|
|
Post by marinerbhoy on Mar 15, 2007 16:57:38 GMT 10
|
|
|
|
Post by Andy on Mar 15, 2007 17:06:22 GMT 10
Someone beat you to it in the Aus football section. Some of the other things in that look pretty interesting. This probably adds more proof that they are authentic.
|
|
|
|
Post by marinerbhoy on Mar 15, 2007 17:10:38 GMT 10
Someone beat you to it in the Aus football section. Some of the other things in that look pretty interesting. This probably adds more proof that they are authentic. argh unlucky. i just stole th link from sfcu |
|
|
|
Post by Andy on Mar 15, 2007 17:18:22 GMT 10
What's with the black dots on QLD's kit? Looks shit.
|
|
|
|
Post by northernspirit on Mar 15, 2007 18:39:56 GMT 10
What's with the black dots on QLD's kit? Looks shit. its cat crap |
|
|
|
Post by Andy on Mar 15, 2007 20:29:25 GMT 10
What's with the black dots on QLD's kit? Looks shit. its cat crap It's a good effort by them to try and distance their kits from ours and Bling's but I don't even think there fans could say something good about that! |
|
skilbeck
State League player
aloisi johnny aloisi aloisi he's a mariner
Posts: 321
|
Post by skilbeck on Mar 16, 2007 0:01:45 GMT 10
is there any possiblity for away strips they will get rid of the compulsory white shirt rule and let the away teams wear their home shirts unless there is an obvious clash?
|
|
|
|
Post by ~Floss~ on Mar 16, 2007 9:19:24 GMT 10
is there any possiblity for away strips they will get rid of the compulsory white shirt rule and let the away teams wear their home shirts unless there is an obvious clash? I've raised the same issue on here before, and apparently i wasn't the first (or last). Supposedly the A-League or FFA had decided early on to stick with colpulsory white away strips for the first 5 years. I'm not sure what the benefit of that system is - so far we're yet to hear from anyone who likes it. |
|
|
|
Post by jazasydneyfc on Mar 16, 2007 9:21:22 GMT 10
The benefit is for Reebok. It means there's more merchandise to sell. Each team has no more than two clashes so you'd hardly ever see the away kits - if you hardly saw them you wouldn't think of buying it right?
Don't ever expect to see it change. Maybe the white rule, but never the compulsory away kit rule.
|
|
skilbeck
State League player
aloisi johnny aloisi aloisi he's a mariner
Posts: 321
|
Post by skilbeck on Mar 16, 2007 9:37:34 GMT 10
The benefit is for Reebok. It means there's more merchandise to sell. Each team has no more than two clashes so you'd hardly ever see the away kits - if you hardly saw them you wouldn't think of buying it right? Don't ever expect to see it change. Maybe the white rule, but never the compulsory away kit rule. do they ever sell that many away strips? within the marinators i only see very few like about 5% and i would never buy an away shirt anyway especially if it has to fit into a formula that the a league enforces on every team |
|
|
|
Post by ~Floss~ on Mar 16, 2007 9:40:24 GMT 10
If away kits remain compulsory, then it makes sense that white remains standard, with no-one having a white home kit.
Otherwise, for example, CCM and Sydney would probably have navy. Then it couldn't be worn in Melbourne (for example).
The only other answer would be to have completely different away kits (like Arsenal's council-worker strip, etc), which would confuse the hell out the general public (potential supporters).
|
|
|
|
Post by ~Floss~ on Mar 16, 2007 9:43:50 GMT 10
BTW, i don't know about other clubs, but i haven't seen more than 3 instances of CCM fans wearing the away kit, so the idea that they can potentially sell twice as many shirts if the away kit is worn more often is not working out for Rbk or the league or whosever idea it was.
Maybe they'd sell more home shirts if they were worn more often, or more away shirts if they were in club colours.
Anyway, it's all been said before and apparently we're not gonna change it
|
|
|
|
Post by northernspirit on Mar 16, 2007 9:45:12 GMT 10
The benefit is for Reebok. It means there's more merchandise to sell. Each team has no more than two clashes so you'd hardly ever see the away kits - if you hardly saw them you wouldn't think of buying it right? Don't ever expect to see it change. Maybe the white rule, but never the compulsory away kit rule. not to forget there is a % proceed to the FFA and club too |
|
|
|
Post by Jesus on Mar 16, 2007 9:54:55 GMT 10
If NZ get up, will they be wearing white this season?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jesus on Mar 16, 2007 10:00:17 GMT 10
Did anyone check out the stats for tv audiences involving the teams?
It went melbourne, sydney, perth, mariners, qld, adelaide, scum, nz.
Found it interesting, that coming from the smallest region, tv audiences for our games were comparatively pretty good. If a number of these people are on the coast, then it is up to the club to try and entice them to come to the games.
Same for perth, if even 1/3 of their viewers are from perth, hopefully with the club being sorted out, they can entice some of these people back to the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by northernspirit on Mar 16, 2007 10:00:28 GMT 10
nz would be yellow and black
thats the traditional colours of wellington
|
|
|
|
Post by Andy on Mar 16, 2007 15:03:15 GMT 10
nz would be yellow and black thats the traditional colours of wellington I had a feeling it could be that, because of the Hurricanes in the Super 14. I think it would primarily black with a bit of yellow on it. Kinda of like ours but the coulours reversed and black instead of navy. |
|
|
|
Post by northernspirit on Mar 16, 2007 15:29:58 GMT 10
actually ive seen a design its basically half and half
(yellow and black)
|
|
|
|
Post by LeedsMariner#4 on Mar 16, 2007 16:10:34 GMT 10
sounds ok!
grey and balck isnt the best mix of colours for a football shirt
|
|
|
|
Post by Andy on Mar 16, 2007 16:19:09 GMT 10
actually ive seen a design its basically half and half (yellow and black) Can you post it? |
|
