Liverpool FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 11/12 (End of March 2012 onwards)

Grayditch · 11-05-2012 04:24AM

Jersey looks real comfy. Falling asleep in the current ClimaCool one is horrible. Felt like waking up in a plastic bag. With the horrible, sharp, stuck-on crest digging into you and scraping your arms.

Yeah. Sleeping in it. That's what I'm looking forward to. Stoke away, like.

Knex* · 11-05-2012 04:38AM

murpho999 wrote: »

Definitely....Kenny wasn't there with a jacket either.

Didn't see any of Agger, Johnston, Carragher, Lucas, Adam Spearing, Downing!

Going to be an interesting summer

The thought of them combined into one genuinely terrifies me.

Jesus Wept · 11-05-2012 04:49AM

A few hybrids might reduce the wage bill.

Charlie Downing, Alberto Carragher, Dirk Rodriquez.

NukaCola · 11-05-2012 05:09AM

Andy Carroll wrote: »

A few hybrids might reduce the wage bill.

Charlie Downing, Alberto Carragher, Dirk Rodriquez.

Think i saw him in a bluey once

Knex* · 11-05-2012 05:19AM

Andy Carroll wrote: »

A few hybrids might reduce the wage bill.

Charlie Downing, Alberto Carragher, Dirk Rodriquez.

Charlie Downing. Now there's a name we might be able to sell to 'Arry for a bit of money

sh__93 · 11-05-2012 05:39AM

a

ollie1 wrote: »

Video of new kits

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWqXQl9eOgk

Pause at 00:51 in that video. The pattern on the jumper Bellamy's wearing looks similar to the one on this...

So maybe this is the correct alternate kit? Don't know what to make of it?

sh__93 · 11-05-2012 05:44AM

paddy kerins wrote: »

If the design on the collar and under the arms is anything to go by, that purple third kit is real

Probably should have read through the full thread 1st. My bad.

bluefinger · 11-05-2012 07:58AM

I am the only one who can see a resemblance with the chinnese flag?

_blank_ · 11-05-2012 08:02AM

bluefinger wrote: »

I am the only one who can see a resemblance with the chinnese flag?

Liverpool always prided themselves on being a "socialist" club, so it makes sense!:pac:

Cartman78 · 11-05-2012 08:37AM

Andy Carroll wrote: »

A few hybrids might reduce the wage bill.

Charlie Downing, Alberto Carragher, Dirk Rodriquez.

Luis Carroll could be interesting as well....would leave the fans in wonderland :pac:

ush · 11-05-2012 09:18AM

opr wrote: »

I'd wouldn't be surprised if Warrior are making a loss on this deal when looked at directly in terms of shirt deals. Creating brand awareness in new markets will be the huge knock on benefit for them.

Opr

They're expecting to see their shirt in the CL.

_blank_ · 11-05-2012 09:38AM

The design on the arms of the purple kit is the Shankly Gates isn't it?

wcarey1975 · 11-05-2012 09:46AM

Des wrote: »

The design on the arms of the purple kit is the Shankly Gates isn't it?

Never even noticed that so checked and definately looks like it alright. Ordered my kit this morning looking forward to it and the T-Shirt. Kwalitee

LuckyLloyd · 11-05-2012 10:16AM

kingshankly wrote: »

Very clever move from the owners to put 96 on the back

I mean, I couldn't give a monkey about kits normally but I have to say - they have nailed this. Very impressive amount of market research and background reading on the club's history, etc can be seen in those strips. Good job.

D'Agger · 11-05-2012 10:18AM

Like the home Jersey, Love the keepers Jersey too - reminds me of Clemence.

That said I'd prefer if the writing was in white rather than gold.

Loving the crest but not sure what to make of the alternate kit

MonkeyTennis · 11-05-2012 10:20AM

HJC are moaning about the crest saying they werent consulted

D'Agger · 11-05-2012 10:22AM

MonkeyTennis wrote: »

HJC are moaning about the crest saying they werent consulted

Can't understand it tbh - it's a far better tribute the way it is currently imo

Slattsy · 11-05-2012 10:22AM

What's the problem like? It's a tribute to the 96. Should they be consulted on everything. Hopefully it doesn't delay the release of the kit in any way.

LuckyLloyd · 11-05-2012 10:25AM

MonkeyTennis wrote: »

HJC are moaning about the crest saying they werent consulted

If they didn't engage with them it's an unfortunate mistake, and will cause a lot of negative noises. However - the reality is that they don't NEED to be consulted imo. The club - via sign off on the design presented by the kit manafacturer - should have the right to make this sort of statement.

As always, would be interested what Dub13 and Kess make of it...

Kess73 · 11-05-2012 10:30AM

MonkeyTennis wrote: »

HJC are moaning about the crest saying they werent consulted

No they are not "whinging" because they were not consulted and they did not say anything about the crest so try to get your facts straight. They made a statement countering a claim the club made about the new kit last night.

The club came out and said that the use of the Eternal flames and 96 came about after consultations with family members who lost loved ones at Hillsborough.

The HJC gave a counter statement on behalf of all HJC members who lost people that day, which states that the club did not contact any bereaved families of the HJC about the use of the flames and the 96.

Who the club contacted regarding the use of the 96 and flames was the HFSG who don't officially represent the families at all, rather than the HJC who officially represent the families of the 96.

