Next seasons home shirt (allegedly)
- Thread starter g180aj
- Start date
- Status
You don't say
I honestly don't think some people on here would be arsed
There has been a photo leak... and nobody likes it!
I haven't read the whole thread, but didn't we see a similar thing last summer with the hooped training kit, that was mooted to be the away kit? I'm clinging to this hope.
Otherwise...Ye Gods.
Shaelumstash
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 30 Apr 2009
- Messages
- 8,254
I know you're insistent on the Navy thing mate, but I don't agree.
Doesn't sit right with me. And as Garry James said, many of those examples of Navy socks come from black and white photos where they may well have been black.
Liverpool used to wear white shorts not even that long ago but from about the 60s on they stuck with a colour scheme of all red.
We need to do something similar IMO, not point to examples where we wore a particular colour scheme and then say it's part of our core colours.
We can agree to disagree like, but I think we should always try and aim for that look we had in the 60s, that's a classic.
That's the image that comes to mind for me, when I think of a 'proper' Manchester City kit.
If I had my way we'd stick to that template every season.
I think a lot of this can be down to the emotional attachment of when you first started watching City.
For a lot of fans who grew up watching City in the 60s, they consider the sky blue socks with maroon turnover's as the "proper" City kit.
The reality is though, during our 122 year history of being called Manchester City and playing in blue, we've only worn those socks for 6 years. 1967-72 and in 2011.
They might well be your preferred colour, your favourite, but it's a bit harder to argue that it's the "proper" City kit.
I've got a huge amount of respect for @Gary James , I wouldn't dare question his knowledge on the subject. When I have seen him post on this issue, he's said in some of the earliest seasons (early 1900s) it's hard to tell with any clarity exactly what kit was worn and why.
But what we can say with absolute certainty that City have worn navy blue socks for more seasons than they have worn sky blue with a maroon turnover.
The best evidence we have shows that City wore sky blue shirts, white shorts and navy blue socks pretty much solidly from inception until the 1950s. And again for periods in the 80s, 90s and 00s.
People suggesting navy blue is a new gimmick brought through by Nike or the current owners are actually very much mistaken.
Earliest Picture I can find 1898
First FA Cup win 1904
First League title win in 1936/37
1980s and 90s
So, going back to my original point, I grew up watching City in the 80s, so to me the "proper" City kit is sky blue shirts, white shorts and navy blue socks.
Looking back through history, this is also the combination we have worn most. It is the colours we wore in our first season, the colours we won our first trophy in, and they colours we won our first league title in.
It is also a combination that is completely unique to Manchester City. No other team in the world wears that combination as far as I'm aware.
For me the kit should represent our identity. If we can have an identity that represents our past, and is completely unique to us and makes us stand apart from every other club in the world, that sounds like the perfect solution to me.
If people don't like navy blue sock due to personal taste, that's of course entirely up to them. But people saying it's not a "City colour" are misinformed.
(Oh - but I'd be happy with sky blue with maroon turnovers too, that would be my second choice ;-)
IanBishopsHaircut
Well-Known Member
I think a lot of this can be down to the emotional attachment of when you first started watching City.
For a lot of fans who grew up watching City in the 60s, they consider the sky blue socks with maroon turnover's as the "proper" City kit.
The reality is though, during our 122 year history of being called Manchester City and playing in blue, we've only worn those socks for 6 years. 1967-72 and in 2011.
They might well be your preferred colour, your favourite, but it's a bit harder to argue that it's the "proper" City kit.
I've got a huge amount of respect for @Gary James , I wouldn't dare question his knowledge on the subject. When I have seen him post on this issue, he's said in some of the earliest seasons (early 1900s) it's hard to tell with any clarity exactly what kit was worn and why.
But what we can say with absolute certainty that City have worn navy blue socks for more seasons than they have worn sky blue with a maroon turnover.
The best evidence we have shows that City wore sky blue shirts, white shorts and navy blue socks pretty much solidly from inception until the 1950s. And again for periods in the 80s, 90s and 00s.
