new kit '14-'15

[Cellarite]

I like the away kit :) home kit isn't 2 bad shame about the missing white. The 1 thing that does piss me off is the 3 kits a season which both my kids and myself must have it's £140 per kit for me now and it's beyond a joke should be every 2 years at least.

Why must you?

 

[Gary James]

I don't get as worked up about kits as I used to and I'll be waiting until the kit is properly announced before I decide to like it or not. I do think it's a sign that we are having less to complain about overall (certainly on the pitch) that items like the kit get more attention than in previous years.

I also believe that tradition and identity adapts over time. Ardwick/City once wore white as their main kit, so if we're talking about tradition we should never have moved to blue. Likewise the shade of blue has varied significantly starting with royal blue (and white!) in 1887, Cambridge Blue, Cornflower Blue, Sky Blue, Laser Blue... and on and on.

Today's owners/leaders do seem more interested in ensuring a recognisable City only identity around the world and so I reckon they are more committed than perhaps most to ensuring core identity remains and is then supported by changes that may strengthen this identity worldwide (and with the other City clubs perhaps?).

I have no idea whether white is in or out of our kits, but it should be remembered that Melbourne City (recently rebranded) does include white as a main colour. We should also remember that at times City have avoided white - on occasion the only white elements on City's kit has been the UMBRO logo and (when it was allowed) the SAAB/Philips sponsor's name.

There was a furore in 1968-69 when Malcolm Allison introduced red/black kit - fans strongly objected to it yet now some claim it as the Blues natural away kit (that should be maroon though if we follow tradition!). Some objected to yellow in 1989 because of one result yet it had been a great away kit in the 50s. In the 70s when City (according to the MCFC programme Tony Book) made the decision to wear all-blue (note: this was not because of FA/FL insistence, this was City's choice; alternative shorts could be worn if shorts clashed) no one complained, or at least I've not yet traced any newspaper/published criticism.

I guess what I'm saying most is... let's wait and see. Of course City should (and probably do) always consider history and tradition - and I do think they should always include a fan/historian or both in any plan of this nature (maybe they do but we just don't know ). It's been mentioned that MUFC never changed from white shorts - well, maybe not but they've hardly stuck with red shirts over the last 110 years or so. In the thirties they ditched red completely at one point to wear cherry and white hoops. Also, Liverpool dropped white shorts and developed an all-red kit at a time when they were beginning to find major success across Europe. Although I personally love blue and white City kits I have to admit the change to all-red didn't do Liverpool any harm and if an all-blue City kit brings City the same level of European success as LFC then I'd be delighted.

EDIT: I meant to add - Remember how angry we all got with Umbro in the 90s? We were second fiddle then to Utd in their eyes and we ended up ditching them as a result partly thanks to fan pressure. What I'm saying here is, like with the view that old football was always good, we were often disappointed with the Umbro kits back in the 80s/early 90s. It wasn't always seen positively.

 

[Judge Roughneck]

2 Tees for £20 in the shop. It's the way forward. Support the club whilst still turning your back on those globalised generic fuckdrips at Nike.
Right on.

 

[Shaelumstash]

I don't get as worked up about kits as I used to and I'll be waiting until the kit is properly announced before I decide to like it or not. I do think it's a sign that we are having less to complain about overall (certainly on the pitch) that items like the kit get more attention than in previous years.

I also believe that tradition and identity adapts over time. Ardwick/City once wore white as their main kit, so if we're talking about tradition we should never have moved to blue. Likewise the shade of blue has varied significantly starting with royal blue (and white!) in 1887, Cambridge Blue, Cornflower Blue, Sky Blue, Laser Blue... and on and on.

Today's owners/leaders do seem more interested in ensuring a recognisable City only identity around the world and so I reckon they are more committed than perhaps most to ensuring core identity remains and is then supported by changes that may strengthen this identity worldwide (and with the other City clubs perhaps?).

I have no idea whether white is in or out of our kits, but it should be remembered that Melbourne City (recently rebranded) does include white as a main colour. We should also remember that at times City have avoided white - on occasion the only white elements on City's kit has been the UMBRO logo and (when it was allowed) the SAAB/Philips sponsor's name.

There was a furore in 1968-69 when Malcolm Allison introduced red/black kit - fans strongly objected to it yet now some claim it as the Blues natural away kit (that should be maroon though if we follow tradition!). Some objected to yellow in 1989 because of one result yet it had been a great away kit in the 50s. In the 70s when City (according to the MCFC programme Tony Book) made the decision to wear all-blue (note: this was not because of FA/FL insistence, this was City's choice; alternative shorts could be worn if shorts clashed) no one complained, or at least I've not yet traced any newspaper/published criticism.

