I wonder if the shade of colour looks lighter in person.
The photos of the kit in the club shop on Twitter look a bit lighter.
The photos of the kit in the club shop on Twitter look a bit lighter.
OwenJones":ovsy5zop said:It's a branding thing though. It'd have to be a strategic decision for the club to change it rather than an ad-hoc management decision.
Biggs":32mprok4 said:OwenJones":32mprok4 said:It's a branding thing though. It'd have to be a strategic decision for the club to change it rather than an ad-hoc management decision.
That’s the thing I don’t get though, because loads of other clubs mix up the shades of their shirt from season to season. Why have we got this permanent and unchangeable branding, and no-one else has? That’s the thing that baffles me.
The most relevant example is the most famous green shirted club beside ourselves... the ‘Les Verts’ of St Etienne.
Google ‘Saint Etienne Le Coq Sportif shirts’ so you get the most recent ones, and you have several different shades.
Biggs":qrpg4yc1 said:OwenJones":qrpg4yc1 said:It's a branding thing though. It'd have to be a strategic decision for the club to change it rather than an ad-hoc management decision.
That’s the thing I don’t get though, because loads of other clubs mix up the shades of their shirt from season to season. Why have we got this permanent and unchangeable branding, and no-one else has?
The most relevant example is the most famous green shirted club beside ourselves... the ‘Les Verts’ of St Etienne. Google ‘Saint Etienne Le Coq Sportif shirts’ so you get the most recent ones, and you have several different shades.
Remember, you’re not changing the branding of the club. You’re changing the colour of a shirt that lasts one season. That’s thrown into sharp focus when you release a shirt based on the 1984 kit, but for some reason have to stick to the dark green ‘branding’ and it doesn’t quite work with the black pinstripes. And isn’t a proper homage to that kit anyway. Surely you just make it brighter green like the original :lol:
PL2 3DQ":2csfamyt said:It's an odd situation because some fans don't like the current green and yet the club say each year there are record sales so maybe it's an Internet thing.
Or is it overall sales that is a record each year, the away shirt or third shirt sales compensating for low sales of the home shirts?
It would be good to see a break down each year of sales of home, away and third shirt sales.
WoodsyGreen":2sghhl64 said:And the shade of green they want is obviously this one. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it bizarre.
OwenJones":29l3unnx said:Biggs":29l3unnx said:OwenJones":29l3unnx said:We've been dark green a long time now – not going to change any time soon!
That’s exactly why it should change. It’s been 20 years now. Even if you love the current colour, it has to be time to change it up.
It’s absolutely bizarre to resign ourselves to having dark dark green forever and always, when it’s 100% within our (the club’s) control to have whatever shade of green they want.
It's a branding thing though. It'd have to be a strategic decision for the club to change it rather than an ad-hoc management decision.
The only reasons to change that I can see are to appease fans who supported the club for many years before the change of colour and have never really accepted the change or, at a push, to create a more vibrant/visible shade on the pitch. Wimbledon changed to dark blue in the mid 90s to seem more aggressive and intimidating – it could be a reason to stick with the dark green now. Not that I'd mind a brighter green, personally, on face value!