NEW KIT

[Herman 9,713]

Just a reminder, you DON''T have to buy one.

[canarycop 204]

Don''t be so sad. This is our club for crying out loud. Just support them no matter who the sponsor is

[Surfer 1,547]

It''s very simple. My money will stay in my pocket because I disapprove of the sponsor. So if the club wants to help support fans who hold that position, please offer a premium service that does not include the sponsor logo. Make it an extra 20 Quid and give the difference to charity. It is about being part of the fan community, and that community includes those that hold these views, so please accommodate us in this way if at all possible. If not, it''s both the club''s and our loss.

[king canary 7,578]

Yet again people seem unable to see a middle ground.

I don''t think gambling should be banned.

I also don''t think the way gambling is jammed down every football fans throat is a good or useful thing.

I''d much rather we were sponsored by someone else so I won''t buy the shirt.

I''m not going to try and stop you from buying one though.

It really isn''t that difficult.

[king canary 7,578]

Also lolz at the idea that not buying the shirt means not supporting the club.

They''re not entitled to me giving them £50 for a shirt.

[Guest]

Don''t think LeoVegas would appreciate the club selling the shirt without the logo on it.

[ROBFLECK 132]

Well Foster''s Lager was much more ethically acceptable , wasn''t it ?

[CDMullins 436]

Without the horrible looking logo, it would be stunning, really impressed.

As for the anti-gambling brigade, have a day off.

Almost every company you see does something unethical.

[Woodman 92]

I notice that the junior canaries kit has a different sponsor - Gravity trampoline park. That in itself is good work by the corporate / sponsorship team at the club, knowing that they couldn''t have the LeoVegas logo on kid''s shirts (gamling rules etc). but getting a sponsorship deal in place with another company.

As for the shirt itself, I like it apart from the thick green band under the arms.

[shefcanary 2,385]

[quote user="Woodman"]I notice that the junior canaries kit has a different sponsor - Gravity trampoline park. That in itself is good work by the corporate / sponsorship team at the club, knowing that they couldn''t have the LeoVegas logo on kid''s shirts (gamling rules etc). but getting a sponsorship deal in place with another company.

As for the shirt itself, I like it apart from the thick green band under the arms.[/quote]

Are there a number of ways the club could provide an alternative for the AGB''s (anti-gambling brigade).

Perhaps AGB''s can pay an extra fiver to get a larger kids sized shirt with the Gravity sponsorship?

Or, I can''t remember the detail, but is there still the one match a year where the sponsor''s logo gets swapped for a charity logo? If so perhaps if the shirt went on general sale for the week of the match for the AGBers, again as a charity exercise an extra fee for the shirt could go to the charity.

But then again, some people will complain that the charity chosen isn''t right for their image as its just a lefty organisation harbouring designs on the public purse (?)

[River End Canary 18]

Looks and feels cheap

Suits our squad this season

[Woodman 92]

Shef - I believe the shirts worn for the charity sponsorship game are auctioned off after the game as part of the deal. As far as I know, they can''t be bought off the shelf as it were.

It seems there''s also a problem with the club badge peeling off the new shirts as they''re glued on, not stitched.

[Mr Apples 1,317]

It looks good, but nowhere near as good as Brighton''s (which is what we should really be aspiring towards).

Apples

[ZLF 271]

yet you still got one didnt you Rick

[hogesar 9,618]

Really like this one. Personally couldn''t give a flying fig who the sponsor is, the football shirt is about your club and the crest, not the bloody sponsor. It''s free choice so no problem with those who are against gambling and don''t want to buy one but it all feels a bit... ''millennial''.

[IMG]https://i.ytimg.com/vi/QrTNLOuAHic/maxresdefault.jpg[/IMG]

[komakino 272]

I think the kit is one of the clubs better efforts, though it is quite ''young'' in design, but that is the age group it should be aimed for. You wouldn''t get me wearing any kit in a month of Sundays! Polyester is cheap - at least to make - and horrible to wear, so I''d much rather turn up with a yellow or green Fred Perry or such like.

A pity about the the sponsors logo and typography as it is derisory. It has all the finesse of a 3 year old child, blindfolded in room full of blunt crayons to see what happens. To think they probably PAID someone to design that! The club can do little about that however, other than having a different sponsor.

