new kit '14-'15

[MihaiCity]

Apologies if mentioned elsewhere in this thread, but are City ditching Nike?.....I see NYFC are going to be supplied by Adidas

If i'm not wrong MLS have adidas at their main kit supplier...all the teams wear adidas down there

 

[Dunne's own goal]

Apologies if mentioned elsewhere in this thread, but are City ditching Nike?.....I see NYFC are going to be supplied by Adidas

No. Adidas supplies kits to all MLS teams. contract with the league (not the clubs) iirc

 

[Shaelumstash]

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!

Brilliant post, this completely sums up my view. I've not worn a football shirt since I was 7, I don't really care about how it looks on me. The reason I'm arsed, is because a teams kit is it's identity. Probably even more so than it's badge. When you flick over the channel, you can tell instantly if it's Barca, Arsenal, The Shite, Liverpool, Milan etc instantly because of their kit.

I was flicking though the channels the other day and I thought I can't remember Coventry ever playing at the new Wembley. The game was City vs United in the Charity Shield from a couple of years ago when we had the blue shorts. I'm a City fan, always have been, and I didn't recognise my own team because some nob head with a beard at Umbro decided to mess with our identity.

City should have blue shirts, white shorts, navy socks for me. It's our traditional colours for the vast majority of our history for one, and for two no other team in the world plays in those colours, it is completely unique to Manchester City.

As I have stated before, I've got a friend who worked at Umbro at the time they did our kit. I stressed to him how great it would be to bring back white shorts and navy socks. He put it to the head designer who then spoke with the club about it, and the club were not in favour of navy blue socks.

No idea who Umbro would have spoken to, maybe someone in marketing, maybe Garry Cook, possibly even Bernard Halford, I'm not sure. But whoever has an influence on these decisions, I hope they read the post above with the image of the iconic club kits, and they recognise that City should stick to colours that are both part of our history, and completely unique to the club.

 

[Sheikh Rattle n Roll]

Apologies if mentioned elsewhere in this thread, but are City ditching Nike?.....I see NYFC are going to be supplied by Adidas

Adidas supplies all MLS teams

Ah, ta very much

 

[Matty]

Apologies if mentioned elsewhere in this thread, but are City ditching Nike?.....I see NYFC are going to be supplied by Adidas

No. Adidas supplies kits to all MLS teams. contract with the league (not the clubs) iirc

Something I'm sure the new owners of NYCFC will be taking a very close look at in the future if they can. I'd imagine that NYCFC could probably demand more from a kit manufacturer, based on market coverage, than, say, Real Salt Lake, or Sporting Kansas City.

 

[SebastianBlue]

Apologies if mentioned elsewhere in this thread, but are City ditching Nike?.....I see NYFC are going to be supplied by Adidas

No.

Adidas has a long-term contract to provide kit, apparel, and equipment to all MLS teams.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

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!

I for one have not really cared whether we have white shorts or sky blue, nor black trim v. white on the shirts. I prefer white shorts/white trim aesthetically, but I'm not arsed if it changes year-to-year. I've always liked the hooped socks as well.

Having said that, I very much like your point about branding, and find myself agreeing that consistency in the strip makes sense from a long-term perspective. Good post.

 

[6one]

All those going on about navy:

Why didn't you sing "so and so's blue and navy army"?

 

[jimbo101]

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...

Good post, but why is there a Wimbledon kit in there?

 

[dario2739]

All those going on about navy:

Why didn't you sing "so and so's blue and navy army"?

Cos last time I checked, navy is a shade of blue!

 

[SebastianBlue]

All those going on about navy:

Why didn't you sing "so and so's blue and navy army"?

Cos last time I checked, navy is a shade of blue!

And/or a very large collection of military nautical vessels.

 

[Bruun]

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...

Good post, but why is there a Wimbledon kit in there?

I love the Boca Juniors one!

 

[york away to this!]

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...

Good post, but why is there a Wimbledon kit in there?

I love the Boca Juniors one!

leeds are hardly the global superpower they once were...

 

[Rorz88]

Good post, but why is there a Wimbledon kit in there?

I love the Boca Juniors one!

leeds are hardly the global superpower they once were...

At least our favourite away kit made an appearance ;)

 

[nmc]

Is the Liverpool kit a onsie?

 

[Deleted member 58678]

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!

Third one in SKY-WHITE-NAVY is the one that should be MCFC.

They're the three colours we've had more than any other in our history. No other team in the world has that combo as far as i know. It has a bit of something individual like Chelsea do with their white socks and United do with their black; you look at them and you see Chelsea/United...you look at us with our ever changing combos in recent years and i see Coventry, Racing(Argentina), Zenit, Celta, Lazio, Napoli...when for 75 years of our 120 year history as MCFC we have been SKY-WHITE-NAVY and when i see that combo in those pics above it just says Manchester City FC to me more than any of the others.

 

[Shaelumstash]

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!

Third one in SKY-WHITE-NAVY is the one that should be MCFC.

They're the three colours we've had more than any other in our history. No other team in the world has that combo as far as i know. It has a bit of something individual like Chelsea do with their white socks and United do with their black; you look at them and you see Chelsea/United...you look at us with our ever changing combos in recent years and i see Coventry, Racing(Argentina), Zenit, Celta, Lazio, Napoli...when for 75 years of our 120 year history as MCFC we have been SKY-WHITE-NAVY and when i see that combo in those pics above it just says Manchester City FC to me more than any of the others.

Is the right answer.

 

[garymj]

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!

Third one in SKY-WHITE-NAVY is the one that should be MCFC.

They're the three colours we've had more than any other in our history. No other team in the world has that combo as far as i know. It has a bit of something individual like Chelsea do with their white socks and United do with their black; you look at them and you see Chelsea/United...you look at us with our ever changing combos in recent years and i see Coventry, Racing(Argentina), Zenit, Celta, Lazio, Napoli...when for 75 years of our 120 year history as MCFC we have been SKY-WHITE-NAVY and when i see that combo in those pics above it just says Manchester City FC to me more than any of the others.

Is the right answer.

According to historical football kits , nearly every club had dark socks up to the 1930s and beyond,including Chelsea, both liverpool sides, and arsenal. Coventry only went sky blue in the 60s. so light blue and white for me thank you.

 

[urban genie]

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...

Sky Blue and white with navy shorts for me

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!

Third one in SKY-WHITE-NAVY is the one that should be MCFC.

They're the three colours we've had more than any other in our history. No other team in the world has that combo as far as i know. It has a bit of something individual like Chelsea do with their white socks and United do with their black; you look at them and you see Chelsea/United...you look at us with our ever changing combos in recent years and i see Coventry, Racing(Argentina), Zenit, Celta, Lazio, Napoli...when for 75 years of our 120 year history as MCFC we have been SKY-WHITE-NAVY and when i see that combo in those pics above it just says Manchester City FC to me more than any of the others.

Is the right answer.

I agree this kit was one of my favourites as was the one after even though it had a navy trim collar

 

[ChicagoBlue]

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!)