Brad said:

Chelsea’s keeper, Petr Cech, was wearing the headgear because of a skull fracture suffered in a game last year against Reading. He’s had it since his return. Chelsea’s kit is next year’s model–their 2007-2008 jersey had no collar and no yellow. Cech is usually outfitted in black, but the goalkeeper uni is a preview of next season, also.

also, patch worn in the Man Utd/Chelsea match wasn’t a championship patch, it’s the Champions League patch and has been worn all tourney by every team participating, not a patch worn simply for the final game

The original post wasn’t referring to the CL patch, but to the embroidery on the front of the kit.

Ricko1 said:

Now my thought for the day, which I heard for the first time a few minutes ago:
“Arguing on the Internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you’re still retarded.”

Just get online yesterday? ;)

Just never heard the reality of it stated so succinctly and, um, accurately. LOL

Another view here.

Question regarding the comment that players had to wear new uniform numbers for the Greenville-Charleston game.

When I was a kid we had the Yankees AA team in West Haven (in fact I think I have two jerseys in my dad’s attic where you can see the faded “NY” and the re-sewn “YANKEES” across the front), the team wasn’t allowed to have any players with Yankees retired numbers because the number was retired throughout the organization.

Does anyone know if this is true?

Not completely so. Clubs (Tampa (FSL), Tampa (GCL) that are owned by the Yankees do adhere to the retired numbers. At least one (Scranton) does not. They use the familiar home whites with pinstripes and have 3’s, 4’s & 5’s. Look weird to me to see those numbers on those jerseys in action.

Also on the retired number subject, the Yanks issued #9 this spring training to Graig Nettles. I know he was a fine player, but the number was retired and not for Graig. Doesn’t make sense to me.