144 Replies to “Week 23 – Premier League Kits Round-up”
Still think that Swansea home is one of the best kits seen anywhere across Europe this season. Only slight on it is the lack of black change shorts and socks.
Bonkers, isn’t it? Because they could have solved a few clashes this season that the away kit didn’t adequately cover. Home shirt is still beautiful though.
More Nike idiocy, if it turns out to be true. Don’t know why the third can’t be yellow – that would be a great way to get the fans onside from day one.
Why idiocy Martyn? Yellow doesn’t seem to sell in such numbers, despite it being traditional. Navy really was always our second colour, until the Football League banned it in the late Sixties.
@Andrew – I think Martyn is saying it’s idiocy to have a navy change shirt and a purple one – unless it’s towards the lilac end, the third won’t solve too many clashes that the navy can’t, I fear
That’s my point. The shade I’ve seen leaked is a bluey purple, so not that different from navy at all. If it was more lilac than purple, fine, but the ‘global template’ next season is a camouflage type print, so I don’t hold out any hopes. Even with say, yellow shorts (just a guess) I can’t see how it would work, especially against someone like West Brom.
Bayern playing Eintracht at the Allianz today, doing a ‘red Chelsea’ by wearing the change red shorts and white socks from the third kit; Eintracht playing in this seasons Juventus-esque home with white shorts and red socks. Sensible so far, being as their away kit is red and black. What doesn’t make sense is that they have a dull yellow third kit that would’ve been sufficient.
***APOLOGIES EVERYONE!!! I was looking at the wrong picture – the above was the game in Frankfurt. Eintracht are today dressed as Newcastle, Bayern in normal colours. Phew!
So they were. I wish they’d make their minds up! I imagine that Bayern took their third socks expecting to need the change, and Eintracht changed expecting Bayern to be in their home pair. Lack of communication in other words. I am as you know a fan of change shorts so they were required, I would say!
Though in normal circumstances, Bayern would have been turning up in Frankfurt with their white third kit because Eintracht would have been wearing their usual red and black, instead of having an identity crisis like they have this season with their choice of home colours!
Bit like Bayern themselves 20 years ago when they suddenly went blue…
Yeah, possibly, though Eintracht have a partial historical reason : the two clubs that joined together to form what is now known as Eintracht Frankfurt played in red and white and black and white; as a compromise the new club settled on red and black. Occasionally the old colours surface, red and white being worn in 1960 against Real Madrid; black and white most recently in the early 90’s before this season. As far as Bayern, the 97 change to blue is a mystery, even now. We had a pale blue home kit for the first couple of years of our life, but red came in in 1906 and has been there ever since, in one way or another.
So Nike unveil a black third kit for France that is apparently NEVER going to be worn in an official game, it’s just a ‘lifestyle jersey’. The new Brazil third is apparently the same; only England and the USA are currently earmarked to actually WEAR the kits.
As news surfaces about the new Liverpool kits, apparently being styled after early / classic shirts to celebrate 125 years, I can’t help thinking that they were always better dressed in adidas. I know Warrior / NB is a more lucrative contract, but has ANY of their strips looked anything other than cheap and / or trying too hard?
Speaking of NB, the new Celtic third is going to be…green. Lime green, granted, but still green. What is the plan v Hibs? if the away is anything other than black I can only see massive problems there.
How many times have Bootlover Headlines got it wrong on some kit leaks? I remember them trying to make out that Liverpool’s third kit was going to be some form of dark toxic green, but it turned out to be green of the glow in the dark variety. Had to laugh at their latest “leak” about Liverpool’s apparent third kit for next season, stating they were to use a never before seen colour combination of gold and navy, even though they posted a picture of the 00/01 away kit in the same article, which used those exact colours. Extremely lousy “journalism”, but then again I expect nothing less coming from a lousy Arminia supporter who has made a life of lousiness through stealing other people’s Pro Evo work and calling it his own and glossing over footballers wearing multicoloured boots.
Nike’s third kits are purely for commercial purposes, as we all guessed, and all using that lousy (i’m on a roll today) Vapour template. I wonder what horrible contrasting socks they intend to use for the third kits that actually will get a use on the pitch?
It is an odd decision for Celtic to effectively have three green kits (albeit of different shades), but it wouldn’t be the first time this has happened. In 07/08 they had the exact same issue where they retained the previous season’s green and black striped away kit as a third kit after introducing a new bottle green away kit trimmed with silver. When Celtic played at Easter Road that season they wore the stripes, which was still a kit clash in my eyes, but in previous seasons since the late 90’s, Hibs have ended up wearing their away kit at home against Celtic (such as purple on a few occasions).
Of course many years ago both teams wore their home kits, which was very confusing. I would guess this coming season if Hibs did get promoted to the top flight, both teams would wear their away kits.
I think it would be reasonable for Celtic to have a mainly yellow away with a black third. The old ‘wasp stripe’ Umbro kit (and Nike’s version of it) were for me the most effective away solutions. Any word on Hibs’ supplier next season? I know there was some talk of the Nike teamwear contract ending. For me, even adidas teamwear is preferable – take Ingolstadt’s three kits this season – all of them taken from existing templates (the third even uses the WC14 chest chevron), but with nice little touches like water marks and shadow patterns to make them unique.
As regards to Liverpool, the aforementioned website have now changed tact and said the third is going to be orange. They do however usually get the Bayern ones right, so it depends on the team!
No, I think they are getting their confidence back after flirting with closure a few years back; I expect 2017/18 to be another strong year. The only thing that has counted against them this year IMO is the number of templates – two or three collar / cuff / trim combos when, if they raised it to five or six (as in the mid 90s), there would be real variety across their contracts.
Martyn – thankfully the Hibs &I Just Sport/ Nike deal is up at the end of season, nothing confirmed for replacement however there has been a lot of rumours circulating about Macron which I’d be delighted with after 4 years of catalogue kits from ‘Nike’
Adidas would be my first choice for Hibs harking back to the iconic kits they gave us in the late 80’s & early 90’s
Talking of Adidas, I see the Scotland team in their photo calls have been donning new polo-shirts that are the style released for the Euro’s last year, Scotland must have really upset someone at Adidas given that we went from totally bespoke kits and training wear colours in 2013-15 to basic team wear in 2015-17, even the players kits are Climacool and not Adizero like the previous ones
Yeah, bit of a strange one, isn’t it? I can only assume it must be something the SFA have at least partially agreed on, as Scotland seem to now be a ‘tier 2’ adidas team. Both kits are teamwear designs, which given, like you said, that the first ones were ‘tier 1’, seems an unusual downgrade. How long was the deal signed for? It has all the looks of the deal being ‘wound down’. Perhaps the aforementioned Macron for Scotland instead? They have done some solid kits for the rugby union team.
I suspect it may have something to do with JD Sports being involved, we appeared to have a direct deal with Adidas and then just as the 2013-15 kit (a ‘tier 1’kit) was released JD were announced as the sole retailer for all Scotland merchandise, they seemed to have shifted us from a tier 1 to tier 2 which is in line with their deals with Welsh and Northern Irish.
A shame really, the tier 2 kits aren’t bad by any means they just are let down by the missing touches of things such as a long sleeve option and ‘Alba’ on the front of the socks
The training wear is pretty poor, bog standard team wear with quite literally a Scotland emblem sticker on them, not even good enough to warrant an embroidered badge on training wear!
Contrast that with the rather sublime red, navy and silver training wear of 2013-15 makes it even worse
Curiously one thing that was released with the away kit was change pink shorts which have never been used by any SFA team at any level by what I can see, however the change pink socks which have been used by almost all SFA teams at one point or another haven’t been released for retail sale!
Even the boot loving website is reporting the Arsenal-adidas tie up… well it will be interesting to see what the second coming of adidas will serve up for Arsenal.
On the subject of Arsenal I couldn’t help but notice Man City changed their kit for the fixture at the Emirates for no reason whatsoever.
i wouldnt mind some notes on that subject guys (possibly an article) since i really dont get the differences between them other than one is a matchworn kit and the other isnt or one is a tier of kit above the other
but what the hell are Climalite, Climacool, Formotion, Techfit, and i think Nike has Dri-Fit and Puma has Puma-Cell
i have researched the topic but i cant find any info on them anywhere
when did they start being used, when did one replace the other as the top tier of kit ect ect
do other companies have these besides Nike puma and adidas
Hi Tony,
OK, I could be corrected, but I THINK that Climacool is the replica version and the Tier 2; Climalite is the players (ie match) version, available in (very expensive) replicas, for Tier 1 teams; Formotion is training wear, and Techfit is a players shirt again, but with extra support and in some cases breathable panels – around 2010 you could tell the techfit ones by a more fitted look and a faint ‘X’ shape on front and back. Check out Schweinsteiger or Ozil in the black Germany away in 2010, or Robben for Bayern in 2010/11. The Techfit replicas are about 3 times the price!
so let me see if i got this right, climalite is a tier 2 player kit? climacool is a tier 2 replica formotion is tier 1 training wear and techfit is tier 1 player kit …..so whats tier two training?
btw i wanna take this opportunity to say
i like the new England third, i didn’t dislike the red away kit in the first place (its the home that boggles my mind) but at least the third has dropped the stupid socks
and it now gives us at least a pair of blue shorts and socks to wear with the home
yes i know the away socks are blue but without the shorts we had no purpose to wear them (although we did have the red socks to replace them on the away)
although its a sad state of affairs that we should have to do this to tell you the truth
*Not sure what tier 2 training wear teams get, but I would imagine it’ll be standard Climacool; ie will look like training tops but without the extra breathable panels etc that Formotion carries.
At least I think that’s right! To muddy the waters further, adidas’ rain jackets and jogging stuff is often billed as Climalite too!
With regards to England, I suspect the white/white/red home will remain til the tail end of this year, when the new kits will be out. Don’t expect that third kit (which I have to admit is better than either of the other two) to lend its shorts to the home. That would mean Nike actually listening to the fans!
actually i would consider that the choice of the England kit man, if Nike ever tried to interfere in that process then i would say its time to let go …..if it wasn’t already
actually with the quality Umbro are producing recently i wouldn’t mind returning to them so i want them out anyway
and thanks for that Martyn i think i get it now
but when Climalite came in in the 90s was that ever a tier one shirt ….im pretty sure the Newcastle home from 2000 was a climalite kit?
sorry …i meant to say would climalite have been a REPLICA too in the 2000s …like i say im pretty sure the Newcastle home replica was a climalite when it came in ….i havent found any replicas in climacool
Whilst it’s not a clash in my eyes, to a few people on here it is… an “overall clash”… but Everton v Leicester this afternoon… Everton in their usual blue-white-white, whilst Leicester are wearing their white third shirt with blue shorts and socks.
The issue? Leicester have got an all-red away kit, have they consigned the kit to the dustbin or just thought they’d save looking like Liverpool at Goodison Park?
Tony,
You can buy Climalite replicas, they tend to be about three times more expensive and usually come in a presentation box. As far as I know all srtandard replicas are Climacool.
Martyn thats not what im asking, im asking if this has been the case since 2000
because i haven’t found any climacool ones from that time period in picture form
im asking because i know someone (my dad) that owns a Newcastle Home shirt from 2000-2001 (NTL sponsored),
i messaged him and he says that he bought his from the club shop during a home game that year and his didn’t come in a box nor did it cost more than any standard replica shirt
Hi Tony,
I think it may be a recent trend; The most recent time I can remember noticing a definite difference between the replica and matchday shirts was in 2005; The Confed Cup games featuring the newly released red Germany away. The replica versions had stitched adidas stripes whereas the matchday versions had printed. I think the undershirt webbing was different too. So I would hazard a guess that this was the point where Climalite came in and Climacool became matchday. The whole thing is very confusing!
Well thats just it martyn …according to my research (true colours vol 1 of all places) climalite was the brand new material …used on that 1999-02 Newcastle home
Climacool isnt mentioned till 2004 when its used on their Northern Rock blue and black away kit and introduced as adidas new lightweight material
Im assuming that cool replaced lite around that time as the tier 2 fabric ….unless it can be proven that Newcastle were a tier 1 club at that time (unlikely
Hi Tony,
I believe Newcastle were Tier 1 all the way through the adidas contract; collar and trim aside the stripes and other details were very often unique to them.
I seem to remember climacool being the players version of shirts from around 2002 during the fad for dual layer shirts, replicas were climalite I think and it wasn’t until 2006 that replicas became climacool with players shirts being Formotion?!
