Connect with us

Leagues: EPL

Manchester City Away Shirt for 2011-12 Season: Photo

Manchester City has unveiled their new away shirt for the 2011-12 Premier League season.

And yet again, Umbro has gone into the past to create something beautiful for the present. Designed by Umbro, the inspiration for the new Man City away shirt is taken from the most famous shirt in the club’s history – the black and red shirt worn in 1969 and 1970 during which time City won the FA Cup, League Cup and European Cup Winners Cup.

According to Umbro, “The shirt is designed so that when a player celebrates a goal or links arms with team mates, the black and red stripe remains consistent. For this reason, there is no seam on the underarm as traditionally stitching can distort the shape and flow of a stripe.

“The stripe width on the shirt was inspired by the old 1969 kit. The long sleeve version features an all-black forearm so that there is a unified stripe-look when the players link arms in goal celebrations.

“The club crest and sponsor detail is key-lined in gold in order to give standout against the black and red. City’s home colour, sky blue, is featured within the crest so that the away kit always carries a piece of ‘home’. Black stitching is used on the cuff of the shirt and an equal amount of black and red is featured on the hem.”

What do you think about Man City’s new away shirt? Share your opinion in the comments section below. And don’t forget, for the largest selection of Premier League shirts for all 20 clubs, visit the EPL Talk Shop.

200+ Channels With Sports & News
  • Starting price: $33/mo. for fubo Latino Package
  • Watch Premier League, World Cup, Euro 2024 & more
  • Includes NBC, USA, FOX, ESPN, CBSSN & more
Live & On Demand TV Streaming
  • Price: $69.99/mo. for Entertainment package
  • Watch World Cup, Euro 2024 & MLS
  • Includes ESPN, ESPN2, FS1 + local channels
Many Sports & ESPN Originals
  • Price: $6.99/mo. (or get ESPN+, Hulu & Disney+ for $13.99/mo.)
  • Features Bundesliga, LaLiga, Championship, & more
  • Also includes daily ESPN FC news & highlights show
2,000+ soccer games per year
  • Price: $4.99/mo
  • Features Champions League, Serie A, Europa League & NWSL
  • Includes CBS, Star Trek & CBS Sports HQ
175 Premier League Games & PL TV
  • Starting price: $4.99/mo. for Peacock Premium
  • Watch 175 exclusive EPL games per season
  • Includes Premier League TV channel plus movies, TV shows & more


  1. scott

    May 26, 2011 at 3:58 am

    i jizzed in my pants……. word

  2. fluffnut

    May 25, 2011 at 3:20 am

    On a side note does anyone know anything about the home shirt for next season or if we’ll have a 3rd kit as well. I’m pretty sure we will bring a new home kit out and really excited about seeing it as we seem to pioneers to shirt design in recent years.

    • stubod

      May 25, 2011 at 5:38 am

      Haven’t heard anything about the home kit for next season, I’m sure there will be a new one though. The 3rd kit will be this seasons away kit (dark blue), but I’m not sure at what point we will ever need to wear it! I think that kit is class, the players must have only worn it a handful of times though.

  3. John

    May 24, 2011 at 7:34 pm

    Juventus homeshirt was copied from Notts. Things happen who cares its a good looking shirt.

  4. Addotei pappoe

    May 24, 2011 at 1:04 pm

    Is nice,dat wil tel other teams,our eyes are red 4 next season.

    • fluffnut

      May 25, 2011 at 3:17 am

      I think of all the things this shirt will do i don’t think it’ll tell anyone our “eyes are red” lol

      what sort of comment is that.

  5. Elliot

    May 24, 2011 at 11:52 am

    There is no way City did this to be like A.C. Milan or United.

    This is the kit worn when City last won a cup before this season. The kit was revived by the club AS A TRIBUTE to the team that won the cup wearing a shirt in red and black. It’s also been revived due to the fact Malcolm Allison and Neil Young, who both played some part in that cup win, passed on in the 2010-11 season.

