Next seasons home shirt (allegedly)

[HelloCity]

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 ;-)

As mentioned to you previously, Gary has confirmed that there is no proof that the socks were navy in the early days. It's highly likely they were black as these would just be the cheapest long pair of socks they could get hold off. Other teams would wear also wear a generic sock pair during this period such as Liverpool and Everton.

 

[Shaelumstash]

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...

I think the slight difference mate is that Sheffield Wednesday wore that 1970s kit for 6 or 7 years. We've worn navy blue socks for over 70 years, the most in our history.

Your point about white shorts is absolutely spot on though.

Sky blue shirts and white shorts should be absolutely fixed and non-negotiable.

The socks, everyone has their favourites. I don't mind them alternating between navy and sky blue as we've worn both many times in our history. Personally don't like white socks, looks like Lazio or another continental team to me.

 

[PragueBlue]

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.

There's a good reason nobody else wears it. It doesn't match or look very good.

Sky blue socks may not have been worn as much, nor be as unique, but look a lot better (with or without the maroon) with a sky blue shirt and white shorts IMO.

 

[Shaelumstash]

As mentioned to you previously, Gary has confirmed that there is no proof that the socks were navy in the early days. It's highly likely they were black as these would just be the cheapest long pair of socks they could get hold off. Other teams would wear also wear a generic sock pair during this period such as Liverpool and Everton.

As mentioned in my post previously, Gary James has posted about the early 1900s and said it's impossible to tell whether we wore navy, black or whatever.

But if you look on the historical football kits site, you'll see that from 1920/21 there are at least 7 difference sources, including Gary James, that say we wore sky blue shirts, white shorts and navy blue socks.

The reasons why we wore them are largely irrelevant. It's uninformed at best, deliberately misleading at worst to claim we would have worn sky blue socks from 1894 until 1950 if only they had been available to us.

We'll never know. But what we do know, is that we have worn navy blue socks for a significant period of our history, no matter how inconvenient that might be for some.

 

[garymj]

We stopped wearing navy socks in 1951,then started again in 1987 to 93 then for 3 or 4 years in the 90s, and we haven't wore them for 16 years now. light blue and white is the Maine colour for me ,and I've been going since the late 60s. Next year it will be navy and blue stripes, or worse you watch.

 

[HelloCity]

As mentioned in my post previously, Gary James has posted about the early 1900s and said it's impossible to tell whether we wore navy, black or whatever.

But if you look on the historical football kits site, you'll see that from 1920/21 there are at least 7 difference sources, including Gary James, that say we wore sky blue shirts, white shorts and navy blue socks.

The reasons why we wore them are largely irrelevant. It's uninformed at best, deliberately misleading at worst to claim we would have worn sky blue socks from 1894 until 1950 if only they had been available to us.

We'll never know. But what we do know, is that we have worn navy blue socks for a significant period of our history, no matter how inconvenient that might be for some.

None of it is confirmed. Most is just educated guesses based on what we wore years later. Gary has confirmed that even he doesn't know for sure.

Seems likely they were black based on what other clubs were wearing and the availability at the time.

Personally happy for the socks to alternate between blue, white and navy, with the shirt all blue and the shorts being white.

 

[urban genie]

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 ;-)

I agree I grew up with navy socks as a staple of the kit, and to me theyshould be our sock colour of choice along with sky blue with white turnovers on either shade.

But navy is in no way our 3rd colour, maroon is, it as our away colour (with gold or white trim) from the late 20's onwards until mal decided to change it. But it has never left the club schemes, being reused again as an away, on merchandise, fans flags, etc.

I am not saying It should be on the home kit, but it needs to be broughy back in the fold properly again.

white socks are a big no for me

 

[Shaelumstash]

There's a good reason nobody else wears it. It doesn't match or look very good.

Sky blue socks may not have been worn as much, nor be as unique, but look a lot better (with or without the maroon) with a sky blue shirt and white shorts IMO.

You don't think this "matches or looks very good"?

I respectfully disagree.

To me it matches perfectly, looks perfectly co-ordinated and looks like it has been created from scratch specifically for Manchester City and not for anyone else.

As I've said before, I'd be more than happy with sky blue shirt, white shorts and sky blue socks. That is still City to me. But navy blue socks would be my first choice.

 

[Petrovs left peg]

Like me (in my 40's) you have an emotional attachment to the kit that saw us batter united 5-1

 

[Shaelumstash]

None of it is confirmed. Most is just educated guesses based on what we wore years later. Gary has confirmed that even he doesn't know for sure.

Seems likely they were black based on what other clubs were wearing and the availability at the time.

Personally happy for the socks to alternate between blue, white and navy, with the shirt all blue and the shorts being white.

Yes mate, in the early 1900s it's hard for Gary or anyone else to tell for sure.

The difference with the 1920s, 30s and 40s is mate that people are still alive that saw them during that period.

It's not open to debate or lost to history, it's just a fact that we wore navy blue socks during this period.