CACK - Campaign Against Changing Kits.

SporadicAddick

We now seem to be wearing the second kit at most away games, irrespective of the lack of colour clash. Portsmouth and Carlisle spring to mind, when wearing red would have been much more sensible than black, but against Cray we wore red.  

As the choice of kit evidently isn't a sporting one, it must be a commercial one, with, I guess, the different kit sponsors having a contracted number of games in "their" kit.  

But it still bugs me...Charlton should play in red unless that clashes with the home team.

I'm thinking, perhaps a funeral march down Floyd Road with a load of home kits in a coffin, followed by foam red kits being thrown on the pitch at kick off.

Or should we just accept it as another commercial facet of the modern game and suck it up..?

 

Dazzler21

Isn't it home and away kits?

Red at home and when we can't use the away. Third when we can't use home or away.

SporadicAddick

.Dazzler21 said:

Isn't it home and away kits?

Red at home and when we can't use the away. Third when we can't use home or away.

Not traditionally - the second kit was only ever used if there was a clash with red.

Off_it

I think we should wear a different kit for every single game so we can maintain a "fresh" look and maximise revenues from merch sales. Maybe change the badge three or four times a season too, so it remains current and on point with today's fast moving world.

Tradition is soooo overrated.

paulie8290

I may be wrong with this but I'm sure we have to wear each kit a minimum amount of times a season

So its not just a case of always wear red unless kits clash as we have to wear away kit at certain times by the rules(or it might be kit manufacturers contract) but I'm certain i read it somewhere

thai malaysia addick

Wholly in favour of this. Always wear red if we can. Could I suggest the campaign is called CACK - Campaign Against Changing Kits?

SporadicAddick

thai malaysia addick said:

Wholly in favour of this. Always wear red if we can. Could I suggest the campaign is called CACK - Campaign Against Changing Kits?

I like CACK...

Callumcafc

ValleyBen

Is it not partly increased at all matches due to considering colour blind fans more?

I do not know enough about the most common forms of colour blindness to know if it is always the case in our matches but it is something I used to not consider when complaining about this very issue myself.

sam3110

As long as we play in red at home and the kit we play in each game has a Charlton badge on the front of it, I'm not that fussed about what we wear away tbh

killerandflash

ValleyBen said:

Is it not partly increased at all matches due to considering colour blind fans more?

I do not know enough about the most common forms of colour blindness to know if it is always the case in our matches but it is something I used to not consider when complaining about this very issue myself.

Our all black kit today was surely more of a clash against Carlisle's all blue, than red shirts and white shorts?

jimmymelrose

SporadicAddick said:

We now seem to be wearing the second kit at most away games, irrespective of the lack of colour clash. Portsmouth and Carlisle spring to mind, when wearing red would have been much more sensible than black, but against Cray we wore red.  

As the choice of kit evidently isn't a sporting one, it must be a commercial one, with, I guess, the different kit sponsors having a contracted number of games in "their" kit.  

But it still bugs me...Charlton should play in red unless that clashes with the home team.

I'm thinking, perhaps a funeral march down Floyd Road with a load of home kits in a coffin, followed by foam red kits being thrown on the pitch at kick off.

Or should we just accept it as another commercial facet of the modern game and suck it up..?

 

I think that there are more important things over recent years ( both at CAFC and this stupid world) to be marching in protest about.

As long as we play in red at home it’s not worth getting shirty :-) 😀  about.

jimmymelrose

ValleyBen said:

Is it not partly increased at all matches due to considering colour blind fans more?

I do not know enough about the most common forms of colour blindness to know if it is always the case in our matches but it is something I used to not consider when complaining about this very issue myself.

This is true. Red and blue are a clash for colour blind people. 

Isn’t is that more than 5 per cent of the adult male population are colour blind?

golfaddick

ValleyBen said:

Is it not partly increased at all matches due to considering colour blind fans more?

I do not know enough about the most common forms of colour blindness to know if it is always the case in our matches but it is something I used to not consider when complaining about this very issue myself.

That's the most woke statement I've read. 

We play in red. We should only change the kit if it clashes with the opposition. Today we should have played in red. Liverpool did at Man City today.

And a kit manufacturer should be binned if they ever asked / demand that we play in a "away" kit a certain number of times a season. He who pays the piper & all that. 

killerandflash

jimmymelrose said:

ValleyBen said:

Is it not partly increased at all matches due to considering colour blind fans more?

