Now that we've returned to our iconic royal blue and gold uniform colours, I've been wondering, why the switch to navy in the first place? Don't get me wrong, I'm happy and don't want to dig up bad memories, which the team had a lot of in navy blue. I am trying to recall for my own clarity I guess, the reasoning for the change. I vaguely recall it being mentioned in the 94 season (in which a goal post caused us to miss out on a Grey Cup win IMO ), and don't remember much complaining from fans about it. I know the league had American teams in 95 when we switched, and teams had more freedom to alter uniforms then (no big company and league mandated change like now) but who decided we should switch, and why? Cal Murphy was GM and coach at the time so it's safe to assume he had input, but he seems like a guy that could have cared less about uniform colour, design save for the fact that he was strong on Bomber heritage/tradition. Anyone who was around at that time like myself recall why we changed? Sorry if this topic stirs up bad nightmares .

Edited May 15, 20169 yr by IC Khari

I think, in hindsight, had we never switched to navy blue... we wouldn't love the royal blue as much...

On 2016-05-15 at 5:26 PM, Pete Catan's Ghost said:

I seem to recall that the "lightning logo" was the winning entry of a fan competition.

Yeah talk about cheap. Why pay for a new logo when we can get something for free.

On 2016-05-17 at 6:21 PM, iso_55 said:

I think #3 is the right answer. As I recall this was Cal Murphy's idea going into his final season as GM with the Bombers

Well it was not his choice to be his final season. Firing a guy who got us 3 cups in 6 appearance and never out of the playoffs in 13 years. Smart move.

Cal's time had come to an end. He had a heart transplant, was in his late 60's. I think he was slowing down a lot. The problem was, when he left the Bombers did what they have become famous for... hired a rookie HC with no experience facing a massive rebuild. Epic Fail..

I remember thinking at the time we really needed some fresh new ideas. Someone younger. At the time, I loved the Reinebold hire. It seemed like exactly what we needed. Yikes.... 

16 hours ago, Noeller said:

I remember thinking at the time we really needed some fresh new ideas. Someone younger. At the time, I loved the Reinebold hire. It seemed like exactly what we needed. Yikes.... 

Reinebold knew his football.  That wasn't debatable. He wasn't ready (and still isn't quite frankly) for a HC gig plus other responsibilities.   

We got good real fast under Dave Ritchie then Lyle Bauer fired him. Like really, Lyle? How stupid were you??

Pretty stupid ...

14 hours ago, iso_55 said:

We got good real fast under Dave Ritchie then Lyle Bauer fired him. Like really, Lyle? How stupid were you??

Sometimes it's who you replace someone with that is your downfall.  The club under Ritchie was steadily regressing and was replaced with Daly.   

56 minutes ago, holoman said:

Sometimes it's who you replace someone with that is your downfall.  The club under Ritchie was steadily regressing and was replaced with Daly.   

... as I said, pretty stupid.

On 2016-05-23 at 4:27 PM, Noeller said:

I remember thinking at the time we really needed some fresh new ideas. Someone younger. At the time, I loved the Reinebold hire. It seemed like exactly what we needed. Yikes.... 

I was leaning towards the favorite candidate, our offensive co-coordinator at the time.  His name was Mike Kelly. Who knew? 

If it ain't broke....don't re-brand it.

It has never ceased to amaze me, how bloody long it took to:

a.  Identify the error

b.  Correct said error

 

23 minutes ago, do or die said:

If it ain't broke....don't re-brand it.

It has never ceased to amaze me, how bloody long it took to:

a.  Identify the error

b.  Correct said error

 

Just 21 years, a whole fricken lost generation ...