Umbro and Hull City sign four year kit deal

UmbroDoubleDiamond

As predicted on our Twitter feed, Hull City will wear Umbro made kits in 2014/15 and for three seasons beyond after signing a 4 year deal with the Cheadle based firm.

Umbro did a great job with City’s kits between 2007-2010, their plain amber shirt from 2007/08 is synonymous with promotion achieved via the play-offs at Wembley, their only true striped City shirt of that deal was worn when The Tigers cut a swath through the Premier League in the early part of 2008/09 (including away wins against Arsenal and Tottenham) as City defied the odds to stay up. Umbro’s pinstriped 2009/10 was lovely, and clothed our players in their first appearance in the Barclay’s Asia Trophy contested in Beijing, China, although it had an unhappy end when City were relegated back to the Championship.

Our favourite Umbro City kit? The magnificently pure all white away kit from 2007/08 that also saw service in 2008/09 as a third kit worn at Newcastle in an FA Cup tie. We look forward to seeing Umbro’s first offering as part of the new deal,and the effort they put into marketing City kits.

WhiteUmbroGoodness

The teaser campaigns run ahead of the three seasons they made apparel for The Tigers were professionally, tastefully and respectfully done, they made Hull City feel like a.celebrated stable member rather than just a team to foist ubiquitous templates onto, and it is good to see Britain’s most noted kit maker recover after they were cruelly gutted and ditched by Nike.

Having Dean Windass and Geovanni be part of the deal unveiling as ‘Umbro heroes’ at half time between City v Arsenal was a lovely touch. Is it too late for Umbro to whip us up an FA Cup final kit? Probably, though it would be nice to see us play at Wembley without a tat shop being advertised on our garb. Adidas got a raw deal seeing that plastered on their shirts, though it is yet to be soon who will replace the pawnbrokers as main club sponsors for 2014/15.

 

Get Our Kits Out #4: 2013/14 home shirt #6 Curtis Davies

DaviesBack

This short sleeved 2013/14 home shirt was issued to and worn by City captain and player of the year elect Curtis Davies. The sleeves carry the updated Premier League competition patches (designated ‘Pro-S’) and on the back are the new numbers and letters (called ‘PS-pro’). The old ‘SensCilia’ appliqués, used between 2007-2013, had a felt-like feel, but the shinier and plastic feeling replacements are lighter and the graphics look sharper.

DaviesFrontThis shirt was likely used in several games, but was last worn in the 1-0 home win over West Ham in September 2013 and has not been washed so is stained with KC Stadium turf in several places. Davies played the full game.

DaviesWHU

August Kit News Round-Up

Sagbo1Kit supplier adidas released a statement yesterday, apologising for delays in the production and delivery of City’s 2013/14 training kit. The Tigers had been wearing neon yellow and navy training kit in pre season while their own blue or black apparel was being produced, evidently wearing gear made for Sunderland (their away kit is neon yellow and navy) badged with City crests as an interim measure. Consequently the launch date for new training gear on sale in Tiger Leisure has been and gone, hence the apology from the German sportswear giant. We rather like the neon yellow apparel, and would love to get our hands on some, whether part of City’s current palette or not.

AltShortsOf more concern than the training kit is the home kit shorts, which have also been delayed. City wore the new home shirt and fetching hooped socks in friendlies at North Ferriby and Winterton last month, using shorts from last season’s kit range. At Ferriby, the black 2012/13 home shorts were worn, with the ‘home’ amber alternate shorts from the last campaign being used against Winterton Rangers.

BragaSocksWanting to take a complete new kit to Portugal, kit man John Eyre elected to use the royal blue, white and red away kit in two friendlies played in Albufeira. The full away kit with red socks was used in the 0-0 draw against Sheffield Wednesday, in which the Owls wore their new away kit (a black and yellow affair made by Puma). Against SC Braga however, City debuted alternate blue socks against the Portuguese League Cup holders, who use red socks with their primary kit.

