RP London

but its not... where is the red? England RU play in white top, white shorts blue socks.. they have varied this maybe once or twice with the socks.. they add little bits, take them off but they are predominantly the same always.. they are highly recognisable because of it. England Football the same. All the branding is done in colour pallets that work with that everything the produce is recognisable for the brand and the sport.. you cannot say that about RL... you tried but there is no longer any red features at all, and before that where was the blue? i have the last couple of shirts (Hummel and Oxen), no blue (except the dacia logo).. so no they arent White with red and blue features.. they were white and red but now they are white with a lot of Blue.. its just odd to do that.

they are still all at least a shade of the same colour! as i say I dont mind blue being incorporated but when the badge is red, the new line head is red and the kit has always been red and white i dont understand the dropping of, well, red!

I wouldn't compare to England cricket as they have the 3 different formats.. other than that you are looking at navy blue or light blue.. and t20 seem to have gone for red and navy blue for a while. If you were to say to someone what is the england cricket colour.. the main thing would, of course, be white.. but with blue becuase we have always worn a blue cap and a blue blazer. when we have played one day crickets its always been blue (or certainly for as long as i remember)... what is England RL? why is it changing, why is it so "off brand".. what is our brand?? if we cant answer those questions we are in trouble.

IF that is the way we go I can live with that too, but other branding really needs to come into line so it makes sense.. i'm just not confident its going to be.

I think this is the key. I dont mind adding navy blue into the colour pallet and using it (2 red 1 blue chevron or blue bits on the sleeves/collar) but what exactly is the england brand?? where is this going... if this is it and this is the start then maybe ok but we cannot go back again next year away from it.. and i think we will becuase, well the above really! absolutely.. surely they have used an agency to come up with this sort of stuff. Do they then just bin them off once they get given the logo and the new letterhead? because surely all of this should come under that

I notice you didnt @Harry Stottlein there... i think he'll be very hurt by that remark

If its the RFL and they decide that we are going to be navy blue and white for every and they are going to make that something then i can live with the idea, though still dont like the execution, but if its a one off whim shirt then i'll be livid

As i say i dont disagree with you on sportswashing and issues around ownership. However, Man City as a club work in the LGBTQ+ community IIRC and do quite a bit of outreach work with them in this country. Again that is sports washing i I know but it is still positive within this country. Players need to make a living etc. The issue on club ownership HAS to come from the government surely, you cannot expect players to boycott clubs and potential damage their ability to earn a living, they are showing their support against this and are at a club that are doing things in the community to help. Tackling the issues back in the middle east is definitely something that should be tackled but that has to come from the govt. And with the homophobic chanting on terraces and the racial abuse received by some in our game, along with plenty of people who have come out about racism and been, frankly, ignored I really dont think we are on the firmest ground to use the words "we dont care" as i think they could easily get thrown back at us with "your right you dont".

and i'm not spending £59 on it for sure!

none of them look overly happy with it either!

Its the first time I have been actually open mouthed with nothing to say for a long time! That is not an England shirt. I get the fact that it doesnt have to be the colours of the flag (aus and NZ etc) etc but it just doesn't look right for an England team, there needs some red in it IMHO. I get they want something that can be Iconic and thats fine and it doesnt have to be the same as all other sports (Aus change the dominant colour depending on the sport etc, NZ have the all whites football instead of the all blacks) but it just doesnt feel right.

wow that took a turn! The laces are a players choice and their show of support. I dont disagree with your issues around the ownership of football clubs and the world cup but I dont think that should diminish a general movement of tolerance and support for gay, trans etc rights by players and the FA.

I have the 1/4 zip England top and some training shorts and dont have an issue with them either. I dont get the issue with Oxen to be honest. I know they churn stuff out but I havent had an issue with the quality, unlike some other companies.

you've got at least 5 minutes so time for 2 amounts of joy

I quite liked the rainbow laces rounds that were held here (think football did too) so that you could show your support but you didnt have to. That IMHO is where this sort of thing should be (dont get me wrong, i would wear them happily). Same with a poppy, it shouldn't be on the shirt, i have had discussions with my Northern Irish wife on this which has changed my mind from before I met her, again I would wear won but I totally understand those that dont.

I honestly think the leaders want the win so they can wallow in it.. I dont think they are prepared to be the person who started, or continued the ground work that will build in the future. They may even see that as a failure because, well look at this board when something doesnt work the first or second time its tried (internationals) or isnt producing what THEY think it should be in terms of fans/players/tv (expansion)... We have to look at the long term gain of things IMHO and be prepared for the short term pain, but I just dont believe our leadership group are prepared for that.

I will reiterate that a lot of my knowledge on this has come from reading articles and watching the programmes as I don't have any medical background. But we seem to get hung up on the game itself and how that may change whereas from a lot of the interviews with the players and experts it seems that the game is not the biggest problem its the training and the aftercare. For example how many times did you see someone hobble to their feet, shake it off and play on or how many times did they not play on but then do full training on a Monday. This is poor aftercare and playing/training while concussed or recovering from a concussion can cause serious secondary effects. Players talk in interviews of full blooded training sessions over and over, that was ok when it was a tuesday and thursday evening but when you train 5 days out of 7 and play on another its too much. The talk of a constant drip that over years then forms a hole in the ground but no one really sees it developing. Players talk of punishment contact sessions that were harder. The NFL had this court case a few years ago and now limit contact training sessions. RU I think had issues early in professionalism with the power of the scrum and the impact on the front row that goes through the shoulders and spine which causes issues around concussion, they also had issues around the "clear out" at the rucks where you are catching people unawares. These have been cleared up over time but they have still some way to go with depowering the scrum a bit. Head high shots are going to happen, but you have to clamp down on them, as they are "and another thing" to be thrown at us and the visual is poor. The one they needed to clamp down on is the hit from behind late that snaps the head back as the player relaxes, but that was one of the issues early season that everyone moaned about. I dont think the games are under that much threat if the care is good and the training is a bit more carefully managed. The real threat is how much the settlement is going to be and who pays it and how.

Totally agree here... think that is exactly what the RFL do.. "oh thank god they've come along... lets hope they can make it work" rather than "what can we do to help you?" I too hope that IMG look at this slightly differently and can marry helping the French grow (which is key to a lot IMHO) whilst not damaging the domestic scene.

Is this not part of the problem though... we talk about subscribers, and I am sure that is a thing, but secondary to that will be ad revenue. Therefore it is quite important who is going to watch Cats v Toulouse over say Leigh v Fev.. as a casual viewer is it not? How important is a different question of course. But its something that has to be taken into consideration and, of course, its all about the balance. I loved Fev as a kid (no idea why) but I wouldn't watch say Leigh v Fev over Cats v Toulouse.. but i would watch say Fev v Cats or Leigh v Cats... so is it a case of 1 is ok for the balance to do what we are talking about or does it need both etc... Which is the casual fan more likely to turn on and therefore what is more likely to have more eyes on and make the ad space more worthwhile/expensive? genuinely don't know and we'll just be speculating but in reality its not all about subscriptions IMHO it will go deeper now.

oooooh look at you with your fancy french... you're obvious Lower Upper working upper middle bourgeois class...

you are Confucius and I claim my £5

which is fair enough.. been a busy few years lately with all those tours they've been on!

excellent thank you... I'm glad to be included

dammit hadnt read your post before replying to GJs!

I'm not..