The news thread

[jimmy jazz]

I think it looks exactly like the Estonian flag. Well, similar at least.

Shares fewer colours but you know that anyway. You can say they're similar and still think it's a non-issue you know.

[Janszoon]

Shares fewer colours but you know that anyway. You can say they're similar and still think it's a non-issue you know.

I think it shares the same number of colors.

[jimmy jazz]

I think it shares the same number of colors.

Yeah whatever.

[Saulaac]

Janzoon's "shares the same number of colors" is techically correct in terms of maths (or math) so full marks for that quip   

National flags shouldn't be messed with, otherwise we might as well mess with friggin anything. Or, just go with one single Earth flag and get it over and done with.

The LGBTIQ+ community are defo in a position to ask questions.
Instead of replacing the red and white, how about proposing to appear alongside the red and white.

Maybe Nike are testing the waters so to speak (to sell more shirts perhaps?).


Ps. And I was going to ask if this issue had anything to do with Jehovah's Witnesses and Saints, but I'll leave that question for another day 

[SGR]

Janzoon's "shares the same number of colors" is techically correct in terms of maths (or math) so full marks for that quip   

National flags shouldn't be messed with, otherwise we might as well mess with friggin anything. Or, just go with one single Earth flag and get it over and done with.

The LGBTIQ+ community are defo in a position to ask questions.
Instead of replacing the red and white, how about proposing to appear alongside the red and white.

Maybe Nike are testing the waters so to speak (to sell more shirts perhaps?).


Ps. And I was going to ask if this issue had anything to do with Jehovah's Witnesses and Saints, but I'll leave that question for another day 

Wait, how do the Jehovah's Witnesses factor into this? Did I miss something?

[Lisnaholic]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68632034



TL;DR Nike 'pride-ified' the St George's cross.

The shirt "includes a playful update to the cross to unite and inspire". I think that's OK, if it actually unites and inspires them to go and win the f*cking competition 

^ If that was their intention, then it's a spectacular fail by Nike as far as I can tell. 

[Marie Monday]

lol lisna

About the comment that national flags should not be messed with; few countries have national flags in the neck of their football jersey anyway, it doesn't have any specific function there at all. The flags that signify which nations are playing are on the breast, of course those should not be altered because that would defeat their purpose. The cross on the back of the england jerseys is just decoration, why shouldn't you be able to play with the design? It's still a clearly recognisable reference to the English flag anyway

[Lisnaholic]

^ Yes, that's a good point, Marie. If the national symbol is clear enough elsewhere on the shirt, no real harm has been done - even if the little design seems to be causing some controversy.

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it". That attitude stiffles innovation, I suppose, but I wish The Post Office (UK) had considered it before they embarked on this disastrous "Consignia" rebranding:-

In an effort to compete with mail companies with brandlike names such as FedEx and UPS, in 2001 Britain's post office made the risky marketing decision to change its name from the hallowed Royal Mail — in use since it was first made available to the public by Charles I in 1635 — to the made-up Consignia. The post office's chief executive, John Roberts, called the new moniker "modern, meaningful and entirely appropriate," explaining that "the new name describes the full scope of what the post office does in a way that the words post and office cannot." A bewildered public, quite comfortable with the definitions of the words post and office, disagreed. A year later the company changed back.

The cost of this piece of arrogant marketing whimsey ? 1.5 million pounds to launch Consignia, then 1 million to change it back to the Post Office again.

[Trollheart]

Consignia eh? Sounds like Fat Tony made the Royal Mail an offer they couldn't refuse!

[Saulaac]

lol lisna

About the comment that national flags should not be messed with; few countries have national flags in the neck of their football jersey anyway, it doesn't have any specific function there at all. The flags that signify which nations are playing are on the breast, of course those should not be altered because that would defeat their purpose. The cross on the back of the england jerseys is just decoration, why shouldn't you be able to play with the design? It's still a clearly recognisable reference to the English flag anyway

Fair enough. Just decoration. I don't think it is about decoration. I think it is about where everyone comes from.

