|
|
Post by tvor on Jul 27, 2019 20:37:03 GMT 1
Bradford are introducing ‘heritage numbers’ this season. It’s the same format that international cricketers have and their shirt will have number representing their place on the list of all the people who’ve played for the club. Bus-dodging midfielder Jacob Butterfield is currently BCFC’s newest player and is 1,278 on their list.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2019 21:10:05 GMT 1
Bradford are introducing ‘heritage numbers’ this season. It’s the same format that international cricketers have and their shirt will have number representing their place on the list of all the people who’ve played for the club. Bus-dodging midfielder Jacob Butterfield is currently BCFC’s newest player and is 1,278 on their list. Hope the numbers are readable, unlike Towns. Big mistake and not for the first time. Nice shirts, a pity the numbers aren't. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2019 21:25:24 GMT 1
Our latest is 954 Matty Daly.
I agree about the number colours, should be red.
|
|
|
|
Post by Porrohman on Jul 27, 2019 21:32:09 GMT 1
Our latest is 954 Matty Daly. I agree about the number colours, should be red. Nah, Town always look better with dark trim than red |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2019 1:47:27 GMT 1
Having become an expert in FA kit guidelines as all Town fans are, I would say that the Bradford shirt is definitely in breach of the rules and wouldn’t be allowed.
Numbers of individual personal significance that aren’t the players official shirt number are ONLY allowed on the boots or on a keepers gloves.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2019 8:26:22 GMT 1
Our latest is 954 Matty Daly. I agree about the number colours, should be red. Nah, Town always look better with dark trim than red In general I agree regarding red trim, however where the numbers are concerned it's either a white patch with black numbers or red. As it is they are not fit for purpose as they are lost in the stripes. A nightmare yesterday trying to ascertain who's who amongst all the 'new lads'. |
|
k1man999
Andy Booth Terrier
Posts: 3,509
|
Post by k1man999 on Jul 28, 2019 8:43:41 GMT 1
Nah, Town always look better with dark trim than red In general I agree regarding red trim, however where the numbers are concerned it's either a white patch with black numbers or red. As it is they are not fit for purpose as they are lost in the stripes. A nightmare yesterday trying to ascertain who's who amongst all the 'new lads'. Maybe being a bit thick, but now the squad numbers have been released why weren't the names on the shirts. |
|
|
|
Post by Porrohman on Jul 28, 2019 8:48:44 GMT 1
I've always found that recognising the players was much easier than trying to read the numbers on the shirts 🤔
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2019 8:51:23 GMT 1
I've always found that recognising the players was much easier than trying to read the numbers on the shirts 🤔 That's why I specified 'new lads'.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2019 10:08:08 GMT 1
Having become an expert in FA kit guidelines as all Town fans are, I would say that the Bradford shirt is definitely in breach of the rules and wouldn’t be allowed. Numbers of individual personal significance that aren’t the players official shirt number are ONLY allowed on the boots or on a keepers gloves. The FA/EFL have already said they will allow it, I saw it on Twitter a few weeks back. A few rugby league teams do it also. |
|
|
|
Post by einediemengedochsen on Jul 28, 2019 11:01:55 GMT 1
Having become an expert in FA kit guidelines as all Town fans are, I would say that the Bradford shirt is definitely in breach of the rules and wouldn’t be allowed. Numbers of individual personal significance that aren’t the players official shirt number are ONLY allowed on the boots or on a keepers gloves. It’s ok if it’s area is smaller than an A5 sheet of paper folded twice and cut in half!  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2019 11:08:37 GMT 1
Having become an expert in FA kit guidelines as all Town fans are, I would say that the Bradford shirt is definitely in breach of the rules and wouldn’t be allowed. Numbers of individual personal significance that aren’t the players official shirt number are ONLY allowed on the boots or on a keepers gloves. The FA/EFL have already said they will allow it, I saw it on Twitter a few weeks back. A few rugby league teams do it also. They might have said they’ll allow it, but it’s 100% definitely against the kit regulations. Not sure what relevance rugby league has 🤷♂️ Snooker players wear bow ties but I’m sure they’d be frowned upon on a footballer. |
|
|
|
Post by tvor on Jul 28, 2019 11:35:43 GMT 1
The FA/EFL have already said they will allow it, I saw it on Twitter a few weeks back. A few rugby league teams do it also. They might have said they’ll allow it, but it’s 100% definitely against the kit regulations. Not sure what relevance rugby league has 🤷♂️ Snooker players wear bow ties but I’m sure they’d be frowned upon on a footballer.Unless Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes Sports Minister. |
|
|
|
Post by tvor on Jul 28, 2019 11:37:25 GMT 1
Our latest is 954 Matty Daly. I agree about the number colours, should be red. Less matches in the past, no games during WW2 and no subs but I’m still slightly surprised at how low this is. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2019 11:51:55 GMT 1
