New home shirt (confirmed)

Blue Mooner said:
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.
Click to expand...

You say its easily identifiable as a city shirt....I think if the shirt had been posted without badge and sponsor and everyone had 3 guesses which club, you would be the only person on the planet to have City as one of their 3 guesses.( I even doubt you would have guessed City tbh)

Stoke, Bolton etc are copying City kits with their aways??? Really! Then the last thing we should do is have a kit in our colours that looks far more like another teams away kit than our own home kit!
 
Honestly think it's the worst home kit we've ever had, just isn't a Manchester City kit.

And I'm really tired of Nike taking the piss and treating us as if we're some blank canvas with no tradition or heritage. Wankers.
 
Jacko1956 said:
Got to agree with you, not my favourite City kit, but watching City ladies on the box and looks ok.
Click to expand...
We get a new kit every year, and to be honest I like something a bit different. I don't want to see the same kit every single season
 
southamptonblue said:
You say its easily identifiable as a city shirt....I think if the shirt had been posted without badge and sponsor and everyone had 3 guesses which club, you would be the only person on the planet to have City as one of their 3 guesses.( I even doubt you would have guessed City tbh)

Stoke, Bolton etc are copying City kits with their aways??? Really! Then the last thing we should do is have a kit in our colours that looks far more like another teams away kit than our own home kit!
Click to expand...

Not sure what site he linked too, but just been on Footballshirtculture - for both home and away, the majority vote is "Hall of Shame".
 
Blue Mooner said:
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.
Click to expand...

The problem was your first post - yep you like the shirt, but you went on to justify the price and go on about quality etc., - it sounded like the pitch of a QVC salesman to be quite honest.

Interestingly, the point you raise about the blue/navy contrast - it actually works the opposite. A darker colour next to a lighter colour actually washes out the lighter colour, your eye is drawn to the darker... which is why Etihad wanted a dark blue colour for their logo. So in actuality - to the eye - the darker blue makes the sky blue look more "wishy washy", whereas when contrasted with white - the white actually boosts the eyes perception of the skyblue.

Have to say too, that your post about fans 'undermining' the club's efforts... even if was supposed to be a joke - was quite frankly bollocks! Not liking the kit, and letting the club know is in no way a slight on the club, or the great work they've been doing. But also they should be told when they've made a mistake. I've just seen the Rags new kit for example - the shirt design is wank, but at least their sock and colour combination is right... as always!
 
Shaelumstash said:
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.
Click to expand...

Great post. Personally I really hope the club do run more comprehensive survey on this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.