The all new 2025 Kit Thread!

[tuutaisrambo]

Broncos are one of the very few teams to change their kit design in the NRL this year

2024

2025

Edited January 9 by tuutaisrambo

[Eddie]

2 minutes ago, tuutaisrambo said:

Broncos are one of the very few teams to change their kit design in the NRL this year

2024

2025

A massive improvement. 

[tuutaisrambo]

and finally (after 20 years) St George Dragons are no longer sponsored by the St George Bank Dragon

[Eddie]

1 hour ago, tuutaisrambo said:

Parramatta's new kit has an old school sponsor

Gold Coast Titans still can't get a sponsor that doesn't look horrendous

That Eels jersey is great. The less said about the Titans’ the better though. 

[Wellsy4HullFC]

4 hours ago, tuutaisrambo said:

South Sydney have gone outside the box with their home and away kits this year

I mean seriously, what is the point in even having an alternative?

[Wellsy4HullFC]

4 hours ago, tuutaisrambo said:

South Sydney have gone outside the box with their home and away kits this year

I mean seriously, what is the point in even having an alternative?

[LeytherRob]

17 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

I mean seriously, what is the point in even having an alternative?

I get the argument of having consistent design etc for brand awareness but it’s just not for me. I find it really boring and it’s just comes off really lazy from a design perspective.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

27 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

I get the argument of having consistent design etc for brand awareness but it’s just not for me. I find it really boring and it’s just comes off really lazy from a design perspective.

I mean it's the anyone that decides they wouldn't buy it because it's white/black? You're just eliminating the possibility of people buying 2 shirts.

[fighting irish]

17 hours ago, Eddie said:

Tbf the Wirral was a hotbed of Viking activity and they also took Chester for a while before Queen Athelflaed recaptured it, so I assume they were active around Widnes also. 

 

17 hours ago, tuutaisrambo said:

Lindisfarne........around 160miles North of Goole

 

16 hours ago, Barley Mow said:

Getting very off topic now, but Widnes is considerable further away from Lindisfarne!

For those interested - moving forward from where the first Vikings first 'came ashore' in what's now England - below represents the territory they held in 911. Goole well within it, Widnes on the border between Danish and English (Merician) kingdoms which is here shown as being the Mersey. As @Eddie points out - Vikings also on the Wirral.

Maybe back to some kits next!

Thanks fellas, it just shows my ignorance of the history of the Viking ''invasion''.

In truth, my knowledge of history is very limited indeed. 

If we were on University Challenge, my specialist subject would be the life and times of Elvis Aaron Presley.

As an aside, I was a bit disappointed no-one responded to my name-change suggestion for the Chemics.

I thought (tongue in cheek) that Widnes Tinks would have provoked some sort of response. 

[Eddie]

1 minute ago, fighting irish said:

 

 

Thanks fellas, it just shows my ignorance of the history of the Viking ''invasion''.

In truth, my knowledge of history is very limited indeed. 

If we were on University Challenge, my specialist subject would be the life and times of Elvis Aaron Presley.

As an aside, I was a bit disappointed no-one responded to my name-change suggestion for the Chemics.

I thought (tongue in cheek) that Widnes Tinks would have provoked some sort of response. 

I’ve only just got the gag - didn’t know what you were on about when you first said it

[RP London]

17 hours ago, Barley Mow said:

Getting very off topic now, but Widnes is considerable further away from Lindisfarne!

For those interested - moving forward from where the first Vikings first 'came ashore' in what's now England - below represents the territory they held in 911. Goole well within it, Widnes on the border between Danish and English (Merician) kingdoms which is here shown as being the Mersey. As @Eddie points out - Vikings also on the Wirral.

Maybe back to some kits next!

To be fair, Goole has more rights to the word Vikings as the raiders were "vikings", those that came and settled were simply Norse. To go Viking was to go pillaging and raiding by sea so the original landing Norse were the vikings, post that they were Norse settlers... Pedantic I know but thats the fun of this sort of thing.. so Widnes should really be the "Norse Settlers" rather than "Vikings".

[Spidey]

43 minutes ago, RP London said:

so Widnes should really be the "Norse Settlers" rather than "Vikings".

Catchy

[RP London]

14 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Catchy

I thought it was marginally better than Widnes Those that Came from Across the Seas and Settled

[Eddie]

59 minutes ago, RP London said:

To be fair, Goole has more rights to the word Vikings as the raiders were "vikings", those that came and settled were simply Norse. To go Viking was to go pillaging and raiding by sea so the original landing Norse were the vikings, post that they were Norse settlers... Pedantic I know but thats the fun of this sort of thing.. so Widnes should really be the "Norse Settlers" rather than "Vikings".

Yes but the Vikings on the Wirral and Cheshire who came for the Battle of Brunanburh came from Ireland (originally Scandinavian but had created a kingdom there centred around Dublin) so they were Vikings also. Not something I ever thought I’d be saying on the TRL forum. 

Edited January 10 by Eddie

[RP London]

Just now, Eddie said:

Yes but the Vikings on the Wirral and Cheshire who came for the Battle of Brunanburh came from Ireland (originally Scandinavian but had created a kingdom there centred around Dublin) so they were Vikings also. 

that was 150-200 years after the vikings had settled in Dublin though so would that really constitute "Viking" as they were now only of "Scandinavian origin" rather than being those from Scandinavia? i could happily go either way on that..