    Get your facts right.

    • Dave C

      May 24, 2011 at 12:45 pm

      Actually Man City did initially adopt the red and black stripes in the late 60s as an homage to AC Milan.

      • Elliot

        May 24, 2011 at 2:31 pm

        At the time they did, but they’ve not revived it to be like them now.

        • fluffnut

          May 25, 2011 at 3:15 am

          This is exactly the point i have been trying to make above. People like Elliot coming on here all guns blazing and just assuming stuff. We all know that the new away kit isn’t being revived coz of milan but that was the reason for our red and black striped kit when we first played in it. Have a read before you just charge in.

          • fluffnut

            May 25, 2011 at 3:52 am

            Also Elliot it wasn’t worn when we last won a cup at all so ease up telling people to get their facts right. It was worn the last time we won the fa cup (1969) not the last time we won a cup (league cup 1976 v newcastle) in our traditional sky blue shirt.

  6. stubod

    May 24, 2011 at 10:53 am

    2008 – “Money can’t buy success”
    2011 – “You’ve bought the cup and a champions league place”

    People will just say what they want, when they want, to suit themselves. You are all just a bunch of bitter hypocritical sad individuals who can’t take that a different team is having some success. If you wanna talk about history, City are MAKING history right now, suck it. CTID.

  7. El Tri 2014

    May 24, 2011 at 10:15 am

    Like the shirt…you think they’re trying to entice Kaka to play for City. Also, the rumors for Ronoldo for $150M were incredulous.

  8. fluffnut

    May 24, 2011 at 5:33 am

    one more point maine road didn’t even exist when you say we were playing spurs there in the late 1880’s??? so don’t know where you got that from…we were still playing in Hyde i think untill we moved to Maine road in the mid 20’s.

    • Why?

      May 24, 2011 at 5:45 am

      Of course you are right I just get so used to using that name (Maine Rd).

  9. fluffnut

    May 24, 2011 at 5:26 am

    I appreciate we had a maroon/burgundy shade occasionally with white stripes prior to the malcom alison period but as far as i knew we never used red and black stripes until the time i mention.

    • Why?

      May 24, 2011 at 5:42 am

      They called it scarlet and black.

      • fluffnut

        May 24, 2011 at 6:08 am

        no “they” did not call it scarlet and black as like i said we had a maroon/burgundy shade occasionally with white stripes prior to the malcom alison period. I did not mention any scarlet and certainly no black unless ofcourse you think i spelt black – w.h.i.t.e.I understand the colour kit u are talking about but if you re-read my post you will see what i have written. they certainly did not call the kit i am refering to as “scarlet and black” did they.

        • Why?

          May 24, 2011 at 6:40 am

          Moroon was first used in the I belive in 1956 (cup final) the Scarlet and black is mentioned much earlier. I am simply pointing out that these colors were used before the Allison era and you had a go at people who thought different and a rather nasty go at that, but if you look through certain City history books you find you’re wrong. You are right Moroon is not scarlet, well done.

          • fluffnut

            May 24, 2011 at 7:19 am

            as i have said already if you care to look into what i am trying to tell you. I have mentioned the 56 cup final shirt but also said they wore maroon in 1933-34 and 1923 i have told you this already yet you still claim 1956 was the first time. To be honest i can’t be bothered with this anymore as it is like arguing with a child that won’t look at things from other angles like i have with yours.

          • Why?

            May 24, 2011 at 7:58 am

            Don’t know when it was first used and am simply stating the famous time it was. Thats why I say I ‘belive’ and not it was!

          • Why?

            May 24, 2011 at 8:42 am

            In the 1933 cup final City wore ‘scarlet’ according to ‘The Complete History’ and ‘a form of moroon’ in both 1934 and 1956 cup finals.