AMacGoalkeeper kits from 2012/13 were used in all friendlies until City ventured to eastern Germany to face Dynamo Dresden. Alan McGregor wore the light green 2013/14 ‘keeper kit for the first time in the 1-0 win at the glücksgas stadion, while the outfield players wore the full away kit as Dresden play in yellow and black. The Dynamo game proved educational, teaching us the German word for kitman; John Eyre was listed in the matchday programme as City’s ‘Zeugwart’.

Tommy Coyle represents!

BoomBoom1

There was some tidy cross-promotion work done last week when local boxer Tommy Coyle promoted his fight with Derry Mathews at Craven Park by visiting the KC Stadium for a new City home shirt. The 2013/14 Tigers kit went on sale Saturday, the same day that ‘Boom Boom’ fought mouthy Scouser Mathews on the same card as Olympic gold medallist Luke Campbell making his pro-boxing debut.

Even better than the shirt holding photo-op was Coyle sporting the new home kit’s brilliant hooped socks for the fight, pairing them with black and amber boxing shorts. Coyle bossed the fight, with Mathews later admitting that the Hull fighter “bullied” him in each round, but our lad succumbed to a superb left hook in the tenth round that took Coyle down.

Aesthetically speaking at least, Tommy Coyle is our champion, wearing City socks for a pro-boxing fight makes him somewhat of a legend in our eyes.

BoomBoom2

2013/14 home kit – The HCK verdict

Like a burlesque performer, City have gotten us hot under the collar by performing a strip tease this week. On Monday they revealed the new home kit socks, on Tuesday we saw the shorts, and today we’ve feasted our eyes on the shirt. So now we’ve seen the lot, in all it’s shocking glory, what do we make of the 2013/14 home kit?

bradykitSombreEthyl

A shirt with bold stripes and hooped socks, what is there not to love about this kit? Well, the sponsor for one, but y’know we’ve stated our objections to that deal oftentimes so I won’t re-tread old ground now, and at least it has been applied in the least ugly fashion and there is no appalling black patch across the chest.

The stripes are the perfect width in my view; it’s instantly recognisable as a Hull City shirt which is a great starting point. The contrast striped collar is an interesting look, I’d have preferred a cleaner collar design but I think it will grow on me. The amber yoke panel means the Drei Streifen don’t look messy on a striped shirt and should ensure a better fit across the shoulders.

I like plain amber sleeves on a striped shirt to brighten the overall look, the thick, oblique black sleeve stripes on this shirt create a big expanse of black, but when the Premier League patches are added to player shirts it will break that space up and will look just fine.

The City crest on this shirt is like on the away shirts, a bit smaller than what we’ve had on other City kits. Maybe the scroll banners on the bigger crests fall foul of the Premier League rules on crest size, though it didn’t seem an issue in 2008/09 and 2009/10. The smaller crest bunches up the detail on the tiger head and make it look a bit squinty eyed, which is a shame, though the crest being stitched on rather than heat bonded is a good thing.

The shorts are just fine, the truncated three stripes match how those on the shirts are broken to make room for a competition patch so there is design continuity. Then there is the socks, have I mentioned that I love the socks? I adore hooped socks, and like the adidas brand so I’ve been waxing lyrical about these since they were revealed on Monday. I collect matchworn City shirts, and as much as I’m looking forward to getting a player worn home shirt at some point, I’m more interested in getting some matchworn hooped socks, and yes I know that sounds weird.

Template kits are nothing new, and it’s a fact of life that unless you’re a Chelsea, Bayern or Real Madrid sized club, you’ll share a kit design with other clubs. West Brom use this design as an away kit, that doesn’t bother me at all, but if they use the same template for their home kit I’d be a bit miffed about that. Sunderland and Stoke, the other Premier League sides who wear stripes and have adidas as kit supplier use different templates for their home shirt so hopefully none of the stripy shirted adidas teams will share a template for a home shirt, though there are only so many stripy templates to go round. Brentford’s home shirt looks great from the front, it’s a really clean striped design, but the back is solid white, and I don’t like that, if their shirt was stripes front and back I’d have been happy to use the same shirt.

