Club Badge (merged)

[Gary James]

No stars
No Eagle
No Latin
No bee

yes to three stripes and Manchester connections like the ship.

We have more right to wear Manchester connected badges than Trafford red sox

Yes to a round badge
Yes to MANCHESTER CITY FOOTBALL CLUB around badge
Yes to a white border


DONE!!!!!!

But make sure you submit those views here - http://www.mcfc.co.uk/news/club-news/2015/october/badge-consultation - otherwise they won't get noticed. It's really important for all fans to submit their views and to consider what they want, but the only way of ensuring they get through to the club is by using the questionnaire and channel listed on that link. I've posted more slides from the talks here: https://www.facebook.com/GaryJames4/?ref=hl but I haven't submitted them all, so I'd urge fans to come along to the last talk next Wednesday (see earlier post). Thanks

 

[mancityvstoke]

did it weeks ok matey

Great talk and fantastic venue.......awesome as the shermans put it

 

[Gary James]

did it weeks ok matey

Great talk and fantastic venue.......awesome as the shermans put it

Did it change your views in any way? Was there anything that came out that was surprising, interesting, new? Very interested in feedback. Cheers

 

[Shaelumstash]

No stars
No Eagle
No Latin
No bee

yes to three stripes and Manchester connections like the ship.

We have more right to wear Manchester connected badges than Trafford red sox

Yes to a round badge
Yes to MANCHESTER CITY FOOTBALL CLUB around badge
Yes to a white border


DONE!!!!!!

Bang on. (Although I love the Manchester Bee).

Everyone has different elements that mean something to them, I'm sure @Gary James could confirm that from feedback in the lectures.

However, you can't please all the people all of the time. There will have to be a comprimise. Personally I feel that while the comprimise should take in to account history and fan's views, it is imperative that any new badge works from a design point of view as well.

For example, we could end up with a badge like Melbourne's with 4 or 5 symbols squashed in to appease as many fans as possible - ships, 3 river shield, red rose, bee, latin writing, crosses, whatever. But it would not work from a design point of view.

The simple roundel design that Gav has done with the ship and 3 river shield just works for me. It's clean, it represents Manchester, it represents City, and it will work from a design perspective in today's multimedia age.

The Manchester Bee means something to me, I'd like it to be included, but when I have seen it included in designs, it makes the badge look more cluttered, it just doesn't seem to work from a design point of view. I'd gladly sacrifice the bee being included in order to have a better looking badge.

Lots of people like the rose, some want the eagle included, but I'm sure all fans would prefer to sacrifice one or two emblems that mean something to them in order to have a badge that works from a design perspctive.

It's fantastic that Gary is involved to help explain the history, I'm so glad the club engaged with him and the fans. It's important to trust the experts, and Gary is undoubtedly one when it comes to the history.

But I hope the club also trusts the experts when it comes to design, and don't just let the in-house graphics team knock something up based on a fans survey. They need a design expert, whether it be Rafael Esquer or someone else, who can reflect fan's views while also making an iconic design that we can all be proud of.

 

[mancityvstoke]

It didn't change my view to be honest as I will always wear my old badges no matter what Gary. I've never been one for replica kits etc but love my small round pin badges and always wear them anywhere I go. This stems from the 70's and 80's when most of the lads I knew did the same and hardly wore scarves or shirts etc.

I've hated the eagle badge since it was produced and the laser blue kit at the time too. It doesn't represent success or failure really I just don't like it. It's daft.

I want something simpler and a bit retro.

What I learned is some blues can't cope with red or anything Utd have used :)

I learned about the fact City and Ardwick existed at the same time. Never knew that.

I also learned about that St Marks photo which was very relevant to me having gone to Peacock Street Primary School right opposite Beyer Peacock train works so saw it working in the 60's. Mr Peacock in the photo I didn't know about that. Also the fact no one knows why the CROSS was on their kit.

I found it all interesting and some quite nostalgic including the great photos of the old social club which I used to go in and watch the crap acts Ha

I would imagine it was brilliant for younger fans with no experience of the 60's and 70's

It's great that we are being given this rare once in a lifetime opportunity to give our views. I really hope the new badge is acceptable to everyone and we can get on with supporting City no matter what the badge is.

The media centre etc is impressive alone so worth going for that

NO Pigeon though ......RIGHT City?

 

[Gary James]

For example, we could end up with a badge like Melbourne's with 4 or 5 symbols squashed in to appease as many fans as possible - ships, 3 river shield, red rose, bee, latin writing, crosses, whatever. But it would not work from a design point of view.

The simple roundel design that Gav has done with the ship and 3 river shield just works for me. It's clean, it represents Manchester, it represents City, and it will work from a design perspective in today's multimedia age.