I think that sounds right; Formotion was the one with the big ‘X’ across it and extra panels; kind of a bit like a rugby shirt. Climalite I think replaced THAT as player issue; though it was a brand used earlier. Basically, to clear up confusion I believe that prior to 2006 the replicas across all contracts were pretty close to the player issue, regardless of the name used, and what we would call ‘teamwear’ today was less commonplace. In the late 90’s I remember adidas supplying Crewe, Burnley, Stockport, Palace and others, sometimes using older designs, but with authentic details like embossed sponsor logos and things like that; that has now changed and Tier 2 teams are using designs that are a good 4 years old in some cases, and the replicas match the player issue.
The big ‘X’ across the back was Techfit which was available alongside Formotion, I have the 2012 Scotland away shirt in both Formotion and Techfit. Formotion was pretty similar to the replica which was Climacool, only noticeable difference was the plastic transfer stripes and the adidas logo was plastic on Formotion and on Climacool the adidas logo was embroidered and the stripes stitched fabric. The Techfit one was very tight fitting with the plastic ‘powerweb’ on the back, the hem of the shirt was also a weird rubber material presumably to hold it in place when worn, the Techfit version also did not have cuffs on the L/S like the Climacool and Formotion versions, the Techfit version of the shirt also has plastic stripes and adidas logo like Formotion
Yep! Very confusing. I would like to try and nail it down, as the different iterations are varied and inconsistent. I have a Bayern training T-shirt branded as Adizero!
Adizero is player issue shirts from 2014 on tier 1 kits, tier 2 kits are Climacool. I have a couple of Adizero player issue shirts and to be honest the difference between them and climacool replica ones is pretty negligible to the lay person, the badges and logos are printed rather than embroidered, the material is a bit lighter and the fit is a bit slimmer. It’s the Adizero shorts that are a completely different material to the replica climacool ones.
Since 2014 all training shirts for tier 1 and tier 2 are the same only difference is that tier 1 clubs get bespoke colours, the Adizero training tops are a similar material to Adizero playing shirts except the fit isn’t as slim and the badges are usually embroidered (however there are some exceptions such as MUFC training shirts 15-16 that had a rubber feeling logo and badge)
Yes, I thought the Bournemouth choice was very strange. A similar thing happened at the Amex over Easter with Wigan wearing an all greeny blue strip at Brighton which made the shorts and socks almost the same colour.
i didn’t have a problem, because i have never seen Bournemouth wear anything BUT black shorts and socks
i can see why it could cause a slight problem with spurs also wearing dark shorts but to be honest spurs white shirts and socks would have provided AMPLE colour differentiation, ….nothing to get into a tizz over
as for our little adidas issue i think im going to start by getting definitive dates when each fabric tech came into existence
that might be a good way of starting the process of sorting out things
well thats just the point i am trying to make Denis
this isn’t a case of it being ANYONES problem, they changed it worked, and their has to be a point where you have to draw the line and say and say “sod it for sanity’s sake” or we will all go mad from discussing an apparent stupidity that isn’t their
the main point is they didn’t clash (witch is actually the wrong word so i dont know why we use the term …clashing colours are colours that dont go together from a design perspective …and by essence two shades of the same colour compliment each other) and thats all that matters in the grand scheme of things
you might not like spurs wearing white socks at home but they have as much of a history of doing so
and Bournemouth’s main pair of socks has been black since the early 90’s (except for the odd occasion witch like i say above …i dont remember off the top of my head)
if this had been a world where Bournemouth didn’t have a red pair of change socks this year (and i am not sure that they do tbh ..cos again i dont remember seeing any …though im sure someone will prove otherwise) then you would be bemoaning something else entirely
and i dont see the point …..Bournemouth shouldn’t have to scrape together a pair of red socks from a few seasons ago (carbini not JD might i add) just to satisfy some archaic idea that only the away team should change when it has always been a staple that BOTH teams are obliged to
i mean …we are human mistakes happen, its easy to forget that sometimes the kit man is an idiot and forgets to pack the other pair
i mean you are forgetting that its only a few years back that someone forgot to tell Oxford United that Barnet had switched their registered colours 2 days before the league season started
Illustrating that Oxford example is going against literally everything else you’ve said – following that logic, Bournemouth would have had to wear Spurs’ white change socks.
Which would have been better than the two teams in socks which were almost the same colour.
In the last six seasons, Bournemouth have only worn black socks twice (last two years). Previous to that, two red pairs and two red/black hooped pairs.
Both Carbrini and Fila whose names appeared on those socks are part of the JD Brand, thus using either wouldn’t be a problem. Not that JD couldn’t have found them some plain red versions easily enough.
Going back to 1990:
Black socks have been used 13 times
Red 3
Red/black hoops 2
White 4
So that’s nine seasons when the socks haven’t been black, and prior to that they hadn’t had them as their first choice socks since the late 70s
I’m against short and sock clashes full stop, to be honest. In the case you mentioned, surely Bournemouth wearing their pink third would’ve solved the problem? OK, no shirt clash, but no clash elsewhere, either. We had a similar problem in the Champions League; Real refuse to wear change home shorts these days, and Bayern’s first choice is white this season, so Real wore their black third at the Allianz. No problem, IMO. No clash, no fuss. For the return leg Bayern wore all red. The logical process is simple – why should a team change at home if they don’t want to? My preference in an ideal world would be Real v Bayern, all white v all red in both legs (as it has been before), but like I said, Bayern have white home shorts this season. And back to the original point, Spurs v Bournemouth, navy v black IS a clash, and it is down to the away team to change to prevent it.
actually Denis since i haven’t disputed that their would have been a clash if spurs had worn blue socks (read what i said carefully and tell me where i do dispute it), i think it it illustrates my point PERFECTLY,
it just so happens that you think i am trying to dispute the issue of colour choice, so you are looking at the part of the example that pertains to that issue
now i will go on record as saying yes ..wearing spurs gold away kit would solve all problems, but since it has nothing to do with my point it dosnt matter at this juncture
because my point isn’t that that Bournemouth should have done an Oxford and wore the oppositions kit, my point is that mistakes sometimes happen for various reasons that we do not know about, the Oxford United example was used to illustrate THAT particular part of my point not my entire point if you catch my drift
in this case it was that no one had told Oxford that the home team had changed their home colours to black at the last minute ..leaving Oxfords black away kit useless
but if you want a better example of “unforeseen circumstances” (the official statement given by the club) than look no further than Mansfield Town wearing Bristol Rovers old away shirt with their yellow shorts and socks back in 2013-14
their would have been no clash their as far as i can see if Mansfield had brought their home shirt, i am assuming the kit man forgot to pack it
you see Denis my actual point is that the kit man is a human being and we sometimes forget this, i mean if we are going to do this properly, lets look at all his options shall we?
now since you haven’t answered my question as to weather Bournemouth actually have a red pair to bring with them this season … im going to assume that they dont and form a logical argument based on that
now their away pair is blue and their third is black so they are both out of the question for sure against a team wearing royal blue or dark blue or whatever colour it is Spurs use
and in that situation i would always pack the black pair too given that spurs can always change if needs be or knowing i can borrow a white pair from them at the referees discretion
now this is sound, since we have NO IDEA (and this is aimed at Martyn) if the pink kit is even still available as a choice …..its 3 games till the end of the season for Christ sake it wouldn’t surprise me if they were not around any more
and their are other potential variables that you are forgetting
1) its up to the referee on the day …for all you know it was his decision for spurs to change instead of simply borrowing a pair to Bournemouth
2) we have no idea if the refs are under orders from the F.A. to NOT match a pair of differently branded Under Armour socks with a JD sports kit (yes it is sad but those are the times we live in im afraid …and i have heard of it happening before in other sports)
after all this is the the Premier League we are talking about here ….appearances matter and sponsors might get mad at that kind of brand integrity foul up, to the point the F.A. might want to avoid it and issue an executive order to its officials
now since we cannot speculate if this is even the case or not so im not going to even try to …all i will say is that it wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest
so you see my point is ….its easy to sit here and criticise the choice because it dosnt meet our lofty ideals and that is all well and good but since their was no clash on the day and it all worked out fine ….i honestly dont have a problem with what happened
sure …on a good day the away team should change i have said this before (i think on the what constitutes a clash page) and i will not go back on this statement …….nor am i saying that blue vs black isn’t a problem Martyn…..because it is
that is not my issue here AT ALL
my issue is that we were asked if anyone had a problem with what happened and i say no because spurs sorted the issue out, and i say this because im not going to complain about an issue as petty as who should change their fecking socks
its petty given the circumstances that the issue was sorted out
now …. Martyn this inst the Champions League my son, this is England our rules state that BOTH teams are obliged to change
i dont know what UEFAs rules are (and i do sometimes wish you would stop using other European countries as examples when they dont often fit the same mould of system we use here) but in the PL and EFL it dosnt matter who is at away, its been a rule since the 1800s that neither team is solely responsible for changing
just because it is your personal preference (as it is mine and i share your opinion …and Denis’s) that the away team should change dosnt make it wrong
especially when it comes to an issue as insignificant as a pair of bloody socks
NOW have i explained myself sufficiently this time?
lets not forget that these are my personal reasons why i dont have a problem here, i dont expect you to agree but it is petty to go all “this will not stand” over the fact that spurs changed when the more important issue should be what happens on the day between the two sides
“my issue is that we were asked if anyone had a problem with what happened and i say no because spurs sorted the issue out, and i say this because im not going to complain about an issue as petty as who should change their fecking socks”
What happened was that nobody changed. Spurs wore navy socks and Bournemouth wore black socks.
Also, I wasn’t saying that Bournemouth should wear socks made a different manufacturer, I brought up 2014-15 because you said this:
“i didn’t have a problem, because i have never seen Bournemouth wear anything BUT black shorts and socks”
i did a quick image search to have a look and all i found were Tottenham wearing white socks vs Bournemouth, i can only conclude that this was the Vitality game and i got mixed up ….sorry
but what i say STILL stands regardless
Bournemouth (and again you haven’t answered if they have a red pair this season that they can call upon or or not so im assuming no) dont have a light pair to switch into,
thus the impetus falls SQUARELY ON THE REFEREE to either loan Bournemouth a pair of Tottenham’s socks or force Tottenham to change
something i do not have a problem with since Tottenham have a history of wearing white socks at home as standard ….as i have already stated
i have already said that their was a clash on the day so i dont need to say anything more on that
and yes …i know why you said that and i had already replied to your comment saying i had forgotten
that comment was about something else entirely, i dont guess about what people mean, nor do i find hidden meanings behind other peoples words
i ask you offer me the same courtesy, i usually mean exactly what i am saying no more no less, and their i was giving a reason why Bournemouth might not have been offered a pair of Spurs white ones
– I’ve no idea if Bournemouth have red socks, I’m guessing not as they weren’t worn. They do have lighter socks in that their away and third sets are blue and pink
– To absolve Bournemouth of blame because they don’t have a lighter pair is wrong, IMO. It’s clearly laid out that the away team must change when a clash arises, and teams’ colours are listed in the PL handbook – https://www.premierleague.com/publications. Otherwise, every team could claim not to have alternative socks.
– I do agree though that the referee should have sorted out the issue and on the day, yes, asking Spurs to wear white socks would have been preferable than a socks clash. Man U have changed to white socks at home to solve clashes in the past.
actually i do not agree …. it isn’t wrong to absolve them at all at least in part
their away and third sets of shorts and socks are as follows:
Away = Blue …this is no good
Third is Black with Green trim…..NOT PINK as you have stated …again …no good
now i have been through that handbook (yeah im sad like that…..i read boring legal shit) and the rule i find is this
ahem …and i quote
M.22. Subject to Rules M.21 and M.23, when playing in League Matches the Players of each
participating Club shall wear Strip which is of a sufficient contrast that Match
Officials, spectators and television viewers will be able to distinguish clearly between
the two teams. In selecting the choice of Strip the following order of precedence
shall apply unless authorised by the Board:
M.22.1. 1st priority: the outfield players of the Home Club who shall wear their
home Strip;
M.22.2. 2nd priority: the outfield players of the Visiting Club;
M.22.3. 3rd priority: the Home Club goalkeeper; and
M.22.4. 4th priority: the Visiting Club goalkeeper.
M.23. The Match Officials shall wear colours that distinguish them from the Strip worn by
the two Clubs. In the event of the Match Officials not having distinguishing colours
then the Visiting Club goalkeeper must change and if this is not possible the Home
Club goalkeeper must do so.
M.24. At least 10 days prior to each League Match the Visiting Club shall notify the Home
Club and the League on Form 14 of the Strip it intends its Players (including for the
avoidance of doubt its goalkeeper) to wear.
