Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Hull City' started by The_Filey_Tigers, Jul 11, 2015.
I can see it now . . .
please log in to view this image
If we had started with that kit we wouldn't have got the nickname The Tigers. What would Allam's master plan have been for increasing revenue and world wide support have been in that case?
We don't need the name of the club on. The original badge didn't. What spoils it is his putting 1904 on it as you can't help feel that is a reaction to the 1904 chants.
I don't know mate but I could guarantee that there would not have been an empty seat at the KC:
please log in to view this image
Why doesn't it?
First, I'm a Yank who admittedly doesn't have a sense of cultural heritage that the Englishman has with respect to football. Second, I have only been a supporter of Hull City since about 2008. I mean no disrespect towards those who think otherwise but I don't understand how so many avid supporters of the club are so broad-minded about the kits. It seems to me that the wide, vertical black and amber stripes are every bit as defining as, for example the black and white stripes at Newcastle. Why isn't this more defining to the club's identity than the badge, which supporters seem to have a much deeper sensitivity towards? (I suppose not having badges in any of the American-dominated sports leaves me with a lack of understanding as to its importance, an emotional understanding, that is. I understand it intellectually.) I think the pin stripe look is fine generically, but it's simply not the look of Hull City AFC. I love the broad stripes and it is what really gives the club visual identity on the pitch.
The only parallel I can draw is from my first and lifelong love of sport, the St. Louis Cardinals baseball club. The logos, at least the secondary logos (those not on the uniform) have changed through the years. But the uniform is the team's identity. Cardinal fans would howl, with me at the front of the pack, if they decided to change the uniforms in the manner or less-traditional minded baseball teams, with colored jerseys, alternate logo jerseys, etc. The uniform is classic and should not be touched. I don't understand why there is not more of this same feeling in association football.
We have historically (not year on year) played in stripes and plain shirts
The Cardinals shirts and logos have changed through time (although predominately white, apart from 1942 & 1982)
Newcastle have played in black and white stripes every season since 1894, as Mauled says, we've only played about half ours in block stripes.
I don't get it. Our owner bangs on about us wanting to be "Hull Tigers", then promptly abandons our Tiger stripes.
We do this every few years, and it makes us look like naff, small-town ****s.
You wouldn't find Newcastle or Sunderland getting rid of their stripes, but we do.
****ing ****ing naff.
One of the best shirts we had was the 2008 shirt
I'm quite happy switching between the two after all there's worse things in life
I went to arsenal the season before last and I had a look round the club shop, they had an area selling their old shirts (mainly the jvc ones) aswell as signed framed pics of some of their best players over the years, I thought it was a great idea
Sunderland altered theirs in the early 1980s to candy stripe kit. Their fans didn't take the attitude of it doesn't matter or the owners could do what they liked and simply didn't buy any . It was altered back and they haven't ****ed about with it since.
From our first season in the league up to WW2 we played in stripes for all but 2 seasons, one in the 1920s where we played in black and white and one season in blue in the 1930s. Then after the war a rich businessman who had bought the club wanted to change the name and alter the colours to blue and orange. After an outcry he backed down but altered the kit to plain shirts. What would the current rich businessman who owns us have done if we were Kingston Upon Hull City AFC with no connection to tigers in our colours?
Materials change, collar and sleeve accents change, button vs pullover, belt vs spandex, etc., but the birds-on-the-bat over the Cardinals name has remained constant through the years. The home whites have always been white, the road unis were gray except for the powder blue look in the Era of Bad Taste which was the 1970s until 1982.
Some of the don't say Cardinals, they say St Luis
I like it and I also like flamingo land
Because change for the sake of change is daft.
Why would it be change for the sake of change? When the other badges were revamped it was for a reason, they were stale looking and needed improving. Like I said in my original post it's just my opinion.
Certainly through the sixties we were in plain shirts and from what pictures I have seen in the Raich Carter era they were plain shirts then also.