£34 for the short sleeve and £39 for the long sleeve junior at SD. Kits have always been expensive, and I'm not saying they aren't, but you can pick them up cheaper outside of the official store. £10 for printing seems reasonable, the quality of the printing seems so much better these days. Gone are the days of names and numbers peeling off.
The fact that other stores are selling it cheaper doesn't really matter, if anything it makes the official prices worse. £10 for printing isn't unreasonable either but the overall price is high. The shirt itself only costs a couple of quid in material terms so the kids shirt is subsidising the marketing/kit deal/promo stuff every bit if not more than the adult stuff.
I appreciate that its just the way it is, I dont object touch about the modern game but £60 to get your wee kid a United top leaves a bad taste for me.
The fact that other stores are selling it cheaper doesn't really matter, if anything it makes the official prices worse. £10 for printing isn't unreasonable either but the overall price is high. The shirt itself only costs a couple of quid in material terms so the kids shirt is subsidising the marketing/kit deal/promo stuff every bit if not more than the adult stuff.
I appreciate that its just the way it is, I dont object touch about the modern game but £60 to get your wee kid a United top leaves a bad taste for me.
I don't understand, what's the "official price"? The shirts in other shops will be the same as those sold in the United store and by Adidas. The fact that they both have the same mark up on them is them cashing in. People have choices to buy the kits or not, it's simple as and that includes parents with kids, it's easy to say no to them.
I dont see what the issue is. Football shirts have been around for years and women simply bought them in the size that fitted them same as the men. In recent years there has been the introduction of the "womens" shirt which is essentially more of a fashion item i.e its more figure-hugging than the mens. Adidas have taken tis a stage further with the lower V-neck. If women didn't like the women's version because it was more shaped then they could still buy the normal version. This still applies with the lower v-neck. The women version has always been a fashion item similar to the "football dress" and the like. Its not like adidas are insisting women display cleavage, you pays your money and takes your choice.
It's only recently that they have been seen as something to buy, for a long time fans wouldn't be seen wearing a teams shirt, certainly not at the ground anyway. Kids could get away with it, but they weren't fashionable. Neither was football, however once football became fashionable again, the campaign for women's cut shirts came about and companies obliged. Shirts were identical except for the cut. This though, if they marketed it as anything other than a replica shirt they'd be fine, but the term replica means it should replicate that worn by the team, which it obviously doesn't.
I don't think kids t-shirts are that expensive at all considering they're a gift and not strictly speaking an item of clothing to be compared with the 5 for £3.99 pack of polo-necks you can get at Primark. It's reasonable to compare it to a game that would set you back fifty quid or there abouts.
If you take a kid to see a film you're very lucky to get much change out of £40 all told. At least they get months of enjoyment out of the t-shirt.
I don't think kids t-shirts are that expensive at all considering they're a gift and not strictly speaking an item of clothing to be compared with the 5 for £3.99 pack of polo-necks you can get at Primark. It's reasonable to compare it to a game that would set you back fifty quid or there abouts.
If you take a kid to see a film you're very lucky to get much change out of £40 all told. At least they get months of enjoyment out of the t-shirt.
Even though they'll only get 12 months use out of it before it becomes "old" and unwearable, they'll get enough wear out of it. As it's probably worn at least once a week. It isn't cheap, but they do prove good value.
Shrewd investors will be holding out for the black one, the third kit. For my money it's the best one we've had since the 1994/95 black 'Sharp View-Cam' one. It almost looks as if it could be worn by adults without making them look too much of a t***. Actually tempted to get it, I'm not gonna lie.
Shrewd investors will be holding out for the black one, the third kit. For my money it's the best one we've had since the 1994/95 black 'Sharp View-Cam' one. It almost looks as if it could be worn by adults without making them look too much of a t***. Actually tempted to get it, I'm not gonna lie.
Not so sure on the accompanying shorts though.. I do like the socks on all versions, with the devil on them rather than a rather prominent manufacturers logo
It's possibly our best 3 kit combo since 85/86 season...
