Jump to content

Another football kit thread


SuperBacon

Recommended Posts

  • Paid Members
3 hours ago, gmoney said:

Something about it feels like a Liverpool kit, and I can't explain why. 

Think it's the similarity to the old Liverpool away design, and also that particular shade of red - United kits tend to be in the brighter shades more often, whilst Liverpool sometimes ventured into the slightly darker shades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Fog Dude said:

Did that have anything to do with this though?

spacer.png

WHO DID IT FIRST EH??? Forever in our shadow.

spacer.png

This was when it was decided that Holsten couldn't be displayed on youth shirts* and extended to the youth teams, so Sega was on them, randomly.

There can only be around 30 of these in existence, meaning they are incredibly rare.

 

*For a short while, Holsten WAS on youth shirts for the start of a season and I was bought one before they were taken off sale, but obviously I no longer have it ffs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, SuperBacon said:

 

spacer.png

This was when it was decided that Holsten couldn't be displayed on youth shirts* and extended to the youth teams, so Sega was on them, randomly.

There can only be around 30 of these in existence, meaning they are incredibly rare.

That's a great story, a brilliant idea of what to do when the main sponsor isn't allowed to be advertised to kids, and those shirts look utterly gorgeous.

Having said all that, I reckon nobody wore the name of a console manufacturer on their chest better than Batigol: 

spacer.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

Now that I see that pic, I'm wondering why Nintendo have never sponsored anyone in the PL. Or have they?

Pretty certain they have not.

Sega, Dreamcast, Amiga/Commodore the only ones I am aware of. Console wise anyway, plenty of actual computer sponsors.

The story of the Super Mario/Fiorentina shirts is well worth sharing as always. 

https://www.gentlemanultra.com/2020/12/11/fiorentina-and-super-mario-the-truth-on-one-of-footballs-most-mythical-shirts/

Truly, the shirt nonce grail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

The decision Sega made to put "Dreamcast" instead of "Sega" on the shirts has always mystified me. From what I understand of the reports at the time, a lot of people just didn't understand what it was, and that it was connected to Sega (I mean, I do find it odd that gamers wouldn't try to find out, but this is apparently the received wisdom of the time); it was indicative of Sega's poor marketing policy, that eventually led to them having to leave the console market and just become a software house. A massive shame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

Hmm, not sure I buy that. The Playstation was marketed everywhere as such, not "Sony". And their TV ads could be abstract in the extreme. Dreamcast failed for a number of reasons, that might have had something to so with it, but I'm not sure it was a main one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
1 hour ago, gmoney said:

Hmm, not sure I buy that. The Playstation was marketed everywhere as such, not "Sony". And their TV ads could be abstract in the extreme. Dreamcast failed for a number of reasons, that might have had something to so with it, but I'm not sure it was a main one. 

Yeh, but Sony by that point had been so successful with the first Playstation, they had that luxury. The Dreamcast, on the other hand, was a new brand, not to mention Sega were coming off a flop in the Saturn. From what I was given to understand (but I also accept I may have misunderstood), Sega were keen to distance themselves from the Saturn, and they thought people might not be on board with their new console if they thought it was the "Sega" Dreamcast, in the same vein as the "Sega" Saturn.

BTW, not saying this was a main reason, but more that the commentary was that it was indicative of their overall marketing policy that led to their downfall at the time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
On 8/18/2023 at 3:28 PM, Carbomb said:

Yeh, but Sony by that point had been so successful with the first Playstation, they had that luxury. The Dreamcast, on the other hand, was a new brand, not to mention Sega were coming off a flop in the Saturn. From what I was given to understand (but I also accept I may have misunderstood), Sega were keen to distance themselves from the Saturn, and they thought people might not be on board with their new console if they thought it was the "Sega" Dreamcast, in the same vein as the "Sega" Saturn.

BTW, not saying this was a main reason, but more that the commentary was that it was indicative of their overall marketing policy that led to their downfall at the time. 

Sega rushed Dreamcast out to try and steal a march on the PS2, and failed to properly implement copy protection, and since the majority of a console's money is initially made on software sales they struggled. Plus the PS2 had a DVD player built in, and had a comparable price to some DVD players at the time, hence it became the biggest selling console of all time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...