People suggesting navy blue is a new gimmick brought through by Nike or the current owners are actually very much mistaken.
Earliest Picture I can find 1898
First FA Cup win 1904
First League title win in 1936/37
1980s and 90s
So, going back to my original point, I grew up watching City in the 80s, so to me the "proper" City kit is sky blue shirts, white shorts and navy blue socks.
Looking back through history, this is also the combination we have worn most. It is the colours we wore in our first season, the colours we won our first trophy in, and they colours we won our first league title in.
It is also a combination that is completely unique to Manchester City. No other team in the world wears that combination as far as I'm aware.
For me the kit should represent our identity. If we can have an identity that represents our past, and is completely unique to us and makes us stand apart from every other club in the world, that sounds like the perfect solution to me.
If people don't like navy blue sock due to personal taste, that's of course entirely up to them. But people saying it's not a "City colour" are misinformed.
(Oh - but I'd be happy with sky blue with maroon turnovers too, that would be my second choice ;-)
Agreed and I think most City fans in their 40s would agree too...that Lakey kit is Manchester City to me
feedmpenzaandhewillscore
Well-Known Member
I think a lot of this can be down to the emotional attachment of when you first started watching City.
For a lot of fans who grew up watching City in the 60s, they consider the sky blue socks with maroon turnover's as the "proper" City kit.
The reality is though, during our 122 year history of being called Manchester City and playing in blue, we've only worn those socks for 6 years. 1967-72 and in 2011.
They might well be your preferred colour, your favourite, but it's a bit harder to argue that it's the "proper" City kit.
I've got a huge amount of respect for @Gary James , I wouldn't dare question his knowledge on the subject. When I have seen him post on this issue, he's said in some of the earliest seasons (early 1900s) it's hard to tell with any clarity exactly what kit was worn and why.
But what we can say with absolute certainty that City have worn navy blue socks for more seasons than they have worn sky blue with a maroon turnover.
The best evidence we have shows that City wore sky blue shirts, white shorts and navy blue socks pretty much solidly from inception until the 1950s. And again for periods in the 80s, 90s and 00s.
People suggesting navy blue is a new gimmick brought through by Nike or the current owners are actually very much mistaken.
Earliest Picture I can find 1898
First FA Cup win 1904
First League title win in 1936/37
1980s and 90s
So, going back to my original point, I grew up watching City in the 80s, so to me the "proper" City kit is sky blue shirts, white shorts and navy blue socks.
Looking back through history, this is also the combination we have worn most. It is the colours we wore in our first season, the colours we won our first trophy in, and they colours we won our first league title in.
It is also a combination that is completely unique to Manchester City. No other team in the world wears that combination as far as I'm aware.
For me the kit should represent our identity. If we can have an identity that represents our past, and is completely unique to us and makes us stand apart from every other club in the world, that sounds like the perfect solution to me.
If people don't like navy blue sock due to personal taste, that's of course entirely up to them. But people saying it's not a "City colour" are misinformed.
(Oh - but I'd be happy with sky blue with maroon turnovers too, that would be my second choice ;-)
You never see these companies messing around with the rags kit, could you imagine the uproar from the rag hordes if they went for red shirts and red shorts? They'd be burning Milton Keynes down in protest. Why they let Nike have free reign on what goes on with our home kit is baffling, the previous all blue one was unpopular, this one looks like some major league soccer outfit.
SheeshKebab
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 441
Right I've seen enough of that home kit now. Bring on the away kits!
Blue Feather
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 10 May 2013
- Messages
- 1,529
While I agree with the points made by Shaelumstash, (I liked the Sheff Wed. 1970 kit but as they historically played in stripes their fan base may not have thought much of it), in essence we are identified as 'traditionally' all light blue shirts and white trim with white shorts......and personally I just think light blue socks looks right with those. Hope nobody buys this new shirt and the club do something about it before it happens as I think it is a complete piss take. Blue shirts and white shorts should be our identity and I seriously do not know what the F**k is going on and why anyone is thinking that this is a good idea...
- Status