I won't buy it but considered asking the Mrs to get me one for my 'olidays. I changed my mind when it occurred to me that apart from the sponsor and manufacturer it has three words on it.............. 'Hull, City, Tigers'
One of the lads who used to go in the Well was given one of those after a game, I think though not 100% sure, by George Lyall. Think it was a friendly or testimonial. A new thing then. When he rolled up at the next game he had his collar felt by the plod as it had a number on the back and they thought he must have nicked it. His response of if he came to a game in an easily identifiable nicked shirt he would be as stupid as they were didn’t go down well. When you think of the fuss about names and badges nowadays it was another 3 seasons before the words Hull City appeared on a shirt for the first time in our history.
WHY IS THE SPONSOR STILL ON A VERY SMALL SLANT? My OCD is going into ****ing overdrive looking at that.
Dont think this complies with FA rules on shirt advertising so imo it is just an advertising stunt that has worked very well
https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/24569808 Our 93 kit has appeared as part of an article about Huddersfield’s new kit. They don’t appear to like it much! Got to say, I do like the new Man City away kit. I do wonder what a lot of kit designers think they’re up to when they design, most of them are ****e.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/24569808 Our 93 kit has appeared as part of an article about Huddersfield’s new kit. They don’t appear to like it much! Got to say, I do like the new Man City away kit. I do wonder what a lot of kit designers think they’re up to when they design, most of them are ****e.
The FA have advised Huddersfield that they believe their new shirt breaches the sponsorship rules and if so, they will not be allowed to play in it. Huddersfield say the shirt will go on sale on Saturday and still nobody is sure if it's a stunt or not.