Here is the actual statement

The HJC are aware of an amendment to the new 2012/13 kit, which has recently been launched. We have also noted that the Hillsborough flames and “96″ will now appear on the back of the shirt, “after consultation” with family members”.

We can confirm that no bereaved families of the HJC were contacted or consulted. Indeed the first we were aware of this was via the Supporters Committee Minutes of their March meeting.

Once again LFC has chosen to ignore the HJC and their families. The continued refusal of the club to acknowledge the HJC is insensitive, divisive and deplorable. 96 is more than a number. LFC would do well to remember that.

kingshankly · 11-05-2012 10:30AM

I'd be wary enough of buying if online hard to know what size to get.
Ya can't beat trying them on especially seeing there American as some of there sizes can be bigger

Kess73 · 11-05-2012 10:34AM

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

If they didn't engage with them it's an unfortunate mistake, and will cause a lot of negative noises. However - the reality is that they don't NEED to be consulted imo. The club - via sign off on the design presented by the kit manafacturer - should have the right to make this sort of statement.

As always, would be interested what Dub13 and Kess make of it...

The problem is that the club gave an official statement claiming to have consulted the bereaved families, when it actually consultated a group that does not represent them.

I can say this with no doubt in my mind as I am involved with the HJC and I know for a fact that none of my family were contacted in anyway by the club or through any representative of the club, despite the club's statement that claims that familiy members were contacted and consulted about the use of the 96.

The kit I think looks lovely, and I wanted to see the 96 on it, but I think it is a cheap move by the club to have claimed to have consulted with the families of the 96.

Some families were contacted with regards to the kit, but the claim that all were is simply a lie. The club would have been better served to either have said nothing or just used the word "some"

Not going to be a big issue for most foreign Liverpool supporters I reckon, but at local level and amongst those of us who lost family and friends at Hillsborough it is seen as a lie by the club.

copacetic · 11-05-2012 10:41AM

Kess73 wrote: »

Some families were contacted with regards to the kit, but the claim that all were is simply a lie. The club would have been better served to either have said nothing or just used the word "some"

They didn't claim 'all' anywhere in the statement you are complaining about and it's not implied, HJC doesn't represent all families and I don't see them say 'some' in their PR or being accused of being liars because they don't.

LuckyLloyd · 11-05-2012 10:42AM

Meh, it seems one would need to really dig into the statement details before commenting.

_blank_ · 11-05-2012 10:42AM

If HJF is the "official" body, then the club should have consulted with them.

Kess73 · 11-05-2012 10:50AM

copacetic wrote: »

They didn't claim 'all' were in the statement you are complaining about and it's not implied, HJC doesn't represent all families and I don't see them say 'some' in their PR or being accused of being liars because they don't.

The club said that the families of the bereaved were consulted. Not some of the families.

The club could easily have said that the 96 is on the kit in of those lost, and that would have been just fine.

In my view the club should have used both the HJC and the HFSG to ensure that they contacted all 96 families. They did not. All families should have been contacted when it comes to the use of the 96. It is just common courtesy.

Orando Broom · 11-05-2012 10:52AM

I had posted this in jerseys2012/13, probably more appropriate here given the discussion ongoing.

I see there is no '96' on the inside of the official photo of the jersey but there was on a previous picture? I presume it was photoshopped on the previous picture.

Do you Liverpool fans think if it were on the jersey that it is a little cynical to use the deaths of those people as a marketing ploy to sell the jersey? It's not like the changed crest; it is an overt and direct reference. The jerseys are not solely for consumption in the Liverpool area but to markets where to be quite frank really know nothing about the Hillsborough disaster, I'd be talking about your average 14 year old Japanese or American boy. This situation is different to being mindful to a clubs history, people died and there are people living every day still with that loss.

My opinion would be that there would want to be a significant portion of the jersey price going to a memorial fund for me to be okay with that. That or make that Jersey a limited edition that could only be bought within the environs of Liverpool with a good portion of the sales of those jerseys going to any official charity associated with Hillsborough. Sell a global version without reference.

Dr Galen · 11-05-2012 10:57AM

Kess, correct me if I am wrong here, but HJC and HFSG don't exactly see eye to eye.

There is a long history there, and to be perfectly honest its not a debate that I'd ever want to claim to know lots about. I do know though that is a very emotive topic. I wouldn't ever judge one side or the other tbh, as a non-native, non directly affected Liverpool fan, I don't feel it is my place.

I can't seem to find an official statement from the club on this, so it's probably a bit premature to be judging their actions. I do find it strange though that the club doesn't seem to acknowledge HJC in the same way that it does for HFSG.

Handsome Bob · 11-05-2012 10:57AM

@kess

Are there not family members on the HFSG though? Plus, isn't the relationship between LFC and HFSG longstanding?

I can't find the LFC statement, but I think this hinges on whether or not they stated that they consulted "all" family members. If they did say all, they are undoubtedly in the wrong. If they didn't, I'm sorry to say that I don't see the issue.

It's a shame that LFC ignores the HJC though, no question about that.

mike65 · 11-05-2012 11:05AM

Another executive level head gets lopped off.

Fenway Sports Group are continuing their restructuring at Liverpool after announcing that their director of communications, Ian Cotton, is to leave the club after 16 years.

Liverpool FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 11/12 (End of March 2012 onwards)

Comments