'Well if you can't beat em' should have been the caption...

by Taylorman Fri 15 Jul 2011, 1:47 am

First topic message reminder :

Rugby commentator Keith Quinn has labelled plans by the England team to wear an all-black strip at the Rugby World Cup as ''crazy''.

''Of all the colours in the rainbow, why would they choose the colour of the host nation?'' he said.

''They are thumbing their noses at a New Zealand tradition. It's bizarre."

The new away strip will feature when England kick-off their World Cup campaign against Argentina in Dunedin on September 10.

"The decision is certain to ruffle a few Kiwi feathers and could even spark a diplomatic row with the host nation before a ball has been kicked," The Daily Mail reported.

The shirt and the shorts of the new strip are understood to be jet black, with no other colour except for the Red Rose badge.

The iconic All Blacks jersey has a 127-year history, dating back to 1884. England's new away strip will be officially unveiled by Nike on August 1.

Quinn suspected jersey sales were behind the move.

''They will often switch jerseys so people have to buy the new colour."

The New Zealand rugby public would not be happy, Quinn said.

"I don't think they will throw things, but they will be scornful of England coming into our territory wearing black."

Asked what he thought of the English team's new black away-strip, lock Ali Williams said "I couldn't care what they wear. It's training stuff, not what they play in."

When told it was what they would play in, Williams replied: "Oh it is? All black? Let's hope they don't play us then. It'd look funny, two teams running around in black."

England's move to black also diminished its own proud red and white history, Quinn said.

"It's crazy."

While officially England's away strip, it will be worn for their three World Cup warm-up matches in August and for their tournament opener.

It could be worn for other pool games and beyond, however should England meet the All Blacks in the final they would return to their traditional white uniform.

England's training kit for the World Cup also has a Kiwi twist - with a red rose crest on the chest surrounded by ancient Maori symbols and decorations.

England players were not asked about the colour of the new kit, but were understood to be excited about wearing it even though they risk upsetting the host nation, The Daily Mail reported.

The English Rugby Football Union have spoken to their NZRU counterparts, who reportedly said they had no objection to the black strip.

The All Blacks will unveil a new high-tech jersey against South Africa in their opening Investec Tri Nations match at Westpac Stadium on July 30.

In 2007, a lost coin toss meant the All Blacks had to wear their silver away strip for their ill-fated quarter final against France in Cardiff.

France wore a blue jersey some believed had been darkened in a deliberate move to force the All Blacks out of their iconic strip into the alternate jersey.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/5289989/England-go-all-black-for-Rugby-World-Cup

Don't see any problem... If they think it will make them play better all good. Just a little odd.

Don't see why it would ruffle feathers and the NZRU have said they didn't have a problem with it though you'd think strategically people could come up with better ideas?

by PenfroPete Fri 15 Jul 2011, 4:28 pm

GG is correct with regard to ongoing negotiations

http://www.newzealandmaoricouncil.com/
“The New Zealand Māori Council was created by the Māori Welfare Act 1962. Since its establishment it has made submissions to government on many matters affecting Māori, particularly concerning the Treaty of Waitangi.”
http://www.waitangi-tribunal.govt.nz/doclibrary/public/Appendix(99).pdf
My mates dad was also a member of Maori Trust Board and a ‘Rangatira’ (best English translation is Tribal Chief) and has met his King http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10396638

by snoopster Fri 15 Jul 2011, 4:28 pm

Am I right in thinking this whole article is about a kit that no one here has actually seen yet?

If people must really whine on though, I'd suggest abetter target would be the Aussies who have already unveiled a white change strip for the WC. You know, getting upset about things that actually currently exist instead of pretend insults that haven't happened.

Unless it is all bigotry against the English, who seem to be following a trend started by other naitons?

by snoopster Fri 15 Jul 2011, 4:35 pm

TheGreyGhost wrote:We appreciate greatly you letting us borrow your little colourful ditty to fill the tiny space in onThe misconception that that the Queen is the head of state is purely a British one, and is due to the fact that the English wording of the treaty that Britain entered into, is different to the meaning of the Maori side of the treaty. Believe me, negotiations are still underway. With any luck there will be a good resolution soon.

http://www.gg.govt.nz/
"The Governor-General, Rt Hon Sir Anand Satyanand, is the personal representative of New Zealand's Head of State, Queen Elizabeth II of New Zealand."

