new kit '14-'15

[M14Exile]

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 .......

This ^^^^^ I'm definitely in the, maroon topped socks with two whits stripes camp.
Reminds me of my childhood growing up watching the great 60's/70's sides the second most successful period in our istree.

 

[Falastur]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but basically what everyone just wants to see is the kit combination they saw being worn when they were growing up. It's the same as the club badge argument - the older guys all like the round badge, most of the young ones think it looks outdated and not recognisable enough. Thing is, unless we initiate some kind of fan purge so only those in a specifically-defined age band are allowed to survive the cull, you will never be able to pick an option which pleases everyone.

I'm still of the opinion that clubs who play in red have a need to have more uniform (no pun intended) kits as there are so many red kits to distinguish themselves from. As long as we play in sky blue shirts and white shorts then we could wear neon yellow socks with purple and green flashing LEDs all over them and it would still be City to me.

 

[Dubai Blue]

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.

Why? They do it for United every year. They change their kits every year but they still get a version of white shorts and black socks every single time.

I'm with those who say City should pick a combo and stick with it.

Any of those would do for me. But preferably the middle one.

 

[bluejon]

does anyone know if the rumours about the away kit featuring a picture of platini with the word "****" emblazoned in sky blue across his face are true?

 

[levets]

Didn't read my post properly did you?
I said that show that image to people all around the world and ask who they think every kit is... do you think somebody in Asia would say - "is that Notts County?" No –

You mean like if somebody in Asia would say "is that Coventry City?"

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!

even we as City fans can't spot that one of those was Coventry
========
Most City fans wouldn't recognise that as Coventry... as they haven't played in that for years..

Looks like our kit from Last year with blue shorts... :-)

 

[levets]

Remember utd wearing red socks all thru the 60s, don't think they went back to black till the the mid 70s. I think city should just play in light blue and white and nothing else.

UTD wore red socks from 1962 until 1971... and had worn them previously...

Liverpool wore white shorts in the 1960's...

 

[Zubrman]

Maybe we should adopt Melbourne Heart's colours as they are not being allowed to change to sky blue. Then we will have the corporate brand image we desire. (And NYCFC fans won't mind changing as they haven't even started yet.)

 

[garymj]

If you google "historical foot ball kits" you can look at all the clubs kits, ( if you have got nowt better to do) you will see all clubs chop and change kits, Liverpool started out in city blue, and even wore black socks like utd for a few years.

 

[dario2739]

If you google "historical foot ball kits" you can look at all the clubs kits, ( if you have got nowt better to do) you will see all clubs chop and change kits, Liverpool started out in city blue, and even wore black socks like utd for a few years.

Yep, said all that in my post – but if look, there's a period in the early to mid 60s where the top English teams found their identity and settled on it.
From 1965 Liverpool have worn all red – never once deviating, and you can guarantee they wouldn't dream of doing it now!
United have pretty much had red shirts, white shorts and black socks from the outset, briefly dabbling with red or white socks – but from 1971 they have worn black socks continuously – and, again (apart from the exceptional circumstance of the CL) you can guarantee that they would not change the colour.
City, however, haven't settled on an identity, other than we wear sky blue – and we even f*cked that up with the lazer blue in the 90s!

 

[Cellarite]

If you google "historical foot ball kits" you can look at all the clubs kits, ( if you have got nowt better to do) you will see all clubs chop and change kits, Liverpool started out in city blue, and even wore black socks like utd for a few years.

Yep, said all that in my post – but if look, there's a period in the early to mid 60s where the top English teams found their identity and settled on it.
From 1965 Liverpool have worn all red – never once deviating, and you can guarantee they wouldn't dream of doing it now!
United have pretty much had red shirts, white shorts and black socks from the outset, briefly dabbling with red or white socks – but from 1971 they have worn black socks continuously – and, again (apart from the exceptional circumstance of the CL) you can guarantee that they would not change the colour.
City, however, haven't settled on an identity, other than we wear sky blue – and we even f*cked that up with the lazer blue in the 90s!

Yes, yes and yes again.

Then you get the loons who claim Arsenal don't stick to their colours because they changed for one season to celebrate their centenary or leaving Highbury or something.

The most iconic kits in football are the ones that stay the same through the years as mentioned on that fantastic picture posted a couple of pages back.

Sky blue shirts, white shorts, navy blue socks. Simple as that.