It's a tough job for the design team I'm sure. Maybe we should have one element on the badge? Perhaps we could have had a vote on which one element sums up City the most - the ship (though it's heading towards USA not Europe where we want to find success); the emblazoned lines/rivers (the oldest part of the Manchester COA); the Lancashire Rose; the original shield (typical of those from c1904 when we first won FAC); the current shield; the Manchester COA shield; the Bee; the Antelope; the Lion; the Eagle; the Stars; the Motto; the MCFC etc.

I wonder, if we all had only one element to pick what we'd go for? Personally, the full name Manchester City FC would have to be there, but anything else?

 

[mancityvstoke]

One element?

The ship

 

[cmcm0808]

One element?

The ship

Similar to the Supporters Club Badge?

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

One element?

The ship

No two. The ship and the 3 stripes.
Wait what about the cross, love that old pic!!!
No - a rose.
No - fuck the rose its red and of little significance.
The eagle – look what we have done with an Eagle on the badge Plus I have it tattooed on my knob!

This is not going to be easy but I’m just enjoying the process and am hopeful that we get something we can all relate to in some way.

 

[Keepingthefaithsince1976]

Just to clarify... In the lectures I have said that this is not about picking badge A, B or C it's about thinking what is relevant now and in the future. That may well be a new badge, that may be the current badge, that may be a redesigned earlier badge but whatever it is it's based on the feedback the club are receiving during this consultation process. It's another reason why I would urge all fans to try and attend. There's only one lecture left. Times running out.

I've been amazed at the number of views that have changed during this process and I love the way people are engaging with it. There still seem to be a lot of misconceptions out there though, so please if you've attended the lectures then please tell all what you've gained or how your views have changed. The more discussion the better and, as I've said at each talk, it's up to fans to get their preferred emblems, elements and views across. This is a great opportunity the club have given, so let's use it fully. If there's anything you need to know come to the talks or visit the consultation. The biggest worry I have is the confusion some seem to have over what are the authentic elements and when they were used.

Would love you to expand on that last paragraph please Gary...im very interested in any misconceptions and mistakes im nt aware of.

 

[Gary James]

Would love you to expand on that last paragraph please Gary...im very interested in any misconceptions and mistakes im nt aware of.

I mention some on the previous page of this thread but lots of stuff coming out in the talks as well. I mentioned stuff last night about Ardwick existing at the same time as MCFC for a brief period (Ardwick played a game after MCFC was formed for example) and that the club described itself as an entirely new club when applying for League admission. That seemed to surprise a few.

Main point (again, apologies for going on and on about this) is that I'd urge all fans to fully understand every element before completing the questionnaires etc. One more talk left (next Wed lunchtime) - last chance to hear the history and to ask the questions before the consultation ends. Thanks

 

[Bluephoria]

I went to the talk yesterday and it was excellent. Big thank you to Gary for the preparation and giving it and a big thank ou to the club for hosting and for running this process.

I think some of the information about the history of the badge and significance of components in the past was quite surprising to some people. A good proportion of the audience said they had changed their minds about what they wanted or did not want in the badge.

I would encourage any enthusiastic city supporter to attend.

I managed to have a few words with Danny Wilson at the end and he said that the club had looked at all the material on the badge thread and taken note of it. He said that many of the people who had posted on their had sent in their thoughts directly to the club.

 

[YaYa's Left Peg]

No, but there have been staff there every session listening to fans. However, and I can't stress this highly enough, it is absolutely vital views are submitted through the Cityzens questionnaire as outlined by the club when they launched the process. So if anyone reading this has a view that has not been submitted to the club then please do it asap. The process ends on 14th November. Get your views in through those channels now. The aim of my talks is to ensure fans understand the history of the badges and their elements. I'm not certain about those that haven't attended of course but the overwhelming view coming from the fans that have is that by understanding those elements they can make informed choices and, as a result, a large number of attendees each time have walked away with a different view than when they arrived. I know I've banged on a bit about attending the talks but I genuinely want everyone to engage in the process and not assume they understand what the elements signify. There have been many misconceptions expressed in recent weeks including - that City have only worn 2 bespoke badges; that the original badge was the Red Rose; that the true original badge was only here for a couple of years and never worn on shirts; that the Latin motto has been here in some form for ever; that the process is about selecting an old badge; that the Red rose is not on the Manchester COA; that City wore the Red Rose between 1976-81; that the Ship means the Ship Canal; that the eagle has nothing to do with Manchester; that the Stars do have a meaning; that Rodney Marsh wore the red rose on his debut; that we know what the Gorton cross actually means.... I could go on because there are a lot of misconceptions out there.