M.25. The League, in consultation with PGMOL acting on behalf of the referee, will
determine any disputes arising between Clubs and no later than three working days
prior to each League Match notify both Clubs and the Match Officials of the colours
to be worn.
M.26. In the event of a dispute arising on the day of a League Match in relation to the Strip
to be worn then the referee’s decision shall be final.
M.27. Subject to Rule M.21, no Club shall participate in a League Match wearing a Strip
other than its registered home Strip or alternative Strip or a combination of the
same (in either case as instructed under Rule M.25 or Rule M.26) except with the prior
written consent of the Board.
and i draw your attention to sections M.24, 25 and 26
you see it IS possible to absolve Bournemouth
the league had 10 DAYS BEFOREHAND to decide and 3 DAYS before the match to rais said concerns if their was a clash, and as section M.21 underlines …you can only wear league registered colours
if anything the official rules underline my point even more mate
the impetus might be on the away team but since the league had to clear the kit in the first place 10 days before the match and then the officials had the final say then it is not on the away teams shoulders
everybody agreed to the current kit
and like i keep saying …sufficient contrast of kits was their on the day, and that is all that matters in the long run
Tony, there is absolutely no reason why Bournemouth couldn’t have worn their royal blue away socks against Tottenham’s navy. The away kit in it’s entirely would have alleviated all issues. They wore their pink third kit last season at WHL despite there only being a shorts clash.
its ok Denis, i think Martyn confused you by adding the pink kit to the conversation, but this has been enjoyable all the same
@ Andy
well ….yes their is a reason why they couldn’t ….a massively obvious one if you use your head a bit
its Blue on Blue, …….now i dont know about anyone else but rocking up in blue shorts and socks against a team that plays in blue shorts and socks seems crazier to me than wearing black does
i know its a significantly lighter shade than the spurs kit but its not really an ideal choice …..and we would probably still be having this conversation regardless, even if its for different reasons
Bournemouth made the right choice, their is enough red on the Home shirt to contrast with the spurs kit, its a different colour to the blue so it offsets the black just enough to make things passable
if they had rocked up in an all black kit then i might be able to find fault with the choice but they didnt
now the pl authority’s obviously signed off on this and their was enough differentiation on the day that that the officials did i dont know why we are still having this conversation …….aside from the fact that we are so petty we cannot see the most important part
that it worked on the day
now a blue shirt could possibly cause problems simply if the light of the sun shifted only slightly down the spectrum and is the reason why i expect spurs to wear all white against teams like Chelsea and Everton
just because its easier than risking problems should the merest hint of a cloud decide to interrupt proceedings
i know that this dosnt happen all the time …but its what i would do
but wearing a lighter shade of blue against navy blue is not an ideal solution …and lets not start pretending that it is …since i have seen people on this very site decry Newcastle for daring to have a grey away kit, and decry Man City for wearing daring to have a blue one of a different shade to their home
lets not even entertain the fact that this would be ok in the slightest
blue vs blue still clashes, even if its not as bad as the blue on black is
now your use of last seasons pink kit as an example is not only stupid since they are two different colours, but because what happened last season has no relevance to this season because of the situation
last season they were lucky that they had the pink kit to call upon
their blue away kit last season had a massively darker blue set of shorts than this seasons do, thus changing into the pink kit despite only a shorts clash was the sensible thing to do
this season they have a choice of either black, blue or black
thus bringing up the events of last season dosnt really help your argument given the massively differing circumstances
Tony it would appear you’ve never been close up on a football pitch.
Navy and Mid/Royal Blue is not a clash, one is dark the other is significantly lighter.
Not only was it the ideal choice, it was Bournemouth’s only real choice.
If you think Black and Navy are different enough to not be clash then you are severely deluded and I’ll not waste any more of my time replying to your rants.
you can waste as much time as you want or dont want to for all i care flower
but being facetious simply because i have dared to challenge your point of view will not help you in the slightest, nor will calling what i say a “rant” when it CLEARLY isn’t
ranting implies anger at your opinion that i neither posses nor care to
now i will not sit here and listen to anyone that considers blue on blue a good option no matter how light the coloration of one of them is when it is presented to me in that fashion,
i admitted that one is a lighter shade than the other, and i gave you good reasons why i didn’t agree with you, AND i gave you the differing opinions of this forum on the blue vs blue issue
i might be swayed with the right choice of words (…in fact i was just about to write another post saying that you had a slight point that i could see)
i did NOT insult you, nor did i attempt to question your integrity while i did so (i didn’t call you an idiot personally i just said bringing up the pink kit was idiotic ….and it was)
but since you have the attitude of a 4 year old when challenged i have as much interest in listening to your idiotic opinions as you do my “rants”
but now i put it to you that it is actually because i have probably been on more football pitches than you have and have experienced more problems caused by the situation that you have implied than i have seen solved
so no ..it wasn’t the only choice the club had, the fact you could still see both teams on the pitch proves this to be untrue
i know this because i not only play football regularly, and have seen the changes light colours go through in different lighting conditions
but i am also a graphic designer …by TRADE and thus acutely more aware of colour and spectrum’s than most people are
but since i do not like to speculate on how much experience you have (because unlike you i am NOT a f***** moron ….and i choose that word carefully)
i wont …i will only say this,
i think you are wrong
i have given you my reasons why this is based on my experiences
i have given you them, and i have noted the odd time where shade differentiation has been decried by the forum
weather you agree is your business ….but do not turn this into a pissing contest based on some imagined slight you have
because you will rapidly find out just HOW bothered i can be, about how many of your precious feelings i hurt with my opinions should the mood take me (FYI … its NONE at all)
reposting as it didn’t appear:
In the last six seasons, Bournemouth have only worn black socks twice (last two years). Previous to that, two red pairs and two red/black hooped pairs.
Both Carbrini and Fila whose names appeared on those socks are part of the JD Brand, thus using either wouldn’t be a problem. Not that JD couldn’t have found them some plain red versions easily enough.
Going back to 1990:
Black socks have been used 13 times
Red 3
Red/black hoops 2
White 4
So that’s nine seasons when the socks haven’t been black, and prior to that they hadn’t had them as their first choice socks since the late 70s
Moving on from Tottenham v Bournemouth (phew!)……. does anybody on here know the name of the Coventry fan who takes residence in The Crucible at this time of year? Great to see him with a different Coventry shirt at each session ( he’s in the ‘Talbot’ one this evening. Think he deserves a namecheck amongst us here.,
they might be owned by JD but they dont have JD branding,
a thin distinction to be sure, but as i have said before the PL might not let them do this, …ya know ..because top league in England, branding concerns ect
and as section M.27. of the PL rules (posted above) states
no Club shall participate in a League Match wearing a Strip
other than its registered home Strip or alternative Strip or a combination of the
same (in either case as instructed under Rule M.25 or Rule M.26) except with the prior
written consent of the Board.
sometimes its easier to not bother asking for an exception if you know what the answer will be, theirs no official rule on branding concerns that i can see
but if the PL are this strict on kits it isn’t hard to imagine that it might be a bugbear if you know what i mean
this isnt exactly 1013-14 when they had a Fila black away kit to use as a replacement to those red home ones lol
Ronan, I mentioned ‘Coventry man’ ages ago on here, I saw him the other day in a recent-ish Puma one. Don’t know his name, but I’m pretty sure it’d be easy to find – I think he proposed to his girlfriend in the Crucible a few years back so it should be on a news archive somewhere. He has a great collection of CCFC shirts, anyway.
Tony, I honestly thought the Bournemouth pink third was used this season. My mistake. If I mention the Bundesliga its because A) It’s the league I mainly follow, as my team plays in it; and B) The consistency of short / sock, as well as shirt clash regulations. I for one prefer alt shorts and socks, and the BL regularly enforce even partial clashes. They’re not perfect, and some inconsistencies crop up from time to time, but on the whole the attitude to clashes is more sensible. The Bournemouth / Spurs situation wouldn’t have happened in Germany.
Just seen Wolves v Huddersfield, and completely baffled as to why Huddersfield saw fit not to wear their usual blue and white stripes, of which no elements of their kit clash in any way with Wolves’ kit…… and instead wear their fluoresent yellow and black hooped kit, for no reason.
Just ‘Googled’ him Martyn and found an old story from ‘The Mirror’ where it reveals his name is Brian Wright and he did indeed propose to the woman that I presume is the current day Mrs Wright. Also says that he’s a massive England fan and was invited to a training session where he upset Wayne Rooney by bringing along a ‘Shrek’ toy. Sort of bloke I’d buy a pint for…….
Ronan,
So Coventry man has a name! He had the Admiral England one on the other day, which I took to be a reaction to Coventry’s relegation…true to form though he was back in sky blue the next day! Loves his snooker, does our Brian!
Martyn mate its fine, …..i know why you do it….but just like you say this situation wouldn’t have happened in Germany so bringing it up as a reference point hardly applies sometimes ……i just haven’t had the heart to tell you till now
@Matt good point, …..no more “concise” than anyone else but certainly a less …..retarded ….solution than anyone else has offered, ……just sayin 😉
but given the season is almost over and they haven’t busted them out yet i would assume they went the same way as the pink kit did,
Tony,
It only applies because it used to be the case in England, too. Back in the mid 90’s, change shorts / socks, emergency third kits, bringing back of older kits, even home teams having to change, happened all the time. Things have just got very slack. My comments are spoken mostly out of frustration – y’know, why can’t the PL and FL follow suit? But it’ll never change in England, sadly, and we’ll be having these debates forever.
Out of interest, it’s noticeable that Man United were able to get permission to use variations on their registered kits in that handbook:
They’ve had three different pairs of white shorts – 1. home versions as registered, 2. pair with with grey Adidas stripes to wear with white shirt when there’s a shorts clash, 3. pair worn at Sunderland with blue kit to avoid a black v dark blue clash, these were plain white with no Adidas stripes.
Used two different pairs of white socks – 1. alternatives for use with the home kit, 2. white socks for white and grey kit as in the handbook.
And finally pair of alternative socks for the white kit which were grey, thus avoiding a socks clash at Burnley.
well its interesting to note matt that the handbook dosnt list alternate sets of shorts and socks at all
so its impossible to know just how many sets they actually have registered, its possible that the handbook omits these for simplicity’s sake
i doubt this is the case mind, a few of those changes might simply be the case of the match officials telling them they need to change on the day
@Denis do palace even have a different pair? …..i mean i dont mind, like i have said before its not like Spurs haven’t worn white at home before, i would say they are quite comfortable in them
Some clubs submit alternate info to handbook, from memory I think Manchester United do, but it’s not mandatory.
Palace have their yellow sets, but haven’t worn the home kit in modified format this season as far as I know. Like Spurs, Palace have worn more than few different colours of shorts and socks at home in the past.
United change into alternate shorts and socks because they like to. Otherwise they’d just use the home shorts when white are required with the away kit.
Plenty of examples down the years.
In the handbook link above, some clubs have alternate shorts and socks listed (Watford for example)
Palace have also worn more than a few different colours of shirts at home in the past too, even as recently as 2009 they wore white as a first choice kit (a recreation of the famous sash kit).
yes United are famous for having 3 different pairs of white shorts, i think last season was one of the examples but thats not the point of my comment,
point is that if the EPL only allows registered kits (its in the handbook rules, as are the kits registered by each club) and states that only these kits ..and combinations of them …are allowed to be used, then where do they keep note of these alternate sets, as they are not included in the handbook
Denis actually answers the question with his reply
@ Denis,
its a pity we cannot get a copy of these alternate registrations, if palace haven’t worn an alternate pair yet this season they might not actually have any registered at all
i know they have worn different colours in the past but it is no guarantee they will do so this season, or that they have the means to do so at all
isn’t it easier to assume this than lament the fact that spurs are changing socks again?
i mean like i say above, if palace have a historical precedent of wearing lots of colours at home spurs have historical precedent of wearing white socks at home as well
i think its a case of where do we draw the line of snobbery in the face of actual sensibility tbh
And if Bournemouth had just been sensible and worn either pair of socks that they’ve worn as first choice over the years, we wouldn’t have had a clash or this discussion!
