsorship for the NFL stadium in place because of Gillette's connection to the area. But P&G are not that active in this space and aren't looking to expand. Their sponsorship dollars have a specific focus. So it makes sense that they were probably not looking to expand sponsorship to the soccer club, one that doesn't have a huge profile in New England anyways.

__wowza
08-09-2011, 02:59 PM
No kidding. The 3 stripes down the sleeves across all MLS teams HAS TO FUCKING GO. Talk about Bush League, that's it right fuckin there.

it's not bush league, it's $$$.
if a company can buy the naming rights to a LEAGUE, i don't see how its fair to complain about the kits. yes, i do get that its more freedom for the teams, but honestly, its freedom that doesnt benefit everyone equally. the league takes payment from adidas, the money trickles down and does something better, keeps the league going.

it's financially stable now, yeah, but money there's no ill i can speak about ensuring the league keeps financially stable through this. id love to see some variety, but there's a difference between what i want and what ensures the future of the league my team is in. either way, the contract isnt up until 2015 (i think) and at that point im sure its going to be discussed amongst MLS and the owners.

__wowza
08-09-2011, 03:10 PM
on a side note, here's hoping they keep the pink third kit and make it their away.

there are 18 teams in this league and 12 of them have white kits in their repertoire. everyone but SKC/dallas/seattle/chivas/columbus/portland has a white kit. i wasnt the biggest fan of our old away kits, and i do think our white kits look class, but i dont know, something about that ration unsettles me.

TFC07
08-09-2011, 03:18 PM
When does TFC sponsorship deal ends with BMO? I am not fan of BMO being our sponsor. I'd rather have TD Bank or Rogers sponsor us than them simply because they're Toronto/Ontario based companies.

__wowza
08-09-2011, 03:53 PM
^ 2016 for the sponsorship and naming rights to the stadium
http://www.sportspromedia.com/news/toronto_fc_lands_multi-million_dollar_shirt_sponsorship/

Super Cereal
08-09-2011, 04:09 PM
so... SPL is bush league? Mexican First Division is bush league?

No, rivals having the same jersey sponsor is bush league. I did not say MLS was bush league because of this, you're having a rough day for reading comprehension.


Bush league is having NO sponsor.

No, having no sponsor would be fantastic. People actually enjoy seeing stupid ads on jerseys? I know the mentality on here is that all North American sports suck, but give me a break.


so was it bush league last year when Fulham and Aston Villa both had FxPro as their shirt sponsor?

In my opinion, yes obviously, that should be clear.


Was the Premiership "bush league"?

No, once again provide me where I said that MLS was bush league because of this? I merely said MLS was also bush league.


Good job bashing MLS just for the sake of it and looking like a fucktard in the process.

gmafb.

Thank you.

GYSAFB and quit posting like you have down syndrome.

nfitz
08-09-2011, 04:23 PM
I'd rather have TD Bank or Rogers sponsor us than them simply because they're Toronto/Ontario based companies.BMO is a Toronto based company. Their Montreal HQ is just for show, and has been for years. All the big-wigs are in Toronto.

jamieNDG
08-09-2011, 04:31 PM
BMO is a Toronto based company. Their Montreal HQ is just for show, and has been for years. All the big-wigs are in Toronto.

yup Bank of montreal is a toronto based company. TD should definetly sponsor montreal.


first

madcow
08-09-2011, 05:04 PM
I think VAGISIL would be more appropriate for Columbus.

"For When You've Got Something Fungal... Down In Your Lady Jungle!, Vagisil"
"When dryness lingers, get some cream on those fingers. Vagisil!"
"I scream you scream, we all scream for vagina cream. Vagisil!"

Roogsy
08-09-2011, 05:10 PM
No, having no sponsor would be fantastic. People actually enjoy seeing stupid ads on jerseys? I know the mentality on here is that all North American sports suck, but give me a break.

