new kit '14-'15

[Erling Haaland's Eyebrows]

Should we have a separate topic on the history of the Manchester City kit and leave this for New Kit 14/15

 

[FanchesterCity]

Has to be Number 1 or 4 for me, as counted from left to right.

However, agree....we need to pick one and stick with it.

Shirt: Sky. Blue with WHITE trim
Shorts: White
Socks: ??? (Apparently a cause for heated debate!)

Heated socks???? typical of the modern footballer!

 

[garymj]

Has to be Number 1 or 4 for me, as counted from left to right.

However, agree....we need to pick one and stick with it.

Shirt: Sky. Blue with WHITE trim
Shorts: White
Socks: ??? (Apparently a cause for heated debate!)

I'm with you chicagoblue, makes us look more like er ........ " champions"

 

[SebastianBlue]

Bring back the maroon top socks! ;-)

 

[Shaelumstash]

Should we have a separate topic on the history of the Manchester City kit and leave this for New Kit 14/15

I think you're missing the point. The reason people bring up the kits we've previously worn is because they care about the history and identity of the club. The 14/15 kit will be a huge part of our identity for next season, so a lot of fans want our history to be respected.

 

[Bruun]

Should we have a separate topic on the history of the Manchester City kit and leave this for New Kit 14/15

I think you're missing the point. The reason people bring up the kits we've previously worn is because they care about the history and identity of the club. The 14/15 kit will be a huge part of our identity for next season, so a lot of fans want our history to be respected.

But this thread is for new kits 14-15, and that debate is nothing about new kits, that's about the history of the Manchester City kit, they might discuss how they want the new kit to look like, but it has nothing to do with the rest of the thread.

 

[cfn1963]

is there at least news of an unveiling date?

dont quote me but have read 2 nd week in july somewhere.

It will probably be when we go to the USA again.

As for our kit - keep getting a lot of comments on here "don't care... it's not a fashion show... as long as it's a sky blue shirt!"
Thing is, while some people think it's a trivial matter – it really isn't!
Like it or not, a football club's kit is part of it's brand – arguably it's most important as it's how they are recognised the world over.

Take the illustration below – a simplistic image of a handful of the world's biggest teams. You know who they are without having to be told...

It seems that (for English teams especially) the early sixties was a time when a club defined it's kit – since then have you ever seen Liverpool wear white shorts or socks? Have United ever wore red shirts? Barca have dabbled with differing short/sock colours but their kit is unique enough to never appear different.

Then you come to us... which one are we..?

I think the club needs to define a strip and stick with it... so that when you show a picture like this to anybody around the world they would say with certainty "that's Man City", not "well it could be Lazio or Napoli, or maybe even Coventry!"
We were the original Sky Blue club (as far as I can see) so let's make that proud tradition a strong statement and strong identifiable brand!

Charlton Palace Rotherham Swansea Peterborough Yeovil Grimsby Bournemouth Scunthorpe Southend. Iconic for them.

 

[GeekinGav]

No - but they probably wouldn't say City either... just as likely to say Napoli or Lazio – we SHOULD be immediatley identifiable, we should be the first name that comes to mind. They most probably would say "erm... is it City?", but with the others there would be no doubt.

If even we as City fans can't spot that one of those was Coventry, it means our kit is not as unique as it should be!

Lazio - Sky Blue Shirts, White Shorts, White Socks

No different from us

Are you saying that if we always kept those colours then we would be distinguishable from Lazio, or Napoli even?

I'm saying to the average world football fan no

Our colour scheme is certainly not unique and therefore it's ridiculous to say it needs to be fixed

So long as the shirt is right I couldn't care less

If we wore Sky Blue Shirt, White Shorts and Navy Blue socks – a kit which we traditionally wore – then YES I do believe we would be distinguishable.
If we settled on Sky Blue Shirt, White Shorts and Skyblue socks with a maroon turnover – then YES again... but we need to pick one and stick with if ffs!

Using your argument...