I guess what I'm saying most is... let's wait and see. Of course City should (and probably do) always consider history and tradition - and I do think they should always include a fan/historian or both in any plan of this nature (maybe they do but we just don't know ). It's been mentioned that MUFC never changed from white shorts - well, maybe not but they've hardly stuck with red shirts over the last 110 years or so. In the thirties they ditched red completely at one point to wear cherry and white hoops. Also, Liverpool dropped white shorts and developed an all-red kit at a time when they were beginning to find major success across Europe. Although I personally love blue and white City kits I have to admit the change to all-red didn't do Liverpool any harm and if an all-blue City kit brings City the same level of European success as LFC then I'd be delighted.

EDIT: I meant to add - Remember how angry we all got with Umbro in the 90s? We were second fiddle then to Utd in their eyes and we ended up ditching them as a result partly thanks to fan pressure. What I'm saying here is, like with the view that old football was always good, we were often disappointed with the Umbro kits back in the 80s/early 90s. It wasn't always seen positively.

Good post Gary, very informative as usual.

I think saying we have changed colours before and tracing it back to the royal blue worn in the late 1800's is not hugely applicable to this situation though. I'm sure there are very few teams that have had exactly the same colours from the 1800's to now.

However, from the early 1900's Manchester City have worn blue and white. It is very much part of our identity. I appreciate the shade has varied ever so slightly from Cambridge to Sky etc, but for the casual observer, light blue shirts, white shorts and blue socks is Manchester City. That is our identity.

The shade of the Coca-Cola can has altered slightly over the last 50 odd years, but they are absolutely recognised as having red and white as their branding. The shade isn't hugely important, it's the core colours that form the identity.

As you say, perhaps the club / manufacturer do consult with a fan or a historian. But that leaves a big decision about changing our identity too weighted on one person. In this modern age of digital communication it would be very easy for the club to consult with City's core fan base.

If they had bothered to check online forums for the fans reaction to changing to blue shorts a few years ago, they would see that 95% were against it. Whether we wore blue shorts for a few seasons in the late 70s does not override 120 years of wearing blue and white.

With City being so high profile now, it is more important than ever to establish our brand and identity so that it is easily identifiable around the world. Changing the colour of the shorts, socks and trim every season is not helping to do that. It's just indulging a designer to play around with our identity however he sees fit.

I understand your point about Liverpool, but I don't think us changing to an all blue kit and ditching the white is any guarantee of European success just because Liverpool did something similar 40 years ago.

Of course everyone will have a different opinion on what colours we should wear. Some really don't care either way. But there is a significant number who do care about the identity of the club. It would be very easy for the club to engage with the fans on this issue, but again they have chosen not to.

The club have sent out dozens of questionnaire's about a whole host of subjects, but have never asked fans about a change in kit / identity. It would be very simple for them to do so, and I am sure that after analysing the results of that research the club wouldn't so dismissively change our core colours every other season.

Blue and white, they go together.

 

[Kenny Clements Perm]

The following has been sent to the club, I urge other blues to do the same. As I said previously, Everton fans managed to effect change at their club, no reason why we can't.

mcfc@mcfc.co.uk

FAO: The MCFC Marketing Department.

To whom it may concern,

I would like to start by complimenting the club and your department over the last few years for engaging with the fans and listening to our views regarding the match day experience, stadium expansion, City Square, Etihad Campus, and general improvements throughout the club.

The regular questionnaires that you send out give the fans a voice, and while not everyone will share the same view, at least it gives the club an opportunity to hear the supporters opinion.

One area which I feel you have completely neglected to take the fan's view on board however, is the identity of the club.

As you point out on the website, you are the guardians of 130 years of history, and over those 130 years supporters have come to identify the club in a certain way. Firstly, the club is called Manchester City, secondly, it will always play within the boundaries of the City of Manchester, and thirdly, the team plays in blue and white.

So it is with great disappointment that I, and many other life long blues have today found out that next season the club will be playing without any white in the kit for the first time in our entire history.

I could never imagine Barcelona playing in an all blue kit. Or in an all red kit. Barcelona's identity is red and blue, so these two colours are always represented. Manchester City's identity is blue and white, yet next season we will play in all blue, with no white whatsoever. An identity that I, and many other supporters associate with Coventry City and not Manchester City.

Perhaps this was a decision made by Nike which the club had no say in? But if Nike proposed to change our name from Manchester City to something different, or demanded that the club move from it's home in Manchester to another city, would the club accept that?

I strongly urge you to send out a questionnaire to season ticket holders asking for fans view on this so that you can gauge the general opinion. Each supporter will have their own view of course, but given the choice, I would estimate less than 1% would choose to have no white included in the kit.

If less than 1% of fans were in favour of other changes at the club that you have proposed, would you go ahead with them?