Well, considering your complaint is that having the sponsor on the shirt is "bush league", the only reasonable thing to do is to compare against leagues that you would not consider "bush" in the first place. I assume you would consider the top 3 leagues in the world, the EPL, La Liga and Serie A to be a proper standard. Which of those leagues don't have shirt sponsors?

Now if you are comparing this to North American sports, then you are not being fair because soccer has a different revenue model than say baseball or basketball. Those sports leagues make money off of TV revenue. So for soccer teams to make similar money, they'd have to do things like stop every couple of minutes of play for a television commercial time-out. Would that be more to your liking or wouldn't that be more "bush league"?

If not, how would you recommend teams make up the endorsement difference?

Super Cereal
08-09-2011, 05:50 PM
Well, considering your complaint is that having the sponsor on the shirt is "bush league"

When did I say that? I said it was stupid. Necessary, but stupid.

Somehow, people are misinterpreting my original post as me saying MLS was bush league because of the two teams sharing a sponsor which I quite clearly never said.


Now if you are comparing this to North American sports, then you are not being fair because soccer has a different revenue model than say baseball or basketball. Those sports leagues make money off of TV revenue. So for soccer teams to make similar money, they'd have to do things like stop every couple of minutes of play for a television commercial time-out. Would that be more to your liking or wouldn't that be more "bush league"?

If not, how would you recommend teams make up the endorsement difference?

You said that it was better than having no sponsor. I countered with my opinion that having no sponsor would be swell for the eyes. Do you disagree with that? Do you like having ads on every jersey? It's necessary, but not something I enjoy.

Max_TO
08-09-2011, 10:20 PM
I think that BMO is hoping to attract the kids of today to be there future account holders . It will be interesting to see if the soccer youth of today transfers into future BMO account holders in the next 5 to 10 years

C.Barrett19
08-09-2011, 10:30 PM
benfica sportig and porto have the same sponsors on there jerseys its not uncommon

Fort York Redcoat
08-10-2011, 08:02 AM
I think it's bush league/Mickey Mouse, but so is MLS.


When did I say that? I said it was stupid. Necessary, but stupid.

Somehow, people are misinterpreting my original post as me saying MLS was bush league because of the two teams sharing a sponsor which I quite clearly never said.

You said that it was better than having no sponsor. I countered with my opinion that having no sponsor would be swell for the eyes. Do you disagree with that? Do you like having ads on every jersey? It's necessary, but not something I enjoy.

Having no sponsor would mean having the city plastered on the shirt which is in this day and age bush league.

As to the Old Firm sharing a sponsor it applies only to the rivalry aspect and not to the fact they share the same city. Now if Tennant's was a west Glasgow beer only that would be something.

Miko
08-10-2011, 08:18 AM
"For When You've Got Something Fungal... Down In Your Lady Jungle!, Vagisil"
"When dryness lingers, get some cream on those fingers. Vagisil!"
"I scream you scream, we all scream for vagina cream. Vagisil!"

Pete Twinkle and Greg Stink rule!

ryan
08-10-2011, 08:20 AM
it's not bush league, it's $$$.
if a company can buy the naming rights to a LEAGUE, i don't see how its fair to complain about the kits. yes, i do get that its more freedom for the teams, but honestly, its freedom that doesnt benefit everyone equally. the league takes payment from adidas, the money trickles down and does something better, keeps the league going.

it's financially stable now, yeah, but money there's no ill i can speak about ensuring the league keeps financially stable through this. id love to see some variety, but there's a difference between what i want and what ensures the future of the league my team is in. either way, the contract isnt up until 2015 (i think) and at that point im sure its going to be discussed amongst MLS and the owners.

Wait, how does the league having cookie cutter jerseys = money?

MLS can't make the same deal with adidas without having the same bloody design for all clubs?

__wowza
08-10-2011, 08:22 AM
I was wondering your thoughts as to both Toronto and Montreal sporting the BMO logo on there uniforms next year?


I think it's bush league/Mickey Mouse, but so is MLS.