As a response to the misconceptions here are a few snippets to note:

City have worn 3 bespoke badges since 1894 (occasional variations such as Maine Rd commemorations as well). They are - the original round badge which evidence suggests existed from 1930s but possibly much earlier (those who attend the talks can explain) and was present in a significant way at the 1934 FA Cup success and throughout the Mercer-Allison glory years (making appearances on gifts/pennants presented to opposition during ECWC run 1969-70; on match progs throughout title winning season and at FA Cup & League Cup finals, plus worn on the pitch at LC final by mascot). This was worn on shirts 1970-72 (it wasn't convention to wear an emblem on League shirts earlier than this). This was replaced in 1972 following the takeover of the club by the red rose version (Rose added to represent Lancashire instead of the 3 emblazoned lines - rivers). The Red rose was worn on shirts 1972-76 when it was dropped for the Manchester COA. It returned for the 1981-82 season and remained on shirts until 1997 when the current eagle badge was created.

Latin motto - created in 1997, not associated with City at all prior to that. Process - not about selecting an old badge. It's about saying what elements matter to you. Red rose - it is on the Manchester coat of arms (see lion & antelope), and is on there to represent Lancashire. Ship - predates Manchester ship canal by several decades, but it does represent Manchester's trading links and it is believed it points to the left to represent our trading links with USA which, at the time, was Manchester's main trading partner (cotton). Eagle - emblem created in 1957 by Manchester City Council to represent the city. Mufc were first to wear the eagle in a cup final, 1958 (mind you they also wore a red rose before City - 1909 final - and have worn the COA often). Stars - no actual meaning other than they were to give the badge a continental feel. Rodney Marsh wore the original round badge (not the red rose round badge, the earlier one) when he made his debut. Gorton cross - we do not have evidence of what it stands for. There are plenty of theories - religious, Masonic etc but it is not clear.

Thanks Gary - that is really helpful. I can't make the lectures so this has given me food for thought.

 

[Gary James]

Thanks Gary - that is really helpful. I can't make the lectures so this has given me food for thought.

Some of the slides from my talk have been posted on my facebook. Not all, but a taster: https://www.facebook.com/media/set/...16.1073741832.289818652815&type=3&uploaded=10

 

[Shaelumstash]

It's a tough job for the design team I'm sure. Maybe we should have one element on the badge? Perhaps we could have had a vote on which one element sums up City the most - the ship (though it's heading towards USA not Europe where we want to find success); the emblazoned lines/rivers (the oldest part of the Manchester COA); the Lancashire Rose; the original shield (typical of those from c1904 when we first won FAC); the current shield; the Manchester COA shield; the Bee; the Antelope; the Lion; the Eagle; the Stars; the Motto; the MCFC etc.

I wonder, if we all had only one element to pick what we'd go for? Personally, the full name Manchester City FC would have to be there, but anything else?

I agree Gary, it's a really tough job for the designer, that's why I'm adamant we need an expert to come up with the design. Someone that can stand up and say, as much as XYZ elements are popular with fans, from a design perspective it just doesn't work. Good design is often the simplest.

To illustrate my point from earlier, the survey may come back and indicate overwhelmingly that fans want to see the ship, the rose, the 3 rivers and the cross included in the badge. To be able to squeeze them all we would probably end up with something like this:
1.

While this might appease a lot of fans wishes for symbols they want included, personally I don't think it works from a design point of view. Much better in my opinion would be This:
2.

Or This:
3.

My personal preference for a symbol of the club is the 3 river shield, so number 2 would be my personal preference. However, I would much prefer us to go with number 3 than number 1 because the design is so much better. This despite the fact that the shield which is my preferred symbol, appears in design 1 and not in design 3.

You can't please all of the people all of the time. Design by committee very rarely works, you need an expert on the job.

I sincerely hope there is a "Stage 2" consultation where Cityzens (hate that word) are allowed to choose from 2 or 3 final designs. This will help us to avoid ending up with a badge with symbols we all like, but a final design that we don't.

 

[ballinio]

Number 2, the 1st design is perfect. No need for any more chat,I'll sign it off.

 

[Cheadle_hulmeBlue]

I agree Gary, it's a really tough job for the designer, that's why I'm adamant we need an expert to come up with the design. Someone that can stand up and say, as much as XYZ elements are popular with fans, from a design perspective it just doesn't work. Good design is often the simplest.

To illustrate my point from earlier, the survey may come back and indicate overwhelmingly that fans want to see the ship, the rose, the 3 rivers and the cross included in the badge. To be able to squeeze them all we would probably end up with something like this:
1.

While this might appease a lot of fans wishes for symbols they want included, personally I don't think it works from a design point of view. Much better in my opinion would be This:
2.

