Protest against the new home kit! (9/6)

[Red Gunner]

Like it or not but Nike provides job opportunities for little kids in poor countries. Nobody forces child labour upon anyone. The truth is that there will be no jobs for poor people if Nike decides to close factories in poor countries. Poor people will be worse off without factories such as Nike's, because there'll be no jobs therefore no money, which means no food.

Same case with Emirates, nobody forces immigrants from Africa and India to flock there but ones that do, will have to work hard and they know that. They won't get any hand-outs in five-star hotels. Only rich guys get that. Harsh but that's life.

[Cus Geezer]

Like it or not but Nike provides job opportunities for little kids in poor countries. Nobody forces child labour upon anyone. The truth is that there will be no jobs for poor people if Nike decides to close factories in poor countries. Poor people will be worse off without factories such as Nike's, because there'll be no jobs therefore no money, which means no food.

Same case with Emirates, nobody forces immigrants from Africa and India to flock there but ones that do, will have to work hard and they know that. They won't get any hand-outs in five-star hotels. Only rich guys get that. Harsh but that's life.

Capitalism can only really function with a degree of exploiting those in a less fortunate position. Having said that its the worst system ever thought up barring all the others.

Capitalism within restrictions is probably the fairest way of working, unlimited capitalism is as big a tyranny as any other form.

Which is the reason why Nike is in the 3rd world using child labour rather than in factories in Europe and the US. People here, despite 30 years of it increasing don't like the idea of a capitalist tyranny where the major companies can merely look for the hard up to undercut your average worker's basic wage and living standards.

People here demand a minimum wage, job seekers allowance, a national health service and kids be universally schooled rather than sowing garmets.

TNCs like Nike disingenuosly go to South East Asia and act as if they are some sort of a benevolent uncle, when they are just the business acquivalent of a dirty old man picking up teenage runaways for sex and then claiming 'at least they are getting paid eh?'.

Anyway back to the shirts.

Someone here mentioned the previous times that we dropped the white sleeves and my old man tells me that in the mid 60s when we did this there was such an uproar that questions were asked in parliament.

To me I can't see the fuss, looking from the pictures the sleeves look predominantly white, just a 1/4 of an inch less white than the last. The reality is that kits seem compulsorily changed every couple of seasons and there's only so much tinkering you can do after 25 years or so.

Nike seem to realise that the basic premise of an Arsenal kit is Red and white home shirts and yellow and navy blue away kit. Every so often we get a break with the norm - a different colour away kit, the sleeves slighty different on the home kit.

In two years time the sleeves will be more whiter than now, without the world ending.

People seem to be under the impression that Nike are going to get so full of themselves as to bring out a pink and purple home kit for 2009/10.

I mean look at the three pictures that gun88er puts up, there's three different badges on the shirt, one's got buttons, one's got a two adverts, one's got a weird pattern. The degree of difference with this new kit is about the same as the one's you've put up.

[Cus Geezer]

We sold away a part of our soul when it was no longer local lads who were representing the team

Sorry don't recall a time when 'local lads' exclusively played for Arsenal.

Didn't the 1971 double side had more Northerners than it did Londoners?

Kennedy, Radford, Armstrong, Wilson, McNab.

Even back in the 30s we had west country bumkins like Cliff Bastin

[Fuzzfeast]

I'm surprised so many are sticking up for this piece of trash. I won't be buying one but I haven't for years anyway, ever since the season the shirt stayed the same but the sponsor changed from JVC to Dreamcast.
With the new shit - oops, shirt - it depends which picture you are looking at because some are worse than others and in some, red is predominant in the sleeves. It will look even worse with long sleeves. As for the away kit, it had blue sleeves in 1989 but I still prefer all yellow.

[QuartzGooner]

We sold away a part of our soul when it was no longer local lads who were representing the team

Sorry don't recall a time when 'local lads' exclusively played for Arsenal.

Didn't the 1971 double side had more Northerners than it did Londoners?

Kennedy, Radford, Armstrong, Wilson, McNab.

