Hearing that we are going with Halbro again next season, bloody hell from a ''million pound major deal with sportswear giant'' to some man and his dog in a factory in Horwich, someone did joke last season we were going with Halbro their dream has come true.

That would be a huge backwards step, ok staying with UA was never going to happen but at least go with a company who have a decent line in off field wear and accessories.

Under Armour filed a CCJ against Salford this year, and Kooga did similar the previous year. So I guess we can’t pick and choose at present.

Even broncos has a better kit sponsor, Kappa.. now that's saying something.

Sponsorship deal with Salford County Court might be a good shout though.

Even Swinton will have a better kit supplier next season if this happens, they have Errea. God almighty I hope we don't go with Halbro as MR said that would be a huge step backwards for a number of reasons.

Who cares who makes the kit. I support the team not the kit provider. The make of kit doesn't make a good team, a good team ethic does. If they've got that, then that will do for me.

Thank god for some sense on here - after the last few years all that matters is the performance on the field - ffs get your priorities right people!!

Disagree in part, the quality of shirt helps with the sales, UA should have been a master stroke but feel like the club were shafted when the off field wear was very poor.

I'd settle for a Blades or ISC, but as much thought needs to go into other items as well as the actual playing shirt.

Don't Knock Halbro
they gave us this http://www.oldrugbyshirts.com/img/season_shirts/thumbnails/salford-city-reds-home-rugby-shirt-1986-s_2719_1_500x400.jpg" >

I agree with that but the effect is probably only pronounced when it’s a mega brand like Adidas or Nike. Salford did have the opportunity to have Puma once but it was spurned.

Couldn't careless about Under Armour, or any other high profile manufacturer. Whilst Halbro does appear an amateurish choice, if it means the club will actually make some money from the deal then so be it.

UA was doomed to failure from the off, there was never in a million years a chance of us shifting enough units of merchandise to make a decent return.

On list of things that need sorting it is low, but this kind of thing i.e. brand association does matter to certain age groups (particularly younger teenage lads). As you say, hopefully this deal will see a wider variety of merch available.

Outsider looking in here, Under Armour is seriously trendy stuff at the moment, and as said, things like this do make a difference, go back a few years when Warrington did their deal with CCC, we sold loads of shirts in 07 as it was perceived to be a proper quality rugby shirt from a proper quality rugby shirt company, it was a good product as well, go forwards twelve months, the next shirt was that god awful swoop neck effort that looked a like a cape over the shoulder, again, sold tons of them, cos it was CCC and we were now sporting the template design they were using for international rugby teams and some football teams.

Contrast that to the e kit ISC put out for 2010, stickers falling off, completely wrong colours, sizing was off, and we were all expecting that as the other clubs that previously had ISC had nothing but bad things to say about them.

As what Chico said a ''cool'' brand appeals to people, Puma would of been excellent was quite gutted about that, I think it does attract outside attention when you have something like UA a few of my non RL supporting mates were impressed we had them as our kit supplier.

Suppose it doesn't really matter but considering Swinton have Errea and other lower league clubs have more well known brands than Halbro it is a bit shoddy.