Jump to content
IGNORED

O'Neills - New Kit Supplier (Confirmed)

Guest

By Guest
in Football Chat

 Share

Recommended Posts

Street red

Street red

Posted
Posted
39 minutes ago, Ian M said:

Are we trying to be a bit Man City and dump the badge off a kit?

 

The thing is, everyone says how terrible that Man City kit is....but at least you know it's Man City, cos it literally says it in huge letters!

 

Plus they still have their crest woven into the front of the kit...

 

3rd-kit-gall-jack.jpg

But it still looks quality it has an Identity our merchandise is nothing but shocking how does our new badge give us identity it doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bris Red

Bris Red

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, CyderInACan said:

No chance. They never get anything wrong. Criticism is never recognised nor replied to. 

True, however they did listen to fan outrage when that monstrosity of a shirt from TFG that has been posted on here from 2005 was released..

I genuinely can’t remember another shirt since then that has seen as much negative feedback..!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CyderInACan

CyderInACan

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Bris Red said:

True, however they did listen to fan outrage when that monstrosity of a shirt from TFG that has been posted on here from 2005 was released..

I genuinely can’t remember another shirt since then that has seen as much negative feedback..!

This is the Lansdown era though, it's tory (spit) style "ignore it & it will go away" whilst you spin your own narrative. If you remember there was a lot of negative feedback at the "Gold & Navy" top that Bristol Sport brought out across the rugby & football teams 6 or 7 (?) years ago. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mendip City

Mendip City

Posted
Posted

Forgetting the awful badge for a second, in what way is this NOT a template? I’m certain you could go to any major sportswear manufacturer and find a plain yellow shirt with green collar. There’s literally nothing unique about it other than the stupid bird badge….. which if you were mad enough could have been stuck on any generic yellow shirt. We look so bloody tinpot.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RedM

RedM

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Bris Red said:

True, however they did listen to fan outrage when that monstrosity of a shirt from TFG that has been posted on here from 2005 was released..

I genuinely can’t remember another shirt since then that has seen as much negative feedback..!

Yes when you consider a shirt that is popular will sell and sell bringing £££'s into the club. We could be looking at a potential to fulfill lots of orders, unlike Hummel, but a shirt that is vastly unpopular. I

doubt if the club is stupid enough to pre-order masses of stock, but will keep stock levels regularly replenished. They must have lost out on thousands of pounds this season as the shirts were popular but they couldn't source stock, now I think the opposite will happen. More than likely people will buy one shirt instead of their usual two. Hopefully we will be saved by the away shirt, whatever that is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RedM

RedM

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Mendip City said:

Forgetting the awful badge for a second, in what way is this NOT a template? I’m certain you could go to any major sportswear manufacturer and find a plain yellow shirt with green collar. There’s literally nothing unique about it other than the stupid bird badge….. which if you were mad enough could have been stuck on any generic yellow shirt. We look so bloody tinpot.  

Yes I agree, I though we would have something woven into the material so that it would be uniquely us. the Robin, the bridge, the badge our name, anything! 

This looks Downs football bland. Off the peg school PE kit type level

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
2015

2015

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, ChippenhamRed said:

They’re really pushing this Robin thing aren’t they. Looks more like a jumper from the childrenswear section at Asda than professional sportswear.

We suddenly look so amateur again.

53D3962E-B926-435E-8DA7-7C9AB548D518.jpeg

It looks absolutely dreadful and screams a big corporate HR department pushing for this flying Robin to be put out there for everyone to see.

So out of touch with the fans it's unbelievable.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChippenhamRed

ChippenhamRed

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, 2015 said:

It looks absolutely dreadful and screams a big corporate HR department pushing for this flying Robin to be put out there for everyone to see.

So out of touch with the fans it's unbelievable.

Makes no sense to me why you’d push this without a bit of market research first to determine if anyone actually wants it.

It’s clearly gone down like a bucket of sick, so just drop it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RedRock

RedRock

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, Eddie Notgetinya said:

The robin is a mere fly in the ointment compared to the badge on the back of the neck ?‍♂️
 

Could have been so good

It’s almost as if the shirt manufacturer misread the design instructions!

