NUFC kits & merchandise

[BottledDog]

Definitely a photoshopped logo. Why would it be white behind the logo on the black stripes?

 

Because the logo would be almost unreadable without a background to it and the stripes going all the way through?

[smithywill]

Funny how the Fun88 logo used is the same one from the Wikipedia page.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fun88

 

Well aye, because that's their logo.  I'd be more interested if someone can find that shot of Gayle before the supposed "photoshop"  Every year it gets leaked and every year people say the eventual real kit leak is obviously photoshopped until it's announced and revealed as correct.

 

If you Google around you'll see a fair few variations of their logo, some with the Chinese symbols on top some without, some in different colours too. Their Wiki page is the second listed if you Google Fun88 suggesting whoever mocked this up didn't dig very fair to get a decent image.

[Guest reefatoon]

Definitely a photoshopped logo. Why would it be white behind the logo on the black stripes?

 

Because the logo would be almost unreadable without a background to it and the stripes going all the way through?

 

No it wouldn't, it would have a fine white line around it, but like NUFCJB said, the F and N are partially free of white on the bottom parts of the letters but not on the top halves. It is inconsistent, so looks photoshopped on for me.

[Dave]

Definitely a photoshopped logo. Why would it be white behind the logo on the black stripes?

 

Because the logo would be almost unreadable without a background to it and the stripes going all the way through?

 

No it wouldn't, it would have a fine white line around it, but like NUFCJB said, the F and N are partially free of white on the bottom parts of the letters but not on the top halves. It is inconsistent, so looks photoshopped on for me.

 

The patch is much cheaper that way, think you're clutching at straws tbh.

[Guest firetotheworks]

Whether the logo's photoshopped on or not, the kit obviously isn't like, so why would whoever had the image without the sponsor on not just release it that way? There's no logic to it, just guesswork.

[BottledDog]

Definitely a photoshopped logo. Why would it be white behind the logo on the black stripes?

 

Because the logo would be almost unreadable without a background to it and the stripes going all the way through?

 

No it wouldn't, it would have a fine white line around it, but like NUFCJB said, the F and N are partially free of white on the bottom parts of the letters but not on the top halves. It is inconsistent, so looks photoshopped on for me.

 

Because the top halves as you put it, are not at the top of the whole design.

 

There is no difference to the top or bottom of the logo, a small white border runs around the whole thing, something you might chose to do if the background was busy (in this case with stripes).

 

You might be right though, In some ways I hope you are.

 

If they are our sponsor though I don't imagine much different on the official release.

[nemtizz]

When they've previously sponsored football teams they also have a tag line under the logo too. "Sportsbook & Casino"

 

http://www.merawindows.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/News_article9_en-US_1.jpg

 

It would look 10x worse with that at the bottom. Now I'm okay with our version.

[astraguy]

https://twitter.com/Thepparith/status/864053933404110848/photo/1

That looks far better, Donno how to edit so the tweet can be seen on here rather then clicking sorry

[Figures 1-0 Football]

Like that, a lot.

[nemtizz]

https://twitter.com/Thepparith/status/864053933404110848/photo/1

That looks far better, Donno how to edit so the tweet can be seen on here rather then clicking sorry

 

Here:

 

[smithywill]

That one looks better but I still think it's fake.

[Guest reefatoon]

Looking forward to seeing the real version (as it will look much better) and not these photoshopped ones.

[Guest firetotheworks]

Unreal.

[NUFC_Chris]

I'm pleased there's no panel on the front for a sponsor, and from the vid it looked like a striped back as well. Sponsor looks naff, but there you go, can't have everything.

 

Red numbers on the back though wasn't it, might be a bit odd with the blue sponsor?

[Guest reefatoon]

That second one isn't even a real football kit man!

[Guest reefatoon]

Unreal.

 

Look around the top of the chinese writing and the bottom of the "f" it is pixelated to fuck. Also the kit istelf is not real.

[Guest firetotheworks]

Unreal.

 

Look around the top of the chinese writing and the bottom of the "f" it is pixelated to fuck. Also the kit istelf is not real.

 

If it's photoshopped on, the kit definitely isn't, so at best it's possibly a photoshop of what will be exactly the same thing. Beyond that, if it's a photoshop, where's the version of the kit without the sponsor, or a different sponsor? I really think you're clutching at straws like.

 

EDIT: Hads on, the kit itself is not real? Ah you mean that one just above, well aye, but the Gayle one's real.

[Guest reefatoon]

Unreal.

 

Look around the top of the chinese writing and the bottom of the "f" it is pixelated to f***. Also the kit istelf is not real.

 

If it's photoshopped on, the kit definitely isn't, so at best it's possibly a photoshop of what will be exactly the same thing. Beyond that, if it's a photoshop, where's the version of the kit without the sponsor, or a different sponsor? I really think you're clutching at straws like.

 

Of course the kit is on that second one (not the one on Gayle).  The shading down the left hand side under the Puma is shading not a real fold. It is blatant.

[Guest firetotheworks]

Unreal.

 

Look around the top of the chinese writing and the bottom of the "f" it is pixelated to f***. Also the kit istelf is not real.

 

If it's photoshopped on, the kit definitely isn't, so at best it's possibly a photoshop of what will be exactly the same thing. Beyond that, if it's a photoshop, where's the version of the kit without the sponsor, or a different sponsor? I really think you're clutching at straws like.

 

Of course the kit is on that second one (not the one on Gayle).  The shading down the left hand side under the Puma is shading not a real fold. It is blatant.

 

...and the one that Gayle's wearing? That's the one I'm talking about.

[nufcjb]

Still no confirmation yet if Fun88 are the sponsor too right?

[Guest reefatoon]

Unreal.

 

Look around the top of the chinese writing and the bottom of the "f" it is pixelated to f***. Also the kit istelf is not real.

 

If it's photoshopped on, the kit definitely isn't, so at best it's possibly a photoshop of what will be exactly the same thing. Beyond that, if it's a photoshop, where's the version of the kit without the sponsor, or a different sponsor? I really think you're clutching at straws like.

 

EDIT: Hads on, the kit itself is not real? You're kidding?

 

The shirt on Gayle is real, and I think that was taken when they made that little teaser video a little while back (that showed the red numbers), but before a sponsor was finalised. I am not saying Fun88 isn't going to be the sponsor, it more than likely is, It is just on the image to me it doesn't look real and I think when we see it officially it will look a lot better than it does on the Gayle image. That second one is a drawn mock up of how it will look.

[Guest firetotheworks]

Can someone link me to the non-photoshopped Gayle one then?

[Guest firetotheworks]

I sort of get what you're saying. I can't see it looking much different to that Gayle one though.

[Guest reefatoon]

I sort of get what you're saying. I can't see it looking much different to that Gayle one though.

 

I think it might look a little smaller, as on that image it looks a bit oversized. (also hopefully a little straighter too!)

[Elma]

Funny how the Fun88 logo used is the same one from the Wikipedia page.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fun88

 

I'm in Turkey. What's this Wikipedia you speak of...?