City home kit consultation (Update - Results on Page 10)

Bentheblue said:
According to the OS the new kit is a big hit on social media. Surely the club are not so out of touch to believe it has been well received, but then again maybe it is liked by our global fans who are not so hooked on tradition.




can not believe it has been well received.
Click to expand...

It hasn't. It has been universally panned. Yet more BS spin from the club. Getting tiresome now.
 
Corky said:
It was more of a kit survey than a consultation. Fans were not consulted on the badge design either, there was a survey before fans saw a design, and the first design seen was the one. To have a consultation you need a proposal to consult on.
Click to expand...
I strongly disagree on the badge consultation. Did you attend any of the badge lectures and air your views, ask the questions, give your comments? Did you attend the badge consultation space at the stadium and speak with staff, fill in the questionnaires etc. did you fill in the online questionnaire and give views on the elements that mattered most to you? I could go on but the point is that the discussions, questionnaires, lectures, and other activities did lead to the badge being designed based directly on fans views. City get things wrong, but on the badge consultation no one can say it never happened.

The proposal was 'do we keep the badge or change it, and if we change it what elements matter most to you?'
 
Last edited:
Gary James said:
I strongly disagree on the badge consultation. Did you attend any of the badge lectures and air your views, ask the questions, give your comments? Did you attend the badge consultation space at the stadium and speak with staff, fill in the questionnaires etc. did you fill in the online questionnaire and give views on the elements that mattered most to you? I could go on but the point is that the discussions, questionnaires, lectures, and other activities did lead to the badge being designed based directly on fans views. City get things wrong, but on the badge consultation no one can say it never happened.

The proposal was 'do we keep the badge or change it, and if we change it what elements matter most to you?'
Click to expand...

Gary I usually agree with most things you say & I definitely agree that the badge consultation was well organised.
However, and I know you're very enthusiastic about the badge, but they did botch it with the colour coding & the bizarre 3D emphasis on the shield. One final stage where the fans had multiple options to choose from probably would've killed any questions over the legitimacy of the consultation.

As for this abhorrent kit, if the club are genuinely trying to promote the idea that it's popular, then they're either lying or just really prioritising the opinion of the overseas fan.
 
Seosa said:
Gary I usually agree with most things you say & I definitely agree that the badge consultation was well organised.
However, and I know you're very enthusiastic about the badge, but they did botch it with the colour coding & the bizarre 3D emphasis on the shield. One final stage where the fans had multiple options to choose from probably would've killed any questions over the legitimacy of the consultation.
Click to expand...

I was enthusiastic about the process and I'm enthusiastic that what has come out is based directly on the consultation. I personally didn't vote for certain elements on there but some felt strongly that some things should be included and the majority voted for them, so I support the process. The problem with having badges to choose from is that it's a bit like the EU ref you'd actually get a significant proportion that feels they lost out. Say there were 3 badges to choose from - eagle, new and a third option. If 34% voted for new badge 33% for eagle and 33% for 3rd option then the majority of voters would be unhappy with the winner. If it's a straight choice between 2 then again we could have the EU situation where it's so close that people feel dissatisfied.

The club chose to do it the way they did which, to be fair, is much better than most other clubs have done. Fans voted for elements and the most popular made it on to the badge. Whatever anyone may think of the badge, a consultation did take place and it did directly influence the decision first to drop the eagle badge and secondly the design of the new badge. My point was that a consultation did take place.
 
I love the new badge 2bh. If the club did the same for the kits I'd be delighted. Sadly they seem to have no appetite for it and instead want to produce shit for 12 year olds in China and the US rather than proper City fans, and thus changing our badge will have little impact on preserving our historic identity because our club colours will be unrecognisable from what is meant to be City in a few years time. Just find it amazing how the club have can such opposing mindsets on two parts of our identity.
 
