FanchesterCity
Well-Known Member
I don't really care what we play in. It's still City and 3 points makes me happy.
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
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.
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?
And the 11/12 (aka "Aguerrrrooooo") kit. That was a bloody horrible kit.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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.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).