Ok there was a general outcry when they came out though personally I liked them from the of.

I do think as a playing shirt they add to the team as they are quite dark, to me the players look pretty mean and tough in them.

It took some getting use to but I generally like the home one, still not too keen on the away one.

The 20% off offer looks a good one, I would snap it up if I has a ST.

The home one is growing on me - it definitely looks better now there's a sponsor on it. The away one is still rank.

I think the new home kit looks good on the players (predominantly dark), as they have the physique....certainly looks better than the old kit . The away kit looks naff due to the choice of colours.

Unfortunately (with the exception of PP

), the kit looks totally different on the shape of the average supporter

.......can`t see me ever buying it!!!

Are they ever going to release a shirt with the sponsor on, or just continue to flog the "old" shirts at discount prices?

I'd consider a purchase if they released the former.

Im not buying it. Looks ok on the players, looks daft on fans imo.

shirt grows on you,but the ones on sale in the shop at 20% off are too plain,they need logos on the arms and the new sponsor on the chest will help .has anyone else spotted the difference between supporters and players shirts, the latter is better as the top quarters go further up into the shoulders which gives a better V..........if that makes sense.....anyway there better

My mate Leeboy mentioned how West Ham encountered their problem with XL by having logos that could be pressed/ironed over the old sponsor, or something like that.

Possible with our shirts? I guess not.

Pretty sure it is possible. While at uni back home i worked in a sporting goods store and we were able to return jerseys to certain suppliers to have the change of sponsor or addition of sponsor made.

I got my jersey already from Lillywhite this year. It does look rather plain without the logos on the arms. Not too dissapointed by the lack of front of jersey sponsor.

Solution could be easy, iron on transfers, from memory, are not that costly to produce especially as the main sponsor logo is a simple black and white job. The club source a heat press for a few weeks or do a deal with a local sports shop that does put names/numbers on shirts etc

The players shirt is slightly different design (or at least was to original replicas) which partly explains why it looks better.

My sentiments exactly. Having seen the team play in it three times it looks a lot better than I'd expected. I prefer the kit with no white in it, which the union team had a couple of years back although they seem to have reverted to white shorts. The plain black back makes it easier to identify the numbers and the tight fit of the collarless shirt on proper athletes with big shoulders looks fine, but seeing supporters wearing the looser fitting replicas doesn't make me want to get one. The cape effect is more noticeable on the replicas and looks silly. I still don't understand the pointless reversing of the four coloured quarters compared to the "traditional" Quins design, and I don't like the new badge which is too fussy and doesn't stand out. The red lines on the back of the socks just look stupid and doesn't match the green piping on the mostly black shirt and black shorts.

The away shirt is dreadful. I saw it in the flesh at Cas - the pale blue panel is so pale it's barely distinguishable from the white quarters alongside it, making it look like a plain white shirt with blue sleeves and an odd blue square at the bottom of the front.

To be honest though, the team would look good in anything playing like they did on Saturday. Going off at a bit of a tangent, the April edition of Rugby league World (with Will Sharp modelling the current home shirt in front of Tower Bridge on the cover) has a ten best and ten worst rugby kits feature. Our 1999 Cup Final shirt slightly bizarrely makes the Top 10 at No.6. (We don't feature in the Worst 10, but the current away shirt gets a (dis)honorable mention!)

Season ticket holders can buy both the home and away shirt with 40% off - so £60 for both - £30 each. Not too bad considering I brought the 'Today' red flash London Crusaders shirt back in the 80's for about £25... for some reason its a bit tight on me know - I guess it shrunk in the wash...



Not tried the new shirts on though...

Love the way peeps are complaining that the shirt looks plain without a sponsor. Shirts are sacred. And sponsorship is bad. Even in America where advertising rules the kits aren't spoiled with companies trying to flog you stuff. Teams are willing to sell a piece of their souls for a few bob and we've got so used to it we now complain when they don't. Should all be ashamed.

But its not what the team are wearing. Might as well buy a fake shirt.

But it looks empty and unpleasant without a sponsor. Incomplete.

This offer was only for the Warrington game IIRC?

Still, it looks like the club have made (another) massive booboo and are desperate to offload this dead stock in preparation of ordering some proper shirts (fingers crossed). Wonder if we'd get 40% off then?

I wasn't asking for a debate on the bl00dy thing again but does the team look intimidating on the pitch!

They are in the MLS.

I don't know about "intimidating" (perhaps you should ask Simon Grix!) but the mostly black kit looks pretty good in the matches.

As a leisure shirt/replica I'm not so enthusiastic though.

The mostly black kit looks good on TV too. Sexy.

But in US sports all merchandise & ticket sales are split between the teams in the leagues, I can't see anyone agreeing to that here.

Not quite as scarey as you do in it mate!!!!

Cough!!!!!