Gary James said:
I was enthusiastic about the process and I'm enthusiastic that what has come out is based directly on the consultation. I personally didn't vote for certain elements on there but some felt strongly that some things should be included and the majority voted for them, so I support the process. The problem with having badges to choose from is that it's a bit like the EU ref you'd actually get a significant proportion that feels they lost out. Say there were 3 badges to choose from - eagle, new and a third option. If 34% voted for new badge 33% for eagle and 33% for 3rd option then the majority of voters would be unhappy with the winner. If it's a straight choice between 2 then again we could have the EU situation where it's so close that people feel dissatisfied.

The club chose to do it the way they did which, to be fair, is much better than most other clubs have done. Fans voted for elements and the most popular made it on to the badge. Whatever anyone may think of the badge, a consultation did take place and it did directly influence the decision first to drop the eagle badge and secondly the design of the new badge. My point was that a consultation did take place.
Click to expand...

Can't disagree with any of that. Again, my personal gripe has only ever been with tiny elements. I thought the consultation process was a significant period for the club given the change and the fan engagement. You said on Sunday that you think it'll last a long time and I can easily see that. When it's large, as it was on Sunday, it's beautiful. Just wish behind the ship was blue and the rivers were white, with the shield remaining just inside the inner circle as opposed to poking out.
 
The badge is fine,as for the kit...the only people i see who like it are from fans in asia etc,basically new fans of the club who probably don't know the full history and tradition.
Nothing wrong with that,and i congratulate and welcome them to the club.But they are the ones the club seem to promote when they spout off how universally welcomed it has been.
That's my two penneth,not that it matters. :)
 
Gary James said:
I was enthusiastic about the process and I'm enthusiastic that what has come out is based directly on the consultation. I personally didn't vote for certain elements on there but some felt strongly that some things should be included and the majority voted for them, so I support the process. The problem with having badges to choose from is that it's a bit like the EU ref you'd actually get a significant proportion that feels they lost out. Say there were 3 badges to choose from - eagle, new and a third option. If 34% voted for new badge 33% for eagle and 33% for 3rd option then the majority of voters would be unhappy with the winner. If it's a straight choice between 2 then again we could have the EU situation where it's so close that people feel dissatisfied.

The club chose to do it the way they did which, to be fair, is much better than most other clubs have done. Fans voted for elements and the most popular made it on to the badge. Whatever anyone may think of the badge, a consultation did take place and it did directly influence the decision first to drop the eagle badge and secondly the design of the new badge. My point was that a consultation did take place.
Click to expand...

Gary, given that the results of this kit survey show that 98% of the 850 or so who took part prefer white shorts to blue, do you not think it's time the club opened a consultation on the home colours?

Have you heard anything from the club to suggest they are even considering it?

The home kit colours are just as important as the badge to our identity snd history. Arguably more so because we have worn sky blue shirts and white shorts for a much longer period than we have any badge.

The club simply must know the general feeling about this, it's puzzling why they have not taken any action on it.
 
Gary James said:
I was enthusiastic about the process and I'm enthusiastic that what has come out is based directly on the consultation. I personally didn't vote for certain elements on there but some felt strongly that some things should be included and the majority voted for them, so I support the process. The problem with having badges to choose from is that it's a bit like the EU ref you'd actually get a significant proportion that feels they lost out. Say there were 3 badges to choose from - eagle, new and a third option. If 34% voted for new badge 33% for eagle and 33% for 3rd option then the majority of voters would be unhappy with the winner. If it's a straight choice between 2 then again we could have the EU situation where it's so close that people feel dissatisfied.

The club chose to do it the way they did which, to be fair, is much better than most other clubs have done. Fans voted for elements and the most popular made it on to the badge. Whatever anyone may think of the badge, a consultation did take place and it did directly influence the decision first to drop the eagle badge and secondly the design of the new badge. My point was that a consultation did take place.
Click to expand...

I would say that is a good assessmnet and I like the new badge.