The image on the left, you know which is the Rags – they would never not have black socks for their home kit.
Then on the right us again... two of those could be definitively City, whereas the other is ambiguous... is it City, is it Lazio, is it Napoli – that's my point!

*United have used white socks on their home kits in the Champions League (if we are making points)

but the point of a kit colours is easy to point out a famous club isnt a nailed on formula. the all white one, i thought Leeds United before Real Madrid, all red i thought is that Bayern or Liverpool. and i thought Boca was vertical not horizontal ... so its not guaranteed that "one kit combination" makes a club unique .... especially when every single club on that diagram has changed their "kit combination" .... just like City has.

 

[Shaelumstash]

Should we have a separate topic on the history of the Manchester City kit and leave this for New Kit 14/15

I think you're missing the point. The reason people bring up the kits we've previously worn is because they care about the history and identity of the club. The 14/15 kit will be a huge part of our identity for next season, so a lot of fans want our history to be respected.

But this thread is for new kits 14-15, and that debate is nothing about new kits, that's about the history of the Manchester City kit, they might discuss how they want the new kit to look like, but it has nothing to do with the rest of the thread.

No, because people are saying for the 14-15 kit they want our history to be respected.

 

[panzer1311]

Navy Blue socks my arse

Manchester City should play in


Sky Blue shirts
White shorts
Sky Blue socks , with Maroon top & two white stripes

end of .......

 

[Shaelumstash]

Lazio - Sky Blue Shirts, White Shorts, White Socks

No different from us

Are you saying that if we always kept those colours then we would be distinguishable from Lazio, or Napoli even?

I'm saying to the average world football fan no

Our colour scheme is certainly not unique and therefore it's ridiculous to say it needs to be fixed

So long as the shirt is right I couldn't care less

If we wore Sky Blue Shirt, White Shorts and Navy Blue socks – a kit which we traditionally wore – then YES I do believe we would be distinguishable.
If we settled on Sky Blue Shirt, White Shorts and Skyblue socks with a maroon turnover – then YES again... but we need to pick one and stick with if ffs!

Using your argument...

The image on the left, you know which is the Rags – they would never not have black socks for their home kit.
Then on the right us again... two of those could be definitively City, whereas the other is ambiguous... is it City, is it Lazio, is it Napoli – that's my point!

*United have used white socks on their home kits in the Champions League (if we are making points)

but the point of a kit colours is easy to point out a famous club isnt a nailed on formula. the all white one, i thought Leeds United before Real Madrid, all red i thought is that Bayern or Liverpool. and i thought Boca was vertical not horizontal ... so its not guaranteed that "one kit combination" makes a club unique .... especially when every single club on that diagram has changed their "kit combination" .... just like City has.

Yeh but not many clubs change every year like City do. We have not had the same colour combination for two seasons running since 2004! It's all over the place and it should stop.

 

[GeekinGav]

If we wore Sky Blue Shirt, White Shorts and Navy Blue socks – a kit which we traditionally wore – then YES I do believe we would be distinguishable.
If we settled on Sky Blue Shirt, White Shorts and Skyblue socks with a maroon turnover – then YES again... but we need to pick one and stick with if ffs!

Using your argument...

The image on the left, you know which is the Rags – they would never not have black socks for their home kit.
Then on the right us again... two of those could be definitively City, whereas the other is ambiguous... is it City, is it Lazio, is it Napoli – that's my point!

*United have used white socks on their home kits in the Champions League (if we are making points)

but the point of a kit colours is easy to point out a famous club isnt a nailed on formula. the all white one, i thought Leeds United before Real Madrid, all red i thought is that Bayern or Liverpool. and i thought Boca was vertical not horizontal ... so its not guaranteed that "one kit combination" makes a club unique .... especially when every single club on that diagram has changed their "kit combination" .... just like City has.

Yeh but not many clubs change every year like City do. We have not had the same colour combination for two seasons running since 2004! It's all over the place and it should stop.

welcome to the world of commercialism. We have only changed the colour combination so we can bring out a new kit.

