New shirt has arrived

[hans kraay fan club]

Also, I read on these thread about Nike only doing iron on, not doing it the same way as Errea etc. So, that begs the question, why use Nike in the first place, why not an alternative manufacturer that can produce better looking shirts?
.

Because Nike ones WILL sell in higher quantities.

Anyway, the reasons/excuses are all irrelevant, it's the end result that matters. The end result is poor. For that reason alone, I won't be buying one.

No, the 'end result' from the club's perspective is how many they sell. In that respect, it apears the end result is very good.

 

[spring hall convert]

If I've got this right (and it's infinitely possible I haven't)

The main problem with the home replica shirt is that Amex's corparate white, differs from the clubs own white.

For a variety of reasons this makes me very depressed about where football is at right now.

 

[Horses Arse]

THis quote from PB is hugely important, and hasn't really been considered:



So basically you have people considering the 'American Express' wording alone to be 'the logo', and discussing how best that should be applied - to an exactly matched background / to a gap in the stripes, etc, yet PB is stating there that 'the logo' comprises the wording AND the rectangle (including obviously, the colours used).

Thus, by that rational, even if 'the logo' HAD been sublimated into the fabric (which Nike won't do, anyway) people would STILL be moaning that the whites of the box didn't match that of the stripes.

But its ok on a green 'keepers shirt where green isn't an Amex logo colour?

It looks cheap, it could have been thought through better and hence looked better. Does it really matter? Not really.

 

[Horses Arse]

I wonder what the return rate of these shirts will be!?. It's a legal right if you are not happy!

They'll never divulge that info, just keep chanting the pre-order numbers as justification of someone's very poor decision. Wonder who may get the blame for it?

 

[hans kraay fan club]

But its ok on a green 'keepers shirt where green isn't an Amex logo colour?

Yes - exactly that. Seemingly they'll allow just the lettering on various PLAIN backgrounds - for example in white on the keeper's shirts (green and purple) and on the training kit (blue) and coaches gear (black). Equally they'd allow it in blue on a plain white shirt.

However, on blue and white stripes, neither text-only option is possible, onviously.


That all said, I reckon they COULD have used white text-only on the black and red stripes, IF their corporate identity regulations allow it. Out of interest, have they usd a panel on the ORANGE shirt? (I don't know the answer)

 

[spring hall convert]

So, that begs the question, why use Nike in the first place, why not an alternative manufacturer that can produce better looking shirts?

I'm pretty sure everyone on this thread knows the answer to this question.

It's the same as the answer to the question of why we are using a shirt designer that very, very, recent child labour problems. But hey ho, as long as we're making a mint.

 

[Rugrat]

Because Amex's corporate colours are BLUE and WHITE, and the only colours the lettering can appear in, so the 'no background' option on a blue and white shirt wasn't an option.

Amex want this shirt to look good / sell / be seen in the biggest possible quantities, as much as anyone else does. they are protecting their trademarks / corporate identity, not trying to be purposefully difficult.

I worked for Amex for years and recognise how picky they are about branding but I'd suggest they aren't the problem, even though they may be held up as part responsible.

As has been said the GK shirt has no white background and last year's away shirt didn't. I've got the BlowJobs Errea and the white background merges into the white stripe and is totally unobtrusive. They could have done that just as easy with this years shirt.

The cheap backing will discolour fast and crack up (see 2 bob tee shirts on seafront)

On top of that it's not until you see the shirt in the flesh that you realise there are different sorts of white! And again, as has been said the shirt modeled on the website doesn't look like the one I've just sent back

 

[ozzygull]

I think it will sell loads. Kids like Nike and don't give a monkeys about the quality or if it will last (not their money). They will probably grow out of it before it wears out anyway. If the one that I got is anything to go by it is a good quality shirt, the club badge is a lot nicer as it is not the fluffy one where some of the letters could full off.

The logo looks worse in photos, as they seem to exaggerate the difference in the white in the logo and the white of the shirt. There is a difference and it does not look great, but it is not the end of the world. I had some of the skint shirts with stick on logos, I know the letters were not in a box but they were quite stiff. I loved the skint shirt though , apart from the Argentinian blue one. What was that about?

