Search results

They definitely could have considered the blue box option. May have looked better.

Given that people's only gripe with the shirt is the sponsor's logo, how exactly will comparing it to France's (admittedly lovely) sponsor-free shirt, be 'worthwhile'?

You've found a black and white picture of their logo, therefore 'corporate identity' is a load of bollocks? Nice one.

The fact that they've used a black rectangle for the black and red away shirt suggests not. They'll only allow 'text-only' on a plain back-ground, I suspect.

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.

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...

Because Nike ones WILL sell in higher quantities. 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.

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...

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...

Its so stupid, isn't it? Iron-on lettering would actually have looked absolutely fine. They just needed to design in a rectangular gap in the stripes, to form the white background.