Next seasons home shirt (allegedly)

[FanchesterCity]

I don't really care what we play in. It's still City and 3 points makes me happy.

 

[johnmc]

No, because even though it was a darker shade of blue it was white shorts with dark socks

Our shade of light blue has always varied. I'm in my 50's and have witnessed countless changes from the early 1970's

We play in light blue shirts and white shorts. That is our identity.
For your information I despise white socks and there are only three reasons to have these, a team has white shirts, is Brazil or is Chelsea

Oh right sorry. Got the wrong end of the stick. So you wouldn't be upset at the shirt as much if the shorts and socks combo was correct.

 

[dickie davies]

I care about the kit because I'm a geek and wish we'd stick to sky blue shirts, white shorts.

Sat at the stadium confused about who I'm watching would be a hysterical reaction though.

Of course you are right, but we have to really make a stand on this or the next kit could very possibly be blue and white stripes

 

[johnmc]

The last time I bought the current season's kit was the first umbro one, towards the end of the season on a Monday night against Wigan. I bought it because it was in the two t-shirts for £20 deal and I thought it was a good deal for a tenner.

I get them passed on by my Dad the season after they expire now. I also buy the shirt for my eldest and the kit for my younger lad. Why do you ask?

Just wondering if the design affects your purchase or not. Nothing more interesting than that I'm afraid.

I stopped buying them at 14/15 as I thought it was uncool to "wear colours". Now I'm cracking on a bit I'm not so concerned about trying (and failing) to be cool so don't mind the idea of wearing one. Bit for the cost I'd rather spend £50/60 on something I'd wear a bit more often than I would a football shirt.

I did like that two tonal navy blue Nike one a year or so back though.

 

[jimharri]

No is the simple answer it will be awful even if we do a quadrouple, ,if we did it would be remembered because of it, just like the gillingham kit is, now that was an awful kit and no one wants a kit like that again, but it will always have place. and this would, but it should still never be repeated as an idea again.

And the 11/12 (aka "Aguerrrrooooo") kit. That was a bloody horrible kit.

 

[dickie davies]

Oh right sorry. Got the wrong end of the stick. So you wouldn't be upset at the shirt as much if the shorts and socks combo was correct.

When I was a kid we always played in blue shirts with white collar and cuffs and the shade of blue was darker on some than others
First all blue kit was in the 70's and even as a 13/14 year old, I thought it was wank
Dark blue on the shirts seems to have been introduced since shirt sponsors. The first I recall being "Brother" in the mid 80's
If you can find the historical kits image, you can see how the shirt shade has lightened and darkened
The sleeves on our home shirt should be the same as the torso, or maybe just slightly different, not a totally different colour

Shorts, as the vast, vast majority will tell you, should be white. They can be plain, have sky piping, navy piping, sky and navy piping, but they must be a minimum of 95% white

As for the Nike template. I think that the England kit looks unbelievably terrible, yet PSG's new kit looks really smart, which proves Nike can do things correctly without much effort

 

[Cellarite]

Just wondering if the design affects your purchase or not. Nothing more interesting than that I'm afraid.

I stopped buying them at 14/15 as I thought it was uncool to "wear colours". Now I'm cracking on a bit I'm not so concerned about trying (and failing) to be cool so don't mind the idea of wearing one. Bit for the cost I'd rather spend £50/60 on something I'd wear a bit more often than I would a football shirt.

I did like that two tonal navy blue Nike one a year or so back though.

Pretty much the same as me. I stopped buying them when I left school - apart from the kappa ones which I thought were as cool as fuck - but have always been bought them as presents from family, in-laws and my kids.

Now as I say I get them for free although a year late. I actually think this new shirt is smart and unique and planning to take the boys to Barcelona whilst in Spain in August, am quite tempted.

Just hate the shorts and socks from a geek point of view.

 

[ROCKET80]

As long as the main colour of the home shirt is light blue (or a shade of it) I couldn't care less about the colour of the shorts or socks.

When I grew up City was alway blue top, white shorts, navy socks and the away kit was burgundy but I like that we can experiment with the kits, some will work and some wont. No big deal as it changes the following year.

FWIW I think the kappa home kit was our most 'iconic' in that everyone knew it was City and was purchased by non City supporting footy fans as it was just an amazing football shirt.

 

[Dewey6]

Ok. I'm alone in the kit doesn't affect results camp.

Just thought the reaction would be "shit kit not buying" rather than this uproar.

It's more to do with lack of respect shown by Nike. We've been putting up with substandard kits since they replaced Umbro but this latest effort, throwing some different blues onto their main template just stinks.

We show pride in the kit and colours and that needs to be respected.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Thank the gods!!! (And thank you Chicago Blue - how's Wrigleyville these days?)
Allowing me to elucidate on my initial outburst, that design displays all the hallmarks of the cheap no-name bog-standard t-shirts you get at the market. Good for wearing under something else, not as a top to be particularly proud of.
Aside from not using our proper colours, tonal is notoriously difficult for anyone to pull off and on sports kits usually results in making the wearer look soft, bland and one-dimensionally weak.

I think I've alluded in previous years to the effect that too tonal/all same colour has on making you look like you're wearing pyjamas - not the most dynamic styling and not one likely to fly off the shelves unless you really want that uncooth, sweaty loser look.
(Apologies to uncooth, sweaty, pyjama-wearing losers out there. We all have our part to play in the world, fortunately yours isn't getting global exposure on behalf of City - well not unless Nike press ahead with project blueballsup).

Sorry to say, the Sterling pic IS a mock up but that kit IS the kit...albeit with a better match of the shirt and shorts colors. The kit is the new basic Nike kit, with City's new "third colour" (Dark blue) as the sleeve colour. I believe I have a City training top from a season ago that is very similar to this, so I have to say I like it. However, I will defo need to see a player in it to get a good idea of the actual colours of both the sky and dark blue.

As for WrigleyVille, it is hopping these days, as the Cubs are killing it. Unlike the South Siders (White Sox) where it appears to be the local residents who are killing it! Almost 70 shootings this past weekend...worse than friggin' Iraq! And before anyone gets on their anti-gun high horse, guns are essentially illegal in the City of Chicago! Sadly, the criminals and gangs don't appear to care, so the law-abiding citizens are left shitting themselves on the floor when the bullets start flying!

Lastly, if anyone but me cares, sky blue shirt (trim is meaningful to how it looks), white shorts,Sky blue and white socks/white and Sky blue socks. Personally, I think blue socks with white trim is "City" to me, but that might be my age and when I started watching City. I'm 52 and started when we had the maroon sock tops, but lie was the main colour. However, I DO like white socks with blue trim! Plus, white socks has the added advantage of making other clubs change their socks when they play at the Etihad, as socks can't be the same colour!