]Somehow, people are misinterpreting my original post as me saying MLS was bush league[/b] because of the two teams sharing a sponsor which I quite clearly never said.


I think it's bush league/Mickey Mouse, but so is MLS.


No, once again provide me where I said that MLS was bush league because of this? I merely said MLS was also bush league.


I think it's bush league/Mickey Mouse, but so is MLS.


http://www.gifsoup.com/view/387780/brendan-fraser-clap-o.gif

__wowza
08-10-2011, 08:27 AM
Wait, how does the league having cookie cutter jerseys = money?

MLS can't make the same deal with adidas without having the same bloody design for all clubs?


trust me, i share the same view. its not that theyre making money off of cookie cutter kits. theyre making money partnering with adidas, the league gets money for making their kits exclusive.

ADIDAS is the one making cookie cutter kits, and from what ive read, its the teams that have a say in whats being put on their players, not the league. adidas has templates every year and it looks like they stick to them a lot of the time without much variance, observe.. the frankenkit:

http://www.mysoccerjerseys.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/greece-world-cup-home-shirt-20101-300x300.jpg

http://www.soccer.com/Images/Catalog/ProductImages/300/57407.jpg

ryan
08-10-2011, 08:34 AM
Yeah I'm just thinking that when MLS negotiates the next deal, since they are looking to improve the global perspective of the league, they'd put in a stipulation to not allow a league wide template since it's counter productive to that.

Even if they increased it to 3 or 4 templates it would be so much better than 1 for all 20 clubs.

menefreghista
08-10-2011, 10:39 AM
benfica sportig and porto have the same sponsors on there jerseys its not uncommon

Bank of God!

Whoop
08-10-2011, 10:54 AM
I didn't realize TMN (cellphone provider) was the bank of god. LOL

menefreghista
08-10-2011, 10:59 AM
I didn't realize TMN (cellphone provider) was the bank of god. LOL

LOL.

I was talking about the Banco Espirito Santo.

Whoop
08-10-2011, 11:04 AM
I think they're out at least with Benfica.

Benfica has TMN (telecommunication) on front, MEO (TV) on the sleeve, Sagres (beer company and league sponsor) on the back.

I believe it's the same with Porto and Sporting.

SilverSamurai
08-10-2011, 11:51 AM
Montreal used to be sponsored by the Government of Quebec. Just be glad they didn't sponsor us too ...
LOL.
That would be funny.
TFC's sponsor is Quebec. lol

I'd like to see Fido or possibly a poutine joint.
Parks Canada anyone. ;)

TorontoGooner
08-10-2011, 02:53 PM
Though not the same league, Arsenal, Hamburg and AC Milan all have Emirates as a sponsor.

Doesn't bother me really. Even having BMO as a sponsor of TFC isn't an issue. They give us a bit of cash and do a lot of good things for Football development over here.

Phil
08-10-2011, 03:09 PM
It would be funny if TD sponsored Montreals jersey, but as it stands I give it a big meh....

__wowza
08-10-2011, 04:02 PM
Though not the same league, Arsenal, Hamburg and AC Milan all have Emirates as a sponsor.

Doesn't bother me really. Even having BMO as a sponsor of TFC isn't an issue. They give us a bit of cash and do a lot of good things for Football development over here.

you forgot PSG, but i agree. now we just need a sponsor for the national program..

Cowboy905
08-12-2011, 10:57 AM
TD, BMO, Scotia, who cares. These may have been regional banks....many many many years ago! These are all national banks now and are a part of Canada. If there's anything to be proud of here, it's our stand-up banking system.

it's not like we're sponsored by Lehman Brothers, or like the Houston Astros that played in the Enron Centre.

sponsor all the Canadian teams BMO for all I care, they're a stand-up company that is supporting the sport and helping keeping Canada out of the financial gutter at the same time.

kudos to BMO for stepping up and spending money in a time and age where companies are hesitant to do so. Keep on sponsoring.

