They should have left..

The kit as it was.

All this malarkey has caused unnecessary bad press.

The Club backtracking, and the fans on message boards have been made a laughing stock.

A photograph can give a false impression to how something actually looks.

Anyone would have thought the world was ending.

True enough, but what's Cardiff City without the occasional bit of farce..... :cup:

TDA wrote:True enough, but what's Cardiff City without the occasional bit of farce..... :cup:

Occasional? Pretty regular bedfellows, I'd say!

Yeah kinda see your point but actually prefer the black.

So yeeaaahhh, one nil to the fans! (Not at all new coke like..honest)

yes i would prefer black shorts with blktrim to the shirts, but what we have ended up with is a complete farce. the club has been made to look stupid by those with a vested intrest in blue, we would have been better off in two tone red.
those who think it was planned this way to get acceptance of a red shirt are seeing too many reds under the bed. if i were vinnie tan i would say stuff you, take my money and walk away.
i did not vote as i never had the opportunity, if i had it would have been for the two tone red, not because it was my first choice but because changing would have meant capitulation to kcb. if view offends then i will fcuk off.

Nothing offensive about your views, Dave. I agree with you that the whole thing has been a complete farce and the club has looked stupid. So many grown men kicking up such a fuss about colour combinations and football fashions!

I also don't subscribe to the conspiracy theory that it was all planned to get acceptance of the red shirt - not least because of the negative publicity and the way the club (and fans) have looked stupid.

I don't agree that changing the kit means capitulation to KCB, because they're not interested in any of the choices on offer. But that's only my view, and I'm sure that won't offend you, either!

davewebber65 wrote:yes i would prefer black shorts with blktrim to the shirts, but what we have ended up with is a complete farce. the club has been made to look stupid by those with a vested intrest in blue, we would have been better off in two tone red.
those who think it was planned this way to get acceptance of a red shirt are seeing too many reds under the bed. if i were vinnie tan i would say stuff you, take my money and walk away.
i did not vote as i never had the opportunity, if i had it would have been for the two tone red, not because it was my first choice but because changing would have meant capitulation to kcb. if view offends then i will fcuk off.

I think you're having problems distinguishing betwee people who want the City to take to the field looking more professional, and slightly less of a laughing stock, and the KCB.
I would assume that many true KCB individuals would not have even had a vote here as they wouldn't be season ticket holders.
The club compromising does not show a weakness, and it certainly won't be capitalised upon to push for changes to blue.

R-DONO wrote:The club compromising does not show a weakness, and it certainly won't be capitalised upon to push for changes to blue.

I agree the compromise and the consultation doesn't show a weakness, but getting this so wrong in the first place does. This was a relatively minor change which the club should have been able to manage without consultation.

Those pushing for a return to blue now see this as some sort of precedent, i.e. 'if they can get a vote from the fans on the colour of the shorts, why can't they do the same for the shirts?', amid complaints that the club is run by Tan as a dictatorship. All of which is nonsense, as the shirt colour change was central to the rebrand and will never be put to a vote - it's much more of a policy decision. And why people expect the club to be run as a democracy with fans voting on all sorts of things is beyond me. Any private company has to be run by the management as a dictatorship, and they have to be able to make important decisions without the use of consultation, which will only produce mixed messages and indecision.

The alternative is government by committee, which never achieves anything.

For the benefit of younger contributors, it was often said years ago that "a camel was a horse designed by a committee."

TDA wrote:The alternative is government by committee, which never achieves anything.

For the benefit of younger contributors, it was often said years ago that "a camel was a horse designed by a committee."

And even then they couldn't decide between one hump or two!

davewebber65 wrote:yes i would prefer black shorts with blktrim to the shirts, but what we have ended up with is a complete farce. the club has been made to look stupid by those with a vested intrest in blue, we would have been better off in two tone red.
those who think it was planned this way to get acceptance of a red shirt are seeing too many reds under the bed. if i were vinnie tan i would say stuff you, take my money and walk away.
i did not vote as i never had the opportunity, if i had it would have been for the two tone red, not because it was my first choice but because changing would have meant capitulation to kcb. if view offends then i will fcuk off.

As we always say Dave, everyone is entitled to express their own opinion. So don't leave, continue to keep this board ticking over with your forthright, entertaining comments and keep us all entertained. I suspect that Puma advisors had something to do with the original colour of the shorts, (make them different and they cost more to produce). The poll of season ticket holders at least showed that VT and the club were prepared to elicit a vote from the fans and not just listen to 'rabble rousers'. For what it's worth, I think this was a victory for common sense.

The Tonker wrote:

R-DONO wrote:The club compromising does not show a weakness, and it certainly won't be capitalised upon to push for changes to blue.

I agree the compromise and the consultation doesn't show a weakness, but getting this so wrong in the first place does. This was a relatively minor change which the club should have been able to manage without consultation.

Those pushing for a return to blue now see this as some sort of precedent, i.e. 'if they can get a vote from the fans on the colour of the shorts, why can't they do the same for the shirts?', amid complaints that the club is run by Tan as a dictatorship. All of which is nonsense, as the shirt colour change was central to the rebrand and will never be put to a vote - it's much more of a policy decision. And why people expect the club to be run as a democracy with fans voting on all sorts of things is beyond me. Any private company has to be run by the management as a dictatorship, and they have to be able to make important decisions without the use of consultation, which will only produce mixed messages and indecision.

Flair play!

My first gem of wisdom is this.
A club should be run by a committee provided it follows the basic rules that a committee should aways be made up of an odd number of members and three is too many.

Makes Tan the chairperson with the casting vote :

yup. let him get on with it as he aint let us down