I haven’t a particular problem with the robin design, aside from it being a bit naff that it’s a stock image. Think it works quite well on the back of the shirt where it was on the Hummel. Quite subtle and classy.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taz

Taz

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

 

 

Fair enough, I remembered it as training kit.

To be fair it may have been used in the Champions League more than the league, but I have no idea if that is the case. Just remember seeing match reports where they were wearing it and thinking it looks shit!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bris Red

Bris Red

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, RedM said:

Yes when you consider a shirt that is popular will sell and sell bringing £££'s into the club. We could be looking at a potential to fulfill lots of orders, unlike Hummel, but a shirt that is vastly unpopular. I

doubt if the club is stupid enough to pre-order masses of stock, but will keep stock levels regularly replenished. They must have lost out on thousands of pounds this season as the shirts were popular but they couldn't source stock, now I think the opposite will happen. More than likely people will buy one shirt instead of their usual two. Hopefully we will be saved by the away shirt, whatever that is.

Hopefully we ditch O’Neills after a season or two. Let’s pray we haven’t signed a long term contract with them..

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bristol Rob

Bristol Rob

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, Norwegian Blue said:

It feels like City had to rush this/these designs because of the previous distributer going under. 

I hope the flying Robin is not here to stay.

If they had just stuck with the existing badge design, there wouldn't have been any need to rush anything.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tinmans Love Child

Tinmans Love Child

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Bris Red said:

True, however they did listen to fan outrage when that monstrosity of a shirt from TFG that has been posted on here from 2005 was released..

I genuinely can’t remember another shirt since then that has seen as much negative feedback..!

That anniversary kit mash up was terrible, did anyone actually buy it?  The worst kits for me were defo the TFG ones (whoever they were), and some of the lotto ones were suspect as well!  

The Yellow & Green Thorn Security one is my fave of that colour!

this site is great to see all the previous kits:

https://www.footballkitarchive.com/bristol-city-kits/#1990s

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dredd

Dredd

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, BS3_RED said:

City should really do retro shirts like England do. There are certainly a few I would buy. 89 home and away as well as 90 home and away. 

Give it a while and we will no doubt remake it into the next seasons shirt. 
 

I wonder how they they spin some though:

'Next years kit is based on the much beloved champagne kit from the Gary Johnson era. Playfully dubbed the 'korma' or 'puke' shirt by City fans it was worn by City legends such as Bas Savage, Matt Haywood and Grant Smith.'

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
nickolas

nickolas

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Norwegian Blue said:

It feels like City had to rush this/these designs because of the previous distributer going under. 

I hope the flying Robin is not here to stay.

But Hummel havent!! New distributor sorted. Coventry signed up with them for another 3 years. Now we get this shite!! ????

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SydneyCity

SydneyCity

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, RedRock said:

It’s almost as if the shirt manufacturer misread the design instructions!

When you combine the overwhelmingly positive sentiment towards the Hummel kits, the way they let us down and the announcement of a new, untested (in football) supplier the creative brief for this kit really should have been: "Don't do anything stupid".

Unfortunately, we did.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mendip City

Mendip City

Posted
Posted (edited)

I need help working out my least favourite from this lot:

O’Neills yellow flying cartoon bird

o’neills cheap and nasty looking red pin stripe 

comic sans training wear

# hashtag 

gold and navy for a cup final 

that David Cotterill thing

the “champagne” coloured kit from cotterill’s time. 

all things TFG

I’m sure there are more but what’s clear is our kit design ideas are poor…. Anyone else for big brand templates?? 

Edited by Mendip City
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChippenhamRed

ChippenhamRed

Posted
Posted
32 minutes ago, Mendip City said:

I need help working out my least favourite from this lot:

O’Neills yellow flying cartoon bird

o’neills cheap and nasty looking red pin stripe 

comic sans training wear

# hashtag 

gold and navy for a cup final 

that David Cotterill thing

the “champagne” coloured kit from cotterill’s time. 

all things TFG

I’m sure there are more but what’s clear is our kit design ideas are poor…. Anyone else for big brand templates?? 

If this is the alternative then I’m right up for big brand templates.

People moan about template kits, which I do understand, but what they give you is guaranteed quality and a good fit, because they’re tried and tested.

