Jump to content
Melbourne Football

City Kit


mcsoccer225
 Share

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, morphine said:

Nothing to do with blue I don't believe. That part's up to us. It's just that it has to be 80% white. 

 

I really can't believe this is true. If CFG had decided to keep the red and white as the home shirt, I can't see the FFA saying now you can't use that anymore, you have to have 80% white.
I think the FFA ruling applies to using sky blue in the shirt.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Deeming said:

I really can't believe this is true. If CFG had decided to keep the red and white as the home shirt, I can't see the FFA saying now you can't use that anymore, you have to have 80% white.
I think the FFA ruling applies to using sky blue in the shirt.

Just qualify your opinion to say "home shirt." It must be that, otherwise how come Adelaide's away shirt?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Deeming said:

I really can't believe this is true. If CFG had decided to keep the red and white as the home shirt, I can't see the FFA saying now you can't use that anymore, you have to have 80% white.
I think the FFA ruling applies to using sky blue in the shirt.

You're completely correct. There's no real rule. It's just the FFA's way of putting you can't wear an all sky blue shirt in writing.

Like I said before, if we submitted red and white stripes or a Catania style kit we'd be accepted straight away. The only thing stopping us playing in either of those is a lack of intent from CFG, not some 80% rule that was made up just for us when we wanted manc clone kits.

Edited by Jimmy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, morphine said:

Whilst I tend to agree with you @Jimmy, this 80% rule comes straight from the horse's mouth. So..?

I know this was reported by MCFC at the FRG meeting but that's the club reporting what the FFA said. That's not directly from the FFA. None of the reporting at the time the decision was made mentioned the requirement for 80% white, just that the shirt could not be 'all sky blue'. This came about not because of FFA initially deciding/ruling but because Sydney objected in the end the FFA and an independent arbiter upheld their complaint.

I think the club is being selective (as many corporations are) in what they say. They can say 'the FFA said "Melbourne City has to play in 80% white"' which is technically true they are just (possibly) leaving off the end of the FFA statement "Melbourne City has to play in 80% white...if you want to incorporate sky blue".

 

Its not like CFG/MCFC don't have a history of not quite being truthful with the fans

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Rasputin said:

Agree - the 80% rule was put in to appease Sydney as we wanted all sky blue.  If we introduced red and white in the home kit the FFA would allow it.  Question is do CFG want this?

no they wouldn't because red and white ain't the colours anymore

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Deeming said:

I know this was reported by MCFC at the FRG meeting but that's the club reporting what the FFA said. That's not directly from the FFA. None of the reporting at the time the decision was made mentioned the requirement for 80% white, just that the shirt could not be 'all sky blue'. This came about not because of FFA initially deciding/ruling but because Sydney objected in the end the FFA and an independent arbiter upheld their complaint.

I think the club is being selective (as many corporations are) in what they say. They can say 'the FFA said "Melbourne City has to play in 80% white"' which is technically true they are just (possibly) leaving off the end of the FFA statement "Melbourne City has to play in 80% white...if you want to incorporate sky blue".

 

Its not like CFG/MCFC don't have a history of not quite being truthful with the fans

Totally agree, 100%. But given that they are abiding by the rule - they must want to incorporate sky blue or whatever. Meaning no matter why - the shirt will be 80% white. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole ruling, papal edict, or whatever it is, is just so farcical I can't believe it. It extends to the playing strip only. The rest of the time, including the pre-game warm-up period, City can strut around in whatever colour(s) they feel like. City's badge even has a greater area of sky blue than Sydney's does.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, HeartOfCity said:

(A-League badge looks a bit dodgy lol)

That's not your fault though, I think FFA need to make a couple of changes regarding badges. Socceroos badge is shite (actually liked the legends badge) and the area aleague badge needs just a bit of love.

I confess I've never understood what the A-League badge is supposed to represent. It makes me think of something like an exploding galaxy in distant space. Any clues?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

I confess I've never understood what the A-League badge is supposed to represent. It makes me think of something like an exploding galaxy in distant space. Any clues?

"The spherical A-League logo was designed by Coast Design Sydney. The two-toned ochre colours represent the sun, earth and desert while the 'glow' emanating from the centre of the logo depicts the playing season's spring and summer time span. The eight 'A' figures that make up the ball shape represent the eight foundation clubs of the league"

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Kinnibari said:

I just thought it was a stylised ball.

I wonder why it's on the front of the jersey anyway. IIRC the Barclay's logo is on the sleeve of EPL jerseys - the front having the club badge, sponsor and jersey manufacturer trademark only?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, HeartOfCity said:

(A-League badge looks a bit dodgy lol)

That's not your fault though, I think FFA need to make a couple of changes regarding badges. Socceroos badge is shite (actually liked the legends badge) and the area aleague badge needs just a bit of love.

I just meant my cropping of the badge looks dodgy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, JC22 said:

Just how unlikely do people think it is that our home kit will ever feature even the slightest bit of red outside the logo.

And how likely are we to keep the red/white away kit forever.

Never for the first one and the away kit...Id say for a few years at least yet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Rasputin said:

Not sure why CFG allowed so much red on the badge if they don't want it on the shirt.  Confusing  and misleading all heart supporters who loved the red and white.

Well they could hardly change the coat of arms could they?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

The Melbourne City FC badge is based on the Coat of Arms of the City of Melbourne and as I understand it is used in the form that it is with the express permission of the City of Melbourne. The red cross has nothing to do with Melbourne Heart - that's a very happy co-incidence nevertheless - but is derived from the Cross of St. George, the National Flag of England.

It's a great football club badge, easily the best in the league, up there with the best in the world, and one of the best things that CFG has done. I hope it never changes.

If it has the slightest weakness (for those who are that way inclined) it would seem too complex to tattoo. In that regard I defer to our resident expert @Moraiwe 

You had any thoughts?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jw1739 said:

The Melbourne City FC badge is based on the Coat of Arms of the City of Melbourne and as I understand it is used in the form that it is with the express permission of the City of Melbourne. The red cross has nothing to do with Melbourne Heart - that's a very happy co-incidence nevertheless - but is derived from the Cross of St. George, the National Flag of England.

Yeah, understand all that however CFG didn't have to go with the coat of arms - surprised they did considering they seem to want to eliminate red from the club.  Don't think it's been thought out thoroughly overall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shahanga said:

If it has the slightest weakness (for those who are that way inclined) it would seem too complex to tattoo. In that regard I defer to our resident expert @Moraiwe 

You had any thoughts?

Speaking of tattoos, l remember seeing a guy with a Melbourne Heart tattoo probably 3-4 years ago. I wonder if he still has it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Rasputin said:

Yeah, understand all that however CFG didn't have to go with the coat of arms - surprised they did considering they seem to want to eliminate red from the club.  Don't think it's been thought out thoroughly overall.

This isn't the first club to have a badge with different colour scheme to the home kit, i see no conflict of interest in having a white/sky blue kit and a crest that also has red in it. Stranger things have happened, I mean our those shit cunts have the word "victory" on their badge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rasputin said:

Yeah, understand all that however CFG didn't have to go with the coat of arms - surprised they did considering they seem to want to eliminate red from the club.  Don't think it's been thought out thoroughly overall.

They wanted to show that the club represented the city of Melbourne

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...