As for the shirt we’ve got, the positives far outweigh the negatives, and I like this kit a lot, especially those sexy hooped socks (I’ll have ten pairs please).

Credit to the club for building up interest with the teaser pics on social networking sites, that and the reveal using the adidas #all-in slogan has been pretty well done. Contrast our launch with that of the Sheffield Wednesday away kit, not only is the shirt trainingwear dross, but they didn’t have shorts and socks ready in time so had players in trackie pants looking like chavs scratting about outside an off licence.

allinreveal

JGHull

Smart.

There’s really not a lot to dislike here – it’s what a City kit should be. Broad stripe, black shorts, hooped socks. I’m also really pleased we’ve gone with the template that has the striped back (no official shots of it yet but the WBA Away shirt uses the same template and that has a full striped back).

The collar treatment draws the eye a little and I’d have probably preferred a plain black trim to the collar rather than the black V but that’s nit picking.

City home shorts are hard to balls up but add in the hooped socks and it’s a smart looking, genuinely “City” City kit.

I’ve got to say it though haven’t I? The sponsor. Whilst the colouring of the sponsor allows the logo to fit into the kit better than in previous years, it’s still a low rent brand to be associated with. Shame really. The hunt is on to find an unsponsored one.

Overall, it’s been a bit of duff year for kit geeks with very little to get excited by. Everton have basically launched the same kit as last year and the England/Man City Umbro demise has led to lots of identikits, particularly for goalkeepers. Whilst it’s easy to long for the days before the blatantly obvious templating that we have now, it does feel a bit of an off year across the board.

It seems to be a year with lots of team wear that looks like trainingwear (I’m looking at you awful City away kit – but there are others) and we all know the actual trainingwear will be identikit too. It’s just a bit tedious this year.

Having said all of that, this home kit is a proper City kit. I’m a fan of kits which uniquely identify clubs and broad amber and black stripes, black shorts and hooped socks does exactly that for Hull City AFC, The Tigers…

Hull City in hooped socks – a potted history

hoopnew

Here at Hull City Kits, we’ve long been vocal proponents of a return to hooped socks, so we whooped with delight when the club teased us all yesterday with a photo showing part of the new City home kit, revealing that hoopy hose will be part of the ensemble. It was as if our entreaties to the kit god Polyesteus had finally been answered!

Hooped socks look great, and the amber hoops brighten up a kit with striped shirts that can look rather dark when paired with black shorts and socks, which is the norm. That has led to using alternate socks with the home kit, such as at Manchester United, Tottenham and Portsmouth in 2008/09 and when we used the previous season’s amber home socks away to Ipswich in 2006/07. Hooped socks remove the need for using alts in games where the opponents have dark stockings.

City have had hooped hose before, most recently in the early 80s when red was part of City’s palette at the behest of much loved former chairman Don Robinson. Most recently that is if you don’t include the socks of the 2009/10 home kit, which visually connected the stockings to the jerseys by replicating the pinstripes of the shirt, though from our point of view that makes them pinhoops, and not proper hoops, although we did like them.

So let’s have a look at when City have used hooped socks…

1935/36

hoop35

The first use of true hooped socks by City came in 1935/36, when The Tigers wore a rather untigerish kit that was ultramarine blue and white. Ultramarine dye was made locally by Reckitts so it was easy to source, but the reasons for this one season change have eluded us when we’ve researched past kits. The blue shirts used after the resumption of league operations have been explained, certain dyes were prohibitively expensive and rationed by the Board of Trade so we wore light blue in 1946/47, returning to amber and black the season after. But why we wore a deeper blue in 1935/36 is for now unclear.

