Chelsea Kits thread

[kiwi1691 248]

7 minutes ago, BlueLyon said:

Well we have alot more income than 10 years ago, but the money we invest in squad is smaller recent years. Perhaps because we will soon start building new stadium?

Or the club realises they can't make losses forever

[Spike 12,049]

I don't buy kits so at the end of the day I really don't care that much.

[Term-X 7,891]

43 minutes ago, Spike said:

I don't buy kits so at the end of the day I really don't care that much.

Haven't bought a kit since 2008. Still care about the clubs image.

"Everyone judges a book by it's cover" - Steve Jobs

[Tautvix 1,321]

Would love having Nike. Also, happy to run away from these stupid Adidas stripes.

[Term-X 7,891]

1 hour ago, BlueLyon said:

This. UA is the new Nike. Only people with lack of vision dont see that.

UA is stuck in the US bubble, and it really suits american sports actually, Nike & Adidas are more stylish so it's suits us europeans more (on a cultural note). UA have a LONG way to go before even making a dent in European football, they'd need to sign up Messi or Ronaldo, or get one of the big 4 clubs, and even then.. it won't be enough, they'd need to destroy the two most successful sports brands in world history. There isn't room for 3 big players, hence why it's always been Nike-Adidas.. then Puma/Umbro etc battling it out amongst themselfs.

[Parky 739]

I have some UA gear I purchased while in the States and the quality is probably on par or even slightly better than Nike/Adidas tbh. Would be cool to see us as UA's top football side.

 

 

[Term-X 7,891]

3 hours ago, Parky said:

I have some UA gear I purchased while in the States and the quality is probably on par or if not slightly better than Nike/Adidas tbh. Would be cool to see us as UA's top football side.

Those Tottenham kits are the ugliest things I've ever seen. Nike is Nike, the most successful sports brand in world history and synonymous with the beautiful game, it's also the most recognisable logo in world history. And now Chelsea FC is their flagship sponsor in the Premier League.

[Chelsea4 1,521]

Welcome Nike.

[Clevemayer 764]

4 hours ago, Term-X said:

Those Tottenham kits are the ugliest things I've ever seen. Nike is Nike, the most successful sports brand in world history and synonymous with the beautiful game, it's also the most recognisable logo in world history. And now Chelsea FC is their flagship sponsor in the Premier League.

I've really been beliving from day one it has to be Nike, theyr revenge for losing yernited. 

[BlueLion. 21,483]

This had to happen.

If we'd have gone with anyone other than Nike, we lose creditability as a brand, in my opinion. Stepping down from Samsung to Yokohama (ignore the monetary aspect - Samsung IS a far bigger brand than Yokohama, at least in the west) was already one big step which could potentially affect our imagine as a titan of world football - to go from adidas to a brand such as Umbro, Under Armor or even Puma would have been another nail in the coffin. The "big" teams in world football - the Madrid clubs, Barcelona, Juventus, the Manchester clubs, the Milan clubs, Bayern Munich, etc. - all maintain reputations as being big clubs, and they have the sponsorship to match it. Yes, there are teams like Arsenal and Dortmund who have Puma, and Liverpool who have New Balance, but adidas and Nike are the big two, and to move from one and not to the other would be a step down on the marketability ladder. 

As of this month, we are the third most marketable team in world football based on shirt sales. Therefore, we are the perfect match for Nike. Especially when you look at our star players - Hazard and Courtois have had glove/boot endorsements with Nike for years - this is the perfect match and re-affirms our brand value. People on here are talking about wanting to flirt with the unknown, and going with up-and-coming brands like Under Armor. No, not a chance. This is about the club generating revenue and it would be a huge gamble to go with a lesser preferred option. I'm all for this, even though I've preferred adidas to Nike my entire life! We have to match the size of the club with a giant of kit manufacturing, and Nike was the only option. This is a chance for Nike to re-establish themselves as a sponsor of European superpowers after losing the likes of Arsenal and United and Juventus in the past couple of seasons. With those teams shifting over to adidas, it leaves Barcelona and Chelsea as THE definitive Nike teams. You'll see our players everywhere (Nike have always advertised more efficiently than adidas have done in the past), and that's a great thing for the Chelsea brand. 

In short: fuck adidas, well done Nike. 

On the subject of this year's shirt - love it. Different to what we've had before. Plus it's blue - and has a Chelsea badge. That'll do for me. But Chelsea are a big brand and now we have another big brand making our kits, I'm excited. Just looking forward to the official confirmation, though it'll probably be announced later in 2016. 

[Special Juan 26,064]

Nike eh? Just hope next years shirt effort is considerably better than this years.

[Melanicus 5,208]

 

 

[CurlyHairLikeLuiz 1,625]

Wouldn't mind Umbro, to be honest.

 

Although Nike is good too. Adidas's kits since 14/15 have been going down hill, and next season is going to be a kit miss for me too.