But I hope you agree that the new badge launch has been slightly undermined by the abomination that us the new kit, totally unbecoming of a city team

Would you think a similar consultation regarding our primary colours is needed to establish the home kits uniqueness and template, the shoving in of navy as secondary colour over white seems to annoy the majority (also personally I want maroon back as our official away colour)
 
Shaelumstash said:
Gary, given that the results of this kit survey show that 98% of the 850 or so who took part prefer white shorts to blue, do you not think it's time the club opened a consultation on the home colours?

Have you heard anything from the club to suggest they are even considering it?

The home kit colours are just as important as the badge to our identity snd history. Arguably more so because we have worn sky blue shirts and white shorts for a much longer period than we have any badge.

The club simply must know the general feeling about this, it's puzzling why they have not taken any action on it.
Click to expand...

I'm not employed by the club and have had no involvement in any discussions about the kit, so have no idea on their views etc. I don't know how long it takes to plan a kit or what's involved, so don't know how feasible consultations are. I also know that it's impossible to please everyone. In the badge debate there were so many who were adamant that the red rose badge for example was the original City badge (it wasn't) and that it was worn on home shirts between 1976 and 1981 (it wasn't!). In one discussion I remember someone actually saying "I fell in love with City in 1977 and for me that kit was perfect - round badge and all! - we should never wear anything else". That kit, of course, didn't have a round badge on and it was blue shirts and shorts (darker blue than our traditional colour as well!). Thankfully, none of us have to make the decision on what kit to wear - you will never please everyone.
 
The kit is growing on me actually, didn't like it at all when I first saw it , but now I have actually seen it on players I seem to be getting used to it. I would have preferred us to have white shorts but I think that would look odd with that shirt. Ok I will go now...
 
Gary James said:
I'm not employed by the club and have had no involvement in any discussions about the kit, so have no idea on their views etc. I don't know how long it takes to plan a kit or what's involved, so don't know how feasible consultations are. I also know that it's impossible to please everyone. In the badge debate there were so many who were adamant that the red rose badge for example was the original City badge (it wasn't) and that it was worn on home shirts between 1976 and 1981 (it wasn't!). In one discussion I remember someone actually saying "I fell in love with City in 1977 and for me that kit was perfect - round badge and all! - we should never wear anything else". That kit, of course, didn't have a round badge on and it was blue shirts and shorts (darker blue than our traditional colour as well!). Thankfully, none of us have to make the decision on what kit to wear - you will never please everyone.
Click to expand...

Yeh I appreciate you're not employed by the club, mate, but you are the oracle on all things regarding City's history! Just as the club involved you with the badge consultation, I'm sure you'd be the first person they would contact regarding a kit consultation. I was just wondering if you had heard any whispers.

I completely agree that you will never please everyone. Personally I didn't want the Lancashire rose included on the badge as I think it's outdated now. However, after a period of adjusting to it, I'm now delighted with the new badge. It is a million miles better than the eagle badge which never felt like a City badge to me.

From memory I think around 70% wanted a return to the round badge, so although everyone can't have their favourite elements included, the vast majority are happy that we've got something close to what they would want. The survey shows 98% of City fans prefer white shorts to blue. Obviously some prefer white trim, some navy etc, you will never please everyone. But by fixing white shorts as a non-negotiable element of our home kit, the club will be granting the wishes of 98% of our fans.

Same as with the badge, the trim and sock colour are a bit like the rivers and rose, there will be a split on what people prefer. But the white shorts are the equivalent of a return to the round badge - overwhelmingly popular. In fact, going off the survey results, white shorts would be even more popular than the round badge. It's pretty close to unanimous, the club would be crazy not to take note of that.
 
Gary James said:
I was enthusiastic about the process and I'm enthusiastic that what has come out is based directly on the consultation. I personally didn't vote for certain elements on there but some felt strongly that some things should be included and the majority voted for them, so I support the process. The problem with having badges to choose from is that it's a bit like the EU ref you'd actually get a significant proportion that feels they lost out. Say there were 3 badges to choose from - eagle, new and a third option. If 34% voted for new badge 33% for eagle and 33% for 3rd option then the majority of voters would be unhappy with the winner. If it's a straight choice between 2 then again we could have the EU situation where it's so close that people feel dissatisfied.

