Jump to content
Melbourne Football

City Kit


mcsoccer225
 Share

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, tommac said:

I think the same design as the red and white kit, but reversed colours would be cool. Sky blue and white vertical stripes, with red numbers/names etc. Can someone do one of those cool design pics for that and post it? Please?

bit like this you reckon?

kit inverse.png

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, morphine said:

75% white, league mandated. 

Please take this information on board. 

I don't really believe this. I know that is what the club said.

I can't see the league saying that we couldn't have worn our red and white strip post take over.

I think the 75% white would be if CFG wanted us to wear sky blue.  Which is where the discussion came from in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, morphine said:

75% white, league mandated. 

Please take this information on board. 

It seriously baffles me that people continually fail to understand that if CFG was able to do whatever it wanted with regards to the Melbourne City brand, we'd already be in sky blue. CFG tried to do it before we'd even taken the field as the new club and the proposed change of colours was rejected, after Sydney FC protested.

That aside, I'd happily cop more sky blue on the home kit, as long as any hint of navy is dumped from our colours permanently.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, HeartOfCity said:

Yes indeed, how the fuck did you do that?

What if it was red and sky blue stripes?

Don't care about the 75% how can a club be told what colour they are allowed to wear? If the colours clash then wear the clash kit. Fucken FFA. 

 

Yeah the club aren't happy about it either. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, HeartOfCity said:

Yes indeed, how the fuck did you do that?

What if it was red and sky blue stripes?

Don't care about the 75% how can a club be told what colour they are allowed to wear? If the colours clash then wear the clash kit. Fucken FFA. 

 

Because the league has a vested interest in protecting its clubs' respective brands. It's the same reason you wouldn't see the league allowing its next expansion club to be called the Glory, or Roar, or Mariners.

Although it could be speculated that this decision may have been as much about the league drawing a line in the sand and letting CFG know that it wasn't going to be able to walk over the rest of the league and do what it felt like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SF33 said:

Because the league has a vested interest in protecting its clubs' respective brands. It's the same reason you wouldn't see the league allowing its next expansion club to be called the Glory, or Roar, or Mariners.

Although it could be speculated that this decision may have been as much about the league drawing a line in the sand and letting CFG know that it wasn't going to be able to walk over the rest of the league and do what it felt like.

Colours are different to names though, how many teams in the EPL wear red or blue? It doesn't effect if the club will grow or be followed, can maybe understand if FFA kicked up a stink if City wanted to go Navy blue but other than that colour you should be able to have all the colours of the rainbow IMO 

Also most of the colours are represented in the A league so if the shire joined the A league what colour are they allowed to wear? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, HeartOfCity said:

Colours are different to names though, how many teams in the EPL wear red or blue? It doesn't effect if the club will grow or be followed, can maybe understand if FFA kicked up a stink if City wanted to go Navy blue but other than that colour you should be able to have all the colours of the rainbow IMO 

Also most of the colours are represented in the A league so if the shire joined the A league what colour are they allowed to wear? 

I think sky blue is quite a distinctive colour and in a ten team competition, Sydney FC was well within its rights to protest against the proposal. At a guess, I'd say that if a Shire team came in and decided to wear a red shirt, Adelaide wouldn't kick up too much of a fuss (or the FFA would ignore the protest), but if it wanted to wear orange, the league would block it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, SF33 said:

I think sky blue is quite a distinctive colour and in a ten team competition, Sydney FC was well within its rights to protest against the proposal. At a guess, I'd say that if a Shire team came in and decided to wear a red shirt, Adelaide wouldn't kick up too much of a fuss (or the FFA would ignore the protest), but if it wanted to wear orange, the league would block it.

Yeah fair enough and that might be what happens, and yeah I think they would ignore adelaide ha ha. But I still think that if you as a license holder should be able to control things such as colour, badge and name. I know if I held and payed for the license I wouldn't like being told what I can put my players in.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Posted this on a thread here before the kits were released for our first season under CFG.

From what i understood then was that CFG were really trying to push the sky blue on the home kit, the red & white was almost going to be a distant memory, hence the third kit for a kit clash, and black because, well, we played in black for a match each season (against newcastle, i think).

F**k of the home kit in the graphic. Make the away kit home, change black to white, keep the colours, i guess. and make the third kit away (it'll never be a home kit, sadly.)

Screen Shot 2016-01-11 at 1.21.00 am.png

Edited by possiblygeorge
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, possiblygeorge said:

Posted this on a thread here before the kits were released for our first season under CFG.

From what i understood then was that CFG were really trying to push the sky blue on the home kit, the red & white was almost going to be a distant memory, hence the third kit for a kit clash, and black because, well, we played in black for a match each season (against newcastle, i think).

F**k of the home kit in the graphic. Make the away kit home, change black to white, keep the colours, i guess. and make the third kit away (it'll never be a home kit, sadly.)

Screen Shot 2016-01-11 at 1.21.00 am.png

why does everyone always use that combination of red and blue? anyone with even a hint of graphic design knowledge knows that they clash and look disgusting. it's in some official melburnian logos too, unprofessional as fuck. the red needs to be darker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jeffplz said:

yep, exactly. the one in our current away kit is darker red than the ones everyone is using for their shitty logos

have this diagram for reference

how2city.png

Like i said, i put those together pre-season before 2014/2015, where are we going with this? I must be colourblind because i think the blue colour, i think it at least it looks sky blue because i paint dropped from Man City logo. The darker red almost doesn't look like red, but looks almost burgandy. If we want to keep a part of the Heart 'identity' then we keep the same Heart red?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, possiblygeorge said:

Like i said, i put those together pre-season before 2014/2015, where are we going with this? I must be colourblind because i think the blue colour, i think it at least it looks sky blue because i paint dropped from Man City logo. The darker red almost doesn't look like red, but looks almost burgandy. If we want to keep a part of the Heart 'identity' then we keep the same Heart red?

i'm not having a go at you lol, i'm just complaining about the use of that blue and that red as shown in the top example, it's the same one the melburnians facebook page uses. if you isolate the red in the lower example you'll see that it's the exact shade used in the away kit for this season, looks burgundy but the eyes deceive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jeffplz said:

i'm not having a go at you lol, i'm just complaining about the use of that blue and that red as shown in the top example, it's the same one the melburnians facebook page uses. if you isolate the red in the lower example you'll see that it's the exact shade used in the away kit for this season, looks burgundy but the eyes deceive. 

It's all too much for me 2:20 in the morning haha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rasputin said:

Top red with bottom blue.  Bottom red is burgundy. combo looks Villa / West Ham like

how2city.png.ee18b49bfb43c3944596a62f31b

24 minutes ago, Rasputin said:

Change the base to sky blue and have red and white stripes and you have a winner.

 

doesn't satisfy all parties as the kits need to be at least 80% white according to the 'leadership'.

3 hours ago, haz said:

Someone use their Photoshop skills to add the eithid logo, city badge and change the blue to a sky blue 

looks a little silly to me

citymockup.png.324b698a481e65e65d0b56ee7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, haz said:

But with a lighter sky blue stripe? 

images.jpg

From the MC Fan rep group thread, it fits what was said in the last meeting

Quote

MCFC’s 2016-2017 kit has been designed – it is predominantly white and does not feature any navy blue. It is not a shirt that has been previously worn by Manchester City FC. The away strip will still be red and white.

MelbCity2.png.fc3a7ca237af173a4000572c51

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...