New home shirt (confirmed)

[invisableman]

I prefer white trim and sponsors like most, but I don't think the shirt is that bad, okay the sleeves are a different colour but it's a one off kit design we're not gonna become like Arsenal and adopt it permanently.

The main problem for me is how the full kit will look on the players, blue shorts with white socks looks shite, personally I'd like to see a return to navy socks we haven't had them since we left Maine Road and even then we had Lazer blue shirts to ruin the full kit.

I Think 1989 was the last time we wore sky blue shirts white shorts and navy socks

 

[Shaelumstash]

Oh please, this is the sort of cr*p that irritates me, just happen to really like the new shirt, some of our fans need to deal with it.

I have no qualms with someone expressing an opinion to the contrary, what I take issue with is how some fans seem to think their views represent the views of all fans, which is b*llsh*t.

Mate, you're entitled to your view. If you like the new kit, good luck to you. I actually don't mind the shirt. It's not a traditional Manchester City shirt, but as a one-off in a year where pretty much every national team has the same template, I can live with it.

But regarding your comment about some fan's view not being representative of the wider fan base, I recently set up a survey on here which got around 1000 responses, a pretty decent sample size. 60% strongly disliked the home shirt.

But more starkly 98% dislked sky blue shorts on the home kit. If you like it, no problem, but you are one of only 2% who feels that way, so you a very much in the minority.

When asked for their first choice home kit combination, less than 1% voted for sky blue shirt, sky blue shorts and white socks.

It's not some isolated 50 year olds with a beer gut who don't like the current home kit colour comination, it's 98% of our fans. If the club did a similar survey on a much bigger scale to include all Cityzens I'm sure they would find the same results.

 

[SebastianBlue]

And right on cue, you don't represent the views of all fans....

Your posts beyond even this thread make you suspect mate (though, your recent post smacks of social media influencer). I know several people who head up those types of operations and there are tell-tale signs in your writing and the way you are responding to other posts.

It is all very odd, as you are either harping on about how wonderful the kits are (with Orwellian levels of uniform personality) or you are trying to argue that supporters of the club should make purchasing choices that are intended to pander to the wants of a multinational corporation (with turnover in the billions) who avails itself of very questionable (if not in some cases downright illegal and unethical) production practices under the guise of improving City's business relationship with them. As if every individual act a supporter should undertake needs to be based on how it can increase revenue for the club regardless of any other consideration.

It's all very strange.

 

[HelloCity]

90 quid is a lot of money, but in reality it's the going rate for 'designer' clothes. Look at the cost of Diesel jeans or a Paul Smith shirt. As a fan, you have the choice, buy the 'designer' high quality players version or the replica version which looks like the kit but without the bells and whistles. I decided to stump up the extra and think it was worth it. Nike are a business stumping up millions each year and whether we like it or not they have to get a return. Clearly, they can't deliver this quality of shirt at a 55 quid price point.

I don't think the new shirt looks anything 'but' a City shirt, it's instantly recognisable, but with a variation in design from previous shirts, in the same way laser blue was a massive departure from our traditional sky blue. Should we still, have SAAB or Brother as the sponsor, as that was instantly recognisable City in the 80's and 90's ?

Everything you have said is nothing but your opinion and your entitled to it, but im constantly irritated by fans who seem to think they speak for all City fans. My opinions are mine and no one else's and to reiterate - I really like the new shirt.

Ultimately, our 'opinion' is irrelevant. It will be the sales that dictate whether the shirt is a success or not. If it doesn't sell, they won't repeat it, and ultimately I'm fine with that. My guess is that it will sell well because this club is no longer simply appealing to a working class manc demographic who's stuck in some 60's 70’s timewarp - and thank God - because otherwise the club would never progress.

My favourite post of his, if anyone is doubting that he's trying to sell the shirt.

 

[mat]

Even fecking Bolturns away kit looks more City!

 

[bluealf]

Many of these fans seem intent on undermining the goals of the club. If bluemoon was reflective of our fanbase you can imagine the commercial sponsorship discussions.

Tom Glick to Nike exec 'look we're a top 5 club in the World we need at least 50m a season...

Nike exec 'True Tom but looking at your fanbase all they've done is slag Nike off, it's not been a great partnership for our brand, plus, they boycott buying the kits so we've lost money the last couple of seasons

Tom Glick 'But, but they're not a true reflection of our fanbase...'

Nike exec 'Not what our analysis tells us, apparently according to posts on bluemoon none of the fans like the kits we have produced and any that seem to announce they like the kits get accused of working for us, not great for us Tom to be honest'

Tom Glick 'but you have to say the shirts haven't sold because you haven't got the designs right, the fans don't like the template'

Nike exec 'Tom, we did the same for Inter, Barca and the shirts have sold like hot cakes. All bluemoon seem to want, and that forum does speak for all fans, right? Is sky blue with white roundneck, pretty much like Franny Lee et al wore in the late 60's and 70's - we can't sell the volume we need as each shirt will look the same from one year to the next, there's no reason to change and invest in the new seasons kit.. we don't have any room for manoeuvre

Tom Glick 'but we have Sergio, KDB some of the best players in the world wearing the shirt that's fantastic for your brand

Nike Executive Doesn't mean sh*t if the fans slag it off and dont buy it. Truth is Tom, the partnership hasn't been good value at 15m a season. I hate the rags too Tom but even when we produced a pyjama top for that lot the shirts still sold like hot cakes, that's what we're looking for

Tom Glick look, look our fans are unique they know what they like, produce it and they'll buy the kit.

