I'm not that bothered either way about these away kits - like @eric_plant I think the current home one is a dismal effort, which negates any outrage I may have had.
But regarding changes to the charter, I wonder if there's much left that we wouldn't change to get that 'bit of cash'? Perhaps it'd just be better to bin the charter - it's not worth having if it can be silently amended every time there's a few £££s to be had.
There'd be large numbers of people who'd accept 'The Krispy Kreme Wanderers' playing in kits covered with hundreds and thousands if a five-figure sum was on offer.
I like playing with the traditional kit where possible because its another thing that marks out our club as being different from the rest. And increases the 'brand awareness' see an orange kit on TV could be any club. Light and dark blue quarters it's got to be us. Surely that's a good thing. Can't we just get some blue kits with the new sponsors logo on it.
Yes, I'm sorely troubled already and I think it's high time for Eddie M to rally the troops. But, at the end of the day, the level of input from Utilita will dictate the circumstances in which tomato soup strip will be donned. I wonder if they'll pay the sponsorship money in instalments?
What makes you think that the orange kit will be worn Eric. The statement seems to say the opposite.
If beech dean and Utilica agree, can't see why quarters kit can't be used with utilica name on it for away games. Frankly couldn't care less which sponsor is on the shirt. (Within reason)
I agree with Dev - it sounds like the charter will be stuck to with regards to wearing quarters at every opportunity - with the energy people sponsoring the quarters on away days
They're hardly going to sponsor the quarters if the quarters don't include their name. And if Dev was in charge they wouldn't be too happy that he couldn't spell their name!
They're hardly going to sponsor the quarters if the quarters don't include their name. And if Dev was in charge they wouldn't be too happy that he couldn't spell their name!
If it was as simple as the quarters being worn when there was no clash, surely they would have said that rather than the nothing statement of the charter being respected?
To be fair I wasn't there, so maybe they did say that and it hasn't been captured in the live blog.
Lots of people were presumably there in person. If the response was ambiguous, as the blog suggests, didn't someone ask for it to be clarified? The blog was remarkably dull, hopefully not a reflection of the meeting itself, shop in town, advertising in town, scoreboard, local radio - are these really the most important off field issues?
The blog reflected the meeting in terms of topics but maybe left out a bit of the life behind the questions.
The away kit thing seemed pretty clear though. Apparently we wore it 14 times last season and they anticipate this to be the same. Not every away game.
Can that statistic be right, Righty. 23 league games away plus I believe 8 cup games (I presume we only wore the quarters at home). Did we really wear change kit on 14 of 31 away days - nearly 50%???
Not sure I agree that your 12 against his 14 makes his figures 'completely wrong'. I'll assume you have another agenda to add to this. Care to share?
Numbers aside I think the general message was the new kit would be worn on the same occasions as the old one. The shift from change to away seemed to be explained as it not sounding right. Not sure I followed that but that was the reason given.
I think if we had a sponsor other than Beechdean there may well be an issue over number of times we wore the away shirt. But given the owner of Beechdean was until yesterday our chairman and is, from today, our sporting director I suspect this contract was entered into with his eyes open and Utilita will be on the shirt at every away match.
The answer formulated last night means we won't know whether the club were misrepresenting the truth until well into the second half of the season, rather than at Port Vale.
The most elegant solution would just to get a second set of the blue quarters kit printed up with Utilita's logo for away matches. Then everyone is happy.
Everyone apart from Beechdean which presumably wants to be on the shirt for all home games and as many away games as possible. Relative happiness of the companies must depend on how much they've paid
Comments
I'm not that bothered either way about these away kits - like @eric_plant I think the current home one is a dismal effort, which negates any outrage I may have had.
But regarding changes to the charter, I wonder if there's much left that we wouldn't change to get that 'bit of cash'? Perhaps it'd just be better to bin the charter - it's not worth having if it can be silently amended every time there's a few £££s to be had.
There'd be large numbers of people who'd accept 'The Krispy Kreme Wanderers' playing in kits covered with hundreds and thousands if a five-figure sum was on offer.
I like tomoato soup but no longer sport the figure for a football shirt.
