Far bigger teams get templates, it's just how it works now. We simply are not significant enough in terms of advertising and revenue for addidas to invest any more time/effort into making us a custom kit. We'll get a custom kit if we switch to Burrda or Macron next season and you can guarantee it will be awful (see leeds, west ham, wolves...etc) you'll soon be wishing for an addidas template again.
Most kits are ****. I'm happy with Adidas, and would be with Nike or Hummel. I just don't want another sponsor like our current one smeared across the front of it !!
Don't know how you would get a kit to look like a seagull or an owl, or a bantam, or a bee............. and why would you want to?! A tiger as an emblem is so much better than any of those - so why not have stripes??
Well block stripes don't look like a tiger either. The only time we've looked like a tiger was the early 90's with the tiger print shirt and we all know how well received they were!
There's no problem with stripes. I don't think one person on this thread has said we shouldn't have stripes. The argument is whether we should always wear stripes or alternate between stripes and plain as we currenly do and have done for about 70 years. Surely the bit that needs justifying is why we should suddenly change to always having stripes? The floor is yours...
Personally I do think we should always wear stripes, and have always preferred them. Why ? well, because it ties in with our nickname first and it makes us distinctive - to me the solid coloured strips just lump us in with the likes of Wolves. And yes I know that their colours are technically different but tbh most people just see 'yellow' or 'gold' and black
A block striped shirt doesn't look like a tiger though, and even if it did it doesn't matter, because like I said other clubs don't have to look liker the animal that their nickname is based on. Also it doesn't make us distinctive, because we've worn plain shirts just as much (if not more) over the years.
I can see the argument for sticking with stripes full-time. I suppose that it would enhance our 'brand image', if we really was aiming to become more popular. Although in the short-run you would have less variation between shirts (maybe less sales because of this), you would aiming to benefit the club in the long-run by having a more distinctive identity.
that kit is smart as ****, and trust me im a fashionable guy .........hate city home kits but this one i shall be purchasing. the ones moaning probably still wear adidas popper 3 quarter trackies with white socks and donnay running shoes with big loop laces haha!!
I don't know if someones mentioned the away kit yet, but apparently it's exactly like the home kit but instead of amber it's white, white shirt with black shoulders, black shorts and white socks
I hope not. That doesn't sound very nice. Are you sure the rumour didn't come from someone who saw a box of Hull FC training shirts?
I personally like this new kit. It's a change from previous seasons and we still have the same unique Hull City colours. Who cares if 'The foxes' don't play in a fox suit and 'the iron' don't play in the tin man's outfit in the wizard of oz, that is what makes us Hull City
Agreed, we're in a league were foxes and lions play in blue, wolves play in gold, bluebirds play in red and terriors play in light blue/white stripes who really cares! At least we're the right colour! (unless you're going to be pedantic and say it's not quite amber)
Seems odd if true since their new badge still has the bluebird on it (albeit small) please log in to view this image
