New Kit 18-19

[richard_gleeson]

People seriously need to get over this red sponsor bollocks, it's embarrassing. They provide the club with millions of pounds.its their company logo for god sake. It's not like we've done a Cardiff city and changed the kit colour

 

[edgey]

People seriously need to get over this red sponsor bollocks, it's embarrassing. They provide the club with millions of pounds.its their company logo for god sake. It's not like we've done a Cardiff city and changed the kit colour

Think people are over it mostly... Doesn't mean we have to like it. Just think the more plain the shirt the more it's stands out that's all

 

[Lighty64]

Think people are over it mostly... Doesn't mean we have to like it. Just think the more plain the shirt the more it's stands out that's all

I hate the colour red, the only reason I have tomato sauce in the house is because it goes well with fish and chips, or ham egg and chips.

I bet there would be a hell of a lot more home shirts bout if AIA wasn't red, I would of bought the last 2 or 3 if it wasn't red, and it's surprising when you have a laugh about it in a Spurs shop, they say they hear that a lot.

 

[kungfugrip]

People seriously need to get over this red sponsor bollocks, it's embarrassing. They provide the club with millions of pounds.its their company logo for god sake. It's not like we've done a Cardiff city and changed the kit colour

Yep. We've had a red sponsor 12 out of the last 16 years on the home kits. Time to move on.......

 

[Hoddle&Waddle]

People seriously need to get over this red sponsor bollocks, it's embarrassing. They provide the club with millions of pounds.its their company logo for god sake. It's not like we've done a Cardiff city and changed the kit colour

True but the majority of teams sponsors allow a change in colour to fit in with the clubs/kits colour scheme. Its one of those things as fans we know we have to accept but we dont have to bloody like it!

 

[tiger666]

True but the majority of teams sponsors allow a change in colour to fit in with the clubs/kits colour scheme.

Do they?

 

[Hoddle&Waddle]

Do they?

Yes, I think you know this but for some reason you feel the need to disagree with every post you see that doesnt fit your own agenda.

This is Liverpools sponsor

It has changed colour TWICE to fit the clubs colour scheme.

I'm not going to post the other one because A) I cant be arsed and B) I dont think people on here want Liverpool shirts rammed down their throats, but basically it was white on another shirt.

 

[THFCSPURS19]

Yes, I think you know this but for some reason you feel the need to disagree with every post you see that doesnt fit your own agenda.

This is Liverpools sponsor

It has changed colour TWICE to fit the clubs colour scheme.

I'm not going to post the other one because A) I cant be arsed and B) I dont think people on here want Liverpool shirts rammed down their throats, but basically it was white on another shirt.

Isn't there an obsession with the colour Red in Asia, which is why it is that colour on the shirts? Different situation to Liverpool if I'm right.

 

[Hoddle&Waddle]

Isn't there an obsession with the colour Red in Asia, which is why it is that colour on the shirts? Different situation to Liverpool if I'm right.

Yeah I know mate, like I said we just have to accept it. I'm just pointing out why it is so annoying to some fans.

Also just to bring up another point. Had AIA agreed to this slight change we would clearly sell more shirts and in turn increase advertising for AIA.

 

[tiger666]

Yes, I think you know this but for some reason you feel the need to disagree with every post you see that doesnt fit your own agenda.

This is Liverpools sponsor

It has changed colour TWICE to fit the clubs colour scheme.

I'm not going to post the other one because A) I cant be arsed and B) I dont think people on here want Liverpool shirts rammed down their throats, but basically it was white on another shirt.

Get off your high horse it was a genuine question. I wasn't aware of any examples.

 

[Hoddle&Waddle]

Get off your high horse it was a genuine question. I wasn't aware of any examples.

C'mon, its been happening for the last 20 to 30 years and you've never noticed?

 

[tiger666]

C'mon, its been happening for the last 20 to 30 years and you've never noticed?

No, I don't tend to pay attention to it to be honest.

 

[Hoddle&Waddle]

No, I don't tend to pay attention to it to be honest.

