Under Armour

[Rioch is King]

'Acorns' looked good on the kit.

[dave.woodhall]

You'd be amazed - or probably not - how many people don't think something's official, and therefore won't buy it, if it doesn't come plastered with adverts.

[ChicagoLion]

The tatoo generation like surfaces covered with crap.

[Ian.]

I remember thinking when I was a wee lad that Mita was actually something quite important to Aston Villa. I didn't realise it was only a sponsor.

[Richard E]

I remember thinking when I was a wee lad that Mita was actually something quite important to Aston Villa. I didn't realise it was only a sponsor.

You're obviously too young to remember Dave Mita's brilliant hat-trick at St Andrews which sent Small Heath down. What a game that was. All 3 assists from Andrew Greaves. 

[Ian.]

I remember thinking when I was a wee lad that Mita was actually something quite important to Aston Villa. I didn't realise it was only a sponsor.

You're obviously too young to remember Dave Mita's brilliant hat-trick at St Andrews which sent Small Heath down. What a game that was. All 3 assists from Andrew Greaves. 

I was, and if I was aware of that in the early 80's I would have thought our shirt was dedicated to our hat-trick hero Dave Mita.
That story actually sounds like folklore, a Mita hat-trick with 3 assists by Greaves.

[cdward]

Late 90s i was in the club shop browsing the sale rail, and bought a nice navy blue Reebok tracksuit with the club badge, but the awful AST logo plastered all across the back of it.
Took it home and decided to try and peel the logo off. It came off really easily like peeling PVA glue off your hands. Ended up with a perfectly good tracksuit for the gym and footy training which didn't age with time. Thank God for shitty quality merchandise

[FatSam]

I remember thinking when I was a wee lad that Mita was actually something quite important to Aston Villa. I didn't realise it was only a sponsor.

How could Mita not be something important, when so prominent on the official photo:

[paul_e]

Like the way you pay per letter for someone's name on your shirt, you should be able to pay to have the fucking sponsor removed. It's one of the biggest reasons I rarely buy them. You can have a really decent looking kit and then you have the shittest eyesore possible. Sponsors like Flamingo Land on Hull's kit in massive letters. That must be a real downer.

The only kit I've bought for the last few years is the checked one and it's because I managed to get a version without the sponsor, looks much better without the genting logo across it.

How did you manage to get one without the sponsor?

I was just about to say the same thing. It was the nike away checked one and there was about 3 weeks difference between the kit release date and the appointment of the sponsor (Genting at the time, i think) Eitherway, they ran a limited production at sports direct which you could then go and take to the club shop after and have the sponsor put on it, I would be gobsmacked if anyone did.

Heres an idea, they should offer a sponsorless shirt at a £10 premium. All extra over proceeds should be given back to quickbooks to give to their appointed charity. The extra good publicity generated would probably outweigh that gained from the logo on the shirt. Id certainly pay it anyway.

I may email the villa with that one..

Yeah, this can't remember if it was sports direct but I'd had no plans to buy it because generally I don't like paying to advertise for soemthing I disagree with and then got sent a link to the version without a sponsor and ordered one straight away.

[Toronto Villa]

Wasn't there a situation one year with a sponsors logo that we were asked by the league to reduce the font size or something on the kit? I'm thinking it was Mita or Muller. No such rule it seems now with the way the current sponsor is plastered all over unfortunately.

[Drummond]

I remember thinking when I was a wee lad that Mita was actually something quite important to Aston Villa. I didn't realise it was only a sponsor.

How could Mita not be something important, when so prominent on the official photo:

Could have been worse, it might have been Acme Staplers and we'd have had a couple of their products on the pitch too
...

[peter w]

Wasn't there a situation one year with a sponsors logo that we were asked by the league to reduce the font size or something on the kit? I'm thinking it was Mita or Muller. No such rule it seems now with the way the current sponsor is plastered all over unfortunately.

Wasn't it the dot on the i made it too big?

[CT]

Wasn't there a situation one year with a sponsors logo that we were asked by the league to reduce the font size or something on the kit? I'm thinking it was Mita or Muller. No such rule it seems now with the way the current sponsor is plastered all over unfortunately.

Wasn't it the dot on the i made it too big?

Think that was it was - definitely Mita and possibly before the Liverpool game on the Friday at VP. (Freezing, lost 3-1)

[Ian.]

I remember thinking when I was a wee lad that Mita was actually something quite important to Aston Villa. I didn't realise it was only a sponsor.

How could Mita not be something important, when so prominent on the official photo:

Blimey, they milked the sponsorship for that team snap!

[Ian.]

Wasn't there a situation one year with a sponsors logo that we were asked by the league to reduce the font size or something on the kit? I'm thinking it was Mita or Muller. No such rule it seems now with the way the current sponsor is plastered all over unfortunately.

Wasn't it the dot on the i made it too big?

Think that was it was - definitely Mita and possibly before the Liverpool game on the Friday at VP. (Freezing, lost 3-1)

Or was it when the 'd' looked like a 'o' and we had Cows?