Less is more from Nike at the moment, look at their tennis clothing couldn't be more basic. Few years go their was some trim or stripes or something, now it's an orange tick. They've all gone down the minimalist apple route.
In response to some on here I do get excited about kits, haven't bought one for myself since the age of about 12 but think it's an important part of any club.
That "embarrasing" sponsor paid around 70% more than Palace's shirt sponsor did last season and over three times what Millwall's did.
What I find strange KHA is you said that you don't care if the clothes you wear are made by child labour or if football club owners are crooks but a logo, that embarrasses you.
That "embarrasing" sponsor paid around 70% more than Palace's shirt sponsor did last season and over three times what Millwall's did.
What I find strange KHA is you said that you don't care if the clothes you wear are made by child labour or if football club owners are crooks but a logo, that embarrasses you.
That "embarrasing" sponsor paid around 70% more than Palace's shirt sponsor did last season and over three times what Millwall's did.
What I find strange KHA is you said that you don't care if the clothes you wear are made by child labour or if football club owners are crooks but a logo, that embarrasses you.
To a small extent I understand KHA's point - from a style point of view, Andrews Sykes Group would look a bit better than Andrews Air Conditioning or Andrews Heat for Hire
However, what's more important is that we have a sponsor who has put a lot of their money into the club. They need to advertise what their company does, as many people will not know what Andrews Sykes group does.
And I know I'd rather have this on the shirts than wonga.com, for example.
To a small extent I understand KHA's point - from a style point of view, Andrews Sykes Group would look a bit better than Andrews Air Conditioning or Andrews Heat for Hire
However, what's more important is that we have a sponsor who has put a lot of their money into the club. They need to advertise what their company does, as many people will not know what Andrews Sykes group does.
And I know I'd rather have this on the shirts than wonga.com, for example.
One of the golden rules of marketing is that if people don't know your company or brand you need to tell people what you do - this is no time to be subtle.
This must be a first though - now some of our fans are Charltonising the sponsors.
That "embarrasing" sponsor paid around 70% more than Palace's shirt sponsor did last season and over three times what Millwall's did.
What I find strange KHA is you said that you don't care if the clothes you wear are made by child labour or if football club owners are crooks but a logo, that embarrasses you.
I think I said cheap labour not child labour.
I think I said I would have been happy with Chelsea's successes. I'm not sure I said Abramovich was a crook. Dubious practices are not always the same as breaking the law.
I said that the logo was embarrassing, not the company, and I do think it is not very stylish. I'm more than happy that the club is associated with Andrews, a local business, I just think the logo makes the shirts something I would choose not to wear.
However, I don't, personally, see why there should be a link between my ethical beliefs and my choice of leisure wear so I'm not sure why you find it strange, to be honest.
Andrews Air Conditioning on both shirts would have been nice. Heat for Hire sounds a bit ridiculous to wear on a garment. AAC does what it says on the tin.
I'm glad we have a sponsor who isn't a an internet betting or payday loan company. If people want to take the 'P' out of that, is says more about them than anything else. If I was in the market for air conditioning, I know where I would go for it!
Don't think i've actually had a Charlton shirt since i was about 13, but i think the 2 new kits are miles better than anything we've had for a long time
Comments
In response to some on here I do get excited about kits, haven't bought one for myself since the age of about 12 but think it's an important part of any club.
http://www.footballshirtculture.com/13/14-kits/dundee-united-2013-2014-nike-football-kits.html
If it were not for the the sponsor (yes, I know it's unpopular to criticise a local business supporting the club) I would have bought them both.
Great shirts, with an embarrassing company logo on the front.
What is embarrassing about the sponsor?
What I find strange KHA is you said that you don't care if the clothes you wear are made by child labour or if football club owners are crooks but a logo, that embarrasses you.
However, what's more important is that we have a sponsor who has put a lot of their money into the club. They need to advertise what their company does, as many people will not know what Andrews Sykes group does.
And I know I'd rather have this on the shirts than wonga.com, for example.
This must be a first though - now some of our fans are Charltonising the sponsors.
I think I said I would have been happy with Chelsea's successes. I'm not sure I said Abramovich was a crook. Dubious practices are not always the same as breaking the law.
I said that the logo was embarrassing, not the company, and I do think it is not very stylish. I'm more than happy that the club is associated with Andrews, a local business, I just think the logo makes the shirts something I would choose not to wear.
However, I don't, personally, see why there should be a link between my ethical beliefs and my choice of leisure wear so I'm not sure why you find it strange, to be honest.