I'm not saying there's anything wrong with a simple logo. I'm saying there's something wrong with an uncreative logo. There's a difference. The Bruins, Flyers, and Blues all have simple logos, but they have clever designs that look interesting and took some thought to create. (The Bruins' logo has spokes; the Flyers have a cool slanty winged-P; the blues have a winged note.) The Lightning's logo is nothing more than the name of the team (in the form of a lightning bolt) and the city written across the top.
Yes, I do think the Canadiens' logo is tremendously uncreative and uninteresting, but you can't change it now after a hundred years of history with it.
This is from the same source where the new San Jose Sharks logo was leaked.
Here's what the new Tampa Bay Lightning logo is supposed to look like.
I thank JGraz15 and Gothamite at CCSLC for bringing this to my attention.
I don't see the point in having just "Tampa Bay" on it.
Why not do away with the wordmark on the primary logo altogether?
I wonder if they will have 2 different lighning bolts. the white background ones look really squished and deformed. At least the black background logos look more like the "classic" look. (if you can call the lighnings "old" logo classic)
That's because the ones on black have an extra stroke because the original stroke is black. If you do that on white, you don't need it. If you do it on black you need the extra white stroke. I would have just used a different outer stroke color based on the background, but they apparently didn't think to do it that way. Companies are also very funny about how their logo is represented even when something like a stroke is changed to differentiate the logo from it's background.