Or This:
3.

My personal preference for a symbol of the club is the 3 river shield, so number 2 would be my personal preference. However, I would much prefer us to go with number 3 than number 1 because the design is so much better. This despite the fact that the shield which is my preferred symbol, appears in design 1 and not in design 3.

You can't please all of the people all of the time. Design by committee very rarely works, you need an expert on the job.

I sincerely hope there is a "Stage 2" consultation where Cityzens (hate that word) are allowed to choose from 2 or 3 final designs. This will help us to avoid ending up with a badge with symbols we all like, but a final design that we don't.

it depends really. if you can incorporate those symbols into the badge, you have to have clever ways of doing it -that make the badge look simple and smart, but includes them. it obviously wouldn't be like the first badge you posted. you could have the cross within the ship or the rose either side in the circle. i dont think that would make the badge look to cluttered.

 

[dasein]

I agree Gary, it's a really tough job for the designer, that's why I'm adamant we need an expert to come up with the design. Someone that can stand up and say, as much as XYZ elements are popular with fans, from a design perspective it just doesn't work. Good design is often the simplest.

To illustrate my point from earlier, the survey may come back and indicate overwhelmingly that fans want to see the ship, the rose, the 3 rivers and the cross included in the badge. To be able to squeeze them all we would probably end up with something like this:
1.

While this might appease a lot of fans wishes for symbols they want included, personally I don't think it works from a design point of view. Much better in my opinion would be This:
2.

Or This:
3.

My personal preference for a symbol of the club is the 3 river shield, so number 2 would be my personal preference. However, I would much prefer us to go with number 3 than number 1 because the design is so much better. This despite the fact that the shield which is my preferred symbol, appears in design 1 and not in design 3.

You can't please all of the people all of the time. Design by committee very rarely works, you need an expert on the job.

I sincerely hope there is a "Stage 2" consultation where Cityzens (hate that word) are allowed to choose from 2 or 3 final designs. This will help us to avoid ending up with a badge with symbols we all like, but a final design that we don't.

I also prefer the number 2 badge here, but I also went last night to the lecture and came away with the feeling we need t cleaner more simple image and I don't think any badge that has been put up in the forum really does it.

What other logos and badges do we all instantly recognise? And why?

For me the best football badge is the old Germany badge with the dfb graphic in white on green. But I also really like the New York badge because it is simple neat and seems to represent nyc.

What do you all think?

 

[Shaelumstash]

I also prefer the number 2 badge here, but I also went last night to the lecture and came away with the feeling we need t cleaner more simple image and I don't think any badge that has been put up in the forum really does it.

What other logos and badges do we all instantly recognise? And why?

For me the best football badge is the old Germany badge with the dfb graphic in white on green. But I also really like the New York badge because it is simple neat and seems to represent nyc.

What do you all think?

I personally think number 2 is clean, simple and represents Manchester and represents City. It works in a variety of colours, in monochrome, even on a glass door!

It also has elements of our past 2 badges, the current badge and the CoA. It's in keeping with the other CFG badges. In short, it ticks every box for me.

I don't really see how that badge could be stripped down or simplified any more that it already is?

I like number 3 the rose badge as it's the one I grew up with, but the red rose of Lancashire means nothing to me and doesn't represent Manchester anymore. Also in the modern era where badges often appear in monochrome and other colours, the rose will look completely out of place unless it's red.

I think the militant Lancastrians who want the rose included should bear in mind that in monochrome the rose appears white! I think that might change a few minds.

 

[dasein]

I personally think number 2 is clean, simple and represents Manchester and represents City. It works in a variety of colours, in monochrome, even on a glass door!

It also has elements of our past 2 badges, the current badge and the CoA. It's in keeping with the other CFG badges. In short, it ticks every box for me.

I don't really see how that badge could be stripped down or simplified any more that it already is?

I like number 3 the rose badge as it's the one I grew up with, but the red rose of Lancashire means nothing to me and doesn't represent Manchester anymore. Also in the modern era where badges often appear in monochrome and other colours, the rose will look completely out of place unless it's red.

I think the militant Lancastrians who want the rose included should bear in mind that in monochrome the rose appears white! I think that might change a few minds.

Yeah, in many ways I agree.
I went to the lecture last night thinking (as my mate told me) that the club want to change the badge to link it to the other clubs in the city group. Gary flat out refuted that the club already had the badge before this process was started. That said the club may still have a shape of the badge they want. And I don't think any city fan would object to us having a round badge again. So I can see the new badge being very similar to our original badge but linked to the other city badges by having a blue circle rather than the white one depicted in badge 2 above,
Can someone mock up a badge like number2 but with blue instead of white?