OK fair enough

 

[guiltyparty]

Not too fussed about the shield... More '61 than '95 imo. Bit too plain for me though. I know many like plain kits, which is fine if you have a more easy on the eye sponsor... Which we do not. So therefor the mor plain the top, the more those big red letters stand out.
But aslong as it's navy shorts not white shorts, and preferably navy socks like last season, then it's ok I spose. Just one of many dull template kits. What's more to say?

Exactly. At worst, it's dull. But this has to be the best example yet of not being able to please anyone. That is literally one of the least offensive shirts I can even contemplate, and still loads of people aren't happy. You give a nod to nostalgia, people complain; you do a completely new thing, people complain. The general trend is just that people love complaining, so you can understand why clubs increasingly focus on what will sell and make them lots of money, as there's no point trying to please "fans"

And agreed, the shield looks absolutely nothing like the Pony ones whatsoever, It's a different shield for starters

 

[guiltyparty]

FWIW @Footyheadlines are saying the away kit is just a reverse of the kit above. Navy with white trim. The AIA is in white on the away kit.

Aye, there have been fairly reliable pics on this for a while

 

[guiltyparty]

Why?

If whether you buy your team's shirt comes down to whether you like the shield or not, blimey… Surely you either support your team or not?

The only reasons I can think of that are justifiable for dodging a kit are: a) It's a horrible shirt. b) You're a grown man and think football shirts are for football players and kids. c) You can't afford it. All three are perfectly reasonable excuses.

"I'm not keen on the shield" just seems like looking for a problem where there is none. It's a shield, they are made for shirts worn by footballers. We've had them on our shirts for more than 60 of the years we've been in existence. Most of the top teams have them. It's clearly a marketing thing – the logo stands out more, not less, it's easier to use on various products - from sites, to branded gear, to advertisements.

I've personally always thought the Spurs badge looked limp without the shield, it looks limp when they show it on TV too. It's thin and easily lost. I would put money on this reworking being a simultaneous play on our nostalgia (as we leave the Lane) and to increase branding visibility across more than just a football shirt.

 

[luka loopy]

True but the majority of teams sponsors allow a change in colour to fit in with the clubs/kits colour scheme. Its one of those things as fans we know we have to accept but we dont have to bloody like it!

Playing in white is a big issue too, when it comes to the sponsor.

Most companies will have a corporate identity and branding that is designed to be used against a white background, whether it's their main branding or secondary branding. This makes it easier to display their corporate colours on our shirt. Clubs that play in a darker colour such as blue or red don't have the same issue.

Unfortunately I think that the only way we could get a nice matching navy blue sponsor would be to limit ourselves to companies which use a navy blue or possibly black branding, which is obviously impractical.

 

[Everlasting Seconds]

Won't be spending my money on it.

 

[absolute bobbins]

Won't be spending my money on it.

Damn, there goes our chance of signing Mbappe... I hope you're happy!

 

[Phischy]

I think I have an answer for why we'll have a shield... and why it's probably not going away for the entirety of our Nike kit deal...

Think of other Nike clubs or even countries... Man City, Chelsea, England, Barcelona, Atletico Madrid, Athletic Bilbao, Malaga etc...

All their badges come in shield form, they can effectively be mass produced and stitched on like patches. Our badge isn't quote so friendly that way and has to be embroidered. I suspect Nike won't embroider it, for whatever reason (COST) and find it easier and cheaper to mass produce shirts with a simple stitch pattern. Therefore, we end up with a shield, to allow it to be stitched to the shirt easily. It occurred to me when I looked at the shield on the image above and it was apparent that the cockerel wasn't embossed, it is flat to the shield, meaning no embroidery required.

It's probably as a result of Nike developing a process and production line which suits the fact that they've always had clubs with shield motifs (Arsenal and Man Utd before in England for example)

So, yeah, It's almost certainly not about history, design or any other fanciful notion... it's a money thing, pure and simple and if Nike are paying us a bucketload to produce our shirts for us then we just have to accept it's their way or the highway!

Oh and as a side note, I don't mind the idea of having a shield, I just really do not like the shape of the one on the recently leaked shirt. Much prefer the idea of something more closely related to the 60s style.