I’d take a smart, simple Nike or Adidas kit over these substandard offerings that make the club look amateur.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Unan

Unan

Posted
Posted (edited)

I think this is massively OTT now, yes JL isn’t competent (if he’s actually in control of this), yes the quality looks marginally worse around some hems, but the home shirt looks lovely and the ‘washed out’ yellow is pretty much identical (colour wise) to our old yellow kit, with the Robin badge on it, I like it.

Edited by Marcus Aurelius
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Unan

Unan

Posted
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Mendip City said:

I need help working out my least favourite from this lot:

O’Neills yellow flying cartoon bird

o’neills cheap and nasty looking red pin stripe 

comic sans training wear

# hashtag 

gold and navy for a cup final 

that David Cotterill thing

the “champagne” coloured kit from cotterill’s time. 

all things TFG

I’m sure there are more but what’s clear is our kit design ideas are poor…. Anyone else for big brand templates?? 

Couldn’t think of anything worse!

*okay maybe quarters!

**assumed my replies would’ve been auto merged, alas 

Edited by Marcus Aurelius
Link to comment
Share on other sites
kmpowell

kmpowell

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, sticks 1969 said:

Looks unworn… top quality shirt

Pretty much, all the shirts in my collection (those are a selection of them) are either unworn or very lightly worn. 

One thing that's really great about this shirt is the material, it's soft, unlike the pinstripe home shirt which I wouldn't want to wear within 10ft of a naked flame! ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ExiledAjax

ExiledAjax

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, Henry said:

@JerrySLOany chance of feeding this back to the club then letting us know why there was no consultation over a badge change?

or @thatcham red @Dollymarie @shahanshahan

@Hartleysbeard @Kid in the Riot @View from the Dolman

I had a look at the Rules and regs yesterday - in particular Rule M of the FA Rules (thanks to View from the Dolman for pointing me there) and also at the FA's Kit and Advertising Regs. The EFL does not seem to have much in the way of regulation around Crests - they leave it to the FA.

In short I am not convinced that a consultation was strictly necessary under the FA Rule M. Rule M requires a consultation where there is "any material changes to any aspect of a Club Crest (e.g. changing a colour from blue to red, adding or deleting text, or adding new design features and/or deleting established design features)." I think the Club would argue that they have not technically made any material change to the fundamental design of the Crest. Instead they have just moved it and shrunk it on this particular shirt. They've not changed the trademarks, or registered a new one. I assume they've not changed the FA registration of the Crest (which Rule M10 requires if the make a material change to the Crest). If I was the Club's lawyer I'd be pretty confident of this argument.

However, in my opinion, the club has clearly acted against the spirit of Rule M. The guidance to Rule M states that "Club Crests form an important part of the identity of a Club and changes can be an emotive issue for some supporters and lead to legitimate concerns being raised." I think that suggests that any type of change - including moving and shrinking - to the Crest should be done with care and with due consideration of supporters' emotions and concerns. That hasn't happened here. it's not a strict or technical breach of the Rules, but it's worth an explanation from the Club.

Under the Kit and Advertising Regulations I think it's a bit more concerning. There is no requirement for the Crest to be displayed in the left breast position, but the Crest is the only club emblem (manufacturers and sponsors are considered elsewhere) that is stated to be permitted to be shown on the front of the shirt. other logos/emblems/designs of "club identification" are only permitted if incorporated by "jacquard weave form, as tonal print or by embossing the shirt". Now we have not seen the physical shirt (I might try and get Scott's tonight at Luton) but if the flying robin is not incorporated onto the shirt in one of these ways then I think the Club might have breached the Kit and Advertising Regulations. I suspect the trademarking of the flying robin, and the prolific use of it in club media, press conferences etc, is all being done to evidence that it is a form of "club identification" - even though in reality it is not. Note that it is under this exception that I think man City got away with having their badge on that 21/22 away shirt that was discussed earlier in this thread.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
James54De

James54De

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

@Hartleysbeard @Kid in the Riot @View from the Dolman

I had a look at the Rules and regs yesterday - in particular Rule M of the FA Rules (thanks to View from the Dolman for pointing me there) and also at the FA's Kit and Advertising Regs. The EFL does not seem to have much in the way of regulation around Crests - they leave it to the FA.

