Morning All, £10m for us to wear a red strip? Certainly! Just as long as we didn't have a sponsors' name on the front, & replaced it with 'I fcuking hate scum!'.
Interesting question Is it any different from when we changed our kit from blue and white, to all white in the 1960's, other than the fact that the change now would be for a substantial amount of money, whether that amount is sufficient is another matter. The argument today would be that we are synonymous with an all white kit, especially as with the 60's and 70's being our most successful period, but could it also be argued that it may be associated with most probably our worst footballing history too. Nostalgia plays a part too, however, how did those fans from the 40's and 50's feel when we changed firstly from a mainly gold top to blue then to white, thus is there an argument against changing, especially when offered a financial incentive. Its not as if we are Liverpool, who have worn red ever season apart from one, or Chelsea who changed from green to blue in the 1920's, they at least have an argument for maintaining traditional colours. However the white top , from a worldwide perspective is probably only associated with a small number of clubs, thus there is an identification factor , that would be diluted by changing to a different coloured top. Its similar to the more generic nicknames used today, no matter how much we may hate the fact, but country wide and worldwide, if someone referred to United, we wouldn't be the first club that is thought of, in a similar way to all those clubs that use City, Rovers or Town. So would I be prepared to accept a total kit change for the sum of £10 million, then I'd say yes, providing that whatever the new kit was was unique and identifiable. A more generic red or blue kit however, would need a lot more financial incentive, together with a darn good reason for changing to persuade me.
Aski, When we changed our kit in the 60s we were a completely different club. Leeds was a rugby league town in a rugby league county, the club had nothing like the support it has today and had won no honours in it's short history. When Revie changed the kit to white, it was the beggining of the Leeds United we support today. "associated with most probably our worst footballing history too", only in the mind of the southern media, in the Revie era Leeds played some of the best football ever by any British team up to that point. We were given the tag 'dirty leeds' in the very early 60s by the FA, yet even at that point leeds had one of the best disciplinary records in the league. From the mid 60s to the mid 70s, Leeds were the best footballing team in the country, with the most talented players, its something to be proud of. No other british team of that era could do this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wweh3ROiqWI So we should be proud of our all white kit and never change it for any amount of money
Spot on Carter, and I'm surprised at Warnock's comments. With more investment in the playing side we'll be playing PL football in time, even if we have to wait for Bates to pop his clogs. Would rather wait a few more years than change our identity for a quick fix cash injection.
Yes it would be and would we be hypocrites saying that there is nothing we wouldn't do for £10m but our club shouldn't? Some say everything has it's price, sadly I can be brought although I am expensive
Tonge has signed http://www.leedsunited.com/news/20120913/midfielder-signs-up-in-loan-deal_2247585_2917723
Tonge, well, Im in the minority, so Ill reserve judgement. Maybe he'll rediscover his form under Warnock!!!
Think Tonge will do fine. As Warnock said, he's a pretty good passer and he knows Warnock and his systems well. Don't expect fireworks from him but I think he'll be pretty consistent
Would we rather have a safe pair of hands or a gamble. Im thinking, even if the gamble went wrong, we aren't gonna be in a relegation fight
Playing in red for one season for £10m to get us out of the Championship seems reasonable..... so long as we could have a ceremonial burning as the opening of a promotion party. On Tonge, no real comment. We need loan players to cover our shortfall. So if Warnock thinks he can do a job, that'll do for me for now.
Carter thanks for the reply Possibly I didnt explain myself quite right here, but I wasnt referring to the Revie era when I mentioned our worst part in footballing history, I actually meant the last 10 years when we have suffered Administration and relegation to the third tier of English football, for any who have only supported the club in those 10 years, so they may not have the same association to the colours as those who watched the team in the 60's and 70's. My late grandfather still referred to the team as the Peacocks, and use to go on about the old blue and gold kit, which is why I mentioned that we had changed the kit previously. For a team that had won nothing and was in the middle of a rugby league town, our attendances in the late 50's were comparable to recent years, so without agreeing with them, I'm sure a fair few were put out. For me I only watched the team from 1970, so am only use to the all white kit, and of course the wonderful Admiral Yellow away kit. Your points about the kit are perfectly valid and not something I would argue about too much, but given that this is a totally hypothetical question for ourselves, who is to say that a change in colours wouldn't kick start an even more successful era that we had under Revie
Slight change of subject that may have already been spelt out elsewhere, but Hillsborough - How did more people get into Leppings Lane than was supposed to, & did they all have tickets?
I sometimes go to watch Dulwich Hamlets and they play in pink . Then again most of their players are 6'2 big black guys so I'm not going to take the piss... On Michael Tongue, it's better than nowt but a pretty mediocre signing. But him plus a couple of more creative players (Connor Wickham from Sunderland plus Jermaine Jenus would do) and suddenly we might have a team good enough to make the top 6. But it won't happen, on account of Bates being a miserly ****.
I can't help but feel this will be our only loan signing, Warnocks comment suggests this to me "There was a lot of names bandied about, but I said we would wait for him so I'm pleased." Would wait for him? As in wait to see if he says yes if not will go for someone else?? Why wait for him if more irons were in the fire???