I do not know enough about the most common forms of colour blindness to know if it is always the case in our matches but it is something I used to not consider when complaining about this very issue myself.

This is true. Red and blue are a clash for colour blind people. 

Isn’t is that more than 5 per cent of the adult male population are colour blind?

Liverpool and Utd wear red when playing City in their light blue.

In the Merseyside derby, both teams wear their home colours, so that doesn't seem to be a problem, as long as both teams aren't wearing white shorts. And Carlisle had blue shorts yesterday.

Talal

killerandflash said:

jimmymelrose said:

ValleyBen said:

Is it not partly increased at all matches due to considering colour blind fans more?

I do not know enough about the most common forms of colour blindness to know if it is always the case in our matches but it is something I used to not consider when complaining about this very issue myself.

This is true. Red and blue are a clash for colour blind people. 

Isn’t is that more than 5 per cent of the adult male population are colour blind?

Liverpool and Utd wear red when playing City in their light blue.

In the Merseyside derby, both teams wear their home colours, so that doesn't seem to be a problem, as long as both teams aren't wearing white shorts. And Carlisle had blue shorts yesterday.

EFL will have different rules, maybe the premier league aren't as bothered 🤷

letthegoodtimesroll

Surely no football manager in his right mind would want his team to play in a different colour shirt if there was no need to. He, or she, sets out to build a team and play for the shirt, the football equivalent of the battlefield flag or banner to rally around and, in a high over emotional game about that can turn on the instinctive awareness of players watching out for where a team mate is it any wonder that passes go astray. Charlton play in red shirts, fans sing about the red shirt and encourage the team and the ‘Reds’, but that often seems undermined when we are away and the team is wearing black, blue, white, yellow etc. I have no doubt that points are lost because somebody is more interested in chasing the money of a few fans that might buy one or more of the different coloured team shirts in a season only because the team will definitely play in that colour shirt so many times. By all means, have the different colours, in fact why stop at just two or three colours, particularly in seasons when the red version looks a bit naff when fans wears them, but don’t wear them in away matches when there isn’t a colour clash with the home teams kit.

Lincsaddick

yesterday was an example of w t f .. both teams in fairly dark kits when the Addicks Red would have been a total contrast to Carlisle's blue .. still with a shop full of away kits needing to be shifted, to have eleven live models out there advertising was good sense from a commercial point of view, EXCEPT for the disappointing result.

The price for 'duplicate kits' is extortionate at all clubs, really just trying to take advantage of loyal, die hard fans .. to extend the moan, the same can be said about 'in house' food and drink

Stig

EFL kit rules are here, Section 39. https://www.efl.com/governance/regulations/

There's nothing I can see about clubs having to wear there change kits a certain number of times, and frankly I'd be amazed if their was. Why would The League want to promote kit swapping behaviour?

The FA's guidance on colour ɓlindness not only includes fetching photos of Matt Holland, but it suggests blue versus bright red as a best practice combination. 
https://www.thefa.com/news/2017/jun/19/colour-blindness-guidance-190617

The truth is we have to put up with this nonsense for commercial reasons only. Nothing to do with the rules and nothing to do with colour blindness. We could easily put a stop to it simply by refusing to buy replica away kits. If we didn't buy them, they would promote them.

Off_it

Stig said:

The truth is we have to put up with this nonsense for commercial reasons only. Nothing to do with the rules and nothing to do with colour blindness. We could easily put a stop to it simply by refusing to buy replica away kits. If we didn't buy them, they would promote them.

Nailed it. 

Changing kits because of colour blindness? Don't make me laugh! Stig has told you the reason - and it's a pound note, not any consideration for fans.

Todds_right_hook

I'm in the who cares camp. I pay to watch Charlton play and wouldn't care less if they wore white t shirts and pink bibs

i was told, don't know if there is any truth in it that referees also have a say

sam3110

One of world cups in recent times had seen teams change their traditional kits to adhere to FIFAs rule on kits and colour clashes, but also to help with colour-blindness. Argentina wearing white shorts instead of black, France wearing all blue instead of blue/white/red and England's home shorts being white instead of navy are all changes I can remember off the top of my head. 

They changed it back after everyone complained thankfully 

Lincsaddick

Chelsea v Man C .. royal blue v sky blue .. for those watching in black n white

jimmymelrose

killerandflash said:

jimmymelrose said:

ValleyBen said:

Is it not partly increased at all matches due to considering colour blind fans more?

