Gary James said:
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!!!