[Parky 739]

"Having already announced their intention to terminate their kit sponsorship with adidas six years early, Chelsea have agreed a £60 million/year (approximately $87 million) contract with Nike, doubling their previous agreement with adidas."

http://www.foxsports.com.au/football/premier-league/chelsea-reportedly-sign-87-millionayear-kit-deal-with-nike/news-story/5320217e2c09d195b7299ffd13d6e387

[Pizy 15,213]

So the main reason for ending the Adidas deal was because the club was pissed about them immedietly dwarfing our agreement by giving United £75m per year. City are with Nike as well and have only a pathetic £12m per season deal. What happens now if they see our new deal at £60m and negotiate their own new deal and it dwarfs ours again? 

[MichaelDance 552]

Terry has a new contract 

Better kit supplier         

[BlueLyon 9,359]

9 hours ago, Term-X said:

UA is stuck in the US bubble, and it really suits american sports actually, Nike & Adidas are more stylish so it's suits us europeans more (on a cultural note). UA have a LONG way to go before even making a dent in European football, they'd need to sign up Messi or Ronaldo, or get one of the big 4 clubs, and even then.. it won't be enough, they'd need to destroy the two most successful sports brands in world history. There isn't room for 3 big players, hence why it's always been Nike-Adidas.. then Puma/Umbro etc battling it out amongst themselfs.

How are they stuck in US bubble? Nike was founded in 1964. It took them 20 years to breakthrough by signing contract with Michael Jordan in 1984. 12 yrs later, in 1996 they signed their biggest football contract with Ronaldo9. Same year with Brazil football federation. That was their key step in european football.

Meanwhile UA was formed in 1996. And now cover best athletes in USA already. Signing just one big team and player will shoot them in european football without a doubt. When they do that, its only a matter of time before they start offering next generation talents big money sponsorhips and beat the likes of nike and adidas. These next gen talents become top players of world and UA will get their equal share of EU football. Obviously it will take 10 years at least like I said in another post, but UA is growing and will get there. Ronaldo and Messi wont sign for them, but future talents will. Obviously nike and adidas are top dogs in market, but having UA wouldnt be blow. Did Ronaldo and brazil NT made mistake by signing with Nike back then in 1996? I dont think so. They created dynasty and majority of brazil players then wore nike from Ronnie to Neymar.

About marketing, I see more movies sponsoring UA than Nike these days, hence its growing popularity and company's intentions to get recognized.

And speaking of adidas-nike; mate that thing exists since late 90s early 2000s. Before Nike; around 1996/97/98 brazil, inter, United were sponsored by Umbro. Barca had kappa before going to nike in 1998. Only adidas was on market for long long time, example Platini's France. Umbro was bigger in EU football than nike back then...

It took Nike one risk with brazil who won World cup, Ronaldo became officialy player of the world, and Nike was giant. They had more money than most if not all kit manufacturers bar adidas, they got their popularity and took several clubs by storm. When something gets popular and UA definately will at one point, everyone will want a piece of it. They make horrible football kits have to say, but that can be improved. Meanwhile for their USA market like Notre dame, their kits are realy nice.

Im glad we went with Nike tho, but Im just surprised people dont see the growth of UA.

On another note, Ibra has contract with Nike. Wouldnt be surprised at all if somehow he ended up here.

[Amblève. 4,995]

1 hour ago, Pizy said:

So the main reason for ending the Adidas deal was because the club was pissed about them immedietly dwarfing our agreement by giving United £75m per year. City are with Nike as well and have only a pathetic £12m per season deal. What happens now if they see our new deal at £60m and negotiate their own new deal and it dwarfs ours again? 

I don't see it happening. Barcelona is rumoured to be signing a new 80m/year contract with Nike and no doubt City won't get a bigger one than that.

[Spike 12,049]

12 hours ago, Term-X said:

Haven't bought a kit since 2008. Still care about the clubs image.

"Everyone judges a book by it's cover" - Steve Jobs

Good for you. 

[Spike 12,049]

14 hours ago, Term-X said:

UA is stuck in the US bubble, and it really suits american sports actually, Nike & Adidas are more stylish so it's suits us europeans more (on a cultural note). UA have a LONG way to go before even making a dent in European football, they'd need to sign up Messi or Ronaldo, or get one of the big 4 clubs, and even then.. it won't be enough, they'd need to destroy the two most successful sports brands in world history. There isn't room for 3 big players, hence why it's always been Nike-Adidas.. then Puma/Umbro etc battling it out amongst themselfs.

My god you actually know nothing of  UA. They don't even make any kits for any professional American teams. American sports have zero sponsors on the kit. You are telling me that what is worn in Europe is more stylish? You like being a bilboard? Are you actually sitting behind your computer pretending to know about US sports and UA?

To generalise a third of damned population of the globe in one sentence, fuck sake. What are you going to say next? This is stylish?

You make some good points in the latter half of your post but the first sentence... I don't mean to sounds so aggressive btw