It surely cannot be a coincidence however that the blue jerseys used in 1935/36 were the first to be adorned with a crest over the heart. It wasn’t a tiger head emblem though, that didn’t appear on City shirts till 1946, rather it was the civic crest of three stacked coronets within a shield. The crest of the city of Hull is coloured Azure and Or, or blue and gold. Azure has many shades, including azzurrum ultramarine (literally, blue from beyond the sea.) Was this kit a respectful nod to the city of Hull? Using the city’s crest and main colour (achieved with a locally produced dye) would suggest that is the case, though we cannot say that definitively.

Anyway, the socks of this unfamiliar but nonetheless striking kit were blue and white hoops. 1935/36 was a disastrous campaign for City, it ended in ignominious relegation. Blue was ditched and amber and black returned, but some players didn’t get the memo it seems, the 1936/37 team photo shows several players wearing hoopy socks with black and amber shirts and shorts.

1947/46

hoopcarter

City spent the first year at Boothferry Park wearing light blue shirts, but went back to amber and black the following campaign, only The Tigers had lost their stripes. Harold Needler favoured solid colour shirts so City turned out in jerseys that were all-amber aside from a black turnover collar and a tiger head picked out in black stitching on a sewn on amber square.

Fans not old enough to have seen City play in this kit are nonetheless familiar with it as whenever a photo of the legendary Raich Carter is used it is in this kit. Usually he is pictured in plain amber socks, but for one season this kit was used with fetching hooped stockings.

This looked great, but superficially very similar to Wolves, who also wore solid colour shirts, black shirts and hooped socks. If we’d stuck with striped jerseys then such comparisons could not be made, but we’d abandoned our highly distinct look so the hooped socks had to go. Bah!

1960/61

hoop61

The next shirt used by City, from 1955 to 1961, was similarly paired with hooped socks for just one season and is usually pictured with largely amber socks with black turnover bands. Whereas the 1947-55 shirts were initially paired with hoopy hose that were then dropped, the solid amber jerseys with V shaped collars in black ended their run with horizontal stripe stockings used for the 1960/61 campaign.

1962/63

hoop62

Hooped socks were used with striped shirts for the first time in 1962/63, as City continued to tinker with their look in the early Sixties. These shirts, with thin alternating black and amber stripes of equal width, were used for just one season, in 1963/64 City wore another striped design, this time using thin black stripes over wider amber bands.

1964/65

hoopsbands

For the only time in club history, The Tigers used amber shorts as part of a primary home kit in 1964/65. The look wasn’t popular and was disparagingly nicknamed the ‘banana kit’. The shirts were rather lovely, featuring two black bands on the chest, but with no black shorts to give the kit contrast and make the amber pop, the whole outfit looked rather washed out. Like the shirts, the socks featured two black hoops, and could have been part of a classic kit had only black shorts been used. As it happened, the ‘banana kit’ never had chance to ripen, dispensed with after just one season. The socks did make a brief reappearance in 1970 however when player-manager Terry Neill wore them for a photocall.

1984-86

hooproberts

The 2013/14 home socks will end a 27 year hoopy hiatus. The last time City wore stripy stockings was back when The Tigers had red in their palette, during the tenure of the slightly bonkers but beloved chairman Don Robinson. The former wrestler and Scarborough based entrepreneur was said to have stated the red represented the blood players were willing to spill for the cause, which sounds very much like a Robbo quote (he once said City would be the first team to play on the Moon). The amber, black and red hooped socks had white feet and were paired with two distinct shirts made by Admiral, who like hair and mobile phones, were massive in the Eighties.

City’s shirts for 1984/85 were updated versions of those used between 1982-84 (which were paired with solid red socks), featuring alternating matte and shiny stripes separated by red pinstripes. The stripy socks used with that shirt for two seasons were retained when Admiral produced a rather yellow set of shirts for the 1986/87 season that featured black chest bands and red sleeve rings and bore the name of sponsor Twydale, a local turkey purveyor. City changed the socks for 1987/88 however, going with largely amber hose.

City have had quasi-hoops since then; Pelada supplied socks with two thin black bands and black tops in 1993/94 when they slapped their logo over that of Matchwinner on the famed tiger stripe kits after City had a dispute with the Scottish firm and asked Pelada to come up with a new tigerskin kit. When they did, it wasn’t pretty.