Nike Executive Tom, 50 something, fat blokes based in and around greater Manchester ain't going to give us a return on 50m season, let's just go our separate ways and perhaps Macron will be interested in that demographic. I believe they gave Bolton 2m a season....

Tom Glick but but you're not understanding, we did City voice surveys and it told us something completely different let me show you...... bluemoon isnt representative of our fanbase

Nike executive Sorry Tom, but the bluemoon great and the good have spoken, if they say the kits shite, that's what City fans think. I know the CEO at Sondico if you want to speak with him, I'll give you his number.

Excellent work for a Sunday morning :)

Edit, after reading all the other replies since you posted it, I can only assume some people don't have a sense of humour, sure City fans were famed for such a thing once.

 

[Blue Mooner]

Mate, you're entitled to your view. If you like the new kit, good luck to you. I actually don't mind the shirt. It's not a traditional Manchester City shirt, but as a one-off in a year where pretty much every national team has the same template, I can live with it.

But regarding your comment about some fan's view not being representative of the wider fan base, I recently set up a survey on here which got around 1000 responses, a pretty decent sample size. 60% strongly disliked the home shirt.

But more starkly 98% dislked sky blue shorts on the home kit. If you like it, no problem, but you are one of only 2% who feels that way, so you a very much in the minority.

When asked for their first choice home kit combination, less than 1% voted for sky blue shirt, sky blue shorts and white socks.

It's not some isolated 50 year olds with a beer gut who don't like the current home kit colour comination, it's 98% of our fans. If the club did a similar survey on a much bigger scale to include all Cityzens I'm sure they would find the same results.

I'm not arguing that there isn't a majority on here who don't like the kit, having said that, I posted a link to a footy shirt site that showed 50% were positive in some way towards the shirt.

I've been accused of being a rag, wum, working for City or Nike all because I really like the shirt. I like the departure from an all sky blue shirt. I like the navy blue contrast as I think all sky blue can be a bit powder puff and washed out. These are my views as a fan. As long as sky blue features as the predominant colour with our badge and a mixture of navy and white, as it does, then as far as I'm concerned that is a city shirt and easily identifiable as being so. I see many teams in my view, trying to ride on the back of our club by having sky blue away kits- Bolton, Stoke City being a case in point. So I fully understand the club making our shirt easily identifiable as being different from those clubs. No one would want to be confused with f*ckin Bolton or Stoke.

A big majority as you say don't like the sky blue shorts and given the choice I typically prefer white shorts but with the design of this shirt then sky blue shorts and white socks works better in my view.

People on here can think what they want to think about my motivations, but I'm simply a City fan expressing his opinion about the shirt and wanting to counter the negativity. My first post on the topic was the day I received the shirt and I was genuinely loving the quality, design and look of the shirt. That was the 90 quid shirt. I do think thats a lot if money to get the quality of the players shirt but to be honest the replica 55 quid shirt is made more for your average fan being a more generous fit it also makes the price more accessible. There would be those who would never buy the 90 quid shirt based on sizing alone in my view.

I'm not bothered if liking the shirt puts me in some kind of minority and I'm just as entitled to express that view on here as those who don't. I've made my point and will only continue to post on the topic whilst people continue to try a character assassination.

 

[urban genie]

I'm not bothered if liking the shirt puts me in some kind of minority and I'm just as entitled to express that view on here as those who don't. I've made my point and will only continue to post on the topic whilst people continue to try a character assassination.

You are entitled to like it and I haven't called you a rag of a wum I did joke you worked for nike I admit, but that is hardly charactor assasination. However you sir have called those critisisng the kit, anti-club, unimaginative, living in the past, wanting us to stagnate etc, that is why people are wound up by your post, if anyone makes a comment against something to do with the club you have critisised them.

Like the kit if you want I couldn't give a monkeys if you do I am sure some will, and looking at twitter overseas fans, a lot in asia and africa are raving about it, (then buying a knock off one at the local market more than likely as the prices are too steep). but I don't I find it an abhorent and, well crap.

Each to there own.

 

[Shaelumstash]

I'm not arguing that there isn't a majority on here who don't like the kit, having said that, I posted a link to a footy shirt site that showed 50% were positive in some way towards the shirt.

