Club Badge (merged)

[taleofbluehalves]

It covers all bases. I'm happy:)

 

[Why Always Ste]

This one was filed in September..
https://www.ipo.gov.uk/trademark/image/GB50110000003128350.jpg

Please please please be this

 

[stonerblue]

 

[sir baconface]

Chuffin Norah, the Mona Lisa has had fewer column inches.

Looks good enough to me.

 

[Gordyola]

I agree with you on this Moomba. The 'design concept' was secondary to reflecting the historical traditions of the club.

We have returned to the circular badge, the rose and the rivers and got rid of the eagle and stars. Its a badge with relevance and reflects the history of the club.

I was initially fearful at the thought of a new badge but this was sympathetic to the past. People have said the rose has no significance but it does as it was on our badge for 23 years.

It is not perfect but the most important elements were included.

The Eagle was part of the badge during the most significant period of the club's history, won far more than with the sodding RED rose and was worn on finals' kit which the rose never was. So on the basis of your argument then 16 years shouldn't be discarded as it reflects the history of the club. The rivers have never not been on the badge the only thing that has returned symbol wise is the rose sticking there like a red sore thumb

 

[Gordyola]

Ok. It's been 540 pages so I think it's time for the big question.


can we move forward as a club now that Shaelumstash and Fudge do not like the new design?

or maybe it is like it usually is that most who are happy with something stay silent and it is the loud minority who moan? (Though that would be the first time on bluemoon forum's history but that has to happen one day right?)

The loud minority are a majority on MuEN poll From what I can see looking across the media there is a significant number of people who dislike the design

 

[Kippax.]

Looks like I might have to get a new lid

 

[blueheart84]

The colours are the worst thing - the monochrome version looks decent.
The full colour version looks like a 5-year olds crayon drawing though.

 

[MadchesterCity]

The more I look at the badge the more I like it, I guess it's just human nature to be resistant to change and want the absolute best of every scenario.
This is magnified when the thing changing is so close to your heart leading you to be more emotive!
Im thinking although it wouldn't have been my favourite design with the red rose on top of the blue that perhaps my paranoia was a tad over the top!
It was never going to please everyone but looks stronger than the current badge when placed side by side.
I think we were spoiled by @GeekinGav and his fantastic efforts!

Have a great Christmas Blues and let's hope for a run of form to boost us to our third title in 5 years! Incredible really

best team in the land and all the world!!

 

[Gary James]

For the last 40 years I was under the impression that the change of name in 1894 was to attract more fans, and to be honest if it was done for marketing reasons of course they are going to claim it is a new club for the whole of Manchester. I'm not convinced at all by this change in formation dates, such as how could city be re-elected into division 2 in 1984 if they didn't already exist? Surely Ardwick would have had to have resigned from the league?

Manchester City's formation date has never changed. It's always been 1894. Ardwick had to apply for re-election to the League in 1894 due to their final position and, in all probability, they would have not been re elected. Manchester City and Ardwick co-existed for a while and MCFC was regarded as a new club which, ultimately pulled in many but not all the Ardwick directors, players and fans. Reports talked if City signing players from Ardwick at times. They were perceived as two clubs at City formation but City wouldn't have existed without Ardwick, so the history is important. BUT 1880 isn't even a definite date, it's assumed based on games reported (or at least games we've identified so far!). At times 1884 and 1887 have been claimed as formation dates, so 1880 is a fluid date representing our earliest traceable so far game. 1894 is MCFC's formation, but the earlier material us important to the overall story of course.