Jump to content
IGNORED

O'Neills - New Kit Supplier (Confirmed)

Guest

By Guest
in Football Chat

 Share

Recommended Posts

Always Believesham

Always Believesham

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, ExiledAjax said:

So it was Hummel kit signed off in the autumn, and O'Neills have now had to design and produce new kits in 4 weeks?

Or did we give them the Hummel designs and tell them to "make this", and then sorted Hummel's complaints out in the background?

Sorry, are you saying we're changing kit halfway through a season? Have we had EFL clearance for that? EFL reg 39.1 says that "No changes either in the kit or combination of colours of kits shall be permitted during the course of the Season." We are allowed one home game per season where we wear a different kit (see the 125th anniversary game v Fulham a few seasons ago), are you saying that tomorrow is that one game?

Not to challenge you personally but is it a different kit if it's the same colours and design? Would this not be treated in the same way as changing sponsor because the sponsor goes bust? West Ham a few years ago had to ditch sponsor mid-season and I'm sure there have been examples since.

Hummel may have had to compensate City, despite it being their supplier that went into administration. 

I don't think there would be a change midseason though, it's an expense that would be so difficult to recover - unless the club want to do some positive PR and say to fans, "look, you matter to us so we've replaced our kit supplier; if you want to buy a 22/23 shirt, you can". Very unlike City if that is the case!

Having said that, I wouldn't be surprised to see a new supplier next year.

Those concerned about the politics of O'Neills may not have spotted the Ulster countywear proudly advertised on the front page (the red right hand leapt out at me) - I get the impression they're not picky but know how to appeal to a market with comemorative commissions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Norn Iron

Norn Iron

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, Dolman Queen said:

I did, indeed its true.   It wasn't quite black and white but that he thought this was the case


DQ

 

10 minutes ago, Steve Watts said:

Blimey!  The meltdown that's about to happen for moving away from red and white........!

"Wasn't quite black and white" = grey away kit!

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
James54De

James54De

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, ExiledAjax said:

The other thing with wearing it tomorrow is that you have to submit your intended kit to the EFL at least a week prior to the game. Now, ultimately it is up to the match day official to sign kits off, but each club is supposed to work with the EFL and the opposing team (ie Hull) to ensure that you avoid kit blends and that kits are used properly. A last minute change in kit is not going to be popular with the EFL, with Hull, or with the match day officials. I really don't think we'd do it unless we had no other option.

A change in supplier next season is plausible though. If O'Neills are cheaper, or provide better supply of replica shirts, then I think Alexander and Jon Lansdown would not hesitate to pay Hummel off and switch.

We will not be paying Hummel off, that’s for sure. The problem is theirs (or their UK suppliers), not ours. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Davefevs

Davefevs

Posted
Posted
Just now, RoystonFoote'snephew said:

For me we should be working hard with Hummel to resolve the supplier issues. A company who really works with clubs to create unique designs is one I really rate and I'd be dismayed to lose them. 

The supplier issue isn’t just an issue between Hummel and City, it’s Hummel and everybody.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RoystonFoote'snephew

RoystonFoote'snephew

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

The supplier issue isn’t just an issue between Hummel and City, it’s Hummel and everybody.

In an earlier thread on the issue I understood that there were different supplier agreements with some clubs other than the one City had. Was this ever fully explored. I still believe we should seek a solution with Hummel, a company of proven quality, than look elsewhere again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
1960maaan

1960maaan

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, RoystonFoote'snephew said:

For me we should be working hard with Hummel to resolve the supplier issues. A company who really works with clubs to create unique designs is one I really rate and I'd be dismayed to lose them. 

 

10 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

The supplier issue isn’t just an issue between Hummel and City, it’s Hummel and everybody.

It's the UK distributor that has gone into Admin, Everton use one based in the USA and are fine. Every Club using Elite , the UK based distributor are in the same boat. 

Now I don't know the ins and outs, manufacture etc, maybe it isn't possible to shift to the US distributor , but you would have thought that Hummel would have made a priority of finding a new company to take over the in the UK. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrahamC

GrahamC

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, OddBallJim said:

Be a shame to lose the 1950s style kit. I like white sleeves and a collar. We should stick with it, even if O’Neills come in.