@Matt ……..*Sigh*, they DID, …..they wore BLACK …..i would say it most definitely qualifies as one of those two colours
the fact we are having this discussion speaks for itself
i will look past the fact that you are still blaming Bournemouth despite the fact that we have already ascertained no less than 5 entities (league and no less than 4 match day officials) approved them to wear the black shorts
and the fact that you could still see the players during the game
my point about drawing the line at snobbery is being proven time and time again the longer we draw this out,
thats completely besides the point Andy, their are still TWO OTHER entity’s in the equation that DO, both of witch have veto power over the 3rd entity in the equation …..ie the club itself
placing the blame solely on the shoulders of AFC Bournemouth is STILL a bit harsh in retrospect when you consider they had 5 days for someone to say to them “you cant wear black”
@ Matt, yes but at end of the day the teams were still visible, at what point did we forget that this is the numero uno reason teams change in the fist place
i mean …im not trying to pull anyone down here, but Denis dosnt like the idea that spurs wore white socks at home,
you two dont like the clash it created or seem to think Bournemouth were 100% to blame,
and i myself not entirely convinced that the situation was all that “avoidable” to be honest (we have no proof whatsoever that they still had those white shorts)
when do we stop being kit snobs?
it might be the opinion of some that an avoidable clash was created, but it dosnt make what happened wrong
i mean i dont expect you to agree 100% with my opinion on this, but i AM getting fed up of repeating shit i have already told Denis like a broken record here
when i said i didn’t have a problem with them wearing black i didn’t expect to still be having this discussion two weeks later
I completely agree. Life was much simpler in the days when short and sock clashes were against regulations, then there was a glorious period when clubs were, in effect, self regulating – so Everton wearing either royal blue or black change shorts and socks, Man Utd wearing black shorts or white socks, Spurs in all white, etc etc. The whole point of this forum, and I hope we can all draw a line under the argument with this, is that we all have our own opinions about what is acceptable, and what is not. I am all for change shorts and socks, and happen to (sorry) follow a league where regulations exist to enforce them (the Bundesliga). I would like to see similar regulations back in England, but they don’t exist, and haven’t for some time. Finally, and this IS my last word on the subject, I personally don’t care who is to blame when an avoidable clash occurs, and these days, the blame could just as easily be apportioned to the kit suppliers, who issue pointless third strips that are only intended as ‘leisure tops’, with no prior consideration given to whether they will actually solve clashes. Liverpool / NB with an orange third kit coming up are the latest offenders. In the old days, at least one of Bournemouth’s strips would have been all white. So if we want to apportion blame, lets spread it around, shall we?
as far as i am concerned, YOU forfeited your rights to a opinion on ME personally a few posts ago when you acted like a little 4 year old just because i had the blatant audacity to say that you were wrong about something,
just clarifying my position to you Nancy Drew, because you seem to be labouring under the mistaken impression that i hold you and your opinions in high regard, and i simply feel no shame that i say these words to you nor do i feel any malice as i say them
but forgive me, if i dont even pretend that i give a rats about how much YOU agree with me on anything right at this moment
because quite frankly my dear, ever since you went mental over basically what amounts to MY opinion, i figure you are not worth any more than the cheese under your own foreskin
let alone the privilege of being part of ANY topic that involves me, or any of my activities here
so until it becomes apparent that your opinions on me DONT have any salt behind them, and are NOT laced with your own prejudices i wont be changing my assessment of your ability to judge MY actions any time soon
yeah pretty much, i think the problem this time was mostly the shorts rather than the socks, but a pair of alt socks wouldn’t hurt, it would certainly stop spurs needing to change theirs
incidentally and on another note did they ever wear the white ones from the third kit they had in 2014?
its funny but i once included the option on a FIFA 14 mod that i made even i could never find pics to confirm if they ever did
well i dont like them either, but to be honest i hate changing into an away or third strip for a simple shorts clash just as much so i will take it
but again same case as the Bournemouth clash…sometimes i also have to look past being a pedantic kit freak when the two teams could be seen
see whilst you see it as a case of pride in detail, all the PL will care about is that you can tell the difference between the two teams and like Andy says, they obviously dont see it as an issue
Those of us that are even bothered about it you mean, …..when it comes to clashes im more concerned about shorts myself since they form the bulk of the colour they are a bigger priority than socks
Yet the sock is more directly involved as the ball is played by the foot or against the lower leg, which is why opponents need to be easily differentiated.
And yet, somehow …despite your razor sharp logic Andy, Manchester United still change their whole kit when they play away to Arsenal despite their socks not clashing,
I would cite Southampton vs United in 96 as an example if i didnt think it held less water than a collander, but i dont feel the need to since it speaks for itself,
Now i have no desire to get into another bitch fest with you about a simple opinion difference, ……but at the end of the day , whilst i appreciate that some teams feel the need, it isnt essential in the grand scheme of things
it was that year they changed to blue at half time because they supposedly “couldn’t see one another” (might have been 95 – i cant remember),
i cite it as an example because i think it somewhat illustrates how a change in shirt colour can fix a problem caused by a sock or shorts change, but i say it holds no water because at the end of the day the change was more situational than anything – i mean:
1) grey is close to white anyway (a colour on the Southampton kit) so a clash might have been expected even if their kit was mostly red
2) i think blending in with the crowd was mentioned as a problem, (something thats always seemed strange to me, when you United had no problems scoring whilst playing in black the year previous – and i was a united fan at the time)
but despite this the fact remains
United played in the white home shorts and socks that day to avoid a clash with the saints, thus their socks didn’t clash technically speaking
yet the blue kit still provided better coverage overall, dont get me wrong im not saying the grey away set would have alleviated the problem in the slightest but just changing the shirt at half time might have
so as situational as it is, its still an example of why (and i say this again) in my opinion i concern myself with shirt and shorts clashes over sock clashes,
but again, thats just in my opinion, i dont expect others to agree, and i understand why teams change them
Andy does have a point about differentiating who touched the ball last, but i will always put the bulk of the kit over them
Of course you lose points for not realising that was my entire point, and i was using sarcasm to illustrate to you just how important i think socks clashes are in the grand scheme of things
But …..none the less, i shall buy you a cookie for christmas all the same
Sorry Nancy Drew, but let me re-clarify my position, since you seem to have missed it
whilst i said i wouldn’t get into a bitch fest with you again over what is essentially an opinion difference, and pretty much the same argument we had last season
i NEVER said i wouldn’t open up both barrels at you like i did the last time you tried to make into this a pissing contest, simply because i made you feel like an idiot,
see i already hold you in a low enough opinion as it is, i dont need you making it any lower by acting like a 4 year old again just because you dont have a counter argument
i may have used sarcasm to get my point across, but i haven’t attempted to insult you, or your intelligence thus far, in fact i have even said you have a small point at one occasion
so …that being said ….unless you have another counter argument to explain your side of the equation, one that dosnt involve mildly veiled insults against me or my grammar (the last resort of the man with no point to make in my opinion)…… i dont want to know about it,
When Watford played at Bournemouth they kept their home shirt and shorts yet wore alternative red socks. This did not avert a shorts clash, but did avoid a socks clash.
Although I’d prefer if they’d changed shorts too, it is clear that socks clashes are given greater importance. That they had yellow shirts on which was such a start difference to Bournemouth’s red & black was not sufficient, and they rightly changed their socks too.
Has anyone discovered why? I gather the PL asked for it to happen but why? It wouldn’t have been an issue for me even if WBA had white backed shirts rather than navy.
Sorry to disappoint you bud, but the case was pretty much closed the last time i posted, since the argument involves me stating my OPINION on the matter not the facts (as i have said MULTIPLE times) your two penneth didn’t really change anything in that context,
That being said …. all watford changing socks proves is that watfords kit man (or whoever it was decided keeping black shorts was ok) is an idiot and/or colourblind
The fact that 1 team changed its socks does not in any way shape or form make them a priority, in fact given the odd situation for Arsenal vs WBA i would say either option is just as likey to happen on any given day these days
Nor does league or club specific preferences on what item of clothing they change make that change right in the slightest (arsenal proved this too)
End of the day watford should have worn the red away shorts (are we sure they were an alt home set of socks or just the away ones?) if they were the away side as a priority, and that’s my opinion on the matter and my personal preference as to what takes priority
thanks for the confirmation Denis, if the kit man isn’t an idiot, then someone at Adidas certainly is, i mean issuing two pairs of red socks in one season seems excessive if you ask me
I know others have done it in the past but that dosnt stop it from being stupid
sorry dude, but unfortunately no … the stripes dont close or strengthen your case at all, they weaken it
like i said earlier, a team changing its socks does not prove they are a priority over shorts in any way shape or form because theirs lots of examples of the opposite happening as well …the reason i personally prefer to prioritise them over the socks is because they form the bulk of the colour
but also …you have no idea why they changed the stripes to plain ones in the first place
i mean for all you know Watford could have gotten them from a local sports shop in a pinch, an emergency set……it happens from time to time,
the change might have had nothing to do with the black stripes whatsoever, i mean at the end of the day it was a superfluous change, since the away set would have sufficed
so why bother with new ones in the first place?
until you can prove why they went with the plain ones, then you dont have a case at all, never mind trying to close the damn thing lol 😉
Still think that Swansea home is one of the best kits seen anywhere across Europe this season. Only slight on it is the lack of black change shorts and socks.
They have them, Martyn – they just don’t wear them
Bonkers, isn’t it? Because they could have solved a few clashes this season that the away kit didn’t adequately cover. Home shirt is still beautiful though.
So the new Nike Spurs away will be navy and the third will apparently be…purple. Words fail me.
Didn’t Real Madrid have something similar a few years ago?
They did Denis. They had an all purple kit and an all black one in 06/07.
More Nike idiocy, if it turns out to be true. Don’t know why the third can’t be yellow – that would be a great way to get the fans onside from day one.
I agree there Martyn. Yellow with navy was a recognised Spurs kit at one time but that seems to be ages ago now. Its about time they had yellow again.
Tbf, they do have a gold third this season and had a yellow one in 2014-15. I would prefer too if they were away kits though.
Why idiocy Martyn? Yellow doesn’t seem to sell in such numbers, despite it being traditional. Navy really was always our second colour, until the Football League banned it in the late Sixties.
Yeah, navy should be the away colour, but yellow has always worked as a third when used. The gold one this season actually looks orange on TV!
@Andrew – I think Martyn is saying it’s idiocy to have a navy change shirt and a purple one – unless it’s towards the lilac end, the third won’t solve too many clashes that the navy can’t, I fear
That’s my point. The shade I’ve seen leaked is a bluey purple, so not that different from navy at all. If it was more lilac than purple, fine, but the ‘global template’ next season is a camouflage type print, so I don’t hold out any hopes. Even with say, yellow shorts (just a guess) I can’t see how it would work, especially against someone like West Brom.
Bayern playing Eintracht at the Allianz today, doing a ‘red Chelsea’ by wearing the change red shorts and white socks from the third kit; Eintracht playing in this seasons Juventus-esque home with white shorts and red socks. Sensible so far, being as their away kit is red and black. What doesn’t make sense is that they have a dull yellow third kit that would’ve been sufficient.
***APOLOGIES EVERYONE!!! I was looking at the wrong picture – the above was the game in Frankfurt. Eintracht are today dressed as Newcastle, Bayern in normal colours. Phew!
Eintracht’s socks in both games were black, Martyn – I wouldn’t have seen a need for Bayern to change, tbh
So they were. I wish they’d make their minds up! I imagine that Bayern took their third socks expecting to need the change, and Eintracht changed expecting Bayern to be in their home pair. Lack of communication in other words. I am as you know a fan of change shorts so they were required, I would say!
Though in normal circumstances, Bayern would have been turning up in Frankfurt with their white third kit because Eintracht would have been wearing their usual red and black, instead of having an identity crisis like they have this season with their choice of home colours!
Bit like Bayern themselves 20 years ago when they suddenly went blue…
Yeah, possibly, though Eintracht have a partial historical reason : the two clubs that joined together to form what is now known as Eintracht Frankfurt played in red and white and black and white; as a compromise the new club settled on red and black. Occasionally the old colours surface, red and white being worn in 1960 against Real Madrid; black and white most recently in the early 90’s before this season. As far as Bayern, the 97 change to blue is a mystery, even now. We had a pale blue home kit for the first couple of years of our life, but red came in in 1906 and has been there ever since, in one way or another.
So Nike unveil a black third kit for France that is apparently NEVER going to be worn in an official game, it’s just a ‘lifestyle jersey’. The new Brazil third is apparently the same; only England and the USA are currently earmarked to actually WEAR the kits.
As news surfaces about the new Liverpool kits, apparently being styled after early / classic shirts to celebrate 125 years, I can’t help thinking that they were always better dressed in adidas. I know Warrior / NB is a more lucrative contract, but has ANY of their strips looked anything other than cheap and / or trying too hard?