Olympic’s 1998/99 home kit had black socks with a fairly thick amber stripe on the turnover band as well as another at shin level which created a hoopy look depending how far a player turned the tops over, and we’ve already mentioned the ‘pinhooped’ socks of the 2009/10 home kit, but none of these were truly hooped socks.

The 2013/14 set are however, which makes us very, very happy. Hip hoops hurray!

hoopprog

Get Our Kits Out #3: 2000/01 Away shirt #3 Andy Holt

We acquired this shirt from a former club employee, so have no doubts regarding its authenticity, even though there is a slight anomoly with the letters used on the back. The Football League adopted squad numbers and player names on shirts in 1999 and standardised the font used by its 72 member clubs. The letters used came in two sizes, 73mm for match prepared shirts, 62mm for replicas sold in the club shop.

This long sleeved shirt (only short sleeved replicas were on sale in Tiger Leisure) has Holt’s surname applied in the smaller sized letters. Perhaps City had run out of some of the full size letters by the time he arrived on loan from Oldham, A low quality photograph from the Torquay away game (a 1-1 draw in which Holt scored) seems to back up that assumption, his shirt letters appear to be smaller than those on the Gulls’ keeper he’s contesting the ball with.

The letters making up sponsor IBC’s wordmark are applied in vinyl, another oddity, as most player shirts that season used raised felt. Photos from the Torquay game show both felt and vinyl letters in use, vinyl was used on the shirts of players who arrived during the season, such as loanee Mark Atkins who like Holt played between March and May 2001. Holt though, became a permanent signing, joining for £150,000 from Oldham.

The polyurethane Nationwide League competition patches straddle the maroon sleeve stripe and yellow piping, they have cracked after washing.

2013/14 away kit – The HCK verdict

201314awaykit
After revealing the socks on Friday, City unveiled the rest of the new away kit on Monday, posting photos on social network sites that showed Irish international’s David Meyler and Robbie Brady modelling the largely blue change kit.

HCK honcho’s JGHull and SombreEthyl disagreed rather strongly about the socks on Monday morning, so Awaykitgeddon was a real possibility after both saw the full kit…

JGHull

That’s the new away kit is it? Sigh.
 
I don’t hate the template – it’s actually not bad. Bolton are using it for their home kit this year and it looks pretty smart. I’m a bit bored of kits this year with so many clubs wearing the same kit and long for the days of a bit more originality. However, given we’re in the age of the template, it’s alright.
 
Is it a good City kit then? I don’t think so, no.
 
Firstly, it’s clearly a blue kit, negating my comments about that sock where I suggested we could look like Palace (I’ll be back on the socks shortly). Blue is a historic colour associated with City so being fair, that line of argument has weakened. However, *that* blue isn’t right. It just isn’t. Firstly, it’s not the correct hue for City and secondly, it makes the kit look a lot like recent training wear we’ve had. 
 
Next up, the shorts. Template shorts, same blue. OK, not too much to hate there. Still the wrong blue, still look like training kit but match the shirt. A bit odd that the maroony red isn’t referenced in the short trim though, if you’re going to have it in the shirt.
 
Encasing the calves, lastly we have the socks. Those bloody not-really-a-red socks. Who thought that was a good idea? Red socks? With a full length blue kit? I just don’t get that decision at all. Having debated it briefly on Twitter, Liberia once had a blue kit with red socks and it looked insane. The marketing shots we’ve had are a teaser sock shot and then a shirt/short combo so we’ve not had the full kit in one shot yet but I just can’t get my head round that. Visually, it’s going to be mental. Surely?
 
If the red hint in the shirt wasn’t there and the sock was a blue, I’d be underwhelmed and moaning about the wrong blue but I’d not be hating it. As it is, the not-really-a-red colour with a not-really-a-red sock? Not for me. It looks like an England cricket 20/20 kit gone wrong.
 