Sorry guys I have to differ! The women's shirt just looks daft because it's nothing like a football shirt. And the men's and women's shirts both have that butt ugly Chevrolet logo splashed across the front again, that must be the ugliest shirt logo we've ever had to put up with.
I get that it's worth it for the money but someone somewhere should have had a quiet word with Chevrolet long ago, about their banner/logo based on an original 1914 design, which is far too big on the shirt. Barclays updated their original eagle logo a few decades ago to modernise it and so should Chevvy IMO - or keep it small.
Sorry guys I have to differ! The women's shirt just looks daft because it's nothing like a football shirt. And the men's and women's shirts both have that butt ugly Chevrolet logo splashed across the front again, that must be the ugliest shirt logo we've ever had to put up with.
I get that it's worth it for the £75 million but someone somewhere should have had a quiet word with Chevrolet long ago, about their 1920s banner/logo, which is far too big on the shirt. Barclays updated their original eagle logo a few decades ago to modernise it and so should Chevvy IMO - or keep it small.
Complaining about the Chevrolet logo is futile.
They're paying a not-so-small fortune to have their brand on our shirt. That money helps to buy (and pay) players.
We're not Chelsea or City, so we have to put up with stuff like this, if we're to have any hope of competing.
It's Chevrolet I'm complaining about, I can't believe that their 1914 basic design is still being used (with tweaks) 101 years later. It would put me off ever buying a Chevvy that's for sure, especially if it was spread across the entire front of the car as with our shirts. Anyway, rant over, I'll stop now before I start blaming our last two year's performances on it lol, I just needed to get the crap design choices IMO off my chest.
It's Chevrolet I'm complaining about, I can't believe that their 1914 basic design is still being used (with tweaks) 101 years later. It would put me off ever buying a Chevvy that's for sure, especially if it was spread across the entire front of the car as with our shirts. Anyway, rant over, I just needed to get it off my chest lol.
Fair comment, but I'm struggling to see it, myself.
It's not the greatest logo, but it's not the worst. Imagine if we were sponsored by McDonald's. *shudder*
The prices for kits are getting quite expensive. Since I was 15 or so I've only ever bought shirts, with names and badges, then just started getting shirts (£45 for a shirt, £60 with the name and badge...well, it was last time I bought a Liverpool shirt). I've not bought a shirt in years, at least not an official one. I buy training shirts sometimes if I like the look of them. £30 isn't so bad and I don't care about wearing them after the next lot come out. In fact since Warrior arrived our training kits have looked better than most of the actual kits.
Another problem I have is the home kit changing every season, rather than every 2 seasons. With the prices going up and it changing every season, I do feel sorry for the parents.
Maybe Man United should have a women's team afterall.
Leaving aside the shirt thing, I'm not bothered either way, for me it would be like watching 2nd team or Youth Cup matches, maybe less. Nice if they win but in the overall scheme of things, only of passing interest. Such a lot of fuss about today's Wembley match considering that it's all so immature but in 10 years time? Who knows?
If we go into the season as we are now without any more additions to the squad does anyone think we have a genuine chance of mounting a title challenge?
If we go into the season as we are now without any more additions to the squad does anyone think we have a genuine chance of mounting a title challenge?
I think a title challenge is perfectly possible. Not a certainty but very possible. Man Utd have added 4 quality players so far to what was already a top 4 side, the others haven't really strengthened too much (you can argue how much they need to) while the "not quite top 4" side have if anything gone backwards.
If Uniteds new signing click (big if obviously) then they should be up there.
I agree with Eddie, we have brought some very good players in this window, some great signings from what I can see, so Im saying yes we can mount a title challange.
Obviously we need a couple more players, ie Centre Back and another striker, need to sort the goalkeeping position out, but with the players we have signed they can be great additions to the team, and I think we can make a challange this year.
