2017 Jersey Thread
- Thread starter LionNYC
- Start date
But will NYCFC go with a template or push for an original? Somehow they pulled strings and got the onion kit last year as a secondary and this will be our primary, so I'm expecting (hoping) for something only we have dibs on.
My gut tells me they will stick with plain vanilla for home kit and continue to use 2nd kit as the outlier.
jerseyhotspur
Registered
Adidas' contract is with MLS and not the individual clubs so I doubt there's room for templates changes.
If you see this year's kit, they're just 2 or 3 generic templates (with Sporting KC's henley and polo collars the only outliers). Even our "hypnotize" / "onion" away kit is just a generic Adidas template (v-neck with 3 stripes on sides).
http://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2016/03/05/heres-every-mls-kit-2016-season
I would like to see some orange and dark blue. A very slight amount. I think it can be done well.
Agreed on the simplicity though, let's make a kit we can still be proud of in 20 years. There's no need to plan obsolescence into the design when we're already on a 2 year schedule.
I thought Adidas was full committed to having the three stripes on the sides...
That has been been my suspicion as well.
That would be God awful. Our current home jersey is terrible. Evokes Man City junior in the worst ways... and if they give us another Man City clone home jersey, the club deserves all the bashing they'll get for it. Some will say it's just a jersey, but it's a symbol of the club's and the ownership's intentions. Give us something original. And I miss our old away jerseys... I'd like to see those come back as an alternate/third jersey (which most teams in the league have).
Meh. I, for one, am over this. People who want to will bash regardless of our jersey. If people call us Man City junior, let 'em. My question will simply be, "How's it feel to get beat by Man City Junior?"
I am neutral on the debate - not because of my own PL ties, but because I see the pros and cons of both arguments. If people feel uneasy about the links, I can understand that and won't argue against it. On the other hand, if NYCFC's shirt is copying MCFC's then it actually puts them in pretty good company.
For anyone who finds themselves stuck in this argument, here is a convenient crib sheet of clubs who blatantly ripped off (or in some cases, literally bought actual shirts of and played in) another team's shirt and based their very identity around it:
- Leeds United (stole Real Madrid's shirt)
- Juventus (stole Notts County's shirt)
- Arsenal (stole Nottingham Forest's shirt)
- Sparta Prague (stole Arsenal's shirt)
- Sporting Braga (stole Sparta Prague's shirt)
- Tottenham Hotspur (stole Blackburn's shirt and Preston's shorts, though dropped the Blackburn influence)
- Barcelona (stole FC Basel's shirt)
- Crystal Palace (stole Aston Villa's shirt, then changed it to copy Barcelona and Benfica)
- Athletic Bilbao (stole either Southampton or Sunderland's shirt, depending on which story you hear)
- Sunderland (stole the shirt of a local club which no longer exists, called South Bank FC)
- Celtic (stole Hibernian's shirt)
- Scotland (stole Queens' Park's shirt)
- Millwall (stole Scotland's shirt)
- Sweden (stole Boca Juniors' shirt)
- Blackpool (stole the Netherlands' shirt)
And of course, to bring it back home:
- Real Salt Lake (stole Spain's shirt)
- New Jersey Energy Drinks (stole Energy Drinks Salzburg's shirt)
NickFromAstoria
Registered
And just in terms of the color scheme, there must be at least 5-10 different English clubs that ripped off Aston Villa, no?
Possibly. I took my list from a Guardian article (they do a weekly segment where they answer unusual football questions from the public) of examples that are, for the most part, directly attributable. It didn't mention the likes of Burnley, West Ham, Scunthorpe but it's possible that they did; however it is of course not enough to claim direct heritage just because they share a shirt colour and so I wasn't going to label any of them because I couldn't be certain that the copied design was intentional.
I can't understand our own fans who think about or care about being Man City junior. City Football Group is committed for all of its clubs to winning on and off the field with trophies being first and foremost. I though the primary kit was clean and looked good. If it has NYCFC's badge on it, it's our jersey.
We're not getting a third kit, and the old one isn't coming back. That's just MLS policy.
The jersey is going to be city blue, get over it.
So you're saying Melbourne is the fcked up ugly stepchild for having a unique jersey? All of the CFG teams can and should have light blue as the primary color but all should be unique kits.
Did you want to be dressed exactly like your sibling even though your parents told you they loved you equally? I cringe when I see siblings dressed exactly the same.
I know this has been discussed before, but why are there no third kits again? MLS ruled it out? And why did they let Seattle do it this season? Seattle has a green primary kit (released this year), a white secondary kit (released last year), and a blue third kit (released this year)
I believe that MLS/Adidas will only allow a team a third kit if they're current jersey sales merit the creation of the third kit. No point in having it designed and made if it's not going to sell to merit it in the first place.
Why do we need a third kit? Third kits are just a marketing ploy to force punters to part with even more of their hard-earned cash anyway. I wouldn't bet against the idea that in another 10 years teams will bring out a different away kit for every competition that they play in. They're really not a development football as a whole needs.
