Liverpool New Home Kit: Warrior Sports' First Premier League Shirts Revealed
Liverpool have tonight unveiled their brand new Warrior Sports kit for the forthcoming 2012-13 Premier League season, with the first choice strip available from midnight (UK time) on the club's official website.
The first effort from Warrior Sports features a retro-look all-red jersey with yellow detail for the Standard Chartered sponsor and logo, the Liverpool FC Liverbird crest and the company logo of Warrior themselves.
With an all red-and-yellow approach the kit hearkens back to the days of the mid-80s and the kits worn by current manager Kenny Dalglish and co, when Liverpool were sponsored by the likes of Hitachi and Crown Paints.
The biggest noticeable change in the kit is that Liverpool have done away with the large club crest, containing the Shankly Gates and the eternal flames; replacing it instead with a simple Liverbird and the club initials: LFC.
On the rear of the neck of the jersey, the two eternal flames align either side of the number 96, a symbol to the number of fans who passed away at Hillsborough.
The club have gone big on the charm offensive to fans looking to pre-order the new kit:
It’s inspired by greatness.
It’s modern tradition.
It’s unapologetically Liverpool FC.
It will make you feel 7ft tall.
What do you make of the new LFC home kit?
Liverpool's shirt is estimated to be the fourth-best selling replica jersey in world football, behind only Manchester United, Real Madrid and Barcelona.
With the new Warrior Sports kit deal worth an estimated £25 million per season to the Anfield club, boss Dalglish should have the funds to splash out in the transfer market this summer to ensure new faces are wearing the new shirt in time for next season.
Early reviews of the kit throughout social network Twitter generally evoked positive responses from Liverpool supporters and the club expect big pre-order sales ahead of the June 1st launch date.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?