Speaking of NB, the new Celtic third is going to be…green. Lime green, granted, but still green. What is the plan v Hibs? if the away is anything other than black I can only see massive problems there.
How many times have Bootlover Headlines got it wrong on some kit leaks? I remember them trying to make out that Liverpool’s third kit was going to be some form of dark toxic green, but it turned out to be green of the glow in the dark variety. Had to laugh at their latest “leak” about Liverpool’s apparent third kit for next season, stating they were to use a never before seen colour combination of gold and navy, even though they posted a picture of the 00/01 away kit in the same article, which used those exact colours. Extremely lousy “journalism”, but then again I expect nothing less coming from a lousy Arminia supporter who has made a life of lousiness through stealing other people’s Pro Evo work and calling it his own and glossing over footballers wearing multicoloured boots.
Nike’s third kits are purely for commercial purposes, as we all guessed, and all using that lousy (i’m on a roll today) Vapour template. I wonder what horrible contrasting socks they intend to use for the third kits that actually will get a use on the pitch?
It is an odd decision for Celtic to effectively have three green kits (albeit of different shades), but it wouldn’t be the first time this has happened. In 07/08 they had the exact same issue where they retained the previous season’s green and black striped away kit as a third kit after introducing a new bottle green away kit trimmed with silver. When Celtic played at Easter Road that season they wore the stripes, which was still a kit clash in my eyes, but in previous seasons since the late 90’s, Hibs have ended up wearing their away kit at home against Celtic (such as purple on a few occasions).
Of course many years ago both teams wore their home kits, which was very confusing. I would guess this coming season if Hibs did get promoted to the top flight, both teams would wear their away kits.
I think it would be reasonable for Celtic to have a mainly yellow away with a black third. The old ‘wasp stripe’ Umbro kit (and Nike’s version of it) were for me the most effective away solutions. Any word on Hibs’ supplier next season? I know there was some talk of the Nike teamwear contract ending. For me, even adidas teamwear is preferable – take Ingolstadt’s three kits this season – all of them taken from existing templates (the third even uses the WC14 chest chevron), but with nice little touches like water marks and shadow patterns to make them unique.
As regards to Liverpool, the aforementioned website have now changed tact and said the third is going to be orange. They do however usually get the Bayern ones right, so it depends on the team!
Umbro are improving their kits vastly which is great. Wouldn’t want to see such a historic brand be left behind
No, I think they are getting their confidence back after flirting with closure a few years back; I expect 2017/18 to be another strong year. The only thing that has counted against them this year IMO is the number of templates – two or three collar / cuff / trim combos when, if they raised it to five or six (as in the mid 90s), there would be real variety across their contracts.
Martyn – thankfully the Hibs &I Just Sport/ Nike deal is up at the end of season, nothing confirmed for replacement however there has been a lot of rumours circulating about Macron which I’d be delighted with after 4 years of catalogue kits from ‘Nike’
Adidas would be my first choice for Hibs harking back to the iconic kits they gave us in the late 80’s & early 90’s
Talking of Adidas, I see the Scotland team in their photo calls have been donning new polo-shirts that are the style released for the Euro’s last year, Scotland must have really upset someone at Adidas given that we went from totally bespoke kits and training wear colours in 2013-15 to basic team wear in 2015-17, even the players kits are Climacool and not Adizero like the previous ones
Yeah, bit of a strange one, isn’t it? I can only assume it must be something the SFA have at least partially agreed on, as Scotland seem to now be a ‘tier 2’ adidas team. Both kits are teamwear designs, which given, like you said, that the first ones were ‘tier 1’, seems an unusual downgrade. How long was the deal signed for? It has all the looks of the deal being ‘wound down’. Perhaps the aforementioned Macron for Scotland instead? They have done some solid kits for the rugby union team.
I suspect it may have something to do with JD Sports being involved, we appeared to have a direct deal with Adidas and then just as the 2013-15 kit (a ‘tier 1’kit) was released JD were announced as the sole retailer for all Scotland merchandise, they seemed to have shifted us from a tier 1 to tier 2 which is in line with their deals with Welsh and Northern Irish.
A shame really, the tier 2 kits aren’t bad by any means they just are let down by the missing touches of things such as a long sleeve option and ‘Alba’ on the front of the socks
The training wear is pretty poor, bog standard team wear with quite literally a Scotland emblem sticker on them, not even good enough to warrant an embroidered badge on training wear!
Contrast that with the rather sublime red, navy and silver training wear of 2013-15 makes it even worse
Curiously one thing that was released with the away kit was change pink shorts which have never been used by any SFA team at any level by what I can see, however the change pink socks which have been used by almost all SFA teams at one point or another haven’t been released for retail sale!
I heard Arsenal are set to sign a big sponsorship deal with Adidas from 2018 onwards. What you reckon about that one Denis?
Hadn’t heard, Jon – in my head, Arsenal should always be with adidas, as that’s what they had when I started supporting them!
Even the boot loving website is reporting the Arsenal-adidas tie up… well it will be interesting to see what the second coming of adidas will serve up for Arsenal.
On the subject of Arsenal I couldn’t help but notice Man City changed their kit for the fixture at the Emirates for no reason whatsoever.
They did that last season too, silly stuff.
Are you sure the Arsenal-adidas stuff wasn’t an April Fool?
Yes, confirmed yesterday – FH idea of a joke!
i wouldnt mind some notes on that subject guys (possibly an article) since i really dont get the differences between them other than one is a matchworn kit and the other isnt or one is a tier of kit above the other
but what the hell are Climalite, Climacool, Formotion, Techfit, and i think Nike has Dri-Fit and Puma has Puma-Cell
i have researched the topic but i cant find any info on them anywhere
when did they start being used, when did one replace the other as the top tier of kit ect ect
do other companies have these besides Nike puma and adidas
these are questions i wouldnt mind an answer to
Hi Tony,
OK, I could be corrected, but I THINK that Climacool is the replica version and the Tier 2; Climalite is the players (ie match) version, available in (very expensive) replicas, for Tier 1 teams; Formotion is training wear, and Techfit is a players shirt again, but with extra support and in some cases breathable panels – around 2010 you could tell the techfit ones by a more fitted look and a faint ‘X’ shape on front and back. Check out Schweinsteiger or Ozil in the black Germany away in 2010, or Robben for Bayern in 2010/11. The Techfit replicas are about 3 times the price!
so let me see if i got this right, climalite is a tier 2 player kit? climacool is a tier 2 replica formotion is tier 1 training wear and techfit is tier 1 player kit …..so whats tier two training?
btw i wanna take this opportunity to say
i like the new England third, i didn’t dislike the red away kit in the first place (its the home that boggles my mind) but at least the third has dropped the stupid socks
and it now gives us at least a pair of blue shorts and socks to wear with the home
yes i know the away socks are blue but without the shorts we had no purpose to wear them (although we did have the red socks to replace them on the away)
although its a sad state of affairs that we should have to do this to tell you the truth
Hi Tony,
Probably didn’t word it properly – here goes :
Tier 1 playing – Climalite / Tier 1 replica – Climacool
Tier 1 special – Techfit
Tier 2 playing – Climacool
Training – Formotion*
*Not sure what tier 2 training wear teams get, but I would imagine it’ll be standard Climacool; ie will look like training tops but without the extra breathable panels etc that Formotion carries.
At least I think that’s right! To muddy the waters further, adidas’ rain jackets and jogging stuff is often billed as Climalite too!
With regards to England, I suspect the white/white/red home will remain til the tail end of this year, when the new kits will be out. Don’t expect that third kit (which I have to admit is better than either of the other two) to lend its shorts to the home. That would mean Nike actually listening to the fans!
actually i would consider that the choice of the England kit man, if Nike ever tried to interfere in that process then i would say its time to let go …..if it wasn’t already
actually with the quality Umbro are producing recently i wouldn’t mind returning to them so i want them out anyway
and thanks for that Martyn i think i get it now
but when Climalite came in in the 90s was that ever a tier one shirt ….im pretty sure the Newcastle home from 2000 was a climalite kit?
sorry …i meant to say would climalite have been a REPLICA too in the 2000s …like i say im pretty sure the Newcastle home replica was a climalite when it came in ….i havent found any replicas in climacool
Whilst it’s not a clash in my eyes, to a few people on here it is… an “overall clash”… but Everton v Leicester this afternoon… Everton in their usual blue-white-white, whilst Leicester are wearing their white third shirt with blue shorts and socks.
The issue? Leicester have got an all-red away kit, have they consigned the kit to the dustbin or just thought they’d save looking like Liverpool at Goodison Park?
Only worn once, as far as I know. I think today was just the third time this season they haven’t worn their home kit in the league this season.
^ @ Chelsea, but will probably wear it against WBA this month
Tony,
You can buy Climalite replicas, they tend to be about three times more expensive and usually come in a presentation box. As far as I know all srtandard replicas are Climacool.
Martyn thats not what im asking, im asking if this has been the case since 2000
because i haven’t found any climacool ones from that time period in picture form
im asking because i know someone (my dad) that owns a Newcastle Home shirt from 2000-2001 (NTL sponsored),
i messaged him and he says that he bought his from the club shop during a home game that year and his didn’t come in a box nor did it cost more than any standard replica shirt
it says Climalite on it
Hi Tony,
I think it may be a recent trend; The most recent time I can remember noticing a definite difference between the replica and matchday shirts was in 2005; The Confed Cup games featuring the newly released red Germany away. The replica versions had stitched adidas stripes whereas the matchday versions had printed. I think the undershirt webbing was different too. So I would hazard a guess that this was the point where Climalite came in and Climacool became matchday. The whole thing is very confusing!
*Meant to say Climacool became replica – like I said, confusing! That NTL shirt was class though.
Well thats just it martyn …according to my research (true colours vol 1 of all places) climalite was the brand new material …used on that 1999-02 Newcastle home
Climacool isnt mentioned till 2004 when its used on their Northern Rock blue and black away kit and introduced as adidas new lightweight material
Im assuming that cool replaced lite around that time as the tier 2 fabric ….unless it can be proven that Newcastle were a tier 1 club at that time (unlikely
Hi Tony,
I believe Newcastle were Tier 1 all the way through the adidas contract; collar and trim aside the stripes and other details were very often unique to them.
so that means that cool replaced lite as a tier 1 fabric then
I seem to remember climacool being the players version of shirts from around 2002 during the fad for dual layer shirts, replicas were climalite I think and it wasn’t until 2006 that replicas became climacool with players shirts being Formotion?!
I think that sounds right; Formotion was the one with the big ‘X’ across it and extra panels; kind of a bit like a rugby shirt. Climalite I think replaced THAT as player issue; though it was a brand used earlier. Basically, to clear up confusion I believe that prior to 2006 the replicas across all contracts were pretty close to the player issue, regardless of the name used, and what we would call ‘teamwear’ today was less commonplace. In the late 90’s I remember adidas supplying Crewe, Burnley, Stockport, Palace and others, sometimes using older designs, but with authentic details like embossed sponsor logos and things like that; that has now changed and Tier 2 teams are using designs that are a good 4 years old in some cases, and the replicas match the player issue.
The big ‘X’ across the back was Techfit which was available alongside Formotion, I have the 2012 Scotland away shirt in both Formotion and Techfit. Formotion was pretty similar to the replica which was Climacool, only noticeable difference was the plastic transfer stripes and the adidas logo was plastic on Formotion and on Climacool the adidas logo was embroidered and the stripes stitched fabric. The Techfit one was very tight fitting with the plastic ‘powerweb’ on the back, the hem of the shirt was also a weird rubber material presumably to hold it in place when worn, the Techfit version also did not have cuffs on the L/S like the Climacool and Formotion versions, the Techfit version of the shirt also has plastic stripes and adidas logo like Formotion
So to sum up
Bloody confusing
Especially for kit designers like me
Yep! Very confusing. I would like to try and nail it down, as the different iterations are varied and inconsistent. I have a Bayern training T-shirt branded as Adizero!
Adizero is player issue shirts from 2014 on tier 1 kits, tier 2 kits are Climacool. I have a couple of Adizero player issue shirts and to be honest the difference between them and climacool replica ones is pretty negligible to the lay person, the badges and logos are printed rather than embroidered, the material is a bit lighter and the fit is a bit slimmer. It’s the Adizero shorts that are a completely different material to the replica climacool ones.
Since 2014 all training shirts for tier 1 and tier 2 are the same only difference is that tier 1 clubs get bespoke colours, the Adizero training tops are a similar material to Adizero playing shirts except the fit isn’t as slim and the badges are usually embroidered (however there are some exceptions such as MUFC training shirts 15-16 that had a rubber feeling logo and badge)
Did anyone else have an issue with Bournemouth wearing black shorts & socks at WHL on Saturday?
