Shame they cost a fortune. Guessing we have to fund the Iwobi type of signings somehow.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Not a chance. He will get the most out of this. He will have heads on spike by lunch.Burnt orange, not red, stand down @davek
Dave, do you want some of my gear? You’ll even start thinking Iwobi is a footballer.So, just to recap, the club hand us another rubbish season and collapse like a pack of cards when opportunity beckoned, and they end that season producing an Everton kit with red all over it.
I do. And that sash is ruby red. And we dont do red.
Well if it's not red how is it harking back to a kit from the 1880s then, which had a RED sash?
So, just to recap, the club hand us another rubbish season and collapse like a pack of cards when opportunity beckoned, and they end that season producing an Everton kit with red all over it.
You're turning this into the dead parrot sketch.
It is actually just red. If that is supposed to be the throwback kit, how can it not be red?
I tel you what's happened here: those 'kin divvies who advise the club from the Everton Fans Forum or whatever they're called have been telling them that we'd all love to see Everton playing in a kit that should have been ignored completely because it contains the colour red in it...and the club have gone with their ridiculous idea and will seek to sidestep the controversy by describing that sash colour as deep salmon or some such 'kin nonsense.
The whole organisation is a joke and a midden .
Controversial? A pov you dont take is not cvntroversial, it's just anopther pov.
No 'kin way we'd have touched a kit like that years ago. None.
A red 'kin sash on an Everton kit just because one season whenm an organisation that Liverpool also came out of wore it for about 12 organised games before football had properly taken off.
If it's not red how is it "historical"?
Anyone?
It looks red to me too. But some are trying to pass it on the grounds it's not...which begs the question as to why it's "historical" if it isn't?