SA Footy

Manny and myself have discussed "new" club logos at work recently and we are both of the same opinion.
While I think Norwood's, South's and Central's new logos look great and are a small step in helping promote the game at a younger audience we think that although clubs should be well within their rights to change a logo that they should keep it in some sort of template.
Previously the 9/10 clubs all had round logos so it looked quite neat in publications or on websites when all the clubs logos were lined up.
Now with various shapes and sizes its going to look quite amateurish when they're all together.
You only have to look at the SAFooty logo at the top of the page to see how good it looks when all the club logos are the same dimensions.
It'd look a bloody mess if we put the new Dogs, Norwood and South logos in there!

And as an aside, good luck to the North Adelaide Roosters tomorrow against the Carolina Panthers!

Agreed Wedgie, it would look stupid.

I just saw souths new logo and talk about your pieces of crud. I am not a fan of their new logo it looks alot like the Detroit Lions logo of the NFL fame. I am now wondering if Souths will now add silver to their jumper because it is now in their clubs logo's memo to the Clubs keep the Logo's simple and don't change you Logo's I prefer the circle logo's.

In this day and age, if the club can directly or indirectly make a buck from Logo changes then it's in their best interests ... I'm a traditionalist at heart, but resisting change is a futile exercise, you either go with it or invariably get left behind.

Constance_Perm wrote:In this day and age, if the club can directly or indirectly make a buck from Logo changes then it's in their best interests ... I'm a traditionalist at heart, but resisting change is a futile exercise, you either go with it or invariably get left behind.

CP, my point isn't if clubs should or shouldn't have new logos, Im actually one of the few that are all for it and like the new logos.
My sole point in this topic is that it makes the league look amateurish if they're all different shapes and sizes.
I'm all for new logos but I think the SANFL should insist on a "template" of some sort to fit or shape them in just to keep a good look for the league overall.

Wedgie wrote:

Constance_Perm wrote:In this day and age, if the club can directly or indirectly make a buck from Logo changes then it's in their best interests ... I'm a traditionalist at heart, but resisting change is a futile exercise, you either go with it or invariably get left behind.

CP, my point isn't if clubs should or shouldn't have new logos, Im actually one of the few that are all for it and like the new logos.
My sole point in this topic is that it makes the league look amateurish if they're all different shapes and sizes.
I'm all for new logos but I think the SANFL should insist on a "template" of some sort to fit or shape them in just to keep a good look for the league overall.

I hear what you're saying, but I think it's probably only a problem for logo's like that above where you try to collate them on top of one another, just looked at the SANFL website (for the first time in ages) and thought they looked pretty tidy on there .. Having said that, I am somewhat challenged when it comes to graphics and style etc ..

I cant believe im about to say something good about the AFL but all of their clubs logos have different shapes and designs. It's alot better than the old out of date shield emblems every club used to have.

The traditional SA logos are what I have grown up with so I guess I am looking at it from that point of view. Personally I think they should be retained as the official logo, with the new dumbed-down ones for the kidz to wear on their hoodies & assorted merchandise. I think there is room for both and I'd be very sad to see those great designs disappear.

No different to the 80s when we had the official logos alongside the cartoon emblems (which looked awesome on yo-yos!).

Constance_Perm wrote:resisting change is a futile exercise,

almost as futile as giving in to pointless change.

Interesting to note that the Tiser is still using the dogs "old" logo but Norwood's and South's new one.

If North were to change thier logo from the current one, I'd like to see them go "retro" and use the old coat of arms, with one change, incorparate a rooster somewhere into the shield.

Ian wrote:If North were to change thier logo from the current one, I'd like to see them go "retro" and use the old coat of arms, with one change, incorparate a rooster somewhere into the shield.

if it 'aint broke...

Punk Rooster wrote:

Ian wrote:If North were to change thier logo from the current one, I'd like to see them go "retro" and use the old coat of arms, with one change, incorparate a rooster somewhere into the shield.

if it 'aint broke...

Was the coat of arms "broke" when they changed from that, or was it due to a league decision that made all clubs have uniform logo's, some clubs have gone away from the "uniform" round logos, and I don't mind any of them, but I like the old coat of arms. How good did it look on the 2004 Heritage day banner, and then the 2005 Heritage tops.

Back in the 1960s. before Mike Patterson introduced the 'Big V' style jumper, North Adelaide wore red lace ups with a white yoke and it had the shield from the coat of arms in the top left hand corner (I think). I always thought it was one of the smarter looking jumpers in the SANFL. My favourite was always the West Torrens lace up with the big gold eagle across the front. Footy jerseys were great back then, totally devoid of advertising.

None of the old logo's are 'broke' as such.

Just boring.

Magpiespower wrote:None of the old logo's are 'broke' as such.

I don't know if you ever noticed this, but the Bloods' logo has a wolf in it.

A bloodhound is not a wolf.

It's been 'broke' for 30 years!

Maybe because a bloodhound doesn't exactly incite fear?


Not that I can talk, a chicken's not exactly fearsome either!

wide receiver wrote:

Magpiespower wrote:None of the old logo's are 'broke' as such.

I don't know if you ever noticed this, but the Bloods' logo has a wolf in it.

A bloodhound is not a wolf.

It's been 'broke' for 30 years!

The Bloods isn't short for Bloodhounds, it's from "Blood 'n' Tars', blood for the red colour and tar for the black.

Adelaide Hawk wrote:

wide receiver wrote:

Magpiespower wrote:None of the old logo's are 'broke' as such.

I don't know if you ever noticed this, but the Bloods' logo has a wolf in it.

A bloodhound is not a wolf.

It's been 'broke' for 30 years!

The Bloods isn't short for Bloodhounds, it's from "Blood 'n' Tars', blood for the red colour and tar for the black.

Then why is the club pushing the blood hound on its home page?

Think about this from the perspective of the general public. They're getting a confused message of what the club identity is. They're told it's the bloods, with a wolf and a bloodhound, when it's actually the blood and tars - but the club isn't marketed as the blood and tars, so they can't be expected to know that. They just see two different animals and think "huh?"

We need to pick one thing and stick with it.

wide receiver wrote:Then why is the club pushing the blood hound on its home page?

I have no idea. I'm not a Westies supporter but I've never heard them referred to as the Bloodhounds.