  10. fluffnut

    May 24, 2011 at 5:20 am

    Why? i wasn’t basing my arguement on what is on wikipedia i was under the impression this was common knowledge and that most city fans considered this to be the case. i don’t see how we played in black and red as Ardwick fc as we were only named this for 7 years and during this time our kit was a royal blue and white vertical stripes similar to sheff wed before wearing a blackburn rovers style blue one half and white the other although this time the blue was the more recognised sky blue. finally we wore a plain white shirt and then became Manchester city fc. Milan were formed in 1899 so i don’t know where the “mystery” black and red shirt came in that you refer to during this period. Besides even if you don’t personally believe the Malcom Alison story of city and the black and red kit you must admit it is romantic.

    • Why?

      May 24, 2011 at 5:37 am

      ‘finally we wore a plain white shirt and then became Manchester City FC. Milan were formed in 1899 so i don’t know where the “mystery” black and red shirt came in that you refer to during this period.’

      It comes from knowing my clubs history back to front.
      The shirt was not plain white it was said it was faded light blue.
      City’s first kit was black with a Maltese cross for a start as St Marks, some historians have claimed City wore red and black as St Marks but this will never be proved as there is no printed evidence unlike that as Ardwick in the late 1880’s.

      • fluffnut

        May 24, 2011 at 6:19 am

        well i would disagree that you know the clubs history from back to front…i would agree that you actually think you do though. Everone knows that city’s first kit was the black one with white cross but that is not the issue here..besides they were actually known as st marks of west gorton fc if you want to be pedantic 1 year after they were intially formed as a cricket team. i could spout this irelevant stuff all day but it really is off thread so please try and keep things relevant. As i have mentioned before when we changed to Ardwick we adopted a blue and white striped shirt first.

        • Why?

          May 24, 2011 at 7:36 am

          They were formed as a football team in the summer of 1880 the cricket team was set up in the Spring of 1879 these were two separate teams (all though some players played for both) the football side was started to give the local men something to do in the Sinter months as well as the Summer. The favourite pastime in the area then was called ‘scuttling’ and was basically people having gang warfare and kick lumps out of each other This is the reason for the birth of both teams. The name West Gorton is the area the Church is in the Club is thought to have been called this at first or simply Gorton this was dropped as there was an other team in the area going by this name. The St Marks name comes from the involvement of the Church and the Rector’s Daughter Anna Connell who had started a men’s group to try to combat the scuttling. She had become involved after her Sister Georgina had started a successful Women’s group. All of the above is still not set in stone but this is currently thought to be the case by City’s football historians.

        • Why?

          May 24, 2011 at 7:44 am

          Oh and it was Ardwick Association Football Club if you want to be pedantic! LOL.
          City have played in many colours including yellow and Multi coloured at the beginning as they would have worn there own clothes, why you have to try to put others down is beyond me.

          • fluffnut

            May 24, 2011 at 9:51 am

            i know all this and it just confirms what i have already said anyway. but the way u are carrying on is like some sort of juvenile game where we will see who can write the most boring facts from 130 years ago but hey….if you think it’s relevant then just carry on. your just reading sections of a book then writing them on here trying to give the impression you know all this from the top of ur head. when i am pretty sure i have read your above rant practically word for word somewhere else. this started off as a discussion on the history of our beloved shirt yet i get the impression u are one of those sad twats that will just research stuff just to make someone wrong whether it has anything to do with the topic or not. I try and steer clear of tools like you normally.

    • Why?

      May 24, 2011 at 6:50 am

      For the ‘mystery’?? Scarlett and black kit go and get yourself a copy of Famous football Clubs by David Williams (football historian). published 70 years ago but still available then argue with him!

      • fluffnut

        May 24, 2011 at 7:07 am

        i have no desire to get myself a copy of this book as if it was published 70 years ago as you say then it is probably not completely accurate as many books in this time aren’t. Only as time moves on do we learn more and more about the past. It may be correct i don’t know i have not read it i am only telling you my thoughts on the matter and belive them to be correct over urs but obviously u feel different. you seem to have read one book and taken it asgospel where i have read many many books and articles on city and then made my own decision based on my findings.