There was even a referendum about it - if you are a New Zealander, how do you manage to know so little about your own country?

by TheGreyGhost Fri 15 Jul 2011, 4:38 pm

Nottins is an ignorant foreigner who is overly reliant on certain well known British qualities with regard to foreign countries, as evidenced in this topic conversation. Your pejorative reference to a foreign parliament smacks of the exactly the kind of arrogance for which your civilization is renowned. You'll be claiming that the Queen is the head of Libya in a minute.

by nottins Fri 15 Jul 2011, 4:42 pm

snoopster wrote:

There was even a referendum about it - if you are a New Zealander, how do you manage to know so little about your own country?

Blimey. I've just realised, he's not actually from New Zealand, but a wannabe.

by damngoodOvalball Fri 15 Jul 2011, 4:42 pm

TheGreyGhost wrote:Nottins is an ignorant foreigner who is overly reliant on certain well known British qualities with regard to foreign countries, as evidenced in this topic conversation. Your pejorative reference to a foreign parliament smacks of the exactly the kind of arrogance for which your civilization is renowned.

Calm down GG. You set out to wind the english up and usually seem to end up winding yourself up. Whilst its amusing to watch the old meltdown routtine it is becoming a tad boring. I think you have achieved your goal of becoming the very definition of being able to dish it out but not take it. Maybe time for some new material?

by funnyExiledScot Fri 15 Jul 2011, 4:44 pm

GG - this is pretty bizarre. Which "foreign Parliament" are you referring to? Have you lost it?

by TheGreyGhost Fri 15 Jul 2011, 4:44 pm

If you prefer to remain ignorant and dish out your usual nonsense then carry on in the proud British way of believing you are correct and that your broken country is still the head of some kind of global empire.

by nottins Fri 15 Jul 2011, 4:45 pm

TheGreyGhost wrote:Nottins is an ignorant foreigner who is overly reliant on certain well known British qualities with regard to foreign countries, as evidenced in this topic conversation. Your pejorative reference to a foreign parliament smacks of the exactly the kind of arrogance for which your civilization is renowned. You'll be claiming that the Queen is the head of Libya in a minute.

TGG, I'm actually not a foreigner here, you are. And the only person being ignorant about his own country is you. Are you now telling us that the New Zealand government website and its Parliament tour guides are wrong in saying the Queen of New Zealand is Queen Elizabeth II ?

by damngoodOvalball Fri 15 Jul 2011, 4:51 pm

TheGreyGhost wrote:If you prefer to remain ignorant and dish out your usual nonsense then carry on in the proud British way of believing you are correct and that your broken country is still the head of some kind of global empire.

Dude, its only you who sees it that way. Nottins was merely pointing out the fact that the Queen is the NZ Head of state. Whatever your personal feelings about this are, they dont change the fact. Noor does throwing your toys out of the pram or chucking around petty insults.

Yes our country isnt in the best of states but why it antagonises you so much is beyond me. You are eentitled to your hate filled misconceptions here.

God save your Queen and have a good weekend.

by TheGreyGhost Fri 15 Jul 2011, 4:52 pm

You are missing the point Nottins. The closest thing NZ has to a constitution is the Treaty. The treaty indicates a partnership between Britain and the Maori people. Since the treaty, Britain has seen itself in a position of governorship which is not related in that document, largely due to confusion about what the document said, what it means and how it was translated. It may be true that the Queen is the head of the British side of that partnership, but to extrapolate that in the way you appear to be trying to do is misguided.

by nottins Fri 15 Jul 2011, 4:53 pm

TheGreyGhost wrote:If you prefer to remain ignorant and dish out your usual nonsense then carry on in the proud British way of believing you are correct and that your broken country is still the head of some kind of global empire.

TGG, again, you're the one who is ignorant of the facts and throwing out personal insults.

No one has claimed the Great Britain is still the head of some kind of global empire. There is a Commonwealth with its headquarters in London. Queen Elizabeth II is the head of The Commonwealth. New Zealand is a voluntary member of The Commonwealth.

by snoopster Fri 15 Jul 2011, 4:54 pm

http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchAndCommonwealth/NewZealand/NewZealand.aspx

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0114/latest/whole.html#DLM94208

More about Kiwiland there for you to brush up on greyghost.

by TheGreyGhost Fri 15 Jul 2011, 4:56 pm

royal.gov.uk ... give me a break.