Yeah, it was very poor form.
How about West Ham wearing white at Sunderland when you think they may have made use of the Thames Ironworks tribute kit?
Yes, I thought the Bournemouth choice was very strange. A similar thing happened at the Amex over Easter with Wigan wearing an all greeny blue strip at Brighton which made the shorts and socks almost the same colour.
i didn’t have a problem, because i have never seen Bournemouth wear anything BUT black shorts and socks
i can see why it could cause a slight problem with spurs also wearing dark shorts but to be honest spurs white shirts and socks would have provided AMPLE colour differentiation, ….nothing to get into a tizz over
as for our little adidas issue i think im going to start by getting definitive dates when each fabric tech came into existence
that might be a good way of starting the process of sorting out things
Not Spurs’ problem though Tony, they changed socks away to Bournemouth, shouldn’t have to do so at home.
Finding a red set of socks wouldn’t have been difficult for Bournemouth.
Red socks were their first choice in 2014-15: http://historicalkits.co.uk/English_Football_League/season/2014-2015/championship.html
well thats just the point i am trying to make Denis
this isn’t a case of it being ANYONES problem, they changed it worked, and their has to be a point where you have to draw the line and say and say “sod it for sanity’s sake” or we will all go mad from discussing an apparent stupidity that isn’t their
the main point is they didn’t clash (witch is actually the wrong word so i dont know why we use the term …clashing colours are colours that dont go together from a design perspective …and by essence two shades of the same colour compliment each other) and thats all that matters in the grand scheme of things
you might not like spurs wearing white socks at home but they have as much of a history of doing so
and Bournemouth’s main pair of socks has been black since the early 90’s (except for the odd occasion witch like i say above …i dont remember off the top of my head)
if this had been a world where Bournemouth didn’t have a red pair of change socks this year (and i am not sure that they do tbh ..cos again i dont remember seeing any …though im sure someone will prove otherwise) then you would be bemoaning something else entirely
and i dont see the point …..Bournemouth shouldn’t have to scrape together a pair of red socks from a few seasons ago (carbini not JD might i add) just to satisfy some archaic idea that only the away team should change when it has always been a staple that BOTH teams are obliged to
i mean …we are human mistakes happen, its easy to forget that sometimes the kit man is an idiot and forgets to pack the other pair
i mean you are forgetting that its only a few years back that someone forgot to tell Oxford United that Barnet had switched their registered colours 2 days before the league season started
http://oxfordkits.com/2005.html
(excellent site that btw i wish all teams had this)
so like i say, you might not like the idea but since it did the job ..i personally do not care
witch is what the original question was
Illustrating that Oxford example is going against literally everything else you’ve said – following that logic, Bournemouth would have had to wear Spurs’ white change socks.
Which would have been better than the two teams in socks which were almost the same colour.
In the last six seasons, Bournemouth have only worn black socks twice (last two years). Previous to that, two red pairs and two red/black hooped pairs.
Both Carbrini and Fila whose names appeared on those socks are part of the JD Brand, thus using either wouldn’t be a problem. Not that JD couldn’t have found them some plain red versions easily enough.
Going back to 1990:
Black socks have been used 13 times
Red 3
Red/black hoops 2
White 4
So that’s nine seasons when the socks haven’t been black, and prior to that they hadn’t had them as their first choice socks since the late 70s
I’m against short and sock clashes full stop, to be honest. In the case you mentioned, surely Bournemouth wearing their pink third would’ve solved the problem? OK, no shirt clash, but no clash elsewhere, either. We had a similar problem in the Champions League; Real refuse to wear change home shorts these days, and Bayern’s first choice is white this season, so Real wore their black third at the Allianz. No problem, IMO. No clash, no fuss. For the return leg Bayern wore all red. The logical process is simple – why should a team change at home if they don’t want to? My preference in an ideal world would be Real v Bayern, all white v all red in both legs (as it has been before), but like I said, Bayern have white home shorts this season. And back to the original point, Spurs v Bournemouth, navy v black IS a clash, and it is down to the away team to change to prevent it.
actually Denis since i haven’t disputed that their would have been a clash if spurs had worn blue socks (read what i said carefully and tell me where i do dispute it), i think it it illustrates my point PERFECTLY,
it just so happens that you think i am trying to dispute the issue of colour choice, so you are looking at the part of the example that pertains to that issue
now i will go on record as saying yes ..wearing spurs gold away kit would solve all problems, but since it has nothing to do with my point it dosnt matter at this juncture
because my point isn’t that that Bournemouth should have done an Oxford and wore the oppositions kit, my point is that mistakes sometimes happen for various reasons that we do not know about, the Oxford United example was used to illustrate THAT particular part of my point not my entire point if you catch my drift
in this case it was that no one had told Oxford that the home team had changed their home colours to black at the last minute ..leaving Oxfords black away kit useless
but if you want a better example of “unforeseen circumstances” (the official statement given by the club) than look no further than Mansfield Town wearing Bristol Rovers old away shirt with their yellow shorts and socks back in 2013-14
http://www.historicalkits.co.uk/English_Football_League/season/2013-2014/league-two.html
their would have been no clash their as far as i can see if Mansfield had brought their home shirt, i am assuming the kit man forgot to pack it
you see Denis my actual point is that the kit man is a human being and we sometimes forget this, i mean if we are going to do this properly, lets look at all his options shall we?
now since you haven’t answered my question as to weather Bournemouth actually have a red pair to bring with them this season … im going to assume that they dont and form a logical argument based on that
now their away pair is blue and their third is black so they are both out of the question for sure against a team wearing royal blue or dark blue or whatever colour it is Spurs use
and in that situation i would always pack the black pair too given that spurs can always change if needs be or knowing i can borrow a white pair from them at the referees discretion
now this is sound, since we have NO IDEA (and this is aimed at Martyn) if the pink kit is even still available as a choice …..its 3 games till the end of the season for Christ sake it wouldn’t surprise me if they were not around any more
and their are other potential variables that you are forgetting
1) its up to the referee on the day …for all you know it was his decision for spurs to change instead of simply borrowing a pair to Bournemouth
2) we have no idea if the refs are under orders from the F.A. to NOT match a pair of differently branded Under Armour socks with a JD sports kit (yes it is sad but those are the times we live in im afraid …and i have heard of it happening before in other sports)
after all this is the the Premier League we are talking about here ….appearances matter and sponsors might get mad at that kind of brand integrity foul up, to the point the F.A. might want to avoid it and issue an executive order to its officials
now since we cannot speculate if this is even the case or not so im not going to even try to …all i will say is that it wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest
so you see my point is ….its easy to sit here and criticise the choice because it dosnt meet our lofty ideals and that is all well and good but since their was no clash on the day and it all worked out fine ….i honestly dont have a problem with what happened
sure …on a good day the away team should change i have said this before (i think on the what constitutes a clash page) and i will not go back on this statement …….nor am i saying that blue vs black isn’t a problem Martyn…..because it is
that is not my issue here AT ALL
my issue is that we were asked if anyone had a problem with what happened and i say no because spurs sorted the issue out, and i say this because im not going to complain about an issue as petty as who should change their fecking socks
its petty given the circumstances that the issue was sorted out
now …. Martyn this inst the Champions League my son, this is England our rules state that BOTH teams are obliged to change
i dont know what UEFAs rules are (and i do sometimes wish you would stop using other European countries as examples when they dont often fit the same mould of system we use here) but in the PL and EFL it dosnt matter who is at away, its been a rule since the 1800s that neither team is solely responsible for changing
just because it is your personal preference (as it is mine and i share your opinion …and Denis’s) that the away team should change dosnt make it wrong
especially when it comes to an issue as insignificant as a pair of bloody socks
NOW have i explained myself sufficiently this time?
lets not forget that these are my personal reasons why i dont have a problem here, i dont expect you to agree but it is petty to go all “this will not stand” over the fact that spurs changed when the more important issue should be what happens on the day between the two sides
and the two teams didn’t clash on the day
Tony, regarding this:
“my issue is that we were asked if anyone had a problem with what happened and i say no because spurs sorted the issue out, and i say this because im not going to complain about an issue as petty as who should change their fecking socks”
What happened was that nobody changed. Spurs wore navy socks and Bournemouth wore black socks.
Also, I wasn’t saying that Bournemouth should wear socks made a different manufacturer, I brought up 2014-15 because you said this:
“i didn’t have a problem, because i have never seen Bournemouth wear anything BUT black shorts and socks”
as for Tottenham, thats my bad
i did a quick image search to have a look and all i found were Tottenham wearing white socks vs Bournemouth, i can only conclude that this was the Vitality game and i got mixed up ….sorry
but what i say STILL stands regardless
Bournemouth (and again you haven’t answered if they have a red pair this season that they can call upon or or not so im assuming no) dont have a light pair to switch into,
thus the impetus falls SQUARELY ON THE REFEREE to either loan Bournemouth a pair of Tottenham’s socks or force Tottenham to change
something i do not have a problem with since Tottenham have a history of wearing white socks at home as standard ….as i have already stated
i have already said that their was a clash on the day so i dont need to say anything more on that
and yes …i know why you said that and i had already replied to your comment saying i had forgotten
that comment was about something else entirely, i dont guess about what people mean, nor do i find hidden meanings behind other peoples words
i ask you offer me the same courtesy, i usually mean exactly what i am saying no more no less, and their i was giving a reason why Bournemouth might not have been offered a pair of Spurs white ones
no more no less
– I’ve no idea if Bournemouth have red socks, I’m guessing not as they weren’t worn. They do have lighter socks in that their away and third sets are blue and pink
– To absolve Bournemouth of blame because they don’t have a lighter pair is wrong, IMO. It’s clearly laid out that the away team must change when a clash arises, and teams’ colours are listed in the PL handbook – https://www.premierleague.com/publications. Otherwise, every team could claim not to have alternative socks.
– I do agree though that the referee should have sorted out the issue and on the day, yes, asking Spurs to wear white socks would have been preferable than a socks clash. Man U have changed to white socks at home to solve clashes in the past.
actually i do not agree …. it isn’t wrong to absolve them at all at least in part
their away and third sets of shorts and socks are as follows:
Away = Blue …this is no good
Third is Black with Green trim…..NOT PINK as you have stated …again …no good
now i have been through that handbook (yeah im sad like that…..i read boring legal shit) and the rule i find is this
ahem …and i quote
M.22. Subject to Rules M.21 and M.23, when playing in League Matches the Players of each
participating Club shall wear Strip which is of a sufficient contrast that Match
Officials, spectators and television viewers will be able to distinguish clearly between
the two teams. In selecting the choice of Strip the following order of precedence
shall apply unless authorised by the Board:
M.22.1. 1st priority: the outfield players of the Home Club who shall wear their
home Strip;
M.22.2. 2nd priority: the outfield players of the Visiting Club;
M.22.3. 3rd priority: the Home Club goalkeeper; and
M.22.4. 4th priority: the Visiting Club goalkeeper.
M.23. The Match Officials shall wear colours that distinguish them from the Strip worn by
the two Clubs. In the event of the Match Officials not having distinguishing colours
then the Visiting Club goalkeeper must change and if this is not possible the Home
Club goalkeeper must do so.
M.24. At least 10 days prior to each League Match the Visiting Club shall notify the Home
Club and the League on Form 14 of the Strip it intends its Players (including for the
avoidance of doubt its goalkeeper) to wear.
M.25. The League, in consultation with PGMOL acting on behalf of the referee, will
determine any disputes arising between Clubs and no later than three working days
prior to each League Match notify both Clubs and the Match Officials of the colours
to be worn.
M.26. In the event of a dispute arising on the day of a League Match in relation to the Strip
to be worn then the referee’s decision shall be final.
M.27. Subject to Rule M.21, no Club shall participate in a League Match wearing a Strip
other than its registered home Strip or alternative Strip or a combination of the
same (in either case as instructed under Rule M.25 or Rule M.26) except with the prior
written consent of the Board.
and i draw your attention to sections M.24, 25 and 26
you see it IS possible to absolve Bournemouth
the league had 10 DAYS BEFOREHAND to decide and 3 DAYS before the match to rais said concerns if their was a clash, and as section M.21 underlines …you can only wear league registered colours
if anything the official rules underline my point even more mate
the impetus might be on the away team but since the league had to clear the kit in the first place 10 days before the match and then the officials had the final say then it is not on the away teams shoulders
everybody agreed to the current kit
and like i keep saying …sufficient contrast of kits was their on the day, and that is all that matters in the long run
Okay, Tony. Good to have had this chat with you.