        One little book want give you the bigger picture only 1 authors picture.

        • Why?

          May 24, 2011 at 7:56 am

          The key to this book and it’s author is it’s in living memory, and so much more accurate than anything today !! It is cited by many Football historians maybe not good enough for you though!
          I have many books on football and Man City, as a City Fan who lives 100 yrds from our founders house I’m smack the middle of it all and have a great interest in them. One name in my family tree is Furniss probably won’t mean any thing to you but I am related to him and live not only 100 yrds from the Connell’s house but 50 yrds from the Pink Bank Lane ground picked by Lawrence Furniss.

          • JOHN FURNISS

            May 2, 2012 at 3:41 pm

            I have little knowledge of football but I have extensive knowledge of the family name Furniss.I live in Stockport not so far from Kirkmanshulme lane.
            If you get this please get in touch
            John Furniss

        • Why?

          May 24, 2011 at 8:16 am

          ‘you seem to have read one book and taken it as gospel where i have read many books and articles on city’

          Scarlett and Black is in two Publications I have mentioned here! Not 1. One written with knowledge of people in living memory of the time!

          How is it you have not read ‘Manchester City The Complete record’??? Please inform me of these books you have read? Where are you from USA, UK, Manchester? Red and black is part of Man City history more in the last 4 or 5 decades granted but it is cited as being used before this, FACT as Benitez may say lol.

          Of course you are entitled to your thoughts but shouldn’t go telling others that the are completely wrong when they may well not be!

          • fluffnut

            May 24, 2011 at 10:01 am

            do u know u really sound like one of those kids on the playground who says my dads harder than yours and then another comes over and says my dads a karate expert etc etc it’s like you are generally going out of your way to try and out-fact me…im not bothered mate. well… im bothered about city but this is getting stupid. Im not from usa how could i be and be so passionate about city??? you can’t unless you’re from manchester. I haven’t put anyone down as u put it so don’t know why ur trying to defend those that have nothing to defend against. i put to you…why don’t you believe that malcom alison inspired the red and black strip by saying the milan line…..and have u checked if these previous scarlet and black strips were just scarlet and black in a random necessarily a striped pattern which was my intitial comment after all…..the stripes!!

      • Why?

        May 24, 2011 at 3:55 pm


        You did say things that there is no need to do and that were inaccurate about MG’s comments he has done nothing but try to defend his team against a bunch of tools all he is saying that the red and black kit is part of City’s history and not trying to copy Milan or Utd! You also called him ignorant!
        My point is that they wore red and black before Allison as you said they did not. Might I add you are the one who started picking holes yet I’m the one acting like a kid? I’m juvenile? Show me the insults I have thrown at you like these?

        • fluffnut

          May 25, 2011 at 3:06 am

          your really getting on my nerves now as you only read what u want to read and completely disregard everything else. I mentioned “ignorant” as he had called everybody else ignorant in his last post but then i suppose you missed that didn’t ya as you only seem to be fascinated with my posts you know like a bitter utd fan obsessed with everything city. The whole reason for my initial post was that i was commenting on the BLACK AND RED STRIPES… u understand this??? not black and red in general. How many times do i need to explain this to you. He chose the black and red stripes to mimic milan and encourage success he didn’t actually patent the colours red and black….get it into your head. i am not insulting u just getting sick of going over and over the same thing with somone that doesn’t even try and read what i mean without getting on his high horse and seeing it as an opportunity to split hairs.

  11. Fluffut

    May 24, 2011 at 2:57 am

    even though i am a city fan i am suprised nobody has stated the real reason for city’s red and black stripes, some have even said above that comparisons to ac milan were “idiotic” well…don’t wanna get stuck into to fellow city fans but u can’t just make things up to suit ur arguments…Malcom Alison is responsible for the red and black stripes as he believed that adopting the colours of “AC Milan” would help us be successful…..Don’t know where MG gets his information but it seems like it has been plucked out of thin air and he calls others ignorant??? oh the irony. people shouldn’t comment if they don’t know what they are talking about and that goes for every fan

    • Why?

