Jump to content
IGNORED

O'Neills - New Kit Supplier (Confirmed)

Guest

By Guest
in Football Chat

 Share

Recommended Posts

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

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...