That Leicester 3rd kit would’ve been Top 3 for sure!!!! Poor research Thogmug😝 always a pleasure tho mate, keep smashing it, 1 MILLION subs is nearly there👌🙌
@@thecyclinggk THOGMUG! lol but yeah, i just wanted to say that that browny leicester kit that thogmug showed isn’t the official third kit, leicester did an announcement video and it looks bloody amazing ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-8EQRGf9GQPU.html
Arsenal haven't released a bad kit since Adidas came in. The 21/22 home was the only average shirt they've done lately, and it was still miles better than most of what Puma produced. This year was absolute gold across the board for the Gunners shirts.
Brighton fan here the reason they do third kit is previous away is to save money and it allows people to get the away kit they loved but didn't have enough money for it at the time and that kit sold out as soon as it came out so I had to wait until this season to buy it
I'm a 31 year old man. In late 2020 I was coming down off a brutal 2 year cocaine addiction and couldn't leave my bed for a month. I discovered thogden and thogdad then an I'll tell ya now they got me through that brutal time
The 3rd kit for Southampton is based on the Spitfire, cos we are the home of the Spitfire. It's beautiful. Fozzy is definitely wrong is if he's placing Villa and Brighton above Southampton.
first trio of kits puma have done right for city, shows different eras for city. Home is colin bell, Away is 2012, and the third is our period of 3rd kits that were bright yellow. its nice.
I like my club West Hams third kit, along with Southampton's Brentford's, Arsenals, and Crystal Palace Brighton's one is good but the same as their away kit last season
The Brighton kit was driven by the fans demand as last years second strip was one of the most popular ever hence the decision to continue it for another year. This means fans are not being completely ripped off annually with 3 new kits, this should become the standard process rather than the constant money grabbing.
Exactly what I was thinking! £80 odd quid for a shirt that's only worn a handful of games a season. They should have the 3rd kit for 2 seasons and have to wear the away kit away from home even if the home kit doesn't clash!
As a city fan, the choice of color is going to be eye catching as it allows players to see more vividly around the pitch and make it easy on the eye so I don't mind 12th or 16th place. Cheers!
@@dantralius9269 I would agree, but it's puma they make funky jersey which is common. All 3 City kit colors have better contrast than many other teams.
That's not the Liverpool 3rd kit... it's dark green with the same patter as the away kit in a slightly lighter green, with fluorescent red cuffs and collar. It's been properly leaked for a long time tbh, idk how you managed to get the wrong one.
It may be, but it is a horrible thing for club economics. By reusing kits, the club limits its income. People who bought the kit the previous season won't buy the rereleased kit. The revenue from sales of kits factors into the FFP calculation every club has to follow. The more revenue they generate, the higher budget they can have for player signings.
@@brianeleighton Weird how clubs never went bust or couldn't afford signings when they all kept kits for 2 years at a time, when they sold them for £40 each and only had 2 kits per year.
@@chrisdorling6958 Not that weird when you consider FFP regulations didn't exist then. Prior to those regulations clubs could just operate in the red year in and year out. Now the wage bill is tied to club revenues. It is why Man City got in trouble. They had super rich owners who bought players, but didn't have the revenues to fit under the rules. Edit: Also many, MANY clubs have gone into bankruptcy proceedings due to lack of revenue combined with high wages.
@@brianeleighton Yes I do understand extremely basic football finance concepts thanks. Bottom line, £210 worth of kits per year (£270 if printed, £330 if authentic versions) is an absolute rip off for fans and every team should be mandated to 2 yearly rotations like the original premier league clubs agreed to in 1992. Brighton and Brentford should be applauded for taking what will be a minor revenue hit, and may well be rewarded with increased fan loyalty because of it.
@@chrisdorling6958 I would argue that the FFP rules that push clubs into this practice need some reforms. Under current rules, clubs are being pushed into this practice. I agree that clubs are sort of being forced into soaking supporters for every bit they can get. FFP is great for the game in theory. In practice, it needs some tweaks for the good of the supporters.
Thogden seriously hates football clubs reusing kits. Brighton have done a similar thing to Brentford, and only having 2 new kits a year saves fans money. Two year kits are great, and it automatically saves fans money which is never bad
They do realise that’s what clubs used to do what Brighton have done with having last season’s away kit as this season’s third kit. Nothing wrong with that….
For the Brighton third kit, many league 1/2 clubs do that. Make their away kit their third because They don’t have the funds for making a new one but Brighton do. They literally just sold cucurella for £60m