      May 24, 2011 at 5:02 am

      Fluffut, you’re wrong this shirt was worn by City (Ardwick) before AC Milan was officially formed. You really shouldn’t base your argument on what you have read on Wikipedia! It’s mainly nonsense written by anybody and excepted by people who just don’t know. Ignorant people use wikipedia as a source for an argument my friend!
      In the late 1880’s City were forced to swap the home blue shirts (blue likely to have been washed out so they appear lighter) for red and black stripes when they faced white shirted Tottenham at Maine Rd.
      There are also references before this but not official so I will not use them. You are a strange so called City fan who it seems should practise what he preaches.

      • Why?

        May 24, 2011 at 5:07 am

        P.S sourced from ‘Manchester City The Complete Record’ by Gary James Breedon Books 2006.

  12. Yodatov

    May 24, 2011 at 2:04 am

    The article talks about “linking arms in goal celebrations”… Are they square dancing everytime they score now or what?

  13. City Slicker

    May 24, 2011 at 12:18 am

    This is how rags and their servile journos get their “information”.

    Dont believe the hype or some lazy cant be arsed journo.

  14. MG

    May 23, 2011 at 10:18 pm

    Unfortunately, this post brought out a good few of the ignorant readers of this site. Black and red ARE, after all, Man City colors, as well as light blue. You DO all know that, right? This is a Man City away shirt, through and through. Those that brought up Man Utd (?) and AC Milan (understandable but idiotic all the same) have done a great job implying ignorance.

    • MG

      May 23, 2011 at 10:25 pm

      It’s also identical to the 1994-96 away shirt and the 2003-04 away shirt, etc.

  15. Mujo

    May 23, 2011 at 10:12 pm

    wanna be united? ac milan? :S i dont think united were as good as they are today when city had this shirt in the glory days. As for AC milan… did they even exist when city had this shirt? i dont think so, if they did exist, they were not known as they r today.. i rest my case.

    • The_NZA

      May 24, 2011 at 12:25 am

      (united supporter) its not a bad kit, i liked the past years more though as it was unique and not just another striped kit.
      As for all the other arrogance you spewed: not only did Ac Milan exist in 1969, but they had won; Italian title 9 times, the 2nd division 2 times, 1 copa italia, 2 euro cups, 1 cup winner cup, 2 latin cups, and 1 Intercontinental Cup.
      Where as Man Utd had already won; 7 english titles, 1 2nd division title, 3 fa cups, 5 community shields another 2 as joint holders, 1 European cup all by 1969.
      As for City, they had won; 2 top flight titles, 6 2nd devisions, 4 fa cups, 2 Charity Shields… “City’s glory days” seem to be rather lackluster in comparison to both Milan and United by the same time… i rest YOUR case.

  16. Evan

    May 23, 2011 at 9:28 pm

    Wow, there are some jealous fans on this site. City won the 1969 fa cup in this kit. “No history” my arse.
    This kit is beautiful.

  17. brn442

    May 23, 2011 at 8:37 pm

    If only. AC Milan hasn’t had a normal striped Shirt for years. As the Gaffer said Man City has had red and black stripes before over the years:

    • ROLLY101

      May 23, 2011 at 9:16 pm

      It all started years ago when you re-vammped your team crest with what appeared to be an (italian) style effort, Then came the (italian) manager, Followed by Boring (italian) style football, Now an (italian) style kit!
      Ya gotta laugh at you city fans…you do have a thing for copying..Poznan LOL

      • The Gaffer

        May 23, 2011 at 9:20 pm

        Philip, who do you support?

        The Gaffer

        • ROLLY101

          May 23, 2011 at 9:36 pm

          Man u, why?

          • MCHobbit

            May 23, 2011 at 10:48 pm

            Pretty obvious is why . . .

      • City Slicker

        May 24, 2011 at 12:03 am

        You dont know what you are talking about roly poly.