The club chose to do it the way they did which, to be fair, is much better than most other clubs have done. Fans voted for elements and the most popular made it on to the badge. Whatever anyone may think of the badge, a consultation did take place and it did directly influence the decision first to drop the eagle badge and secondly the design of the new badge. My point was that a consultation did take place.
Click to expand...
Not better than how QPR did it.

The badge "consultation" was bollocks, a rebrand was always happening; not about giving the fans something they wanted because they wanted it, opportunity just arose. It wasn't news to the club what elements, shape etc people would like giving most had been harking on about it since the eagle badge came about. I won't shake from the belief the club had it drawn up in the summer, or at the very least Matt Groening did. And I unfortunately won't ever take to the new badge.

Such emphasis on historical significance to the club and city yet the most prominent aspect has fuck all to do with either..

As for the kit, it's not rocket science that most would like not only sky blue but white shorts. We have a shite deal finacially with Nike in the grand scheme of things but still bend over to take it up the shitter from them.
 
So, I was reading an article the other day on Deadspin about Nike and sponsorships. Linke below:

http://fittish.deadspin.com/will-leer-says-nike-held-him-to-a-contract-out-of-spite-1782928613

I think originally, I just figured these companies worked with clubs to create the best solution for everyone, etc. After reading this, it's apparent they are truly an appalling company, underpaying/spiting the athletes they sponsor. I know this is running, so it's a little different, but the attitude with which they treat their clients seems crazy! Sponsorships should best mutual vestments, and it's looks as though Nike treats it as ownership. After reading this I can guarantee that the club requests white shorts, but Nike most like can just say, "nah, feck off, you'll wear what we tell you to wear". Just an interesting read.
 
unlikelyfan19 said:
So, I was reading an article the other day on Deadspin about Nike and sponsorships. Linke below:

http://fittish.deadspin.com/will-leer-says-nike-held-him-to-a-contract-out-of-spite-1782928613

I think originally, I just figured these companies worked with clubs to create the best solution for everyone, etc. After reading this, it's apparent they are truly an appalling company, underpaying/spiting the athletes they sponsor. I know this is running, so it's a little different, but the attitude with which they treat their clients seems crazy! Sponsorships should best mutual vestments, and it's looks as though Nike treats it as ownership. After reading this I can guarantee that the club requests white shorts, but Nike most like can just say, "nah, feck off, you'll wear what we tell you to wear". Just an interesting read.
Click to expand...

Soriano could sort it tomorrow if he wanted to. He just doesn't give a monkeys unless you're a Beijing Blue.
 
pudge said:
Not better than how QPR did it.

The badge "consultation" was bollocks, a rebrand was always happening; not about giving the fans something they wanted because they wanted it, opportunity just arose. It wasn't news to the club what elements, shape etc people would like giving most had been harking on about it since the eagle badge came about. I won't shake from the belief the club had it drawn up in the summer, or at the very least Matt Groening did. And I unfortunately won't ever take to the new badge.

Such emphasis on historical significance to the club and city yet the most prominent aspect has fuck all to do with either..

As for the kit, it's not rocket science that most would like not only sky blue but white shorts. We have a shite deal finacially with Nike in the grand scheme of things but still bend over to take it up the shitter from them.
Click to expand...

Using your logic on the new badge then is it fair to say you never took to the previous badge either?

The stars, the Latin, the eagle etc. The fact that it popped up out of nowhere...

And if you don't like the new badge, did you not like the previous two round ones either as it's basically just a modern version? So you've never liked any City badge?

As for saying the consultation was bollocks. At the end of the day, the elements on the badge were what got the most votes. That's it.

QPR also only brought in another new badge because the last new one was absolutely detested.
 
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