lol.Why are they Iconic?
Are they Iconic because we won one thing in it 50 years ago?
Red and Black had nothing to do with City until Big Mal asked for it.
Grumpy has nothing to do with it and nowhere do I say Puma kits are shit or have been shit.
Red is for rags and dippers.
Big mal wanted to change the home kit to Royal Blue with the red and white sash, blue shorts and blue socks with red/white turnover.Obviously the club said no. Though we did wear the socks with the home kit for a season, 73/74?Spot on Alf It was Allison who got the red/black kit, he wanted City to change to it permanently, he believed that it made the players look bigger and was an advantage. Agree about the rose as well it should have been the bee and I said that before the recent hype
The red n black is iconic and says Manchester City. I love itThat is their right, but it will have nothing to do with David Silva wearing the shirt, I'm shocked an older timer like yourself didn't use the usual red and black monstrosity from the 70's.
We like it because we won something in it mentality.
It is fucking horrible, I have a cheque board one under the bed, not even sure I have ever worn it, somebody bought it for a present. It is, even more, viler than the stripes.
Apparently that would make us Burnley.View attachment 37926
Maybe with red piping on the "sash"?
;-)
Seriously, though, a very thin maroon stripe on each side of the blue would be a nice addition.
I still have this retro one with the Manchester CoA. Favorite.Love this shirt
View attachment 37939
they feel they have to fiddle with it to differentiate it. Last year's was perfect if they'd left off the swimming pool floor mosaic. Purple on our first home kit was just bizarre and wrong, this year's is fine but blue shorts is unnecessary.Arguably, our away kits have been better than our home kits under Puma and Nike. Two of my favorite away shirts has been the all black and navy Kits. For some reason they can't quite get the home kit right, I mean how hard can it be ?