TOBOR !
08-12-2011, 12:27 PM
I'm with Cereal on the bit about no sponsor on the shirt looking fantastic. Just think back to the '70's, or look at any National Team's kit - no sponsors. Just the colours and the crest. Those retro club jerseys are delish. The shirt and the crest with nothing else on it - that's the way to go. Is it KC that's doing this now ? Lucky bastards. As soon as TFC goes that route - even for one season - I'll get me one of those shirts.

Super Cereal
08-12-2011, 02:11 PM
http://www.gifsoup.com/view/387780/brendan-fraser-clap-o.gif

Are you retarded? You've proven my point. Do you know what "but so is" means? I'll give you a hint, it's a lot different than "because".

Honestly, I won't be surprised if english isn't your first language, but this should be quite simple.

mdc 77
08-12-2011, 02:16 PM
I'm with Cereal on the bit about no sponsor on the shirt looking fantastic. Just think back to the '70's, or look at any National Team's kit - no sponsors. Just the colours and the crest. Those retro club jerseys are delish. The shirt and the crest with nothing else on it - that's the way to go. Is it KC that's doing this now ? Lucky bastards. As soon as TFC goes that route - even for one season - I'll get me one of those shirts.

I'm with you on this...I never understand people's fixations with sponsors on the kit. Why would you ever want one? I know we will never see it as long as we are owned by MLSE, but it would be fantastic if whomever our next owner is went the classy route of no sponsor on the kit.

Brooker
08-12-2011, 02:23 PM
Are you retarded? You've proven my point. Do you know what "but so is" means? I'll give you a hint, it's a lot different than "because".

Honestly, I won't be surprised if english isn't your first language, but this should be quite simple.

It is quite simple.... You're now resorting to personal insults because he got you. :D

Super Cereal
08-12-2011, 05:42 PM
It is quite simple.... You're now resorting to personal insults because he got you. :D

The only thing that got to me was his striking lack of reading comprehension and difficulty grasping the english language.

nfitz
08-12-2011, 05:49 PM
The only thing that got to me was his striking lack of reading comprehension and difficulty grasping the english language.Ughh..

English language ... not english language.

:facepalm:

drewski
08-14-2011, 12:21 PM
I think it's hilarious given their ads say they are a "loyal fan" of TFC. #truthinadvertising

__wowza
08-15-2011, 08:39 AM
http://mmoqq.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/i_m12yearsold1.jpg


fyp.

ManUtd4ever
08-15-2011, 09:00 AM
I'm not sure how long the deal with BMO is in place, but once it expires, TFC should try to use one of the organization's other existing corporate sponsors. Despite my EPL loyalties, I think Carlsberg would look fantastic as a sponsor on TFC's kit.

mdc 77
08-15-2011, 09:14 AM
Despite my EPL loyalties, I think Carlsberg would look fantastic as a sponsor on TFC's kit.

Can I ask you why you think any sponsor would look fantastic on TFC's kit? Wouldn't a shirt with no sponsor look even better?

ManUtd4ever
08-15-2011, 09:19 AM
Can I ask you why you think any sponsor would look fantastic on TFC's kit? Wouldn't a shirt with no sponsor look even better?

I think all football kits look better without a sponsor, but that's not a realistic option when you consider the substantial revenue a shirt sponsor generates, especially in a market like Toronto. I don't think MLSE would turn down a few million dollars in advertising revenue per season for the sake of having a cleaner look to TFC's jersey.

mdc 77
08-15-2011, 09:29 AM
I understand the reasons greedy corporate ownership has sponsors on the front of their shirts but I'm puzzled when fans sound like they want that sponsor on their clubs shirt.