From speaking with other City fans I know, and gauging reaction on fans forums, I would estimate the following:

100% of fans want us to wear sky blue shirts.

95% of supporters prefer us wearing white shorts.

There is a rather split view on the colour of socks, I would say roughly 45% prefer navy blue, 45% prefer sky blue, and 10% prefer white.

Given the question: Which colours should be represented in a Manchester City kit?
A. Blue and white B. Blue only. I would be stunned if more than 1% voted for B.

But please do not take my word for it, ask the fans.

I understand the need to change elements of the design of the kit each year for marketing purposes. But Manchester United, Arsenal, Liverpool, Chelsea, Barcelona, Real Madrid etc have kit changes every year, but their core colours stay the same every season. Is Manchester City's identity not as important as those other clubs?

Could you imagine Manchester United playing in red shorts next season? If Nike suggested it, the club would instantly reject it, because they value the identity of the club. Unfortunately, we don't seem to have anyone that is mindful of this at Manchester City.

While I don't expect a reply, one would be much appreciated.

Many thanks,

Top drawer.

I love it. The melodrama. The indignation. The unabashed childishness. The absolute lack of self awareness.

Just like when you refused to renew your season ticket when your Italian hero got the bullet. You demanded answers of the board then, too, I remember, because it made me chortle. Not as much as this one, though, with its fawning united references.

Like the others I still think you're a United fan, rather than the daft blue you paint yourself to be, but part of me wishes you weren't, because you're fucking funny.

Carry on...

I think that's a bit of a shit house reply.

You can really gage a person's true personality when they know they can scurry away from their key pad and not have to physically acknowledge their actions.

He's passionate about the club's colours, so what? What does that warrant you crying like a little pissy pants red?

 

[dario2739]

I don't get as worked up about kits as I used to and I'll be waiting until the kit is properly announced before I decide to like it or not. I do think it's a sign that we are having less to complain about overall (certainly on the pitch) that items like the kit get more attention than in previous years.

I also believe that tradition and identity adapts over time. Ardwick/City once wore white as their main kit, so if we're talking about tradition we should never have moved to blue. Likewise the shade of blue has varied significantly starting with royal blue (and white!) in 1887, Cambridge Blue, Cornflower Blue, Sky Blue, Laser Blue... and on and on.

Today's owners/leaders do seem more interested in ensuring a recognisable City only identity around the world and so I reckon they are more committed than perhaps most to ensuring core identity remains and is then supported by changes that may strengthen this identity worldwide (and with the other City clubs perhaps?).

I have no idea whether white is in or out of our kits, but it should be remembered that Melbourne City (recently rebranded) does include white as a main colour. We should also remember that at times City have avoided white - on occasion the only white elements on City's kit has been the UMBRO logo and (when it was allowed) the SAAB/Philips sponsor's name.

There was a furore in 1968-69 when Malcolm Allison introduced red/black kit - fans strongly objected to it yet now some claim it as the Blues natural away kit (that should be maroon though if we follow tradition!). Some objected to yellow in 1989 because of one result yet it had been a great away kit in the 50s. In the 70s when City (according to the MCFC programme Tony Book) made the decision to wear all-blue (note: this was not because of FA/FL insistence, this was City's choice; alternative shorts could be worn if shorts clashed) no one complained, or at least I've not yet traced any newspaper/published criticism.

I guess what I'm saying most is... let's wait and see. Of course City should (and probably do) always consider history and tradition - and I do think they should always include a fan/historian or both in any plan of this nature (maybe they do but we just don't know ). It's been mentioned that MUFC never changed from white shorts - well, maybe not but they've hardly stuck with red shirts over the last 110 years or so. In the thirties they ditched red completely at one point to wear cherry and white hoops. Also, Liverpool dropped white shorts and developed an all-red kit at a time when they were beginning to find major success across Europe. Although I personally love blue and white City kits I have to admit the change to all-red didn't do Liverpool any harm and if an all-blue City kit brings City the same level of European success as LFC then I'd be delighted.

EDIT: I meant to add - Remember how angry we all got with Umbro in the 90s? We were second fiddle then to Utd in their eyes and we ended up ditching them as a result partly thanks to fan pressure. What I'm saying here is, like with the view that old football was always good, we were often disappointed with the Umbro kits back in the 80s/early 90s. It wasn't always seen positively.