I’ve not even mentioned the sponsor yet. I think SombreEthyl and I agree that we wish this was Karoo, Dove House or Allam Diesel Marine etc than Cash Converters. I’d take a bookies again before them. I do however think marketing has been pretty good (although I’d have cropped the background image to not include empty seats!) and the timing of the release should ensure they sell a few this weekend. Fair play for that.
 
Imagine it in white with amber and black hint colours. It’s better isn’t it?

SombreEthyl

We’ve covered our objections to the current sponsor to death so I’ll leave well alone here, and just focus on what it appears on.

I like it. I don’t love it, but it’s a decent, solid away kit. I’m glad it’s a blue shirt, and I’ll counter JGHull’s point about the blue not being right by stating that the blues used in 1935/36 and 1946/47 were quite different shades. The home shirt worn in the first year at Boothferry Park was quite a light blue, like the away/third kits we had in 2004-07 and 2011-13, but the blue used in 1935/36 was quite deep, described as ‘ultramarine’ and like the shade used on the civic crest at the time. This blue is somewhere in between, and I’m just fine with it.

As for the red, I think it complements the blue very well and if we didn’t use it and went with just white as a contrast colour, then it wouldn’t be different enough from the Argentina blue shirt we’re retiring. I do agree that maybe a bit more red is needed in the shirt and certainly some on the shorts to make the red socks work but I think it’s something that’ll grow on people. If there is a pair of red alternate shorts then I’d go blue-red-red at Fulham, Newcastle, Newcastle and Norwich, and blue-blue-red at Sunderland if they don’t have red socks next season.

The template appears very similar to that of our black away shirt in 2012/13, but with a simpler collar. At first that bothered me, but if we use the black shirt as a third kit then at least both change kits look like part of a coordinated set. Blue seems to have become part of a three kit rotation for our away strips, we’ve cycled through all white, blue and black and amber, and since all three have historic use I’d be happy for that pattern to continue.

In recent years adidas have made better away kits for us than home, I’m really hoping that trend is reversed this year and we have a real doozy of a home kit, preferably with a striped shirt. Given that Bolton (home) and Stoke (away) are adidas kits with hooped socks, I’m really hoping our home kit has them too as I’m a bit of a hooped sock fetishist. Come to think of it, this kit would have looked good with blue and red hooped socks as it would have connected the shirt and socks better.

Still, I rather like the new away kit. Do I love it? No, but I’d buy it.

2013/14 Away kit launch date + teaser pic.

SockTeaser

Hull City announced the imminent launch of the 2013/14 away kit on Friday, using social media platforms to give people a glimpse of the new change kit, or at least the socks. The adidas hose are a deep red, with the German sportswear giant’s trademark three stripes and logo picked out in blue.

The away kit’s full launch will be this coming Saturday (15/06/13). Reaction to the new away colours was mixed, and the HCK team were equally polarised in their views…

JGHull

“I’m a rational man. It’s a teaser picture of a bit of sock, so what possible reaction can you have and still appear sane? I bloody hate those socks.

Red and blue together have no place in our history. Yes, we’ve had kits using both colours. Red was introduced by a slightly mental but hugely loveable Chairman in the 1980s, and blue is a very historic colour for us indeed, City having worn blue several times starting in the 1930s.

However, red and blue together isn’t uniquely identifying as a Hull City kit. Even an away Hull City kit. Before anyone starts, I know we’ve had a green and white chequered kit before, used maroon (with amber touches I might add) and even purple with red sponsor. I’m also well aware of the modern slant on away kits – “let’s make them insane and see if we can sell some” – Arsenal purple and black, Manchester United grey and Chelsea day-glo green all spring to mind.

So why should we be different? Well, it’s a personal thing but I believe even an away kit should identify the club. I’d go white with black and amber trim permanently (stripes at home). I don’t buy into this nonsense of having to change the shirt style to be able to sell them to the masses. Collars, finishing touches and simply changing the manufacturer all can do this.

