I know it's the colours that matter, but seriously - what the hell is going on with City wearing the away kit vs. Red and White teams? If we can get away with black and amber - we should...
Tell the players to all wear long-sleeved jerseys as well, and have their socks at the regulation length.
Is the adidas deal up at the end of the season? If it is then it'll be new kits again next season, and given the away kit seems to be more popular than the home kit (just from what I've seen so could be wrong) I think people who've bought it would want to see it used more than a couple of times.
All it says in the league rules is: "When away from home Clubs will play in colours (shirts, shorts and stockings) which are clearly distinguishable from those of their opponents. " There is no "away kit" per se, just an alternative set of colours that teams are obliged to wear when needed to be distinguishable. When there is no colour clash - against Bristol/Donny there wasn't - then wearing the 2nd (or 3rd) kit is purely down to choice, presumably driven by agreement with the club kit providers/sponsors.
There is no kit clash except when we play Blackpool. And Newcastle a couple of years ago when I believe we had to change our shorts to white for the game.
Down to us wanting to wear the away kit versus Newcastle which would have bee all grey the ref said it would be to similar to Newcastles kit so we had to borrow Newcastle's white shorts
****ing clowns whoever decided the kit that day. Newcastle - black and white - check Hull - black and amber - can't play in that because the black clashes with the black Hull2 - dark grey - yeah fine, but you can't wear the shorts that are the same colour as your shirts because they clash with black shorts. How does grey clash with black shorts but not the black in a shirt? Made the TV coverage a nightmare as well, the Newcastle kit strobed into grey so it just looked like two teams in the same kit.
