Club Badge (merged)

Shaelumstash said:
xPU1aT.jpg



There's a really strong consensus for this core design. I really hope the club are taking note.

The last thing we want is a mish mash busy badge with a load of the 'symbols' from the questionnaire squeezed in to try and appease people.

Keep in clean, keep it simple. This core design isn't going to piss anyone off. On top of that, it's by far the most popular design on here.

I think the colours are open to debate, everyone has their preference. But if the core design is the same as this, the club will have absolutely cracked it.
Click to expand...

What's the point of the two dots? We could have the crosses there.
 
Cobwebcat said:
What's the point of the two dots? We could have the crosses there.
Click to expand...

The dots are needed to break up the empty circle. Most circular badges have something there to break it up.

Personally I wouldn't want the crosses included. I didn't even know Gorton had those crosses on the shirt until a few years ago, I don't think it's especially relevent to Manchester City personally.

We are Manchester City, and are choosing a Manchester City badge, not a Gorton St Marks one. They were a church side, City are not.

We slaughter the shite for them Norwich scarves, having a cross is similar for me.

Also I think it looks too Christian and the club has no affiliation to any religion, and shouldn't have. It also looks like a Nazi cross. It also looks like a Crusades cross, which is highly offensive in the Middle East.

So all in all, there's far more reasons not to have the cross than to have it, in my view.
 
Last edited:
Shaelumstash said:
xPU1aT.jpg



There's a really strong consensus for this core design. I really hope the club are taking note.

The last thing we want is a mish mash busy badge with a load of the 'symbols' from the questionnaire squeezed in to try and appease people.

Keep in clean, keep it simple. This core design isn't going to piss anyone off. On top of that, it's by far the most popular design on here.

I think the colours are open to debate, everyone has their preference. But if the core design is the same as this, the club will have absolutely cracked it.
Click to expand...

This ^ design does'nt work for me, a shield wthin a circle aint the boniest of aesthetics, if the aim is to keep it simple and clean then there is a inner chapter to add symbolism, in the stylized version that Gav the geek kid did earler...the shield outline is done away with.. allowng the total inner chapter area to be used.
 
Last edited:
Fat Chance said:
This ^ design does'nt wrk for me, a shield wthin a circle aint the boniest of aesthetics, if the aim is to keep it simple and clean then there is a inner chapter to add symblism, in the stylized verion that Gav the geek kd did earler...the shield outine is done away with allowng the total inner chapter area to be used
Click to expand...

Say what now?
 
Gabriel said:
Sure it's been covered, but does the badge really need to have the name of the club encircling it? As the brand (shoot me for using that word) continues to grows, it's surely the insignia that will become synonymous with the club and recognised instantly.
Click to expand...

I suggest people look at other clubs badges, very few have the full club name in them. Ideally, I would like it, but from a design perspective I dont think it works imo. As someone said the badge should simply be instantly recognisable as representing the football brand that is MCFC.
 
reducing the outer white chapter to two thirds of it's width would provide a bigger inner chapter area to use a back-ground skyblue and make the blue to white colouring more in correlation with how its always been used on our kits (instantly recognisable)

Ship (GekGavs non flat version) in navy blue on a larger skyblue backgroud and the shield colouing becoming the sea/canal/crest of a wave...the club and this corner of M/c have been riding since 08.
 
Last edited:
Lets be frank. With our owner you're unlikely to get crosses on any new badge. A bee and a hawk maybe.
 
Shaelumstash said:
xPU1aT.jpg



There's a really strong consensus for this core design. I really hope the club are taking note.

The last thing we want is a mish mash busy badge with a load of the 'symbols' from the questionnaire squeezed in to try and appease people.

Keep in clean, keep it simple. This core design isn't going to piss anyone off. On top of that, it's by far the most popular design on here.

I think the colours are open to debate, everyone has their preference. But if the core design is the same as this, the club will have absolutely cracked it.
Click to expand...
I concur.
 
Fat Chance said:
This ^ design does'nt work for me, a shield wthin a circle aint the boniest of aesthetics, if the aim is to keep it simple and clean then there is a inner chapter to add symbolism, in the stylized version that Gav the geek kid did earler...the shield outline is done away with.. allowng the total inner chapter area to be used.
Click to expand...

hang on .... how old do you think I am??
 
Fat Chance said:
23...28...bollox..42...a sraight 42....anychance you could amend your earlier stylised offering (skyblue moon-navy ship)..pretty please.
Click to expand...


mid-30's will do .... i'm not doing anymore creations or edits, enough is enough for me now. look forward to see what we get now.
 
Corky said:
It seems pre-determined to me.
Click to expand...

Survey seems pretty loaded to me, but surely there'd have to be some consultation before they just threw out a new badge?

Hoping they release a couple of mock ups and give us a vote.

Still have a slight dread that we could end up in a situation like the blue scouse.
 
Pell not Pep ;-) said:
Ok Gary. Had a good read. I'm trying to get the elements in number order of importance.
1. Manchester City & FC or Football Club/either or not fussed.
2. Ship
3. 3 Rivers
4. Founding date.
5.Rose/Cross Pattee. Equal.

This date seems very important. I always thought of it as 1894 but from reading your book intro it seems 1880 was the first recorded game. Not really interested in that a cricket team may have been an earlier part of St.Marks (in respect of the first games date, I do respect anything that had to do with City being formed)
If the cross pattee was used this would refer to the earliest team but I prefer the idea of the date on the badge. It tells people when City started. What date do you refer to as City's founding date? Do City use the date Mr Parlby registered the team in 1894?
Click to expand...
Come to the last talk where I explain all about formation dates - 1894 is when MCFC was formed and Ardwick played after MCFC was established, so 1894 all the way. Plus one day we may well find an earlier game for St Marks. Stranger things have happened.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top