From a distance the moon appeared a silver disc criss-crossed with canals.

Unsurprisingly you have a very British point of view. These are the things you have learned, but you perhaps open your mind to new information.

by Irish Londoner Fri 15 Jul 2011, 4:57 pm

To go back to topic, this is just another way of selling shirts: white isn't exactly slimming and as pointed out previously is very susceptible to beer/wine/ketchup/curry stainage, therefore not a good or practical look for the average fan. This is no different to certain football (soccer) teams who frequently issue a second or third kit which is coloured/styled to be teamed with jeans rather than sports kit.

Not sure what the Kiwis will make of it, maybe MJ or someone else in the England camp thinks it will be a wind up, more likely its just been dumped on the team by some marketing wizards at Nike/RFU for the reasons above.

To digress re the "ownership of New Zealand" presumably this rewriting of the treaty doesn't actually give the Maori anything concrete back in terms of land rights, mineral and fishing rights or national wealth and the immigrant population (mostly descended from the arrogant civilisation) will continue to actually own and run the place.

by damngoodOvalball Fri 15 Jul 2011, 4:58 pm

or maybe just accept that you're wrong and move on?

by nottins Fri 15 Jul 2011, 4:59 pm

TheGreyGhost wrote:royal.gov.uk ... give me a break.

I presume www.legislation.govt.nz is also wrong ?

by TheGreyGhost Fri 15 Jul 2011, 5:00 pm

Irish Londoner wrote:To go back to topic, this is just another way of selling shirts: white isn't exactly slimming and as pointed out previously is very susceptible to beer/wine/ketchup/curry stainage, therefore not a good or practical look for the average fan. This is no different to certain football (soccer) teams who frequently issue a second or third kit which is coloured/styled to be teamed with jeans rather than sports kit.

Not sure what the Kiwis will make of it, maybe MJ or someone else in the England camp thinks it will be a wind up, more likely its just been dumped on the team by some marketing wizards at Nike/RFU for the reasons above.

To digress re the "ownership of New Zealand" presumably this rewriting of the treaty doesn't actually give the Maori anything concrete back in terms of land rights, mineral and fishing rights or national wealth and the immigrant population (mostly descended from the arrogant civilisation) will continue to actually own and run the place.

I agree whole heartedly with your first point. Third point, no, it does, and will continue to do so. Nothing is being rewritten, like the laws of rugby it is increasingly being interpreted more correctly and due remediation is being taken.

by snoopster Fri 15 Jul 2011, 5:02 pm

TheGreyGhost wrote:From a distance the moon appeared a silver disc criss-crossed with canals.

Unsurprisingly you have a very British point of view. These are the things you have learned, but you perhaps open your mind to new information.

But you are a smart greyghost so you know better - you've lived on the moon all your life and know it is actually a giant tennis ball.... seriously, do you ever stop with the nonsense?

by snoopster Fri 15 Jul 2011, 5:04 pm

The closest thing NZ has to a constitution is the Treaty.

You mean if you ignore the constitution I already linked you to?

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0114/latest/whole.html#DLM94208

by doctor_grey Fri 15 Jul 2011, 5:05 pm

For all countries where Her Majesty is Head of State, we are not technically foreign countries at all. We are co-fraternal, brothers-in-arms under her loving embrace. Therefore, you should all be thankful for the benevolences bestowed by Elizabeth Regina and her forebears.

Britain does not have a consititution, so should a former domimion have one? Britain is in the heart folks. Don't whinge about it, just share the love..............

by damngoodOvalball Fri 15 Jul 2011, 5:08 pm

Right, in summary on the thread (so far):

- Whilst the new black shirt might be useful in hiding stains and having a slimming effect, it is ultimately a money making ploy by the RFU/Nike.

- Most Kiwi's dont really care or take offense about it.

- The NZ Head of State is HRH Queen Elizabeth II.

- GG was totally owned. Yet again.

by TheGreyGhost Fri 15 Jul 2011, 5:11 pm

doctor_grey wrote:For all countries where Her Majesty is Head of State, we are not technically foreign countries at all. We are co-fraternal, brothers-in-arms under her loving embrace. Therefore, you should all be thankful for the benevolences bestowed by Elizabeth Regina and her forebears.