Last year we were hammered so badly by injuries that it almost became comic. Without them in the early parts of the season I think we would have mounted a title challenge that year. I know playing 'if we beat X, Y and Z we'd have this many points and therefore champions!!" is ludicrous, but I don't think the points tally last season was a fair reflection as to how far we'd come as a team compared to the season before.
At times some of the football we played last season was as good as I've seen from us in 4 or 5 years.
Comments
The fact that other stores are selling it cheaper doesn't really matter, if anything it makes the official prices worse. £10 for printing isn't unreasonable either but the overall price is high. The shirt itself only costs a couple of quid in material terms so the kids shirt is subsidising the marketing/kit deal/promo stuff every bit if not more than the adult stuff.
I appreciate that its just the way it is, I dont object touch about the modern game but £60 to get your wee kid a United top leaves a bad taste for me.
I don't understand, what's the "official price"? The shirts in other shops will be the same as those sold in the United store and by Adidas. The fact that they both have the same mark up on them is them cashing in. People have choices to buy the kits or not, it's simple as and that includes parents with kids, it's easy to say no to them.
It's only recently that they have been seen as something to buy, for a long time fans wouldn't be seen wearing a teams shirt, certainly not at the ground anyway. Kids could get away with it, but they weren't fashionable. Neither was football, however once football became fashionable again, the campaign for women's cut shirts came about and companies obliged. Shirts were identical except for the cut. This though, if they marketed it as anything other than a replica shirt they'd be fine, but the term replica means it should replicate that worn by the team, which it obviously doesn't.
If you take a kid to see a film you're very lucky to get much change out of £40 all told. At least they get months of enjoyment out of the t-shirt.
Even though they'll only get 12 months use out of it before it becomes "old" and unwearable, they'll get enough wear out of it. As it's probably worn at least once a week. It isn't cheap, but they do prove good value.
Not so sure on the accompanying shorts though.. I do like the socks on all versions, with the devil on them rather than a rather prominent manufacturers logo
It's possibly our best 3 kit combo since 85/86 season...
We've all bought into it, and allowed this to happen.
In terms of logic, £70-£80 for a t-shirt is insane, but then some berks pay £500 for a bloody handbag!
Just wait until they release the thong-back female shorts...
That's pretty much how the normal shorts will look on Shaw anyway
Not to sure what the problem is with the womens shirt? If the low cut is a problem, just buy the normal one?
I think the bigger issue is that the "mens" shirt should really just be refered to as a standard shirt.
I get that it's worth it for the money but someone somewhere should have had a quiet word with Chevrolet long ago, about their banner/logo based on an original 1914 design, which is far too big on the shirt. Barclays updated their original eagle logo a few decades ago to modernise it and so should Chevvy IMO - or keep it small.
I feel sorry for Adidas having to put up with it.
Complaining about the Chevrolet logo is futile.
They're paying a not-so-small fortune to have their brand on our shirt. That money helps to buy (and pay) players.
We're not Chelsea or City, so we have to put up with stuff like this, if we're to have any hope of competing.
Fair comment, but I'm struggling to see it, myself.
It's not the greatest logo, but it's not the worst. Imagine if we were sponsored by McDonald's. *shudder*
Another problem I have is the home kit changing every season, rather than every 2 seasons. With the prices going up and it changing every season, I do feel sorry for the parents.
Maybe Man United should have a women's team afterall.
Leaving aside the shirt thing, I'm not bothered either way, for me it would be like watching 2nd team or Youth Cup matches, maybe less. Nice if they win but in the overall scheme of things, only of passing interest. Such a lot of fuss about today's Wembley match considering that it's all so immature but in 10 years time? Who knows?
Top 4 is only hope. :cool:
If Uniteds new signing click (big if obviously) then they should be up there.
Obviously we need a couple more players, ie Centre Back and another striker, need to sort the goalkeeping position out, but with the players we have signed they can be great additions to the team, and I think we can make a challange this year.
At times some of the football we played last season was as good as I've seen from us in 4 or 5 years.