Try not to get uptight about it. If you like it buy it, I assume most only wear it to games anyway. If you don't like it don't buy it. Your kids will love it, to them it will look cool. Football shirts on Adults are not a good look anyway, not that I am judging anyone. The stick on logo will not make it worse.

 

[nwgull]

This is the one I bought for the nipper. Large Boys size. The photo does make the sponsor logo look worse then it is, but it's not great. Not sure it will bother the nipper though.

Even accounting for what you said about the photo looking worse than it is, that looks spectacularly shit.

 

[ozzygull]

Even accounting for what you said about the photo looking worse than it is, that looks spectacularly shit.

See my post above yours.

 

[Munkfish]

The Colour of the whites isn't an issue, in regards to Amex white and Normal white.

However the T-shirt material and the white transfer will always be different as the two materials are different.

I'd expect they have used the same pantone for both, however the transfer has made it look shiney compared to the shirt material.

I know from experiance in the printing world, printing white is a lot more expensive unless its on white paper, as the paper will just not be printed on for the white parts, if the paper is blue for instance then white would need to be made up and would cost a lot more. The company I work for has its own brand of Blue that needs to be used and cannot be found in the pantone charts and costs a fortune to make up for large mailings etc. this probably has no relevence though.

 

[TSB]

As has been said the GK shirt has no white background and last year's away shirt didn't. I've got the BlowJobs Errea and the white background merges into the white stripe and is totally unobtrusive. They could have done that just as easy with this years shirt.

*cough* Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah?

 

[hans kraay fan club]

The poor quality is more baffling when you consider this classic kit is only £20 at the moment

View attachment 56506

Now THAT's a shirt. Why wouldn't anyone buy of them instead? So much more stylish, classier. And without all that puerile build-up bullsh1t.

Hang on a minute! That Bukta logo is IRON-ON. And the background of it is a totally different colour to the blue of the shirt.

Load of absolute CRAP. Barber OUT. Everybody OUT.

 

[Driver8]

Mine arrived today and the logo does indeed look a bit shit.

I wonder if they would have been better off using the logo from the back of the shirt on the front and vice versa.

 

[Rugrat]

*cough* Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah?

Freudian slip!

 

[Chinman3000]

I'm not sure phone snapped images indoors are doing the iron-on logo any favours, particularly when the transfer is reflecting the light.

By all accounts the new look store and Nike merchandise are pretty impressive. I'll reserve judgement until I've seen it for myself.

Just got home and seen mine. Trust me its 10x worse than the pictures.

 

[Man of Harveys]

Hang on a minute! That Bukta logo is IRON-ON. And the background of it is a totally different colour to the blue of the shirt.

Load of absolute CRAP. Barber OUT. Everybody OUT.

Everyone's clearly very excited about the new shirt and who could blame them. It's like Christmas morning.

Building up expectations preposterously, then having the results fall even slightly short: this is all going into my football-related sitcom btw, if I ever sit down to write it. I'm thinking of getting the bloke who plays Murray in Flight of the Conchords to play "Pete Barker", the chief exec. He'd be perfect.

 

[Giraffe]

I would be very interested in how PB is measuring the 400% increase.

I suspect it's based on pre sales orders v pre sales orders last time.

The increase wouldn't surprise me, due to the wait, the clever email campaign etc.

BUT overall will they sell more shirts? The final amounts are all that matters. 400% more may have bought from pre sales orders, but overall I doubt it is anywhere near that number in the end.

 

[Marty___Mcfly]

I'm sure these have been posted before, but as PB has suggested that we are getting as good as Nike can manage, I thought comparing the new shirt to these two might be a worthwhile exercise..

 

[Rodney Thomas]

As a 35 yr old, I don't generally buy the kit. But when we got Nike I thought I'd probably get one, assuming the whole design would be pretty slick.
It's not.
Even my 1994-96 Sandtex shirt didn't have a stick on logo.
That is I'm afraid a tacky looking shirt.

You obviously didn;t get one of the first one that were in the club shop.... they has a massive felt style stick on logo!