Britain does not have a consititution, so should a former domimion have one? Britain is in the heart folks. Don't whinge about it, just share the love..............

Nope. You are completely wrong. Entirely a British misconception I'm afraid. And as for thankful - you should be thankful that the treaty saved your colonising skins from the Dutch and the French or your empire might've fallen apart 100 years earlier than it did.

by TheGreyGhost Fri 15 Jul 2011, 5:12 pm

damngoodOvalball wrote:Right, in summary on the thread (so far):

- Whilst the new black shirt might be useful in hiding stains and having a slimming effect, it is ultimately a money making ploy by the RFU/Nike.

- Most Kiwi's dont really care or take offense about it.

- The NZ Head of State is HRH Queen Elizabeth II.

- GG was totally owned. Yet again.

A british person misunderstanding the term "owned"... how topical.

by damngoodOvalball Fri 15 Jul 2011, 5:14 pm

I fully understand the word "owned" both in terms of its actual (dictionary defined) meaning, and its slang meaning (beaten, defeated, humbled)

by doctor_grey Fri 15 Jul 2011, 5:16 pm

GG, you appear the be resisting the need to share the love. C'mon. Give us all a hug.

by irishlondon Fri 15 Jul 2011, 5:18 pm

This is classic. Keep digging GG, you might end up hitting Britian after all!! zen

by snoopster Fri 15 Jul 2011, 5:23 pm

TheGreyGhost wrote:A british person misunderstanding the term "owned"... how topical.

Why does it always seem to come down to nationality with you? Doesn't the constant bigotry wear you down?

If you really see the world outside New Zealand as so inferior, why do you go out your way to interact with non-Kiwis?

by BATH_BTGOG Fri 15 Jul 2011, 6:05 pm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-2014949/England-wear-black-strip-rugby-World-Cup-New-Zealand.html

£90!!!!!!!

Might have to reconsider whether I buy it or not, fingers crossed Nike haven't filmed an Ad with England lifting the world cup wearing black shirts just yet!

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Fri 15 Jul 2011, 6:12 pm

storm in a teacup..but never let that get in the way of ramapant nationalasm and racism eh guys

http://www.rfu.com/News/2011/July/News%20Articles/150711_kit.aspx

An RFU spokesperson said: "Like all countries, England are obliged by the Rugby World Cup participation agreement to have a change strip. We have worked with Nike on producing a shirt that complies with Rugby World Cup and International Rugby Board regulations and, fully aware of the significance of a black shirt to New Zealand’s players and population as a whole, we have fully consulted with the New Zealand Rugby Union who confirmed they had no issues.

"England will therefore wear the black change shirt against Argentina at the Otago Stadium in Dunedin on September 10 due to a clash with the light blue and white of the Pumas. They will wear their white home shirt in their other RWC pool matches.

"We believe the black shirt will be very popular with supporters as previous change shirts, such as purple and anthracite in November 2009 and 2010 respectively, have been. To that end England will wear the black shirt against Wales at Twickenham Stadium on August 6, giving supporters chance to see and purchase the change strip, revenues from which will be ploughed back into the grassroots of the game as part of the Rugby Football Union’s £20m-plus investment in the sport each year. England will wear their white home strip against Wales at the Millennium Stadium on August 13 and against Ireland at the Aviva Stadium on August 27."

DRAMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by nottins Fri 15 Jul 2011, 6:21 pm

BATH_BTGOG wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-2014949/England-wear-black-strip-rugby-World-Cup-New-Zealand.html

£90!!!!!!!

Might have to reconsider whether I buy it or not, fingers crossed Nike haven't filmed an Ad with England lifting the world cup wearing black shirts just yet!

Note it's £90 for the strip, which should be shirt, shorts and socks.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Fri 15 Jul 2011, 6:27 pm

Would you pay £90 to see the England women strip?

by nottins Fri 15 Jul 2011, 6:29 pm

I would Mr Wheeler and well done on posting the facts about the new England away shirt.

by Breadvan Fri 15 Jul 2011, 6:50 pm

It's a rugby shirt ffs! How ppl (well ...person) can get so in depth over this issue is mind numbing. Christ you would of thought the England team have demanded Prima Nocta on their arrival in NZ...

mad

by doctor_grey Fri 15 Jul 2011, 6:53 pm

Breadvan wrote:you would of thought the England team have demanded Prima Nocta on their arrival in NZ...