Apologies on getting the pink thing wrong.
Tony, there is absolutely no reason why Bournemouth couldn’t have worn their royal blue away socks against Tottenham’s navy. The away kit in it’s entirely would have alleviated all issues. They wore their pink third kit last season at WHL despite there only being a shorts clash.
its ok Denis, i think Martyn confused you by adding the pink kit to the conversation, but this has been enjoyable all the same
@ Andy
well ….yes their is a reason why they couldn’t ….a massively obvious one if you use your head a bit
its Blue on Blue, …….now i dont know about anyone else but rocking up in blue shorts and socks against a team that plays in blue shorts and socks seems crazier to me than wearing black does
i know its a significantly lighter shade than the spurs kit but its not really an ideal choice …..and we would probably still be having this conversation regardless, even if its for different reasons
Bournemouth made the right choice, their is enough red on the Home shirt to contrast with the spurs kit, its a different colour to the blue so it offsets the black just enough to make things passable
if they had rocked up in an all black kit then i might be able to find fault with the choice but they didnt
now the pl authority’s obviously signed off on this and their was enough differentiation on the day that that the officials did i dont know why we are still having this conversation …….aside from the fact that we are so petty we cannot see the most important part
that it worked on the day
now a blue shirt could possibly cause problems simply if the light of the sun shifted only slightly down the spectrum and is the reason why i expect spurs to wear all white against teams like Chelsea and Everton
just because its easier than risking problems should the merest hint of a cloud decide to interrupt proceedings
i know that this dosnt happen all the time …but its what i would do
but wearing a lighter shade of blue against navy blue is not an ideal solution …and lets not start pretending that it is …since i have seen people on this very site decry Newcastle for daring to have a grey away kit, and decry Man City for wearing daring to have a blue one of a different shade to their home
lets not even entertain the fact that this would be ok in the slightest
blue vs blue still clashes, even if its not as bad as the blue on black is
now your use of last seasons pink kit as an example is not only stupid since they are two different colours, but because what happened last season has no relevance to this season because of the situation
last season they were lucky that they had the pink kit to call upon
their blue away kit last season had a massively darker blue set of shorts than this seasons do, thus changing into the pink kit despite only a shorts clash was the sensible thing to do
this season they have a choice of either black, blue or black
thus bringing up the events of last season dosnt really help your argument given the massively differing circumstances
Tony it would appear you’ve never been close up on a football pitch.
Navy and Mid/Royal Blue is not a clash, one is dark the other is significantly lighter.
Not only was it the ideal choice, it was Bournemouth’s only real choice.
If you think Black and Navy are different enough to not be clash then you are severely deluded and I’ll not waste any more of my time replying to your rants.
Andy
you can waste as much time as you want or dont want to for all i care flower
but being facetious simply because i have dared to challenge your point of view will not help you in the slightest, nor will calling what i say a “rant” when it CLEARLY isn’t
ranting implies anger at your opinion that i neither posses nor care to
now i will not sit here and listen to anyone that considers blue on blue a good option no matter how light the coloration of one of them is when it is presented to me in that fashion,
i admitted that one is a lighter shade than the other, and i gave you good reasons why i didn’t agree with you, AND i gave you the differing opinions of this forum on the blue vs blue issue
i might be swayed with the right choice of words (…in fact i was just about to write another post saying that you had a slight point that i could see)
i did NOT insult you, nor did i attempt to question your integrity while i did so (i didn’t call you an idiot personally i just said bringing up the pink kit was idiotic ….and it was)
but since you have the attitude of a 4 year old when challenged i have as much interest in listening to your idiotic opinions as you do my “rants”
but now i put it to you that it is actually because i have probably been on more football pitches than you have and have experienced more problems caused by the situation that you have implied than i have seen solved
so no ..it wasn’t the only choice the club had, the fact you could still see both teams on the pitch proves this to be untrue
i know this because i not only play football regularly, and have seen the changes light colours go through in different lighting conditions
but i am also a graphic designer …by TRADE and thus acutely more aware of colour and spectrum’s than most people are
but since i do not like to speculate on how much experience you have (because unlike you i am NOT a f***** moron ….and i choose that word carefully)
i wont …i will only say this,
i think you are wrong
i have given you my reasons why this is based on my experiences
i have given you them, and i have noted the odd time where shade differentiation has been decried by the forum
weather you agree is your business ….but do not turn this into a pissing contest based on some imagined slight you have
because you will rapidly find out just HOW bothered i can be, about how many of your precious feelings i hurt with my opinions should the mood take me (FYI … its NONE at all)
k xxxxx
ok changing the subject ..even if its just to wash the taste out of my mouth
back to the subject of kit types
whats clima 368 & adizero? boots? balls ..or kits?
Bet Bournemouth will get some red socks next season now!
reposting as it didn’t appear:
In the last six seasons, Bournemouth have only worn black socks twice (last two years). Previous to that, two red pairs and two red/black hooped pairs.
Both Carbrini and Fila whose names appeared on those socks are part of the JD Brand, thus using either wouldn’t be a problem. Not that JD couldn’t have found them some plain red versions easily enough.
Going back to 1990:
Black socks have been used 13 times
Red 3
Red/black hoops 2
White 4
So that’s nine seasons when the socks haven’t been black, and prior to that they hadn’t had them as their first choice socks since the late 70s
Moving on from Tottenham v Bournemouth (phew!)……. does anybody on here know the name of the Coventry fan who takes residence in The Crucible at this time of year? Great to see him with a different Coventry shirt at each session ( he’s in the ‘Talbot’ one this evening. Think he deserves a namecheck amongst us here.,
they might be owned by JD but they dont have JD branding,
a thin distinction to be sure, but as i have said before the PL might not let them do this, …ya know ..because top league in England, branding concerns ect
and as section M.27. of the PL rules (posted above) states
no Club shall participate in a League Match wearing a Strip
other than its registered home Strip or alternative Strip or a combination of the
same (in either case as instructed under Rule M.25 or Rule M.26) except with the prior
written consent of the Board.
sometimes its easier to not bother asking for an exception if you know what the answer will be, theirs no official rule on branding concerns that i can see
but if the PL are this strict on kits it isn’t hard to imagine that it might be a bugbear if you know what i mean
this isnt exactly 1013-14 when they had a Fila black away kit to use as a replacement to those red home ones lol
2013-14 ..i meant to say
Ronan, I mentioned ‘Coventry man’ ages ago on here, I saw him the other day in a recent-ish Puma one. Don’t know his name, but I’m pretty sure it’d be easy to find – I think he proposed to his girlfriend in the Crucible a few years back so it should be on a news archive somewhere. He has a great collection of CCFC shirts, anyway.
Tony, I honestly thought the Bournemouth pink third was used this season. My mistake. If I mention the Bundesliga its because A) It’s the league I mainly follow, as my team plays in it; and B) The consistency of short / sock, as well as shirt clash regulations. I for one prefer alt shorts and socks, and the BL regularly enforce even partial clashes. They’re not perfect, and some inconsistencies crop up from time to time, but on the whole the attitude to clashes is more sensible. The Bournemouth / Spurs situation wouldn’t have happened in Germany.
Just seen Wolves v Huddersfield, and completely baffled as to why Huddersfield saw fit not to wear their usual blue and white stripes, of which no elements of their kit clash in any way with Wolves’ kit…… and instead wear their fluoresent yellow and black hooped kit, for no reason.
Just ‘Googled’ him Martyn and found an old story from ‘The Mirror’ where it reveals his name is Brian Wright and he did indeed propose to the woman that I presume is the current day Mrs Wright. Also says that he’s a massive England fan and was invited to a training session where he upset Wayne Rooney by bringing along a ‘Shrek’ toy. Sort of bloke I’d buy a pint for…….
One last point on the Bournemouth clash and whether it cold have been avoided…
Last season, when their strip was branded by JD as it was this time around, they had white shorts for a cup tie at Preston to avoid a navy v black clash:
http://www3.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Preston+North+End+v+AFC+Bournemouth+Capital+Q-JnOMPlcFfx.jpg
Then at Man Utd, they had a pair of white socks to avoid a clash:
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-emqZAsn6sDY/VzuL6-X_dKI/AAAAAAAALH8/jKAT-4L74zwSLxHy2MeZP39mgoN3RWAigCCo/s959/manchester%2Bunited.jpg
Now unless they were silly enough to chuck them all after such minimal use, these would both have been perfect to use at Spurs with their home shirts giving an effective ‘AC Milan’ look.
Great point Matt, also refreshingly concise!
Ronan,
So Coventry man has a name! He had the Admiral England one on the other day, which I took to be a reaction to Coventry’s relegation…true to form though he was back in sky blue the next day! Loves his snooker, does our Brian!
Martyn mate its fine, …..i know why you do it….but just like you say this situation wouldn’t have happened in Germany so bringing it up as a reference point hardly applies sometimes ……i just haven’t had the heart to tell you till now
@Matt good point, …..no more “concise” than anyone else but certainly a less …..retarded ….solution than anyone else has offered, ……just sayin 😉
but given the season is almost over and they haven’t busted them out yet i would assume they went the same way as the pink kit did,
hindsight is 20/20 as they say
Tony,
It only applies because it used to be the case in England, too. Back in the mid 90’s, change shorts / socks, emergency third kits, bringing back of older kits, even home teams having to change, happened all the time. Things have just got very slack. My comments are spoken mostly out of frustration – y’know, why can’t the PL and FL follow suit? But it’ll never change in England, sadly, and we’ll be having these debates forever.
it still happens now Martyn, mostly in the FL
but since the EPL only allows teams to use registered colours these days it dosnt happen in the top tier
they are more strict these days because of …well ….appearance concerns, having to do that kind of thing looks unprofessional
only problem is they are not as meticulous as we are it seems
Out of interest, it’s noticeable that Man United were able to get permission to use variations on their registered kits in that handbook:
They’ve had three different pairs of white shorts – 1. home versions as registered, 2. pair with with grey Adidas stripes to wear with white shirt when there’s a shorts clash, 3. pair worn at Sunderland with blue kit to avoid a black v dark blue clash, these were plain white with no Adidas stripes.
Used two different pairs of white socks – 1. alternatives for use with the home kit, 2. white socks for white and grey kit as in the handbook.
And finally pair of alternative socks for the white kit which were grey, thus avoiding a socks clash at Burnley.
Tottenham are wearing white socks at Palace tonight. Palace didn’t change at WHL in August.
well its interesting to note matt that the handbook dosnt list alternate sets of shorts and socks at all
so its impossible to know just how many sets they actually have registered, its possible that the handbook omits these for simplicity’s sake
i doubt this is the case mind, a few of those changes might simply be the case of the match officials telling them they need to change on the day
@Denis do palace even have a different pair? …..i mean i dont mind, like i have said before its not like Spurs haven’t worn white at home before, i would say they are quite comfortable in them
Some clubs submit alternate info to handbook, from memory I think Manchester United do, but it’s not mandatory.
Palace have their yellow sets, but haven’t worn the home kit in modified format this season as far as I know. Like Spurs, Palace have worn more than few different colours of shorts and socks at home in the past.
United change into alternate shorts and socks because they like to. Otherwise they’d just use the home shorts when white are required with the away kit.
Plenty of examples down the years.
In the handbook link above, some clubs have alternate shorts and socks listed (Watford for example)
Palace have also worn more than a few different colours of shirts at home in the past too, even as recently as 2009 they wore white as a first choice kit (a recreation of the famous sash kit).
@ Matt,
yes United are famous for having 3 different pairs of white shorts, i think last season was one of the examples but thats not the point of my comment,
point is that if the EPL only allows registered kits (its in the handbook rules, as are the kits registered by each club) and states that only these kits ..and combinations of them …are allowed to be used, then where do they keep note of these alternate sets, as they are not included in the handbook
Denis actually answers the question with his reply
@ Denis,
its a pity we cannot get a copy of these alternate registrations, if palace haven’t worn an alternate pair yet this season they might not actually have any registered at all
i know they have worn different colours in the past but it is no guarantee they will do so this season, or that they have the means to do so at all
isn’t it easier to assume this than lament the fact that spurs are changing socks again?
i mean like i say above, if palace have a historical precedent of wearing lots of colours at home spurs have historical precedent of wearing white socks at home as well
i think its a case of where do we draw the line of snobbery in the face of actual sensibility tbh
And if Bournemouth had just been sensible and worn either pair of socks that they’ve worn as first choice over the years, we wouldn’t have had a clash or this discussion!
