New Kit/Sponsor

[UK Redsox]

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

Yeah, its alright for some. Most people don't know how dangerous photocopier addiction can be. I grew up surrounded by Rank Xerox literature and often played on/around copiers at their Mitcheldean plant.

In my early twenties I became kind of a dealer, helping to develop new types of copiers.

Now in my forties, I'm still a user. Maybe a dozen or so times a day,

[cdbearsfan]

I tried to get a develop a photocopier addiction, but I can't get near it for all the discarded Muller yoghurt pots.

[PeterWithesShin]

It's all in the ink yo.

[Des Little]

It's all a bit daft, really.  By the letter of the law you shouldn't be wearing a Unibet sponsored shirt until you are over 18, and I don't think many teenagers would appreciate that.  As others have alluded to, most kids don't want to look like the mascot, they want to look like the players. #

To be honest, getting my first Villa shirt aged 6 in 1977 has proved more of a troublesome addiction than any one armed bandit could ever be.  Go figure!

[Mortimer's Bear]

To be honest, getting my first Villa shirt aged 6 in 1977 has proved more of a troublesome addiction than any one armed bandit could ever be.  Go figure!

Amen to that.

[Gregorys Boy]

Another bland modern kit.  Another sponsor we could do without Kit launches bore me...

[eamonn]

Well, they're mainly for the nippers.

[tomd2103]

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.

True, but I think having Acorns on the junior kits is a good compromise.  They aren't the same with no logo on them. 

[Holte L2]

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.

True, but I think having Acorns on the junior kits is a good compromise.  They aren't the same with no logo on them. 

Id pay extra to get a shirt without the sponsor.

[AV5nobs]

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.

True, but I think having Acorns on the junior kits is a good compromise.  They aren't the same with no logo on them. 

Yes sir, sense.
Id pay extra to get a shirt without the sponsor.

[pauliewalnuts]

Being able to pay for a sponsor-less shirt would render the deal less appealing for the sponsor in the first place, and therefore cost the club money

[Holte L2]

Being able to pay for a sponsor-less shirt would render the deal less appealing for the sponsor in the first place, and therefore cost the club money

Of course. I'm being hypothetical.

[tomd2103]

Not a massive issue, but out and about today I've seen people wearing Forest and Celtic shirts.  In both cases, the stars for their European Cup wins are placed prominently above their badge.  Why isn't ours?

[dave.woodhall]

Not a massive issue, but out and about today I've seen people wearing Forest and Celtic shirts.  In both cases, the stars for their European Cup wins are placed predominantly above their badge.  Why isn't ours?

Because they'll never win it again.

[CT]

Man City's away kit is a rather splendid claret and blue.