7/10

[ec-p 90]

Remi Mathews is pictured in the goalkeeper kit on Twitter, looks quite good. Sorry can’t do a link.

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,735]

Last season....in the top 2 divisions alone...

Ourselves, Bournemouth burnley palace everton huddersfield Newcastle stoke Swansea west ham Sunderland forest hull Fulham Burton Brentford leeds qpr Preston villa Birmingham and Bolton all had shirts sponsors of betting companies........even our friends down the road have gone that way this season

I''d be amazed if any of their fans were acting as pathetically as some of ours are over this.

This industry is where the money is nowadays for a company to be on a position to sponsor a club shirt.....better get used to it.

[Surfer 1,547]

Chill GJL. Nobody''s being pathetic. Those of us that don''t approve of a betting company as the sponsor are just saying we won''t buy the shirt but have also expressed an interest in paying more to buy a shirt without that logo on it. Just because all those other clubs are signing up with on-line betting companies doesn''t change anything. I think it''s a bad trend and wrong to promote such businesses, and it''s my right to hold that view but I''ll still support your right right to hold a different view, if in fact you do.

[king canary 7,578]

@gjl

Do you work for Leo Vegas or something?

[Indy_Bones 441]

I''ve never understood some of the hatred and distaste towards gambling sites tbh, nobody forces people to go in/on them and place bets, I don''t care how ''easy'' or ''accessible'' they are, it''s a conscious choice to bet with them and if you aren''t willing to handle the potential consequences then don''t place the bet.

At least gambling sites are usually fairly upfront and honest about what they offer - not like some of the payday loan companies or places such as Bright House that simply rip people off with horrible interest rates just to take advantage of those most in need.

There are far more reprehensible organisations out there that could be sponsors than most of the gambling firms, but it does appear to be another function of modern society where everyone is seemingly offended about absolutely anything, sad really...

[Guest]

but it does appear to be another function of modern society where everyone is seemingly offended about absolutely anything, sad really...

Apparently even Typography offends.

[Making Plans 936]

[quote user="Indy_Bones"]

I''ve never understood some of the hatred and distaste towards gambling sites tbh, nobody forces people to go in/on them and place bets, I don''t care how ''easy'' or ''accessible'' they are, it''s a conscious choice to bet with them and if you aren''t willing to handle the potential consequences then don''t place the bet.

[/quote]

Quite right.

I bet almost everyday and because of my account preferences I never get any enticements to bet more than I want to or more than I can afford.

It''s very easy to control what you bet.

I get great pleasure from having a bet, betting is a British way of life and it''s legal.

Just because a few mug punters are unable to control themselves the betting Companies get all the blame.

But then that''s the way of the World, blame everyone but yourself.

And the reason they sponsor so many Clubs is because they offer the most money so I would have thought that every supporter should be pleased that NCFC are maximising their income from their sponsorship deal with Leo Vegas.

[king canary 7,578]

I am also capable of having a bet without becoming a gambling addict.

However some are not and I don''t think some restrictions on advertising to protect the more vulnerable in society is a huge ask.

It is literally impossible to watch a game of football these days without being surrounded by gambling advertisements- to think that won''t have some effect in tempting problem gamblers in is naive in the extreme.

And honestly, would any of your lives be made much worse if you didn''t get to see Brian Blessed riding a CGI bear 6 times a match?

[Guest]

CGI bear

Come on, its a real bear isn''t it.

[Surfer 1,547]

"but it does appear to be another function of modern society where everyone is seemingly offended about absolutely anything, sad really... "

And others might say it''s sad that so many seem to have lost a moral compass. I think that''s a shame, but the bigger shame is we apparently can''t accept that in a large population like the Norwich fan base, there will be genuine differences of opinion, and not whining about it (politicians please note)

[Mason 47 1,373]

For me, the sponsor doesn''t particularly offend on our yellow kit. I also enjoy gambling as a casual pastime. Furthermore, I even quite like this kit!

Thought I''d just lend my controversial opinions also.

[STFU 0]

[quote user="Mr Hudson "]Looks and feels cheap

Suits our squad this season[/quote]

IGNORE

[cornish sam 944]

[quote user="keelansgrandad"]CGI bear

Come on, its a real bear isn''t it.[/quote]

It''s a real bear with a CGI Brian Blessed, no bear was brave enough to let him ride them! This is a man who once pranked his dad by putting a panther in their kitchen after all...