Lionbackers.com

In the CFL all the teams own their logos. The exception was the Renegades.

That is one reason why the Rough Riders couldn't be used - Horn Chen still owned the trademark (and still does IIRC).

When the Renegades came into existence the League decided they didn't want to go down the same road in future years and as such the League owned the trademarked name "Renegades".

If I am correct and the Teams still own their rights, it still falls on the shoulders of the Team to authorize what merchandise gets made with their logo on it. The League would actually have little to do with it except in the case of League sponsorships.

so to rag on the team and its management for all these things we don't have insight to, is really pointless and misguided, at least.

I will disagree here. If enough voices complain or at least get heard, then changes can be made. Look at the scowls as an excellent example. Rick said "screw it I'm doing it" and now Bobby Ackles has a few (or at least his wife does that I know of). Maybe this event will then get Bobby to look at the merchandising side of the team and wonder why the team passed these up... It may not bear fruit this year, but next season is when we might see some changes.

I brought our oldest son, and he got one.
But they wouldn't give me an extra voucher for our youngest son because he didn't attend the game.
He wasn't very happy that his brother got one and he didn't.
So if someone has an extra, let me know.

Soundy wrote:But what everyone keeps conveniently forgetting, is that a lot of these promotions (including, apparently, the Geroy bobbleheads) are not Lions marketing in the first place, but marketing by third parties (reportedly Rogers with the bobbleheads).

So instead of griping about the Lions marketing, try talking to Rogers (or whoever the appropriate entity is for various promotions).

I already addressed this point earlier:

"Not sure about this Brian but the reason they're not for sale on the concourse might have something to do with the fact that these were sponsored/underwritten by Rogers, not unlike last year when Save On plastered their logo on the backpacks. I didn't get a good look at them but there appeared to be the Rogers logo on base. This sponsorship deal may prevent them from being sold."

I am quite certain now that their promotional agreement with Rogers precludes the Lions from selling them. That is why they likely won't be featured at stadium kiosks like other "one offs" say, the Bobby Ackles book or John Wirtenen's book on the history of the B.C. Lions which are. Nothing to do with "bad marketing."

DH 8)

LFITQ wrote:In the CFL all the teams own their logos. The exception was the Renegades.

If I am correct and the Teams still own their rights, it still falls on the shoulders of the Team to authorize what merchandise gets made with their logo on it. The League would actually have little to do with it except in the case of League sponsorships.

Okay, thanks for the clarification.

I will disagree here. If enough voices complain or at least get heard, then changes can be made.

Well, it at least MAY help get the ball rolling. My point was, it's the TARGET of the complaints that's often incorrect. I used the security example - the Lions can request a certain level of security, but it's ultimately BC Place that provides it. Likewise the police presence - it's the VPD that has the final say as to how many officers attend. Yet more often than not, the finger for "inadequate security" gets pointed at the team. Now granted, some of that is a factor of what the team is willing or able to pay for the extra staffing... conversely, sometimes the provider's terms can be unreasonable. (Not saying that is or ever has been the case, of course, just noting that there's always more to it than just "spend more money!")

Look at the scowls as an excellent example. Rick said "screw it I'm doing it" and now Bobby Ackles has a few (or at least his wife does that I know of). Maybe this event will then get Bobby to look at the merchandising side of the team and wonder why the team passed these up... It may not bear fruit this year, but next season is when we might see some changes.

We can hope!

David wrote:

Soundy wrote:But what everyone keeps conveniently forgetting, is that a lot of these promotions (including, apparently, the Geroy bobbleheads) are not Lions marketing in the first place, but marketing by third parties (reportedly Rogers with the bobbleheads).

So instead of griping about the Lions marketing, try talking to Rogers (or whoever the appropriate entity is for various promotions).

I already addressed this point earlier:

"Not sure about this Brian but the reason they're not for sale on the concourse might have something to do with the fact that these were sponsored/underwritten by Rogers, not unlike last year when Save On plastered their logo on the backpacks. I didn't get a good look at them but there appeared to be the Rogers logo on base. This sponsorship deal may prevent them from being sold."

I am quite certain now that their promotional agreement with Rogers precludes the Lions from selling them. That is why they likely won't be featured at stadium kiosks like other "one offs" say, the Bobby Ackles book or John Wirtenen's book on the history of the B.C. Lions which are. Nothing to do with "bad marketing."

DH 8)

Yes, your post above was exactly what I was referring to. I thought it bore repeating though, since as I say, it's often conveniently "forgotten".

I don't know Soundy...I asked Jen Graham what the scoop was and here was her reply...

Hi Brian,

I don't believe that we will be unfortunately. Even more were handed out than planned it seems and I am certain that our merchandise company did not purchase any for sale.

Sorry about that...

Why didn't they? These would have been a big seller, Roger's logo or not, and it's a missed opportunity, plain and simple. My point is someone should have had the vision to order more.

In the CFL all the teams own their logos. The exception was the Renegades.

Was this not to keep from what happened when Chen folded the team. Doesnt he own the rights still to the RR logo and name?

Yank In BC wrote:

In the CFL all the teams own their logos. The exception was the Renegades.

Was this not to keep from what happened when Chen folded the team. Doesnt he own the rights still to the RR logo and name?

And a little further up the screen ... 8)

LFITQ wrote:That is one reason why the Rough Riders couldn't be used - Horn Chen still owned the trademark (and still does IIRC).

Courtesy of Woody, a picture of the Geroy Simon bobblehead. How do you think it compares to the 2002 Damon Allen bobblehead?



I wonder if there will be any giveaways at the West Division Final.

Aside from giveaways, I wonder what events there will be for the West Division Final.

For the 2004 WDF, the University of Washington Cheerleaders were invited. I mentioned this before, but I don't think it's a bad idea if the local college cheerleaders from UBC and SFU are invited.

As I've said elsewhere, more cheerleaders is ALWAYS a good thing!

Soundy wrote:As I've said elsewhere, more cheerleaders is ALWAYS a good thing!

Right on.