In short I am not convinced that a consultation was strictly necessary under the FA Rule M. Rule M requires a consultation where there is "any material changes to any aspect of a Club Crest (e.g. changing a colour from blue to red, adding or deleting text, or adding new design features and/or deleting established design features)." I think the Club would argue that they have not technically made any material change to the fundamental design of the Crest. Instead they have just moved it and shrunk it on this particular shirt. They've not changed the trademarks, or registered a new one. I assume they've not changed the FA registration of the Crest (which Rule M10 requires if the make a material change to the Crest). If I was the Club's lawyer I'd be pretty confident of this argument.

However, in my opinion, the club has clearly acted against the spirit of Rule M. The guidance to Rule M states that "Club Crests form an important part of the identity of a Club and changes can be an emotive issue for some supporters and lead to legitimate concerns being raised." I think that suggests that any type of change - including moving and shrinking - to the Crest should be done with care and with due consideration of supporters' emotions and concerns. That hasn't happened here. it's not a strict or technical breach of the Rules, but it's worth an explanation from the Club.

Under the Kit and Advertising Regulations I think it's a bit more concerning. There is no requirement for the Crest to be displayed in the left breast position, but the Crest is the only club emblem (manufacturers and sponsors are considered elsewhere) that is stated to be permitted to be shown on the front of the shirt. other logos/emblems/designs of "club identification" are only permitted if incorporated by "jacquard weave form, as tonal print or by embossing the shirt". Now we have not seen the physical shirt (I might try and get Scott's tonight at Luton) but if the flying robin is not incorporated onto the shirt in one of these ways then I think the Club might have breached the Kit and Advertising Regulations. I suspect the trademarking of the flying robin, and the prolific use of it in club media, press conferences etc, is all being done to evidence that it is a form of "club identification" - even though in reality it is not. Note that it is under this exception that I think man City got away with having their badge on that 21/22 away shirt that was discussed earlier in this thread.

You done this with the change of kits as well. No rules have been broken. Similar things have been done countless times by other clubs. Still looks shit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ExiledAjax

ExiledAjax

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, James54De said:

You done this with the change of kits as well. No rules have been broken. Similar things have been done countless times by other clubs. Still looks shit. 

I done what? Checked the rules so that I understand what the Club is doing and to check for myself whether rules have or may have been broken? Yes I have done it before, and I'll do it again if the Club do stuff that looks a bit odd. I make no apology at all for that, and some people find it interesting.

"No rules have been broken". As I said I don't think the letter of Rule M has been broken, but I think the spirit of the guidance around it has been pushed to the limit, to the extent that the Club should explain why they have moved the Crest to the collar, and why they have replaced it with - as you so eloquently put it - something that looks "shit". Whether the Kit and Advertising Regs have been broken is I think quite technical, and I'm not an expert in garment production so I cannot be sure, but I think there's a possibility that they are right up against the edge of the rules. It is worth asking the question.

I think it is really telling that the Club are yet to acknowledge the change/move of the Crest in any of the press releases or promotional videos or articles around the third kit. They are just ignoring a really clear and fundamental part of the design. Why? I can only assume that they knew it would cause an issue/backlash and so decided to just not address it. That is, in my opinion, inexcusable and is really, really poor governance and terrible leadership, and shocking fan engagement.

Similar things being done by other Clubs means nothing. Rule M only came into force in the summer of 2022, so any change by any club made prior to that is not a precedent with respect to that Rule. This by the way invalidates our own changed badge on our 2018/19 away shirt (when we used the historic Robin/bridge badge) because that was done when the rules were different. Other clubs may have been in the Premier League when they made their change. PL clubs are sometimes subject to different rules governing them, so again you cannot assume that just because Arsenal are using a different badge on their away kit this season, we cannot automatically assume that Bristol City are ok to do the same next season.

It's just checking, and having some knowledge of this area means that if the Club ever do do something off, or wrong, then we as fans can call it out.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taz

Taz

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, BasSavage88 said:

Are the socks usually a complete different colour to the top?

 

5 minutes ago, elhombrecito said:

Just looks like our shirts have been through the wash a few times...

Said exactly the same things to the wife about 5 minutes ago. 

Just looks like a mismatch.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
steviestevieneville

steviestevieneville

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

Having now seen it on TV I really like it. 