There is an interesting train of thought going down that line of thought that the Norman Conquest was infact just an extension of the Viking invasions and not a wholesale change the governance of the kingdom as William descended from Rolo who came over with the great heathen army...  

[Spidey]

When did Leopards roam the town of Leigh?

[Eddie]

10 minutes ago, RP London said:

that was 150-200 years after the vikings had settled in Dublin though so would that really constitute "Viking" as they were now only of "Scandinavian origin" rather than being those from Scandinavia? i could happily go either way on that..

There is an interesting train of thought going down that line of thought that the Norman Conquest was infact just an extension of the Viking invasions and not a wholesale change the governance of the kingdom as William descended from Rolo who came over with the great heathen army...  

Good point re the Irish Norse, though if they were going Viking I’d say they could still probably be considered Vikings.  
 

On your second point I’d argue against as a lot of the Norman army were mercenaries and not of Scandinavian descent, even though their leaders were. Was Rollo definitely in England before he took Normandy btw? Genuine question I’ve never heard that before. 

[Harry Stottle]

20 hours ago, fighting irish said:

 

Aren't they (Goole) a bit closer to where the Vikings came ashore?

Did they (the Vikings) ever get around to Widnes?

Perhaps they should trade, in which case the Chemics would need a new name.

What about ''the Tinks''?

Why? Do a google search on ''what is Widnes famous for''  and you'll get the pun.  

There's another pun around these parts relating to making love to a young lady and going to Widnes!

[Just Browny]

12 hours ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

I mean it's the anyone that decides they wouldn't buy it because it's white/black? You're just eliminating the possibility of people buying 2 shirts.

Yes it does seem odd. I find it hard to believe they would even bother selling the 'alternative' shirt to fans - why bother?

Coupled with the fact the design is the same every year, you have to assume they consider the brand identity of greater value than the revenue from shirt sales. I would certainly wear each shirt down to the bare threads before buying another identical new one.

Edited January 10 by Just Browny

[Harry Stottle]

13 minutes ago, Spidey said:

When did Leopards roam the town of Leigh?

How many other teams do you wish to include with animal monikers that roam around their towns?

[hunsletgreenandgold]

Just now, Harry Stottle said:

How many other teams do you wish to include with animal monikers that roam around their towns?

Can confirm Leeds has plenty of rhinos kicking about - predominantly found in their natural habitat, outside kebab shops

[Chrispmartha]

14 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

How many other teams do you wish to include with animal monikers that roam around their towns?

I think (could be wrong) that he is making that point that monikers don’t actually have to have anything to do with the area. He’s not I don’t think having a dig at Leigh.

[Worzel]

18 hours ago, tuutaisrambo said:

South Sydney have gone outside the box with their home and away kits this year

Always loved this. In the flesh they do look surprisingly distinct, because they're respectively paired with black or white shorts to match, and have black or white trim on the socks to match.

Communicates a really strong, unique and consistent identity and one of the reasons Souths are such a powerful sporting brand. There's a reason we have a "South's guy" trend on social media, where you see people in Souths shirts in the most random of places. It's because you notice them, and know what it is.

They have an additonal alternate shirt (for Canberra games) that people can buy if they want a radical change, and there's loads of other training shirts - it's not like having one less distinctive "away" shirt really limits customer choice, or the club's ability to sell multiple items to one fan.

Too many Super League clubs, mine as much as any other, dilute their brand equity in the chase for the short term fix of selling a few replica shirts.  

[LeytherRob]

2 minutes ago, Worzel said:

Always loved this. In the flesh they do look surprisingly distinct, because they're respectively paired with black or white shorts to match, and have black or white trim on the socks to match.

Communicates a really strong, unique and consistent identity and one of the reasons Souths are such a powerful sporting brand. There's a reason we have a "South's guy" trend on social media, where you see people in Souths shirts in the most random of places. It's because you notice them, and know what it is.

They have an additonal alternate shirt (for Canberra games) that people can buy if they want a radical change, and there's loads of other training shirts - it's not like having one less distinctive "away" shirt really limits customer choice, or the club's ability to sell multiple items to one fan.

Too many Super League clubs, mine as much as any other, dilute their brand equity in the chase for the short term fix of selling a few replica shirts.  

It's not a luxury you can afford when there isn't a monster TV deal making up a good % of turnover. Selling a few replica shirts can go a long way in a smaller sport like UK RL and UK clubs should absolutely be maximising their revenue streams any way they can.

[RP London]

1 hour ago, Eddie said:

Good point re the Irish Norse, though if they were going Viking I’d say they could still probably be considered Vikings.  
 

On your second point I’d argue against as a lot of the Norman army were mercenaries and not of Scandinavian descent, even though their leaders were. Was Rollo definitely in England before he took Normandy btw? Genuine question I’ve never heard that before. 

Agree on all of this.. think we could use this as Widnes "Once were Vikings" vs Goole "Vikings" and billed as the "original origin game"... could be fun 

in terms of Rollo I believe so yes (although to be fair this is going right back to my Anglo Saxon England module of A-Level history which I did in 1996 so I may be mistaken) as he was in the siege of Paris against Charles the Fat which IIRC used England as a staging post as they had settled the Danelaw by that point and a lot of the "Vikings" who had been fighting in England were restless so were used in the massive fleet that sailed there. 

Edited January 10 by RP London