I can understand the occasional 'risky' design, but with regards to that away kit, what were they thinking!?

To be fair, we haven't had a properly awful kit for a while so its was due!!

I actually like the away kit. The home kit is a very bad homage to the 1985 'Meninga' kit.

Sworn enemies as we are you really have had to suffer some real abominations - our last two kits have been poor but overall since SL began we have whooped you as regards kits. Don't even seem to get the difference between Amberish and dayglow Orange - best of luck on that one.

I'll take a "can of whoop" from Wakey - as long as it's only over kit design and colour - no problem there Vasty.

I don't know what it's like at other clubs but at Leeds the additional sponsors (ie not Leeds Building Society) on the shirt/shorts etc bring in very useful extra revenue or services to the club. Global and Berry's both regularly take hospitality on matchdays (not just freebies associated with their sponsorship) and the club have a very strong relationship with Leeds Beckett Uni with both senior and academy players taking courses there and the Uni using the Carnegie Stand classrooms, and quite a few of the players and staff have cars provided by Global.
It's not just the pure cash from the sponsorship. It's a way of tying, often smaller, organisations to the club and hopefully developing long-lasting partnerships which will bear fruit in the future.

Quite right regarding partnerships with other businesses, and I imagine this is how most clubs do it (or try to do it). But, every professional sports club have these partners, some who've shown support through sponsorship for years, and others where there are mutual agreements. Yet, it's only really the SL who have their playing kits plastered with so many sponsors.

There are plenty of other ways these partners can sponsor the club, without it detracting from the playing kit, and like I said, the small sums involved could more than be made up by an exclusive main sponsor.

It's just a pet hate. I get why they do it, the RFL/SL set the rules on shirt sponsorship, I just think it looks naff and a bit small time.

Was at a members meeting for warrington on wednesday, the new shirts appear to only have main sponsor, sleeve sponse and two on the back, which are both local and longstanding company associations. Both shirts look very clean and uncluttered, but our Rog the CEO says he's after looking at the advertising around the stadium, he's not a big fan of various brands and signs, he'd prefer to have less adverts but all looking very uniform and clean.

He's speaking my language that guy. To be fair, the recent Warrington shirts tend to look pretty good and uncluttered. Less going on gives a higher sense of quality and brings to the fore the club's brand IMO.

It's a good point too regarding stadium advertising. At Hull we have the South Stand where I sit decked out in signage too. Looks cheap and tacky.

This is the shop equivalent. "Looking good lads, well worth the extra pocket change"

The problem is the RFL and their silly guidelines. They insist on taking up many of the prime locations with 'Try Assist' and the league logos so clubs end up with loads of little logos everywhere.

It does not excuse that rubbish St Helens and Hull FC have churned out though!!

Thishttps://elsports.co.uk/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/i/s/isc_wigan_home_jersey.png" >

Or thishttps://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/08/25/article-0-1B7206E2000005DC-867_634x479.jpg" >

And that's not even a really bad one, no collar or extra chest sponsor

2016 Hull FC awayhttps://tribwpmt.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/2011-nscs-kyle-busch-headshot1.jpg?w

[size*That'll be it now, I promise [/size

I can just see Johnny Vegas wearing one now...

Come to think of what you said, that might be good. Opposition players might commit to the tackle too early.

What is the fascination with a bloody collar? That's all I hear when new shirts are announce. This isn't the 1970s. If the players had collars on their shirts then tacklers would use them as something to get hold of. That is also why the shirts got tighter on the players. If you want a shirt with a collar then buy a polo t-shirt from your club shop.

Agree, I don't understand the fascination with every little detail of a shirt anyway. I buy a shirt every year cos I consider it a collection. I get it signed by players I meet throughout the year. I couldn't care less about a collar cos I'm just interested in representing my club. When I am an old man and showing my kids my collection of 70 shirts or whatever I wont be going, "oh look at the signatures on my 2016 shirt but its a piece of s**t cos it hasn't got a collar...