Even back in the 30s we had west country bumkins like Cliff Bastin

Yeah, we were founded by a Scot - David Danskin, and promient early members were Jack Humble from County Durham, and East Midlanders Fred Beardsley and Morris Bates.

I cannot think of many players who came from Islington off the top of my head, Charlie George, Pat Rice (born Belfast but parents had greengrocers on Gillespie Road) and Ryan Smith spring to mind.

[BT]

Correct me if i'm wrong but i think the reason we play in red is because we originally borrowed our kit from Nottingham Forest when we started. Tradition fluctuates but i think when 3 of the top 4 play in red, we need to distinguish ourselves and white sleeves and collar is the one way we can and I understand people's need to hold on to tradition in this ever-greedy footballing climate.

The thing that confuses me is that this year is meant to be based on the 89 adidas kits - and thats how they're marketing the whole season - and, if true, they haven't done a very good job of replicating it.

[Cus Geezer]

The thing that confuses me is that this year is meant to be based on the 89 adidas kits - and thats how they're marketing the whole season - and, if true, they haven't done a very good job of replicating it.

But Nike cannot closely copy an Adidas design as it would be plagiarism.

[Sammy Mooner]

I don't like our second-hand Charlton kit. In fact I didn't like it when it came out the first time. The Highbury farewell shirt was fine not having white sleeves - there was a point to that. But having seen this season's kit out and about being worn by fans it still looks crap.

Still at least the new away kit looks fine.

No to green shirts.
No to blue shirts (I didn't like them back in the 60's either)
No to an all red top (when we went back to that in the 60's it was McLintock's idea and it was awful even then)
No to red collars - they should always be white as should the sleeves.

Our best kits ever were the 70-71 home and away - they even had the best badges on them. No adverts, no names - just class.

[Cus Geezer]

when we went back to that in the 60's it was McLintock's idea and it was awful even then

was it really?

I didn't know the players could wield such power then, could a working class jock really tell a bunch of old etonians what colour shirts to wear so soon after the abolition of the maximum wage?

[Sammy Mooner]

Quote:
when we went back to that in the 60's it was McLintock's idea and it was awful even then

was it really?

It was Billy Wright the manager who actually changed the shirts to all red. But it was McLintocks original suggestion. Frank's a tad embarassed about it now but at the time Arsenal had won jack shit for what felt like a thousand years. McLintock was sick of everyone telling him how great AFC used to be and sicker still of all the pictures of trophy winning teams hanging up at Highbury - most wearing the famous red & white. As much as anything I think he somehow wanted to change Arsenal's luck. It was in 1966-7 that we went to all red but the fans hated it so much they reverted to white sleeves the following season.

The more I see our new home shirt the more I dislike it..... maybe once I've seen us slaughter the Scum whilst wearing it I'll change my mind.

[Fuzzfeast]

One Premiership club will be wearing new shirts in the proper colours this season. Unfortunately it's not Arsenal.

http://www.astonvilladirect.com/stores/ ... l=AQA7GBQE

[REB]

dont see why if villa can do it then arsenal cant, both new nike designs

[dennis_10]

In fact considering how much people have cited that our club has more class than clubs like Chelsea, it surprises me that no one has ever even bothered to mention that our main sponsor and the name of our stadium is Fly Emirates- or just Emirates.

Aren't people bothered that our club are happily advertising traveling to a country which:

'The government restricts freedom of speech and freedom of the press, and the media avoids directly criticizing the government and censors its own news stories. Freedom of association, and freedom of religion are also curtailed. The trafficking of children for camel jockeys continues despite government pledges to end these practices.
The UAE has not signed most international human rights and labor rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, and the Convention against Torture.'

Then the other big sponsor, Nike are no better.

The contractual useage of factories which have employed children without regulation, people working below minimum wage at overtime against their wishes. Appalling environmental damage and pollution the list is endless.

People are complaining that the sleeves have not quite enough white on it and are suggesting protests but either don't care or haven't bothered to check out the very names with which we have such a close relationship. The priorities are completely wrong.

Aren't you forgetting our partnership with Israel tourism board, where soldiers use citizens as target practise, and human rights are anything but a right? Your point is valid, but maybe a bit overkill for this thread.