- This topic has 46 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Yes I know it happened years ago with the likes of Wigan and even Man Utd changing their colours but that was due to things like the availability of a particular colour of shirt – thus the necessity to buy that colour. It was not a marketing ploy or the whim of a club’s new owner. Also, changes of a club’s colour have occurred in bygone times, not after a hundred and odd years of playing in a particular colour, singing songs about that colour, giving your team a nickname referring to that colour etc.
That isn’t the reason for all those shirt colour changes taking place:
Tottenham changed from purple to white & black (admittedly donkeys ago) as a tribute to Preston North End
Manchester United changed as a result of new ownership & to signal a break from the old Newton Heath
Leeds United changed to all white from blue & yellow in homage to Real madrid in the 60’s
Tranmere Rovers changed from blue to white at the managers request to set them apart from everton in the 60’s
Millwall changed 50 years of blue kits to white in 1960, to blue & white in 1964, back to blue in 1967, back to white in 1968, back to blue in 1975, back to white in 1999 (with a new badge) & back to blue in 2001 & then getting their old badge back in 2007
It happens & has always happenedI don’t like the way the fans seem to have been held over a barrell of accept the change or see your club go to the wall but that may also have been the reality the owners were faced with when trying to get new investment
Yes I know it happened years ago with the likes of Wigan and even Man Utd changing their colours but that was due to things like the availability of a particular colour of shirt – thus the necessity to buy that colour. It was not a marketing ploy or the whim of a club’s new owner. Also, changes of a club’s colour have occurred in bygone times, not after a hundred and odd years of playing in a particular colour, singing songs about that colour, giving your team a nickname referring to that colour etc.
That isn’t the reason for all those shirt colour changes taking place:
Tottenham changed from purple to white & black (admittedly donkeys ago) as a tribute to Preston North End
Manchester United changed as a result of new ownership & to signal a break from the old Newton Heath
Leeds United changed to all white from blue & yellow in homage to Real madrid in the 60’s
Tranmere Rovers changed from blue to white at the managers request to set them apart from everton in the 60’s
Millwall changed 50 years of blue kits to white in 1960, to blue & white in 1964, back to blue in 1967, back to white in 1968, back to blue in 1975, back to white in 1999 (with a new badge) & back to blue in 2001 & then getting their old badge back in 2007
I’m pretty sure Scunthorpe changed from claret & blue to white & then back again over the last 20 years too
It happens & has always happenedI don’t like the way the fans seem to have been held over a barrell of accept the change or see your club go to the wall but that may also have been the reality the owners were faced with when trying to get new investment[/quote]
The colour of the strip means more to some clubs than others especially if there is a rivalry involved. It would be inconceivable to think any owner of Liverpool, for example, would get away with changing their strip to blue.
Yes I know it happened years ago with the likes of Wigan and even Man Utd changing their colours but that was due to things like the availability of a particular colour of shirt – thus the necessity to buy that colour. It was not a marketing ploy or the whim of a club’s new owner. Also, changes of a club’s colour have occurred in bygone times, not after a hundred and odd years of playing in a particular colour, singing songs about that colour, giving your team a nickname referring to that colour etc.
That isn’t the reason for all those shirt colour changes taking place:
Tottenham changed from purple to white & black (admittedly donkeys ago) as a tribute to Preston North End
Manchester United changed as a result of new ownership & to signal a break from the old Newton Heath
Leeds United changed to all white from blue & yellow in homage to Real madrid in the 60’s
Tranmere Rovers changed from blue to white at the managers request to set them apart from everton in the 60’s
Millwall changed 50 years of blue kits to white in 1960, to blue & white in 1964, back to blue in 1967, back to white in 1968, back to blue in 1975, back to white in 1999 (with a new badge) & back to blue in 2001 & then getting their old badge back in 2007
It happens & has always happenedI don’t like the way the fans seem to have been held over a barrell of accept the change or see your club go to the wall but that may also have been the reality the owners were faced with when trying to get new investment[/quote]
Thanks for that clarification Mr Motson! Okay – but they weren’t changes made in accordance with a marketing plan.
Leeds played in blue and white, then yellow, blue and white, then white; it’s not exactly the same wholesale change to red for a team known as the Blue Birds!
Working class towns and cities, like Cardiff, have used their football clubs to ward of the depressions of unemployment, poverty, war etc. They’ve brought communities together, united them in a common interest and have been something they can be proud of and use as an identity to represent their town.Radically changing a team’s shirt colour is changing the very fabric (pun intended) of a football club, which in effect is interwoven within the community. In the nutshell, football is tribal; if you change something in football, you are changing people’s lives.
Melodramatic though that may seem, it’s the truth.
Yes I know it happened years ago with the likes of Wigan and even Man Utd changing their colours but that was due to things like the availability of a particular colour of shirt – thus the necessity to buy that colour. It was not a marketing ploy or the whim of a club’s new owner. Also, changes of a club’s colour have occurred in bygone times, not after a hundred and odd years of playing in a particular colour, singing songs about that colour, giving your team a nickname referring to that colour etc.
For me it just shows a total lack of research, understanding and compassion for what football means to many people and demonstrates a scant disregard for the supporters and history of the club. If you have just bought a football club, surely the last thing you want to do is upset the supporters right from the off?