        City changed their badge (it was the City of Manchester crest) so that they could copyright it.

        It took them some thirty years to appoint an Italian manager after that act.

        As for the football we have played some superb football this season or are you thinking of snore bore United.

        The Pozna shows Cty fans sense of humour and fun but being a mesarble rag you wouldnt know anything about that Crawl(ey) back under your stone.

        • bluemoon84

          June 13, 2011 at 10:53 am

          Can’t believe you fellow blue’s haven’t picked up on the biggest copycat act of all ‘glory, glory man ******, which was tottenhams song for years. We know who originallly did the ‘POZNAN’, thats why it’s called that!

  18. CTBlues

    May 23, 2011 at 8:14 pm

    I think it looks ok minus the sleeves, if you need a paragraph to explain why you made part of a kit look odd I don’t you should do it.

  19. Carmello

    May 23, 2011 at 7:57 pm

    Whoops, I meant – “I’m NOT a City fan…”

  20. Carmello

    May 23, 2011 at 7:57 pm

    I disagree with all the naysayers about this shirt. I’m a City fan (COYS!), but I have been impressed with City’s shirts the past couple seasons. I think their home jersey is gorgeous and simple and I love this red and black shirt. Make something beautiful out of something simple, instead of putting yellow racing stripes down the sides like the 2009-10 Spurs kit hahaha.

  21. Jeff

    May 23, 2011 at 7:53 pm

    They had a great away kit this year but this one is crap. Looks like a knock off Milan kit you would find in a back alley in Mexico.

    • Dave C

      May 24, 2011 at 12:19 pm

      Absolutely! I know the red and black stripes are traditional for Man City (unlike the idiot Anon at the start of the thread), but the general design of the shirt (especially the odd sleeves) looks like something knocked together by a bad counterfeiter.

  22. dan

    May 23, 2011 at 7:47 pm

    Way to rip off AC Milan. You can buy all the players and trophies you want City but you can’t buy history.

    • ryan

      May 23, 2011 at 7:50 pm

      City don’t need to buy history , theyve been around a very long time…1800s. But you might need to research their history because they’ve had the red/black away kit for a lot of their history

      • ROLLY101

        May 23, 2011 at 8:01 pm

        Its not stopped them buyin the fa cup an a place in the CL nxt season tho has it?

        • somervillain

          May 23, 2011 at 10:20 pm

          Yeah, as opposed to all the previous clubs who have done so with squads consisting of volunteers playing for the love of the club. How many of the players from United’s 2007-2008 European championship squad were high-priced transfers? How about Arsenal’s 2003-2004 Invincibles? Are Abramovich’s Chelsea or Mansour’s City any different in that regard? Or are you just envious of the short cuts they took to elite club status thanks to their wealthy benefactors?

          • MNUfan1991

            May 24, 2011 at 10:21 am

            Let’s see:

            VDS: no
            Gary Neville: no
            Rio: yes
            Vidic: no
            Evra: no
            Ronnie: borderline
            Scholes: no
            Giggs: no
            Hargreaves: borderline
            Rooney: yes
            Tevez: on loan

          • somervillain

            May 24, 2011 at 10:59 am

            United’s team sheet in Moscow:

            van der Sar: £2m in 2005
            Brown: homegrown
            Ferdinand: £33m in 2002
            Vidic: £7m in 2006
            Evra: £5.5m in 2006
            Hargreaves: £17m in 2007
            Scholes: homegrown
            Carrick: £18.6m in 2006
            Ronaldo: £12.2m in 2002
            Rooney: £25.6m in 2004
            Tévez: £10m loan in 2007

            Kuszczak: £2.1m in 2007
            O’Shea: homegrown
            Silvestre: £4m in 1999
            Anderson: £20.4m in 2007
            Giggs: homegrown
            Nani: £17.3m in 2007
            Fletcher: homegrown

            Left out:
            Neville: homegrown
            Saha: £12.8m in 2004
            Foster: £1m in 2005
            Park: £4m in 2005
            Dong: £.5m in 2004

            Without any adjustment to present-day values in those fees, that’s just under £200m in fees paid out for that squad. Let’s not pretend this was a group of budget signings.

