I know it has been said many times before but PLEASE JUST PLAY IN RED.
I am fed up with teams changing their colours when there is no need to. I think the FA/EFL should introduce a ruling that the first kit should always be worn unless there is a clash.
Ok so it maybe written in the contract with the kit suppliers but for Charlton in League 1 is it really going to be a lot of difference money wise if we said no to having to always wear the change strip?
36
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/may/19/research.science1
Also, how much does the club get (in £££) from a shirt sponser ? Probably not as much as getting promotion. So, false economy. Everything should be based on trying to get promotion - if that means losing a sponser because we want to only wear red (when there are no clashes) then so be it.
Could this be the reason we’re always conceding late goals and losing?
it does piss me off when we play in a colour other than red when there is no need to change though
Gets Apples the sack!
I don’t want to over-egg the findings, because there are some studies that have not found a positive red bias, so it’s not clear cut. But I would note that those studies I’ve seen (I can’t claim to have looked at them all) which haven’t found in favour of red seem to have centred on women’s sports or less aggressive sports like basketball.
Here’s a brief summary of the main findings:
And here’s one that might relate to our giving away a penalty yesterday (though, given the height of Anderson’s hand I doubt it):
Finally, I did find one study where wearing red was seen to be a disadvantage. Although that in itself does help validate some of the other studies:
Of course, the outcomes aren’t going to be so massive that it’s immediately obvious that red has an advantage. If that were the case, there’d be no discussion and every team would insist on playing red whenever they could. However, even very subtle changes in perception and aggression (these seem to be the two underlying reasons) may produce positive outcomes over a long period of time. Surely the mere fact that red advantage is a possibility should make it worth trying. After all, the difference of one more goal scored or one less conceded over the course of a season could turn out to impact our team’s divisional status the following season. It would be stupid throwing away this potential advantage.
Even if there was no advantage in wearing red though, I’d still want us wearing it every match. Because ultimately the real argument isn’t about sporting advantage it’s about sporting identity. We are Charlton and we play in red. Red is our primary colour and we should always play in red whenever we have the chance because it is part of our heritage. It is one of those things that gives us consistency. Players come and go. Managers come and go. Although most fans make a lifetime commitment, even they come and go, as evidenced by the roll call yesterday. One of the very few things that can, and should, remain constant forever is our club colours. There is never a good excuse for changing or diluting them.
Santa wears red when he has to deliver all those presents all over the world, Rudolf has a red nose
Proper London buses are red
Post boxes are red
phone boxes were red
it’s a colour that dominates the eyeline
it has nothing to do with results. It’s all about identity. Why else do fans wear red away from home?
Ultimately this is a function of the club being too weak commercially to attract a single shirt sponsor (which is ethically satisfactory, I.e. not a betting company). That’s not just a CAFC problem.
UoG is a good brand but we shouldn’t have them dictating what kit the team wears for a deal which is likely to be of minimal if any cash value to the club.
We should wear red whenever we can because that is part of our identity. It’s more important than any sponsor.