Changes to a stadium and its name are one thing, but changes to the team’s colours or its name are totally different. It’s one step away from franchising and the emergence of Team Manchester v The London Blue Sox.
So, if you’re a fan what do you do? Refuse to attend games, or protest at games until the owners make changes – knowing that your actions could be affecting the team’s performance on the pitch? And that’s the conundrum.
Now that, sir, is a cracking post.
Your observation on the game being ‘tribal’ is spot on – the psychological impact on those supporters (both old and young) will be devastating as it rips into their very hearts.
As an example of this effect – how many can remember the England team being made to wear that ‘sh1tty’ grey outfit because the ‘sponsors’ insisted as it looked particularly good with jeans? The team itself looked out of spirit and the fans were justifiably outraged…..the match result is a matter of history now.
Extract from my, as yet, unfinished second book…
…I became a founder member of Hindley Celtic, a team consisting predominantly of catholic lads that must have been the only papal-influenced team in history to choose to play in an orange strip.
From day 1 we were determined to be called Hindley Celtic and wear the iconic green and white hoops. However, a local pub landlord said he would sponsor us to the tune of a shiny new kit provided we named ourselves after his pub and he got to choose the kit.
Principles duly abandoned, we became the Bridgewater Arms and played in orange and black.
F*** the Pope, indeed!
Now that, sir, is a cracking post.Your observation on the game being ‘tribal’ is spot on – the psychological impact on those supporters (both old and young) will be devastating as it rips into their very hearts.
As an example of this effect – how many can remember the England team being made to wear that ‘sh1tty’ grey outfit because the ‘sponsors’ insisted as it looked particularly good with jeans? The team itself looked out of spirit and the fans were justifiably outraged…..the match result is a matter of history now.
I thank you Mr C.
Praise graciously received.
Thanks for that clarification Mr Motson! Okay – but they weren’t changes made in accordance with a marketing plan.Leeds played in blue and white, then yellow, blue and white, then white; it’s not exactly the same wholesale change to red for a team known as the Blue Birds!
I’ll have to correct you again Mr Walker – Leeds played in blue & white striped shirts from 1920-1934, yellow & blue from 1934-1956 & blue from 1956-1961 – Admittedly they had white shorts for much of that time but I’d say that was pretty much a wholesale change to an all white kit along with the removal of their Leeds coat of arms badge.
Tranmere’s kit change was a marketing plan as was Leeds of sorts – in the days before there was any money to be made out of football
Latics introduced a blue & black striped kit as a marketing ploy to try & take advantage of the new interest in Italian footballI have said that it (the cardiff thing) doesn’t entirely sit right with me but what they’re doing is nothing new other than them being honest & saying it is done purely to bring money from abroad into the club
So, something & white gets changed to all white. Yep, that’s very similar to changing blue to red Have a look at the link & tell me the change in kits from those worn from 1934 to 1961 to that worn from August 1961 isn’t a significant change considering it has absolutely no hint of the club’s previous blue & yellow colours
http://www.historicalkits.co.uk/Leeds_United/Leeds_United.htm Would it have really made any difference to the argument if Cardiff’s new kit had had white shorts as per tradition instead of the black ones they’re introducing? If Latics went to an orange kit would it make any difference if they kept the blue shorts of the current kit?
We’re not saying that teams haven’t made wholesale changes to their colours – I remember Leyton Orient in blue. Crystal Palace have had quite a collection of kits. Oldham had a spell in orange. And so on.
Leeds is a bit of a red herring (or white herring or blue herring) as they had only had the blue and amber for 27 years, and the change was made with the approval of fans as it was seen as trying to take on the ideology of being like Real Madrid.
But teams who are established in a particular colour for over a century or so (Liverpool, Everton, Man United, Man City, Arsenal, Spurs, Blackburn, West Brom, Wolves, Preston etc etc) now have that colour as part of their psyche. Look at the outcry last season when it was suggested Liverpool have blue as a trim in their 3rd kit. Not all clubs do it, but there are some. Wigan are not, I would argue, particularly even in that camp.
I think Cardiff fall into that category of teams who are (were) now identified with “their” colour. For a group of Asians to come along and override that is insensitive.
Certainly the money is needed, and because of that their will be done (as someone once said). But that doesn’t make it right or stop it being insensitive.
The colour of the strip means more to some clubs than others especially if there is a rivalry involved. It would be inconceivable to think any owner of Liverpool, for example, would get away with changing their strip to blue.Not 100% sure but the kopshites played in blue and i think it was shankly changed it to red
The colour of the strip means more to some clubs than others especially if there is a rivalry involved. It would be inconceivable to think any owner of Liverpool, for example, would get away with changing their strip to blue.
Not 100% sure but the kopshites played in blue and i think it was shankly changed it to red[/quote]
I’m sorry but that is absolute rubbish.
Liverpool wore blue and white halves betwen 1892 (when they were formed from Everton) to 1894 – a total of two years.
They then adopted red shirts and white shorts (then called “knickers” if you want to have a cheap thrill) until the mid 1960s when Shankly introduced red shorts, initially for European matches.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