And the problem is???????

by disneychilly Fri 15 Jul 2011, 7:21 pm

I'd be more cheesed off at the £90 price tag. May be the first of many rip offs Poms get on their way to NZ judging by prices the last time I was home.

Pretty sure most Kiwis don't care but there are some that do so we probably think it's a dumb idea rarking those people up for no reason.

Sorry go back to the NZ monarchy lessons. Kawanatanga was the word GG was on about though. For the English it meant sovereignty, for the Maori it meant governorship.

Enjoy

by EnglishReign Fri 15 Jul 2011, 7:27 pm

Kiwireddevil wrote:Here's the version off the RFU store site. Not quite black to be fair.

Spoiler:

Yeah that isn't the WC kit though, it won't be released until August 1st. The alternative shirt sounds as if it will be literally "all black". Look forward to seeing it!

by nottins Fri 15 Jul 2011, 7:32 pm

According to the article it's £90 for the strip, not the shirt.

What's rarking ?

Plenty of rip offs in NZ as well. When I was there in 2005 they were selling the hideous half Lions half New Zealand shirt for over £100. The current replica NZ rugby shirt is nearly £75.

by Shifty Fri 15 Jul 2011, 7:43 pm

I think it's pathetic if any New Zealand fans are offended.
Not content with being handed their backsides by a Welsh club over the "All Black" name, some elements of New Zealand rugby seem to thin they own the color black, lol.
Strangely though New Zealands alternate kit is / was white, yes they didnt seem to care about upsetting England!

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Fri 15 Jul 2011, 8:15 pm

Jumping on the other side for a minute the RFU have to pay New Zealanders a small fortune to wear their kit, charging the fans £90 for it seems a bit harsh.

by red_stag Fri 15 Jul 2011, 8:20 pm

Its laughable if anyone could or would be offended by this. They are just colours.

by disneychilly Fri 15 Jul 2011, 8:24 pm

What sucks about the AB shirt? Here in Dublin I can get it a hell of a lot cheaper than back home. 180 bucks for them in NZ. Shocking.

by TheGreyGhost Fri 15 Jul 2011, 10:56 pm

It makes me laugh. The exact same people who'll be back posting "why does everybody hate the English"?

Unbelievable.

by doctor_grey Fri 15 Jul 2011, 11:10 pm

I think there is only one person posting "why does everybody hate the English"? at this moment. Time for a shot and a beer.

As I said before, I don't particularly like the black jerseys for England as I prefer the traditional colours to the max degree possible. But offended? That's nuts. Can't understand why anyone would take it to that level. Its still just sport, eh? All this dialogue here is sport, right?

by TheGreyGhost Fri 15 Jul 2011, 11:13 pm

Absolutely. Seems an odd coincidence though doesn't it? England's first black away jersey coincides with the RWC in NZ? I guess it's a compliment. I can't wait to see the English lads perform their response to the Haka. I quite hope NZ meet England in the final.

by doctor_grey Fri 15 Jul 2011, 11:16 pm

We finally agree. England and the ABs in the final. Would be great fun, eh?

by TheGreyGhost Fri 15 Jul 2011, 11:25 pm

Of all the likely permutations I'd feel most relaxed about an AB v Eng final. Although for me personally, I prefer an NZ v SA show down. It has a certain history to it.

From the wider perspective I think the tournament could use a shake up. I think there's a fair amount of sentiment that it would be nice to see Ireland do well, or possibly even Wales. A new finalist would be great for the tournament.

by Breadvan Fri 15 Jul 2011, 11:25 pm

I can't wait to see the English lads perform their response to the Haka.

er.....yeh. The team walking to the touchline to remove their training tops is going to be a right spectacle

by nottins Fri 15 Jul 2011, 11:42 pm

TheGreyGhost wrote:A new finalist would be great for the tournament.

You must be hoping NZ can make it to a final again, it has been a while.....

by TheGreyGhost Fri 15 Jul 2011, 11:45 pm

Yawn. England can wear black and draft in as many Kiwis as they want, but they know they're still the 5th best team in the world, on a good day.

by Sponsored content