Everybody does it, especially if a club is releasing a new home kit once a season.

 

[Shaelumstash]

*United have used white socks on their home kits in the Champions League (if we are making points)

but the point of a kit colours is easy to point out a famous club isnt a nailed on formula. the all white one, i thought Leeds United before Real Madrid, all red i thought is that Bayern or Liverpool. and i thought Boca was vertical not horizontal ... so its not guaranteed that "one kit combination" makes a club unique .... especially when every single club on that diagram has changed their "kit combination" .... just like City has.

Yeh but not many clubs change every year like City do. We have not had the same colour combination for two seasons running since 2004! It's all over the place and it should stop.

welcome to the world of commercialism. We have only changed the colour combination so we can bring out a new kit.

Everybody does it, especially if a club is releasing a new home kit once a season.

No I don't mean change the actual kit, I understand that has to happen every year for commercial reasons, no problem with that. I mean we have changed the colour of our shorts or socks every season for the last 10 years. That's not good for commercialisation at all, because our identity is changing every year, there is no consistency.

The Shite change their kit every year, but the shirts are always red, the shorts are always white, and the socks are always black. That is their unmistakable identity. Same with Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal, Madrid, Milan, Inter, Juve etc.
The kit changes, the colours to not.

Whereas with City the shorts are white one year, then blue, next season it's hooped socks, then white, then blue, then white again, it's all over the place! We're like the kid in P.E. that has to get his kit out of the lost property bin.

 

[Ban-jani]

Has to be Number 1 or 4 for me, as counted from left to right.

However, agree....we need to pick one and stick with it.

Shirt: Sky. Blue with WHITE trim
Shorts: White
Socks: ??? (Apparently a cause for heated debate!)

2 & 3 for me.

 

[invisableman]

I think people round the world just look at the corner of the screen and see the initials mc or manc in the score section and work out that it might be us playing, even if the socks were pink and yellow.

Personally I quite like the change from one year to the next, although sky blue socks with maroon turnover looked class and historical in 2010/11. I think we are over due some navy blue ones though and to bring this back on topic, next season I'd like to see sky blue shirt with navy blue sponsor details, white shorts with sky blue trim down the side, navy blue socks with sky blue detail.

I'd like to see the return of a kit lasting two seasons but I'm an 80's kid.

The only one I can't stand is the black trim detail, it looks shit and hooped socks are for rugby.

 

[kun]

This is it for me.

 

[GeekinGav]

The Shite change their kit every year, but the shirts are always red, the shorts are always white, and the socks are always black. That is their unmistakable identity. Same with Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal, Madrid, Milan, Inter, Juve etc.
The kit changes, the colours to not.

Milan, Inter and Juve are bad examples, they have mixed theirs up. Chelsea, Madrid, Arsenal, PSG, Barca etc have all added/changed secondary and tertiary colours in recent times.

City havent done anything different. What we have done is stuck to our home kit colours, Sky Blue, Navy(Dark Blue), White and Maroon.

if you are hoping for one combination (ie. Sky Blue Shirt with White trim, white shorts, Sky blue socks) year in, year out ..... you are going to be disappointed .... especially with Nike.

 

[Rösler von Stretfordbömber]

This is it for me.

That one is class - but for me I'd replace the Maroon with Navy.

Just one guy's opinion, and ONLY because there are too many maroon/sky blue combos out there (three in the PL other than us next year.)

Obviously the maroon links directly to the great teams of the late 60s/early 70s. But if I HAD to incorporate an accent colour other than blue and white I'd go with navy. Far more years of our history with that.

Again, just a minor issue to me. Give me the sky blue shirt and I'm happy. But I do agree with the posters above as far as sticking more to a set identity in general as far as shorts and socks.

 

[Oyster28catcher]

There's just not enough cotton in the kit for me.

 

[drthingy]

There's just not enough cotton in the kit for me.

Tony?