Secondly, and most importantly, red and blue belongs to other clubs. This smells of Crystal Palace. Arsenal purple? United grey? Chelsea day-glo? They never made them look like someone else. In the age of template kits, I think this is more important than ever.

Let’s be honest, it’s just a teaser shot and any sane individual couldn’t possible draw any conclusions. However, I bloody hate those socks.”

SombreEthyl

“Heh, I’m amused by JGHull’s claim to be rational while espousing a very irrational viewpoint. I don’t have a problem with the new colours at all, in fact I’d say I’m very excited about this launch after seeing the socks.

I’m a traditionalist, I like to see City in all white when they need to wear change colours, but I accept that it needs to be mixed up now and then, and all white will be monotonous and drab if done every year, given that like it or not, kits are changed every season now.

JGHull refers to the Avec purple with red trim away kit of 1999/00, which had no precedent whatsoever when it was launched, but I bloody love that away kit, it’s one of my favourites, despite the horrific Hinchliffe crest, which featured what was more owl with a goatee beard than a tiger’s head.

So what if red and blue are the domain of other club’s where home kits are concerned? This is an away kit, and the main function of an away kit is to be utterly distinct from the home kit, even if it means utilising colours associated with other team’s. Manchester United often wear all blue as a third kit, isn’t this making them look Chelsea-esque? Probably, but it dilutes Manchester United’s identity not one bit, so I don’t accept the point that this kit compromises the club’s visual identity.

Some people are presuming that red will be the predominant colour, but I think the shirt will be blue, with shorts and socks in the red tone. We don’t have to wear an away kit often anyway, in the Premier League it will be a necessity only at Fulham, Newcastle, Sunderland and Spurs (based on them usually wearing dark shorts)   and Norwich because of shirt colour. With the exception of Sunderland, red and blue or blue and red works just fine, and presuming the away kit has alternate shorts and socks it’ll be fine at the Stadium of Light.

I’m all for a mix up of away colours for one season, but I would like to see us back in all white away sometime soon. I like the club using Facebook and Twitter to create a buzz about a new kit too, I think we’ve not done launches as well as we we could have in recent years, but the socks pic certainly has people talking.”

Get Our Kits Out #2: 1986/87 Home shirt #2 Charlie Palmer

Whether it was declaring Hull City would be the first team to play on the Moon or riding around Boothferry Park on a horse dressed as a cowboy ahead of a friendly game with American outfit Tampa Bay Rowdies, Don Robinson, City’s chairman for most of the 80s, sure knew how to generate publicity.

He must have been in his element then when the club signed a sponsorship deal with Twydale Turkeys of Driffield. The announcement of the one year link up was accompanied by preposterous scenes such as Robinson and boss Brian Horton hanging around with a pair of turkeys and Garreth Roberts having a kickabout with a giant City scarf wearing turkey. Bonkers.

Twydale’s name appeared on new shirts produced by Admiral, kit manufacturer for City since 1982. Robinson’s arrival in the same year coincided with the addition of red into the club’s colour scheme, this shirt had red shoulder panels, collar and cuff trim and sewn on numbers. The ‘amber’ body was split by a black chest band on the front of the shirt that contained the sponsor’s wordmark. The tone of amber used barely justifies the term, this was a yellow shirt, and yellow, black and red shirts say ‘Watford’ rather than Hull City.

The number 2 shirt was shared by four players in 1986/87, when squad numbers were the preserve of internationals playing in major tournaments. Richard Jobson began the campaign wearing 2, later wearing 4 as Neil Williams and Steve Brentano briefly shared it. When Charlie Palmer arrived from Derby in February 1987, he made the 2 shirt his own for the rest of the season.

Replicas of this shirt didn’t carry sponsor text, had the Admiral logo in white or red and were not available in long sleeved versions. For those reasons we are content to believe this is a genuine matchworn shirt, but have yet to source photos of any of the four men who wore number 2 in 1986/87 in long sleeved shirts. Steve Brentano wore short sleeves in an FA Cup tie at Swansea, in which the shirt was paired with red shorts and socks.