Hi Gary - now we all know you are the fount of all knowledge on City's history – however I do want to pick you up on a couple of points.
As you say Ardwick once wore white shirts... West Gorton famously wore black, but although these are the origins of our club, they are not City! City have always worn sky blue shirts (whatever name it has)
Also you mention the all sky blue, SAAB sponsored kit – well that had white trim... pinstripes in the collar, diamonds round the socks etc. – in fact as far as I can see, white has always been a large part of our strip... only once in 1895/96 has there been no white!
The point is, and my bug bear is, that no other top flight team gets fucked about with their kit like us - the have all hit on a strip (mid 60s) and stuck with it – Dippers All Red, Rags Red/White/Red...etc.
We need to sort this out for good!!!

 

[york away to this!]

I think all would be happy if, with each full kit purchased, you were to receive a free city liveried scooter with the words of blew moon carefully painted on the front...

 

[IanBishopsHaircut]

As you say Ardwick once wore white shirts... West Gorton famously wore black, but although these are the origins of our club, they are not City!

Whilst I appreciate your sentiment this is complete bollocks


St Marks, Ardwick AFC and any previous connotation of our club is still our club and should be treated as such

 

[Shaelumstash]

As you say Ardwick once wore white shirts... West Gorton famously wore black, but although these are the origins of our club, they are not City!

Whilst I appreciate your sentiment this is complete bollocks


St Marks, Ardwick AFC and any previous connotation of our club is still our club and should be treated as such

You're correct in what you say, but we're talking about 130 years ago here. Look at any clubs colours from 130 years ago and very few will reflect what they are identified with today.

City have worn blue and white for every season for 120 years and the fact the club has changed this without consulting the fans is wrong.

 

[Matty]

I don't get as worked up about kits as I used to and I'll be waiting until the kit is properly announced before I decide to like it or not. I do think it's a sign that we are having less to complain about overall (certainly on the pitch) that items like the kit get more attention than in previous years.

I also believe that tradition and identity adapts over time. Ardwick/City once wore white as their main kit, so if we're talking about tradition we should never have moved to blue. Likewise the shade of blue has varied significantly starting with royal blue (and white!) in 1887, Cambridge Blue, Cornflower Blue, Sky Blue, Laser Blue... and on and on.

Today's owners/leaders do seem more interested in ensuring a recognisable City only identity around the world and so I reckon they are more committed than perhaps most to ensuring core identity remains and is then supported by changes that may strengthen this identity worldwide (and with the other City clubs perhaps?).

I have no idea whether white is in or out of our kits, but it should be remembered that Melbourne City (recently rebranded) does include white as a main colour. We should also remember that at times City have avoided white - on occasion the only white elements on City's kit has been the UMBRO logo and (when it was allowed) the SAAB/Philips sponsor's name.

There was a furore in 1968-69 when Malcolm Allison introduced red/black kit - fans strongly objected to it yet now some claim it as the Blues natural away kit (that should be maroon though if we follow tradition!). Some objected to yellow in 1989 because of one result yet it had been a great away kit in the 50s. In the 70s when City (according to the MCFC programme Tony Book) made the decision to wear all-blue (note: this was not because of FA/FL insistence, this was City's choice; alternative shorts could be worn if shorts clashed) no one complained, or at least I've not yet traced any newspaper/published criticism.

I guess what I'm saying most is... let's wait and see. Of course City should (and probably do) always consider history and tradition - and I do think they should always include a fan/historian or both in any plan of this nature (maybe they do but we just don't know ). It's been mentioned that MUFC never changed from white shorts - well, maybe not but they've hardly stuck with red shirts over the last 110 years or so. In the thirties they ditched red completely at one point to wear cherry and white hoops. Also, Liverpool dropped white shorts and developed an all-red kit at a time when they were beginning to find major success across Europe. Although I personally love blue and white City kits I have to admit the change to all-red didn't do Liverpool any harm and if an all-blue City kit brings City the same level of European success as LFC then I'd be delighted.

EDIT: I meant to add - Remember how angry we all got with Umbro in the 90s? We were second fiddle then to Utd in their eyes and we ended up ditching them as a result partly thanks to fan pressure. What I'm saying here is, like with the view that old football was always good, we were often disappointed with the Umbro kits back in the 80s/early 90s. It wasn't always seen positively.

Hi Gary - now we all know you are the fount of all knowledge on City's history – however I do want to pick you up on a couple of points.
As you say Ardwick once wore white shirts... West Gorton famously wore black, but although these are the origins of our club, they are not City! City have always worn sky blue shirts (whatever name it has)
Also you mention the all sky blue, SAAB sponsored kit – well that had white trim... pinstripes in the collar, diamonds round the socks etc. – in fact as far as I can see, white has always been a large part of our strip... only once in 1895/96 has there been no white!
The point is, and my bug bear is, that no other top flight team gets fucked about with their kit like us - the have all hit on a strip (mid 60s) and stuck with it – Dippers All Red, Rags Red/White/Red...etc.
We need to sort this out for good!!!

Cough Cough CARDIFF Cough Cough