I do not know enough about the most common forms of colour blindness to know if it is always the case in our matches but it is something I used to not consider when complaining about this very issue myself.

This is true. Red and blue are a clash for colour blind people. 

Isn’t is that more than 5 per cent of the adult male population are colour blind?

Liverpool and Utd wear red when playing City in their light blue.

In the Merseyside derby, both teams wear their home colours, so that doesn't seem to be a problem, as long as both teams aren't wearing white shorts. And Carlisle had blue shorts yesterday.

Yes but the issue is dark v dark colours and light v light colours. Dark red v light blue is not such a problem for colour blind people.

Check this out:
https://www.footyheadlines.com/2021/01/uefa-kit-color-blindness-simulation-why.html

And by the way, taking this into account isn’t ’woke’, it’s simply ensuring that spectators and players can tell the teams apart. It’s no different to providing places for disabled fans or creating a league for handicapped players. Football is for everyone.

ValleyBen

Considering people outside your own exact personal circumstances is woke now, embarrassing but I guess I should not be surprised as I have witnessed grown men who are such over sensitive snowflakes that they cannot handle 22 footballers kneeling for 3 seconds.

killerandflash

jimmymelrose said:

killerandflash said:

jimmymelrose said:

ValleyBen said:

Is it not partly increased at all matches due to considering colour blind fans more?

I do not know enough about the most common forms of colour blindness to know if it is always the case in our matches but it is something I used to not consider when complaining about this very issue myself.

This is true. Red and blue are a clash for colour blind people. 

Isn’t is that more than 5 per cent of the adult male population are colour blind?

Liverpool and Utd wear red when playing City in their light blue.

In the Merseyside derby, both teams wear their home colours, so that doesn't seem to be a problem, as long as both teams aren't wearing white shorts. And Carlisle had blue shorts yesterday.

Yes but the issue is dark v dark colours and light v light colours. Dark red v light blue is not such a problem for colour blind people.

Check this out:
https://www.footyheadlines.com/2021/01/uefa-kit-color-blindness-simulation-why.html

And by the way, taking this into account isn’t ’woke’, it’s simply ensuring that spectators and players can tell the teams apart. It’s no different to providing places for disabled fans or creating a league for handicapped players. Football is for everyone.

But what about the second example I mentioned, Liverpool Vs Everton, as Everton wear dark blue shirts?

Nobody is criticising changing kits if colour blind people are impacted. It's more that we wear change kits now when there's no clash, and when the change kits can be more of clash anyway.

Airman Brown

I reckon people are overthinking this. IMO the main reason we don’t wear the first choice kit away when we could is because no one in charge could care less.

Clubs are obviously going to want to wear any kit a number of times to support sales but red shirts will be much bigger sellers than any change kit. It’s about identity, but do you really think anyone in authority gives a toss about that?

As a matter of fact it was very gloomy in the first half at Carlisle so the black kit was a poor choice on every level.

thai malaysia addick

Airman Brown said:

I reckon people are overthinking this. IMO the main reason we don’t wear the first choice kit away when we could is because no one in charge could care less.

Clubs are obviously going to want to wear any kit a number of times to support sales but red shirts will be much bigger sellers than any change kit. It’s about identity, but do you really think anyone in authority gives a toss about that?

As a matter of fact it was very gloomy in the first half at Carlisle so the black kit was a poor choice on every level.

Out of interest, have you any idea how many shirts we sell per season these days?

Airman Brown

thai malaysia addick said:

Airman Brown said:

I reckon people are overthinking this. IMO the main reason we don’t wear the first choice kit away when we could is because no one in charge could care less.

Clubs are obviously going to want to wear any kit a number of times to support sales but red shirts will be much bigger sellers than any change kit. It’s about identity, but do you really think anyone in authority gives a toss about that?

As a matter of fact it was very gloomy in the first half at Carlisle so the black kit was a poor choice on every level.

Out of interest, have you any idea how many shirts we sell per season these days?

No idea. Four figures I would guess.

Rock Spectacle

Bulk of which will go around May if we don't make the Play Offs

Talal

Had it from a member of staff that it is contractual - have to wear the black kit unless we really can't.
Presumably University of Greenwich weren't happy with how many times the away kit was used last season.