Club Badge (merged)

[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?