This is just my opinion of course but it’s ******* horrible, the worst one in many years.

I genuinely don’t care what we wore on the 50s, I have been watching us over 50 years & our shirt is always red, not bloody Arsenal or Rotherham.

 I hate it.

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ExiledAjax

ExiledAjax

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Always Believesham said:

Not to challenge you personally but is it a different kit if it's the same colours and design? Would this not be treated in the same way as changing sponsor because the sponsor goes bust? West Ham a few years ago had to ditch sponsor mid-season and I'm sure there have been examples since.

Hummel may have had to compensate City, despite it being their supplier that went into administration. 

You're right to challenge me. I don't know many details.

All I know is that I have had a number of discussions with the club over the last two years related to kit. Mainly these have been aimed at ensuring that our kits take colourblind fans into consideration. Through those chats I have been told, by Gould, that kits are signed off in September/October each year and that is JL's responsibility/. That's not huge news to most as it's well known that JL looks after kit designs.

Then, through my job, I know a little bit about commercial contracts and the types of clauses they tend to contain. Not specifically football kit supply contracts, but general B2B contracts for supply of goods and services.

So it is just with those bits of background that I offer my conjecture, supposition, and assumption for the consideration of the forum.

With respect to whether the EFL would consider us to be "changing kit" - that would pretty much be up to the opinion of the EFL. Reg 39.1 in full says: "During the Close Season, each Club shall notify The League in writing details of its ‘home’ and ‘away’ kit (shirt, shorts and socks) and if applicable any ‘third’ set of kit. Each set of kit registered must differ visibly from and contrast with each other kit registered by the Club in that Season. No changes either in the kit or combination of colours of kits shall be permitted during the course of the Season."

It's quite clear that the EFL expects kits to be finalised during the off-season, and do not expect any changes to the kit during the season. However, there is also scope for a club to approach the EFL should a change be necessary. I expect the EFL would have a pretty high threshold as to whether a change is "necessary" and "we don't like our kit supplier and they've been a bit slow" is unlikely to cut the mustard.

46 minutes ago, James54De said:

We will not be paying Hummel off, that’s for sure. The problem is theirs (or their UK suppliers), not ours. 

I don't mean in terms of any potential breach of contract. If the terms say we can terminate without payment then we will do so.

What I was referring to was specifically whether we might need to pay them for the designs that they produced in the autumn of 2022 - if we want to use those designs with O'Neills. I don't know the answer btw, it will depend on the contract terms. It might also be irrelevant if O'Neills have created entirely new designs.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Parkwaymom

Parkwaymom

Posted
Posted

Knowing nothing other than what has been posted in this thread, If we are allowed one home change per season then we could wear next season’s shirt next week for the one game and start selling it pronto, but the team continues wearing the registered shirts for the rest of this season. 
 

That seems to comply with the rules and allow the club to get some kit sales out of the Man City game. For those who always get a shirt for their birthday in the first few months of sale there will be second and third shirts to add. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bris Red

Bris Red

Posted
Posted (edited)

Shame to lose Hummel, not that i buy replica kits but the Hummel gear has always looked decent and for a big worldwide recognised brand the individual designs they did for us were always good.

Without wanting to sound overly negative but you only have to look at the clubs that ‘O’Neills’ sponsor to get a feeling that this all seems a little tinpot IMO. Hopefully as others have said this is just  a stop gap.

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

Leveller

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, lenred said:

Football kits are a big big deal these days.   Retro shirts go for a hell of a lot of money. There are companies dedicated to finding them and selling them, there are TV programmes about them and, not that I’m bothered about this part - kits, old and new, are now genuine fashion statements.  Company’s like Classic Football Shirts and Retro Kits have hundreds of thousands of followers.   Whether people like it or not people are interested and genuinely care about kits.   Fair play to those who don’t but not sure why those who do need to be moaned about.  

Who’s moaning? I just expressed surprise.

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...