Many seem to love black away kits/third kits but I always felt it must be hard to pick players out on an evening game. Where as the yellow really stands out.

It might help if the undershirts & socks were the same colour as the shirt  . Looks amateur at best 

Edited by steviestevieneville
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ExiledAjax

ExiledAjax

Posted
Posted

In the flesh the fluoro was enough that the shirt was really visible. Our players were distinct. Black numbers stood out well.

Bad things - I did miss the badge. Green shorts are just rubbish. No football kit should be solid green. The mismatched yellows of the shirt, socks and underlayers looked poor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Unan

Unan

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, OddBallJim said:

https://www.therlop.co.uk/products/2023-24-new-bristol-city-oneills-home-shirt-top-kit?variant=4ff87894-522f-4b05-b57f-c86c65ccec3a&gclid=CjwKCAjw_MqgBhAGEiwAnYOAepTAvV8XTqhNO4JJdwJN7JOWe2-I6XI9LpHUl-HnNZ9QSlQ6hvXO1RoC13cQAvD_BwE
 

Assuming this is a fake then?

Yes, and a ridiculous price too, as has been pointed out earlier in the thread, you can buy both via China for £25.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Watts

Steve Watts

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Bazooka Joe said:

Those washed-out yellow shirts look more thread-bare than our squad.

Looks like the socks took up most of the yellow dye available.

I really like the colour of the shirt.  It's almost the shirt I was hoping for (badge atrocity aside), but yeah, the socks make it look like gravity has caused the colour to drain right out of the shirt!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Unan

Unan

Posted
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, OddBallJim said:

Got the link? I can’t seem to find it…

https://www.dhgate.com/product/2023-2024-bristol-city-soccer-jerseys-the/845297734.html?d1_page_num=1&dspm=pcen.sp.list.3.3vGlLk8t46IUEPZE8vGT&resource_id=845297734&scm_id=yf.shopauto.99.2knYIz3PAYWvPFh1Y-1SvLL2SgxA.2-d_4_0_0_29502_0_1_c2_WmT.Idz9nwmSbristolXcityBrrmesuCceOcfEss#gp-3-16|1:8c6876dd1edd47a2969013b46b2734aa:3

Assuming you tried Aliexpress, I always vouch for DHGate myself.

Aliexpress < Alibaba (B2C focused, loose verification, marginally cheaper, generally, due to B2C)
DHGate (B2B focused, standard verification, marginally more expensive, generally, due to B2B (unless buying wholesale))

Edited by Marcus Aurelius
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ronnie Sinclair

Ronnie Sinclair

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Bazooka Joe said:

Those washed-out yellow shirts look more thread-bare than our squad.

Looks like the socks took up most of the yellow dye available.

My memory suggested the 1991 version of the yellow and green kit had a different shade for the socks too, and this photo proves my memory is still working!

(Can't remember any letters in the sports pages of the Evening Post complaining mind you)

Soccer - FA Cup - 5th Round - Nottingham Forest v Bristol City - City Ground Stock Photo - Alamy

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
steviestevieneville

steviestevieneville

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Ronnie Sinclair said:

My memory suggested the 1991 version of the yellow and green kit had a different shade for the socks too, and this photo proves my memory is still working!

(Can't remember any letters in the sports pages of the Evening Post complaining mind you)

Soccer - FA Cup - 5th Round - Nottingham Forest v Bristol City - City Ground Stock Photo - Alamy

There’s green in that shirt though . There isn’t in the new one . I don’t buy shirts anymore but I just think it reflects poorly on the club . Gone back to how poor the last Bristol sport kit was. It’s good that we have a say in the design but this really does look like JL  has full say . I’d rather a template kit by Umbro than Jon & his etch-a-sketch . How easily was wiemann’s shirt ripped last night as well . As Richie Benaud would say on twelfth man. Reeeaaallly piss poor effort that. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ExiledAjax

ExiledAjax

Posted
Posted (edited)
38 minutes ago, bearded_red said:

Still struggling to believe how bad the badge is. Keep having to check it’s not April 1st.

You mean you don't feel a heartfelt emotional connection to the Club's latest trademark? I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you.

Edited by ExiledAjax
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...