Our latest is 954 Matty Daly. I agree about the number colours, should be red. Less matches in the past, no games during WW2 and no subs but I’m still slightly surprised at how low this is. It’s more than 8:new players every year for 110 year (and slightly more because of the war gap). I’m surprised it’s so high.....some seasons it seems like we’ve brought in only one or two new players. |
|
|
|
Post by Mecha Corte on Jul 28, 2019 11:55:26 GMT 1
Bradford are introducing ‘heritage numbers’ this season. It’s the same format that international cricketers have and their shirt will have number representing their place on the list of all the people who’ve played for the club. Bus-dodging midfielder Jacob Butterfield is currently BCFC’s newest player and is 1,278 on their list. Hope the numbers are readable, unlike Towns. Big mistake and not for the first time. Nice shirts, a pity the numbers aren't. Don't we have to use EFL style numbers ? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2019 11:57:56 GMT 1
Hope the numbers are readable, unlike Towns. Big mistake and not for the first time. Nice shirts, a pity the numbers aren't. Don't we have to use EFL style numbers ? Yes, but the background makes them unreadable from any sort of distance. |
|
Tinpot
Mental Health Support Group
I'm really tinpot
Posts: 22,122 
|
Post by Tinpot on Jul 28, 2019 12:15:49 GMT 1
TBF to them I think it's a nice touch.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2019 12:56:16 GMT 1
Less matches in the past, no games during WW2 and no subs but I’m still slightly surprised at how low this is. It’s more than 8:new players every year for 110 year (and slightly more because of the war gap). I’m surprised it’s so high.....some seasons it seems like we’ve brought in only one or two new players. We used 91 players in our first 3 seasons (1908-1911). This century we have used 239 players, so well over 10 new players per season, 48 being in the Lee Clark era (Dec 2008 to Feb 2012). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2019 13:09:28 GMT 1
It’s more than 8:new players every year for 110 year (and slightly more because of the war gap). I’m surprised it’s so high.....some seasons it seems like we’ve brought in only one or two new players. We used 91 players in our first 3 seasons (1908-1911). This century we have used 239 players, so well over 10 new players per season, 48 being in the Lee Clark era (Dec 2008 to Feb 2012). Yup would recognise that recent years teams turnover much quicker. It didn’t seem that way when I started watching in the 1980s, and the theme in the years before money took over players were less likely to move around, and were “more loyal”. First few years you’d expect a huge turnover....and recent years have seen similar squad regeneration almost every other season, but in between, blooding more than 7 or 8 new players per season would have been highly unusual. Hence why the 8 players per season bears out across the full history I guess, skewed upwards by the early years and the recent money splashing years. |
|
|
|
Post by sapphireblue on Jul 28, 2019 13:37:01 GMT 1
Successful teams use fewer players.
|
|
ambryboy
Jimmy Glazzard Terrier
Posts: 4,612
|
Post by ambryboy on Jul 28, 2019 15:44:29 GMT 1
Successful teams use fewer players. 11 is a good starting point though, much below that and I think success levels would diminish  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2019 15:31:38 GMT 1
We used 91 players in our first 3 seasons (1908-1911). This century we have used 239 players, so well over 10 new players per season, 48 being in the Lee Clark era (Dec 2008 to Feb 2012). Yup would recognise that recent years teams turnover much quicker. It didn’t seem that way when I started watching in the 1980s, and the theme in the years before money took over players were less likely to move around, and were “more loyal”. First few years you’d expect a huge turnover....and recent years have seen similar squad regeneration almost every other season, but in between, blooding more than 7 or 8 new players per season would have been highly unusual. Hence why the 8 players per season bears out across the full history I guess, skewed upwards by the early years and the recent money splashing years. Indeed, the early years we were in 3 different league competitions so explains the large number of players. The below is a breakdown of when we reached each century landmark. You see the 1910's to 50's were quite lean, going around 17-19 years for 100 new players to appear (obviously the wars played a part in that). Then up to date it has slowly got shorter and shorter, 8 years between players 800 and 900, so we are probably looking at around 2022/2023 for player 1000 to make his appearance. Number-Player-Date of debut 100-W.Martin-16/12/1911 200-T.Wade-24/09/1929 300-F.Reid-21/12/1946 400-B.Legg-09/01/1965 500-K.Ripley-15/08/1978 600-D.Campbell-01/09/1990 700-D.Hamilton-16/02/1999 800-R.Page-26/01/2008 900-J.Wilkinson-25/04/2015 954-M.Daly-20/04/2019 |
|
|
|
Post by Mecha Corte on Jul 29, 2019 19:11:57 GMT 1
So as a fan for now 44 years, I've seen approx half of every player to represent my team which is 111 years old, a few others on here will be nearer to 75%, that's quite a sobering thought.
