philsussex
New member
Would you pay more for the replica kit if it was made by a better company like Umbro, Adidas or Nike? And what would you pay for it?
...if our kit was like that, and looked really good, then I might just buy one.
Would you pay more for the replica kit if it was made by a better company like Umbro, Adidas or Nike? And what would you pay for it?
Nope.
Nike kits at our level all look crap, cheap, and like they came out of a Sunday league catalogue. Don't imagine we'd get some kind of Brazil effort, instead it would look like Grimsby, Southend or Hartlepool.
While Umbro make pretty dull kits, look at the England shirts they've been pumping out for years. Always the same, always boring, and then they wonder why the shops selling them have to issue profits warnings because people can't be arsed to buy them.
It pains me to say it, but the only Premier League kit I really liked last season was Portsmouth, made by Canterbury.
Most of the current Puma kits around are alright too, and I've seen some nice Kappa ones.
I always like Roma's Kappa shirts, i'm just trying to remember who's kit manufacturer in England is Kappa.
Man City?
Surely it is the club saving money rather than Errea to blame for the iron on transfer? The first Errea shirts had the Skint logo printed as part of the design.
Quite. It's like when you book a package holiday. Tick or untick for in-flight meal. Reduces cost by about twenty quid. Tick or untick for printing / iron-on HAS to work in a similar way. Down to the club 100%. Errea will do the expensive option, the cheap option, or a hundred shades in between. Fact. Why should they CARE? In the end, you get what the club contracted Errea to provide.