          • MNUfan1991

            May 24, 2011 at 11:41 am

            Even at the time of their signings, very few in the squad can be considered big ticket acquisitions. If we set such a criterion at 15M pounds, only five players out of the entire first team would qualify.

            United have always had a huge squad to enable them to compete on all fronts. Divide that 200M number by the squad size and we’ll see.

            Silly Sheikhty. They could have bought the whole United squad several times over. Could be worse… you could have ended up with the Ladyboy!

          • somervillain

            May 24, 2011 at 11:55 am

            If you want to use the unadjusted, oh-so-arbitrary £15m mark to determine a high-priced transfer (which counts Kolorov at £16m in 2010 and doesn’t count Ronaldo at £12.2m way back in 2002), that makes six such players in United’s 2008 Champions League Final team sheet, and eight such players in City’s 2011 FA Cup Final team sheet.

            Just so we all have this right, it’s your contention that having six such players is doing things the right way, but two more is buying honors? We’ll keep that in mind…

          • MNUfan1991

            May 24, 2011 at 12:27 pm

            Actually sommervillain, you got my intentions all wrong.
            I set the 15M as our benchmark just so I can include MORE United players. If it were up to me entirely I’d have used 22-25M. Let’s admit it. 20M even back in 2007 was not exactly earthshattering and calling Ronnie (before he became “the” Ronnie) a big ticket signing is just silly.
            In that case only RioFerdy5 and Roo would count, while almost all the marquee signing of City would still be on the list.
            Quite frankly, we could not care less how much City pay for their players. Only Silva and Y. Toure would earn a squad place at United, and even then they are not guaranteed starters. Headcases like Balotelli and Tevez? You better pay us to compensate for the headache. Hart? A good keeper and would do well as backup. Is he a worthy successor of VDS and Schmeichel? You know the answer as well as I am.
            The more you pay for them the more entertainment you provide us, and the quicker the Sheikhs will cut their losses and pull the plug. Do you think the Sheikhs do this for their love of football? Have you seen the attendances in Abu Dhabi games? So easy to count even Balotelli could do it.

          • somervillain

            May 24, 2011 at 12:54 pm

            I’m having trouble accepting your claim that you’re not being disingenuous when you continue to dismiss the Ronaldo transfer fee as not being a big outlay of cash. That was the sixth-largest fee paid by an English club in that window, behind only the fees paid for Crespo, Mutu, Veron, Duff, and Makelele fees. That was a big fee in 2002, for a 17-year old or a 27-year old. No two ways about it.

            But go on telling us how entertained you are by City. We heard it all before when Abramovich bought Chelsea. I’m sure you laughed yourself silly when they were doing the double at your expense yet again last season, long after everyone said Roman would get tired of his plaything and walk away.

            Because that’s the thing about self-delusion: It only makes it doubly disappointing down the road, because not only did your club lose out, but you look like an utter muppet for all your false bravado and lack of foresight. And on the Internet no less, where there will be a permanent record of you laughing off probably the biggest threat United face in terms of ever getting that 20th title.

          • MNUfan1991

            May 24, 2011 at 1:27 pm

            “Because that’s the thing about self-delusion: It only makes it doubly disappointing down the road, because not only did your club lose out, but you look like an utter muppet for all your false bravado and lack of foresight. And on the Internet no less, where there will be a permanent record of you laughing off probably the biggest threat United face in terms of ever getting that 20th title.”

            Heck, if it means City will pull a Leeds or Pompey in a few years, I’ll even let you guys win a title or two.
            Many United fans don’t hate City–you need to reserve a special place in your heart for such hatred. City do not deserve such contempt. Only storied rivals such as Liverpool and Leeds deserve our hatred and respect at the same time. City? Don’t kid yourself.
            The PL is big enough. We can spare a few trophies to the Rentboys and l’Arse. Even the chicken vendors have one.