__wowza
08-15-2011, 09:41 AM
I understand the reasons greedy corporate ownership has sponsors on the front of their shirts but I'm puzzled when fans sound like they want that sponsor on their clubs shirt.

i think its different in the MLS. its not like theyre cutting prices with the revenue from a sponsorship deal what with the salary cap in place.

at this point, i think it helps a lot of clubs in the league keep profitable which is never a bad thing. you dont see it as a sponsor, per say, you see it as an extra 4 mil coming into your club.. again, that's assuming it goes to the club and not the pockets of MLSE execs.

London
08-15-2011, 09:54 AM
i hate the sponsors on jerseys.

make the crest maybe 25% larger and leave the front blank

ads should go on the back

http://soccerjerseysforsale.net/images/2011-12%20BARCELONA%203%20pique%20soccer%20jersey%20awa y.jpg

mdc 77
08-15-2011, 09:59 AM
Barca really messed up with that one. First off, its the first paid sponsor in their 111 year history. Second, all kinds of rumours about the involvement of Barca, Spainish football and the corupt bidding process for Qatar getting the world cup. Lastly, the "Qatar Foundation" on the front of their kit looks horrendous.

__wowza
08-15-2011, 04:00 PM
Are you retarded? You've proven my point. Do you know what "but so is" means? I'll give you a hint, it's a lot different than "because".

Honestly, I won't be surprised if english isn't your first language, but this should be quite simple.

i was going to put this conversation to bed by just mocking you, and your overt need to imply that people who call you out must have downs. this is me going highschool debate team on you, and its not just for you. i've found this to be the case with a lot of stuff on the boards, not solely with you, but so let's start here and look at my comprehension of the following statement:


I think it's bush league/Mickey Mouse, but so is MLS.

valid arguments follow a basic structure:
if A = B and B = C then A must = C.

if you're going to argue that sharing sponsors is bush league, and then state in the very same sentence that MLS is bush league.. wouldn't that lead me to the following conclusion based on your premises?

(A) teams that share sponsors are bush league
(B) there teams sharing sponsors in the league
(C) MLS is bush league

teams sharing sponsors is bush league and there teams share sponsors in the league which makes MLS bush league.

if the premises are true (in this case, true is what you make of it because its an opinion), then the conclusion must also be true, that's the basis of any valid argument. so, that leads me to one of the following two conclusions:

1) you've just inadvertently stated that rivals sharing sponsorships is bush league (you think the old firm rivalry is bush league in this case) and that the MLS is bush league in part because TFC/IM share sponsors. or

2) you're just arguing that you never said that the MLS was bush league due to the fact that it had two teams sharing a sponsor, this is due of the lack of the word "because"

now, if you've chosen the second, which you've echoed in one of the multiple posts calling out my comprehension (how've i done so far?), then you're still wrong because the first conclusion still trumped the second.


let's see this again in your words:

No, rivals having the same jersey sponsor is bush league. I did not say MLS was bush league because of this.


so, rivals having the same jersey sponsor is bush league. MLS is bush league, but not because TFC/IM having the same jersey sponsor. you know, there's a reason why people like booker, yohan and i have called you out when you say things like:


No, once again provide me where I said that MLS was bush league because of this?

you reverse engineer points to fit a conclusion that you think you've made.. despite the fact that the points you've made were contradictory of one another. then, instead of clarifying your statement or thinking "hey, maybe there's something wrong with ME and the point IM making", you flip around and attack others.




if you're arguing that you never used the word "because" in these arguments, then congratulations, you're right, you never used the words "MLS is bush league because". but if you're willing to accept this victory, do it at the cost of your much trumpeted superior "comprehension": you just made contradictory remarks on a faulty premise which yielded a false conclusion that no one understood but you, CONGRATULATIONS!!
:party:

London
08-15-2011, 05:03 PM
Barca really messed up with that one. First off, its the first paid sponsor in their 111 year history. Second, all kinds of rumours about the involvement of Barca, Spainish football and the corupt bidding process for Qatar getting the world cup. Lastly, the "Qatar Foundation" on the front of their kit looks horrendous.


it was the first jersey thet showed an ad on the back when i looked for one as an example