As Watford did at WHL in week 29!
@Matt ……..*Sigh*, they DID, …..they wore BLACK …..i would say it most definitely qualifies as one of those two colours
the fact we are having this discussion speaks for itself
i will look past the fact that you are still blaming Bournemouth despite the fact that we have already ascertained no less than 5 entities (league and no less than 4 match day officials) approved them to wear the black shorts
and the fact that you could still see the players during the game
my point about drawing the line at snobbery is being proven time and time again the longer we draw this out,
Neither the Assistant’s nor Fourth Official have any control over what Clubs wear.
It’s an opinion of some that an avoidable clash was created, that’s all.
thats completely besides the point Andy, their are still TWO OTHER entity’s in the equation that DO, both of witch have veto power over the 3rd entity in the equation …..ie the club itself
placing the blame solely on the shoulders of AFC Bournemouth is STILL a bit harsh in retrospect when you consider they had 5 days for someone to say to them “you cant wear black”
@ Matt, yes but at end of the day the teams were still visible, at what point did we forget that this is the numero uno reason teams change in the fist place
i mean …im not trying to pull anyone down here, but Denis dosnt like the idea that spurs wore white socks at home,
you two dont like the clash it created or seem to think Bournemouth were 100% to blame,
and i myself not entirely convinced that the situation was all that “avoidable” to be honest (we have no proof whatsoever that they still had those white shorts)
when do we stop being kit snobs?
it might be the opinion of some that an avoidable clash was created, but it dosnt make what happened wrong
now can we change the subject yet
i mean i dont expect you to agree 100% with my opinion on this, but i AM getting fed up of repeating shit i have already told Denis like a broken record here
when i said i didn’t have a problem with them wearing black i didn’t expect to still be having this discussion two weeks later
its a pair of shorts for crying out loud
We don’t agree any % let alone 100%.
Though I do concur that you are repeating shit!
Shorts matter. Especially when they clash. Socks even more so.
I completely agree. Life was much simpler in the days when short and sock clashes were against regulations, then there was a glorious period when clubs were, in effect, self regulating – so Everton wearing either royal blue or black change shorts and socks, Man Utd wearing black shorts or white socks, Spurs in all white, etc etc. The whole point of this forum, and I hope we can all draw a line under the argument with this, is that we all have our own opinions about what is acceptable, and what is not. I am all for change shorts and socks, and happen to (sorry) follow a league where regulations exist to enforce them (the Bundesliga). I would like to see similar regulations back in England, but they don’t exist, and haven’t for some time. Finally, and this IS my last word on the subject, I personally don’t care who is to blame when an avoidable clash occurs, and these days, the blame could just as easily be apportioned to the kit suppliers, who issue pointless third strips that are only intended as ‘leisure tops’, with no prior consideration given to whether they will actually solve clashes. Liverpool / NB with an orange third kit coming up are the latest offenders. In the old days, at least one of Bournemouth’s strips would have been all white. So if we want to apportion blame, lets spread it around, shall we?
@Martyn, a point i agree with, and have been trying to make myself, we cannot blame 1 entity 100% these days
but i think league ARE trying to control the rules or they wouldn’t have rules on kits to begin with, they were just lax on this occasion
but we will stick a pin on that one as you say
@Matt …yes they are ….. ..but not when you can see both teams just fine ….and we could, ……its about priority’s here,
i mean the Woman’s FA Cup final (Blue Vs Blue) was less forgivable clash than this one was
*sigh* and finally i come to @Andy
as far as i am concerned, YOU forfeited your rights to a opinion on ME personally a few posts ago when you acted like a little 4 year old just because i had the blatant audacity to say that you were wrong about something,
just clarifying my position to you Nancy Drew, because you seem to be labouring under the mistaken impression that i hold you and your opinions in high regard, and i simply feel no shame that i say these words to you nor do i feel any malice as i say them
but forgive me, if i dont even pretend that i give a rats about how much YOU agree with me on anything right at this moment
because quite frankly my dear, ever since you went mental over basically what amounts to MY opinion, i figure you are not worth any more than the cheese under your own foreskin
let alone the privilege of being part of ANY topic that involves me, or any of my activities here
so until it becomes apparent that your opinions on me DONT have any salt behind them, and are NOT laced with your own prejudices i wont be changing my assessment of your ability to judge MY actions any time soon
thats just who i am
Thank You
F*** You
Bye xxxxxxxxxxx
So, to confirm, Bournemouth better have some alternative socks next season. Either red or white will do as they’ve worn them loads before.
yeah pretty much, i think the problem this time was mostly the shorts rather than the socks, but a pair of alt socks wouldn’t hurt, it would certainly stop spurs needing to change theirs
incidentally and on another note did they ever wear the white ones from the third kit they had in 2014?
its funny but i once included the option on a FIFA 14 mod that i made even i could never find pics to confirm if they ever did
Spurs at Hull yesterday with their usual navy shorts v Hull’s black.
Minus the socks, exactly the same issue as the Bournemouth one discussed (at length) above.
Martyn, shorts clashes are very common in the PL and not an issue. Had Hull had dark socks Tottenham would have switched to white.
Sorry, just don’t like shorts clashes!
Me neither. It’s a matter of pride in detail.
@Matt and Martyn
well i dont like them either, but to be honest i hate changing into an away or third strip for a simple shorts clash just as much so i will take it
but again same case as the Bournemouth clash…sometimes i also have to look past being a pedantic kit freak when the two teams could be seen
see whilst you see it as a case of pride in detail, all the PL will care about is that you can tell the difference between the two teams and like Andy says, they obviously dont see it as an issue
now do hull even have an orange pair this season?
i cant find any examples myself
It is just personal preference, and we all have different views. Like I said, I don’t like short (or sock) clashes, personally.
Hull had amber shorts and socks this season http://www.gettyimages.ie/detail/news-photo/tottenham-hotspurs-victor-wanyama-goes-down-under-the-news-photo/629852120?esource=SEO_GIS_CDN_Redirect
Just to clarify – shorts are alternatives, socks first choice.
@ denis
See ….now the confirmed existance of those makes it more unforgivable in my eyes
@martyn ….and like i say ..i dont either, im just more ready to forgive when the combo does its job i guess
Of course the fact i now know an orange pair exists has made me less forgiving
Bournemouth in their home kit at Tottenham tomorrow, we can all breath a sigh of relief that there will be no sock clash this season!
Those of us that are even bothered about it you mean, …..when it comes to clashes im more concerned about shorts myself since they form the bulk of the colour they are a bigger priority than socks
Yet the sock is more directly involved as the ball is played by the foot or against the lower leg, which is why opponents need to be easily differentiated.
And yet, somehow …despite your razor sharp logic Andy, Manchester United still change their whole kit when they play away to Arsenal despite their socks not clashing,
I would cite Southampton vs United in 96 as an example if i didnt think it held less water than a collander, but i dont feel the need to since it speaks for itself,
Now i have no desire to get into another bitch fest with you about a simple opinion difference, ……but at the end of the day , whilst i appreciate that some teams feel the need, it isnt essential in the grand scheme of things
Sorry
Forgive me Tony, what’s the relevance of Southampton v Manchester United in 1996?
it was that year they changed to blue at half time because they supposedly “couldn’t see one another” (might have been 95 – i cant remember),
i cite it as an example because i think it somewhat illustrates how a change in shirt colour can fix a problem caused by a sock or shorts change, but i say it holds no water because at the end of the day the change was more situational than anything – i mean:
1) grey is close to white anyway (a colour on the Southampton kit) so a clash might have been expected even if their kit was mostly red
2) i think blending in with the crowd was mentioned as a problem, (something thats always seemed strange to me, when you United had no problems scoring whilst playing in black the year previous – and i was a united fan at the time)
but despite this the fact remains
United played in the white home shorts and socks that day to avoid a clash with the saints, thus their socks didn’t clash technically speaking
yet the blue kit still provided better coverage overall, dont get me wrong im not saying the grey away set would have alleviated the problem in the slightest but just changing the shirt at half time might have
so as situational as it is, its still an example of why (and i say this again) in my opinion i concern myself with shirt and shorts clashes over sock clashes,
but again, thats just in my opinion, i dont expect others to agree, and i understand why teams change them
Andy does have a point about differentiating who touched the ball last, but i will always put the bulk of the kit over them
Tony have you had a bang to the head? United change at Arsenal because they wear red!
*slow clap*
10 points captain obvious
Of course you lose points for not realising that was my entire point, and i was using sarcasm to illustrate to you just how important i think socks clashes are in the grand scheme of things
But …..none the less, i shall buy you a cookie for christmas all the same
Its hard to differentiate the nonsense you spout from sarcasm
uh-huh, well thats cute and all sweetheart, but if i was worried about morons being able to read what i say i would post on 4chan k xxxx
Sorry Nancy Drew, but let me re-clarify my position, since you seem to have missed it
whilst i said i wouldn’t get into a bitch fest with you again over what is essentially an opinion difference, and pretty much the same argument we had last season
i NEVER said i wouldn’t open up both barrels at you like i did the last time you tried to make into this a pissing contest, simply because i made you feel like an idiot,
see i already hold you in a low enough opinion as it is, i dont need you making it any lower by acting like a 4 year old again just because you dont have a counter argument
i may have used sarcasm to get my point across, but i haven’t attempted to insult you, or your intelligence thus far, in fact i have even said you have a small point at one occasion
so …that being said ….unless you have another counter argument to explain your side of the equation, one that dosnt involve mildly veiled insults against me or my grammar (the last resort of the man with no point to make in my opinion)…… i dont want to know about it,
i dont care
k flower xx
When Watford played at Bournemouth they kept their home shirt and shorts yet wore alternative red socks. This did not avert a shorts clash, but did avoid a socks clash.
Although I’d prefer if they’d changed shorts too, it is clear that socks clashes are given greater importance. That they had yellow shirts on which was such a start difference to Bournemouth’s red & black was not sufficient, and they rightly changed their socks too.
See that case? It’s closed.
Arsenal in Red shorts today at West Brom!
I repeat…Arsenal….Red Shorts!
Has anyone discovered why? I gather the PL asked for it to happen but why? It wouldn’t have been an issue for me even if WBA had white backed shirts rather than navy.
@kitclashes matt
Sorry to disappoint you bud, but the case was pretty much closed the last time i posted, since the argument involves me stating my OPINION on the matter not the facts (as i have said MULTIPLE times) your two penneth didn’t really change anything in that context,
That being said …. all watford changing socks proves is that watfords kit man (or whoever it was decided keeping black shorts was ok) is an idiot and/or colourblind
The fact that 1 team changed its socks does not in any way shape or form make them a priority, in fact given the odd situation for Arsenal vs WBA i would say either option is just as likey to happen on any given day these days
Nor does league or club specific preferences on what item of clothing they change make that change right in the slightest (arsenal proved this too)
End of the day watford should have worn the red away shorts (are we sure they were an alt home set of socks or just the away ones?) if they were the away side as a priority, and that’s my opinion on the matter and my personal preference as to what takes priority
Watford’s kit man is an idiot – FACT
Because loon on internet says so!
They were alternative home socks as they had black adidas stripes.
The away socks have white stripes.
Those black Adidas stripes make the case so closed, it’s impossible to open with any form of argument or opinion
thanks for the confirmation Denis, if the kit man isn’t an idiot, then someone at Adidas certainly is, i mean issuing two pairs of red socks in one season seems excessive if you ask me
I know others have done it in the past but that dosnt stop it from being stupid
Btw mandy …if you are looking for my come back, you know whos tits you can wipe it from xx
I mean right now you have no need to talk considering all you have done this past few months is cry, your opinion of me is of no consequence xx
@ Kitcladhes Matt
sorry dude, but unfortunately no … the stripes dont close or strengthen your case at all, they weaken it
like i said earlier, a team changing its socks does not prove they are a priority over shorts in any way shape or form because theirs lots of examples of the opposite happening as well …the reason i personally prefer to prioritise them over the socks is because they form the bulk of the colour
but also …you have no idea why they changed the stripes to plain ones in the first place
i mean for all you know Watford could have gotten them from a local sports shop in a pinch, an emergency set……it happens from time to time,
the change might have had nothing to do with the black stripes whatsoever, i mean at the end of the day it was a superfluous change, since the away set would have sufficed
so why bother with new ones in the first place?
until you can prove why they went with the plain ones, then you dont have a case at all, never mind trying to close the damn thing lol 😉