[Marie Monday]

What surprises me about the debate is that it exists at all, because there is a very reasonable, obvious and uncontroversial interpretation for the colour choice. If you think about it, the colour scheme makes perfect sense if you look at it from a design point of view. It simply connects the navy of the england kit (why do they have navy accents anyway instead of red, while we're at it? Would that be so much less reasonable to object to?) with the red of the flag (and it does so very effectively, I might add, I like the design). Consider that if the cross was red, it wouldn't be an England flag either because the background (the collar) is navy. Adding a white square in the middle of the blue would be jarring and not look good; this solution is subtle, gradually introducing the red which would otherwise be a bit out of place. The last time England had a cross in the neck of the jersey was in 2018, I think, and that one had the actual England flag colours, but the background colour was white so there that was a good choice. So the way I see it, there is a perfectly reasonable design-based justification for this which makes more sense than any conceptual explanations I've heard, and which just tries to blend the flag motif with the collar as harmoniously as possible instead of meaning any disrespect.

[jimmy jazz]

What surprises me about the debate is that it exists at all, because there is a very reasonable, obvious and uncontroversial interpretation for the colour choice. If you think about it, the colour scheme makes perfect sense if you look at it from a design point of view. It simply connects the navy of the england kit (why do they have navy accents anyway instead of red, while we're at it? Would that be so much less reasonable to object to?) with the red of the flag (and it does so very effectively, I might add, I like the design).

I like the kits. That isn't the point though. Also there is purple on the flag but not the kit. And England have always had blue somewhere in the kit. It's just tradition.

Consider that if the cross was red, it wouldn't be an England flag either because the background (the collar) is navy.

It would still be the St. George's cross though.

Adding a white square in the middle of the blue would be jarring and not look good; this solution is subtle. The last time England had a cross in the neck of the jersey was in 2018, I think, and that one had the actual England flag colours, but the background colour was white so there that was a good choice. So the way I see it, there is a perfectly reasonable design-based justification for this which makes more sense than any conceptual explanations I've heard, and which just tries to blend the flag motif with the collar as harmoniously as possible instead of meaning any disrespect.

Its been done before and it looks fine.

Fair enough. Just decoration. I don't think it is about decoration. I think it is about where everyone comes from.

Well if it was then what's the bit about uniting people about?

[Marie Monday]

The purple is to link the navy and red, that's what I was trying to say, it looks better than just putting a red cross in there without any transition. Also I realise that it's a matter of taste but I think that small English flag in the blue collar looks very bad. I know the blue in the English kit is tradition and everyone is used to it now, but still someone decided that those are the colours at some point and from a national symbolism point of view, why would that not be objectionable if this is?

About the unite and inspire, I wouldn't take that too seriously, football kit designers always come up with some pretentious nonsense to interpret their designs. Like the dark blue/light pink arsenal third(?) kit a few years ago was supposed to symbolise the vibe of the Emirates stadium at night lmao

[jimmy jazz]

The purple is to link the navy and red, that's what I was trying to say, it looks better than just putting a red cross in there without any transition. Also I realise that it's a matter of taste but I think that small English flag in the blue collar looks very bad. I know the blue in the English kit is tradition and everyone is used to it now, but still someone decided that those are the colours at some point and from a national symbolism point of view, why would that not be objectionable if this is?

This was in the 1800s. You can't really compare that to now as there was no real image to the team back then and it wasn't really tied to the colour of the flag. The original kit was white shirts blue shorts, black socks. If they did that now people would likely object to it because the white socks are seen as the standard colours. Also, some people do object to blue in the kit because it isn't in the flag but most aren't bothered.

I don't mind them switching between all white, adding blue and adding red. Just as long as it isn't green or something.

[Marie Monday]

Yeah, both navy and red look great on the England kit. I do dislike that Germany and Italy don't use their flag colours but that's just because I think they're better colour schemes than the ones they do use, wasted potential :p