I like playing with the traditional kit where possible because its another thing that marks out our club as being different from the rest. And increases the 'brand awareness' see an orange kit on TV could be any club. Light and dark blue quarters it's got to be us. Surely that's a good thing. Can't we just get some blue kits with the new sponsors logo on it.
Still don't understand why we can't have quarters for the change strip too.
Can we just let it lie now or richie is just going to get feisty again...
Only for clashes it will be worn is my guess
There will be clarification on this at the Forum on Monday - which sounds troubling
Yes, I'm sorely troubled already and I think it's high time for Eddie M to rally the troops. But, at the end of the day, the level of input from Utilita will dictate the circumstances in which tomato soup strip will be donned. I wonder if they'll pay the sponsorship money in instalments?
they've already clarified it for all but the hardest of understanding by continually referring to it as an "away kit"
Clarified for all except those (me included) who have more important things to be troubled about.
'Clarified'
We'll see at Port Vale.
I missed the bit in the charter that talks about sponsors gaining maximum exposure
We'll be wearing orange at Vale Park
What makes you think that the orange kit will be worn Eric. The statement seems to say the opposite.
If beech dean and Utilica agree, can't see why quarters kit can't be used with utilica name on it for away games. Frankly couldn't care less which sponsor is on the shirt. (Within reason)
'Will be consulted' sounds like the sponsors are unaware there's an issue...
I agree with Dev - it sounds like the charter will be stuck to with regards to wearing quarters at every opportunity - with the energy people sponsoring the quarters on away days
They're hardly going to sponsor the quarters if the quarters don't include their name. And if Dev was in charge they wouldn't be too happy that he couldn't spell their name!
They're hardly going to sponsor the quarters if the quarters don't include their name. And if Dev was in charge they wouldn't be too happy that he couldn't spell their name!
If it was as simple as the quarters being worn when there was no clash, surely they would have said that rather than the nothing statement of the charter being respected?
To be fair I wasn't there, so maybe they did say that and it hasn't been captured in the live blog.
Anyone seeing double?
"There was a difficulty in performing your task "!
Lots of people were presumably there in person. If the response was ambiguous, as the blog suggests, didn't someone ask for it to be clarified? The blog was remarkably dull, hopefully not a reflection of the meeting itself, shop in town, advertising in town, scoreboard, local radio - are these really the most important off field issues?
The blog reflected the meeting in terms of topics but maybe left out a bit of the life behind the questions.
The away kit thing seemed pretty clear though. Apparently we wore it 14 times last season and they anticipate this to be the same. Not every away game.
fair enough, perhaps I was reading too much into the shift from calling it a change kit to calling it an away kit
we'll soon see I guess
great news about Anthony Stewart by the way - good player and one who's come through the ranks, which is always nice I think
Can that statistic be right, Righty. 23 league games away plus I believe 8 cup games (I presume we only wore the quarters at home). Did we really wear change kit on 14 of 31 away days - nearly 50%???
League:
Luton
Portsmouth
Carlisle
Mansfield
Cheltenham
Colchester
Hartlepool
Barnet
Checka:
Northampton
Mansfield
Fa Cup:
Portsmouth
Chesterfield
Have I missed any? I make that 12 out of 31.
Not surprised that Michael Davies has his figures completely wrong.
To be fair 12 from 31 and 14 of 31 are not that different. Surprising to me that change kit was worn 40% of the time.
Not sure I agree that your 12 against his 14 makes his figures 'completely wrong'. I'll assume you have another agenda to add to this. Care to share?
Numbers aside I think the general message was the new kit would be worn on the same occasions as the old one. The shift from change to away seemed to be explained as it not sounding right. Not sure I followed that but that was the reason given.
I think if we had a sponsor other than Beechdean there may well be an issue over number of times we wore the away shirt. But given the owner of Beechdean was until yesterday our chairman and is, from today, our sporting director I suspect this contract was entered into with his eyes open and Utilita will be on the shirt at every away match.
The answer formulated last night means we won't know whether the club were misrepresenting the truth until well into the second half of the season, rather than at Port Vale.
The most elegant solution would just to get a second set of the blue quarters kit printed up with Utilita's logo for away matches. Then everyone is happy.
Everyone apart from Beechdean which presumably wants to be on the shirt for all home games and as many away games as possible. Relative happiness of the companies must depend on how much they've paid