New Kit/Sponsor

[stuart r]

We seem to have change home socks that are a strange turquoise / green colour. Odd socks.

http://shop.avfc.co.uk/stores/astonvilla/en/c/football-kits/home-kit

And short sleeved goalie tops... Is that standard now?

[Toronto Villa]

£100 for something that is "royal magenta"

http://shop.avfc.co.uk/stores/astonvilla/en/product/aston-villa-stadium-jacket---royal-magenta/208877

This has really pissed me off.
It's shit like this that makes the club a 'brand', match day an 'experience' and fans 'clients'.

Is it too much trouble for the club to refer to its own colours as claret and blue!

It's the only item that is described as Royal Magenta so maybe it's just a slightly different colour. Everything else has claret in the description from what I can tell. Not saying it's not a bit odd though.

[Chico Hamilton III]

[/quote]

£100 for something that is "royal magenta"

http://shop.avfc.co.uk/stores/astonvilla/en/product/aston-villa-stadium-jacket---royal-magenta/208877

They had a similar training jacket last year for £100, which they soon reduced to £65. Which was still about £60 too expensive

[Mortimer's Bear]

Any sponsor that is not suitable for a child's kit should not be used in my opinion.

[Toronto Villa]

Any sponsor that is not suitable for a child's kit should not be used in my opinion.

So we should decline the potential revenue just so it can be added to a child's kit?

[cdbearsfan]

Of course it's suitable for a child's kit. They don't have to gamble, and they can't do so legally until they're eighteen.  Would Rover be an unsuitable sponsor in case it encouraged underage joyriding?

[paul_e]

Of course it's suitable for a child's kit. They don't have to gamble, and they can't do so legally until they're eighteen.  Would Rover be an unsuitable sponsor in case it encouraged underage joyriding?

Nope, just because they probably wouldn't have much to pay us.

[PeterWithesShin]

Of course it's suitable for a child's kit. They don't have to gamble, and they can't do so legally until they're eighteen.  Would Rover be an unsuitable sponsor in case it encouraged underage joyriding?

Well it can't be that suitable as gambling logos etc aren't on the child kits.

[cdbearsfan]

No idea why.

I managed to reach school-leaving age without once being tempted to buy a Mita Copier. It's not that difficult.

[Chico Hamilton III]

Of course it's suitable for a child's kit. They don't have to gamble, and they can't do so legally until they're eighteen.  Would Rover be an unsuitable sponsor in case it encouraged underage joyriding?

Well it can't be that suitable as gambling logos etc aren't on the child kits.

My youngest refused to wear the shirt from a few years ago because it didn't have the Dafabet logo on it. All he wanted was to wear the same shirt that he saw Benteke in every week. Never mind him though, think of all the money we made from the deal.

[cdbearsfan]

That's why I don't agree that the kids' shirt should be different to the adults. There are bookmakers inside the stadium, should we ban children from attending?

[eamonn]

That's why I don't agree that the kids' shirt should be different to the adults. There are bookmakers inside the stadium, should we ban children from attending?

That's different from having your little, innocent fella unknowingly going about his day as a walking advertisement for an industry which enables addiction problems for many.
Where possible, surely it's a good thing that that is minimised?

[in exile]

No idea why.

I managed to reach school-leaving age without once being tempted to buy a Mita Copier. It's not that difficult.

Huh - one of the lucky one's

[Mortimer's Bear]

That's why I don't agree that the kids' shirt should be different to the adults. There are bookmakers inside the stadium, should we ban children from attending?

That's different to  kids walking round advertising such companies.

On a similar note, my lad was upset last season that he couldn't have the League patches on his sleeves. By law the shop were not allowed to print them as they were advertising a gambling company.

[cdbearsfan]

As I said, I feel it's a silly law. Kids pay no attention to who the sponsor is anyway, they just want to look like the players.