|
|
|
|
Post by Walton-on-the-Hill Terrier on Jul 29, 2019 19:46:24 GMT 1
So as a fan for now 44 years, I've seen approx half of every player to represent my team which is 111 years old, a few others on here will be nearer to 75%, that's quite a sobering thought. I’ve followed Town since late in the 64-65 season. I’ve seen precisely 503 players play for Town in that time. I’m guessing there’s perhaps another 20 or so players that have played for them since 64-65 who I never saw, through living abroad for a while then living down south and not seeing much of Town between 1985-93. Off the top of my head I can think of Alan McNeil, Alex Dyer, Mike Williams, Quinlan, Hurst, Madrick, Delaney, Watts, Neil McNab, Moulden, Ripley, McGrellis who I never saw. |
|
|
|
Post by sapphireblue on Jul 29, 2019 20:09:29 GMT 1
So as a fan for now 44 years, I've seen approx half of every player to represent my team which is 111 years old, a few others on here will be nearer to 75%, that's quite a sobering thought. through living abroad for a while then living down south and not seeing much of Town between 1885-93. Fuck me, how old are you? |
|
|
|
Post by Walton-on-the-Hill Terrier on Jul 29, 2019 20:17:34 GMT 1
through living abroad for a while then living down south and not seeing much of Town between 1885-93. Fuck me, how old are you? Oops! Edited it now. Not yet an OAP! Just looked through the Wikipedia list and I was way out with 20 players I hadn’t seen - it’s about 50. |
|
ambryboy
Jimmy Glazzard Terrier
Posts: 4,612
|
Post by ambryboy on Jul 29, 2019 23:54:53 GMT 1
So as a fan for now 44 years, I've seen approx half of every player to represent my team which is 111 years old, a few others on here will be nearer to 75%, that's quite a sobering thought. I’ve followed Town since late in the 64-65 season. I’ve seen precisely 503 players play for Town in that time. I’m guessing there’s perhaps another 20 or so players that have played for them since 64-65 who I never saw, through living abroad for a while then living down south and not seeing much of Town between 1985-93. Off the top of my head I can think of Alan McNeil, Alex Dyer, Mike Williams, Quinlan, Hurst, Madrick, Delaney, Watts, Neil McNab, Moulden, Ripley, McGrellis who I never saw. Never seeing Alex Dyer play is something to cherish - trust me! I envy you  |
|
Tinpot
Mental Health Support Group
I'm really tinpot
Posts: 22,122
|
Post by Tinpot on Jul 30, 2019 11:30:13 GMT 1
I’ve followed Town since late in the 64-65 season. I’ve seen precisely 503 players play for Town in that time. I’m guessing there’s perhaps another 20 or so players that have played for them since 64-65 who I never saw, through living abroad for a while then living down south and not seeing much of Town between 1985-93. Off the top of my head I can think of Alan McNeil, Alex Dyer, Mike Williams, Quinlan, Hurst, Madrick, Delaney, Watts, Neil McNab, Moulden, Ripley, McGrellis who I never saw. Never seeing Alex Dyer play is something to cherish - trust me! I envy you I would have suggested that missing Williams & Hurst was no loss either, but then I realised that they were spectacular in their own ways. |
|
|
|
Post by canuckterrier99 on Jul 30, 2019 11:43:50 GMT 1
Never seeing Alex Dyer play is something to cherish - trust me! I envy you I would have suggested that missing Williams & Hurst was no loss either, but then I realised that they were spectacular in their own ways. Oh, I don't know. Comedy like that is hard to find |
|