        • City Slicker

          May 23, 2011 at 11:58 pm

          So let us know which club has had to spend to qualify for the CL or win trophies. Like all supposed fans of your ilk you know nothing about football just a fool.

  23. brn442

    May 23, 2011 at 7:30 pm

    Good God – that’s a beautiful shirt. If Umbro can keep banging out gems like these, they can release a new City shirt every 6 months for all I care.

    • ROLLY101

      May 23, 2011 at 7:44 pm

      I suppose we’ll see swarms of these parading the streets nxt season as we have the home shirt. Amazing what people pull outta there closets when someone throws a bit of cash at there team an buys them a cup.

      • City Slicker

        May 23, 2011 at 11:56 pm

        Roly Poly

        Bitter are we?

  24. Anon

    May 23, 2011 at 7:20 pm

    Red and Black? Really?

    They win the FA Cup and qualify for the Champions League and suddenly they think they’re Manchester United.

    Are they having a laugh?

    • MCHobbit

      May 23, 2011 at 7:33 pm

      And United’s away kits are often primarily blue . . . did they think they were Chelsea? Are they having a laugh?

      It’s an away kit, and they’ve been here before, as indicated in the piece.

      I personally think it looks fantastic – can’t wait to purchase one!

      • Georgie B.

        May 23, 2011 at 8:15 pm

        The blue United shirts are a throwback to the 1968 European Cup Final winners shirts (now known as the Champions League).

        Why would we want to think we’re Chelski? 7 managers in 8 years, and counting. That’s what happens when you get a sugar daddy.

        • Adam Harrison

          May 23, 2011 at 8:23 pm

          Stupid Man United Fans can’t spell Chelsea……

          • CTBlues

            May 23, 2011 at 8:27 pm

            I don’t know why people always spell it Chelski when they are trying to put the Russian spin on it they should spell it Chelsky. Polish uses -ski and the Russians use -sky.

          • MNUfan1991

            May 23, 2011 at 8:48 pm

            Sorry. Our bad. It should have been Chav$ki 🙂

        • MCHobbit

          May 23, 2011 at 11:01 pm

          I wasn’t suggesting that United was trying to be like Chelsea – just poking fun at the moronic statement that City was trying to be United because of the use of Red and Black.

          As a DC United fan as well, I love it! I can wear it to a DCU match and support both teams at the same time!

        • City Slicker

          May 23, 2011 at 11:54 pm

          Well we all know what Uniteds “sugar daddy” does but he works in reverse sucking the sugar out of United. Got to love him for that.

          B argain basement
          E nd of the road pretty soon
          B uying more titles is over for United now
          E ver ageing squad and manager with no money to replace them

          • Zach

            May 24, 2011 at 1:47 pm

            2010/11 Premier League Champions.

    • 1fingerwillie

      May 23, 2011 at 8:17 pm

      you are an idiot. this is their traditional away kit from yore.

      • Georgie B.

        May 23, 2011 at 9:03 pm

        If we spelled it like a Russian word, our American owners might pronounce it as Chel-sky. We wanted to keep the integrity of the word Chelsea. Sugar daddy seemed to have hit a nerve somewhere, hasn’t it?

        We spell it that way to make fun of Russian ownership, Adam. Get it? ……never mind!


    • Zac Moore

      May 23, 2011 at 11:45 pm

      Thats Man City’s away colors, always have been…look it up my man.

    • City Slicker

      May 23, 2011 at 11:50 pm

      Moron. Clearly you as a rag know nothing of history but only your obsession with everything City. You do not own the colour red and while you are at it look at the many blue versions of Uniteds kit over the years. In fact it was the most popular United kit at one time.

      United and their fans are a cheap, classless, arrogant and profoundly ignorant club. They are also skint.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

More in Leagues: EPL

Translate »