I've been accused of being a rag, wum, working for City or Nike all because I really like the shirt. I like the departure from an all sky blue shirt. I like the navy blue contrast as I think all sky blue can be a bit powder puff and washed out. These are my views as a fan. As long as sky blue features as the predominant colour with our badge and a mixture of navy and white, as it does, then as far as I'm concerned that is a city shirt and easily identifiable as being so. I see many teams in my view, trying to ride on the back of our club by having sky blue away kits- Bolton, Stoke City being a case in point. So I fully understand the club making our shirt easily identifiable as being different from those clubs. No one would want to be confused with f*ckin Bolton or Stoke.

A big majority as you say don't like the sky blue shorts and given the choice I typically prefer white shorts but with the design of this shirt then sky blue shorts and white socks works better in my view.

People on here can think what they want to think about my motivations, but I'm simply a City fan expressing his opinion about the shirt and wanting to counter the negativity. My first post on the topic was the day I received the shirt and I was genuinely loving the quality, design and look of the shirt. That was the 90 quid shirt. I do think thats a lot if money to get the quality of the players shirt but to be honest the replica 55 quid shirt is made more for your average fan being a more generous fit it also makes the price more accessible. There would be those who would never buy the 90 quid shirt based on sizing alone in my view.

I'm not bothered if liking the shirt puts me in some kind of minority and I'm just as entitled to express that view on here as those who don't. I've made my point and will only continue to post on the topic whilst people continue to try a character assassination.

Whether you work for Nike or not doesn't really matter to me, either way it's good for debate.

The point you make about Stoke and Bolton is a good one. Plenty of teams have red away kits - but they don't get confused with United, or Liverpool, or Arsenal. That's because no one else has red shirts, white shorts, black socks, just like United. No one else has all red like Liverpool. No one else has red shirts with white sleeves and white shorts like Arsenal. All of their kits are instantly recognisable as them. Any other team wearing red doesn't get confused with them.

But because the club and Nike have made the misguided decision that City's identity is sky blue and then any old combination of white and navy, means it's completely diluted our identity. Now when you see a Stoke away kit that is sky blue shirts, shorts and socks, it can be confused with a City kit. When Bolton have sky blue stripes, that can be confused with a City kit. But it wasn't always like this.

For 70 odd years we had sky blue shirts, white shorts and navy blue socks, no other team in the world had that. It was unique to City, you couldn't confuse it with any other team. For our golden period in the 60s and 70s we had sky blue shirts, white shorts, sky blue socks with maroon turnovers, again completely unique to City. Instantly recognisable as City and only City.

I've supported City my whole life, and I've got absolutely no idea what our kit combination will be next season. No idea. I know it will have sky blue on there, but it could have white sleeves, navy sleeves, sky blue shorts, navy blue shorts, white and sky hooped socks, who the fuck knows?! Our identity is being completely diluted. If I as a lifelong fan don't know what our kit will be, how on earth can a casual fan in Asia or the US be expected to identify a City kit?

It's completely absurd, short-sighted and prioritising short term profit over long term brand building. It's time for a club consultation on the kit. The results will be overwhelming. I've already done a dummy run, 98% of fans want sky blue shirts and white shorts, that's near enough unanimous. Over 90% voted sky blue shirts, white shorts and blue socks. Why the club and Nike choose to completely ignore this data is just beyond me.

 

[SebastianBlue]

I'm not arguing that there isn't a majority on here who don't like the kit, having said that, I posted a link to a footy shirt site that showed 50% were positive in some way towards the shirt.

I've been accused of being a rag, wum, working for City or Nike all because I really like the shirt. I like the departure from an all sky blue shirt. I like the navy blue contrast as I think all sky blue can be a bit powder puff and washed out. These are my views as a fan. As long as sky blue features as the predominant colour with our badge and a mixture of navy and white, as it does, then as far as I'm concerned that is a city shirt and easily identifiable as being so. I see many teams in my view, trying to ride on the back of our club by having sky blue away kits- Bolton, Stoke City being a case in point. So I fully understand the club making our shirt easily identifiable as being different from those clubs. No one would want to be confused with f*ckin Bolton or Stoke.

A big majority as you say don't like the sky blue shorts and given the choice I typically prefer white shorts but with the design of this shirt then sky blue shorts and white socks works better in my view.

People on here can think what they want to think about my motivations, but I'm simply a City fan expressing his opinion about the shirt and wanting to counter the negativity. My first post on the topic was the day I received the shirt and I was genuinely loving the quality, design and look of the shirt. That was the 90 quid shirt. I do think thats a lot if money to get the quality of the players shirt but to be honest the replica 55 quid shirt is made more for your average fan being a more generous fit it also makes the price more accessible. There would be those who would never buy the 90 quid shirt based on sizing alone in my view.

I'm not bothered if liking the shirt puts me in some kind of minority and I'm just as entitled to express that view on here as those who don't. I've made my point and will only continue to post on the topic whilst people continue to try a character assassination.

I'll refer you to @urban genie's post. There is no character assassination as far as I can see. You just can't have your cake and eat it, too. Either everyone is entitled to their opinion or they are not, make up your mind.

"Anti-club" [read youngish lifetime supporter of City, so still in Nike's target disposable income market segment, and not a commercial shill] troglodyte signing this debate off.