Club Badge (merged)

[Ban-jani]

≈


Thing is ... we are City, not Bayern, Juve or Chelsea and shouldn't try and copy their's but retain some sort of identity that is City throughout. The shield is something that has featured in all of our badges and we can argue that that is synonymous to City, like the Lion is to Chelsea, Stripes are to Juve and the Bavaria Flag of Bayern.

if you take the Shield away (which has 'floated' with more space around the sides in the past), to fill the whole circle as which I assume you're suggesting, it just looks like a fat circle shield instead with more empty space ...

Yeah prefer the shield.

Although wouldn't be too upset with the one on the left.

That shield one is the best design and has to be the new badge for me, get the colouring right and it'd be the best badge we've had.

 

[NQCitizen]

≈


Thing is ... we are City, not Bayern, Juve or Chelsea and shouldn't try and copy their's but retain some sort of identity that is City throughout. The shield is something that has featured in all of our badges and we can argue that that is synonymous to City, like the Lion is to Chelsea, Stripes are to Juve and the Bavaria Flag of Bayern.

if you take the Shield away (which has 'floated' with more space around the sides in the past), to fill the whole circle as which I assume you're suggesting, it just looks like a fat circle shield instead with more empty space ...

As a City fan I completely understand what you're saying but considering the global reach and implications it seems a bit unambitious to simply return to the badge we had in the 60s, mostly.

The shield isn't a single element, it's a mix of competing iconography that is unfortunately a much less compelling piece of visual communication than a single cannon, Eiffel tower, lion etc.

Put it this way - if a kid from any continent can't draw something like our badge in under a minute and find something deeply identifiable within it: it's failed the brief.

Part of the issue is the semiotics of what we have - ships are boring and anachronistic, the 3 rivers look like Adidas and the eagle (which is arguably the strongest symbol we have) is hated by the fans.

 

[Deleted member 58678]

≈


Thing is ... we are City, not Bayern, Juve or Chelsea and shouldn't try and copy their's but retain some sort of identity that is City throughout. The shield is something that has featured in all of our badges and we can argue that that is synonymous to City, like the Lion is to Chelsea, Stripes are to Juve and the Bavaria Flag of Bayern.

if you take the Shield away (which has 'floated' with more space around the sides in the past), to fill the whole circle as which I assume you're suggesting, it just looks like a fat circle shield instead with more empty space ...

I do agree with what you say but as i've said in the past, one of my gripes about our current badge is that it looks too cluttered and busy, the one on the left there is much cleaner and easier on the eye. Do you know what?i REALLY like it! Even further de-clutter it and get rid of those two dots and it would be even smarter!

 

[Fat Chance]

As a City fan I completely understand what you're saying but considering the global reach and implications it seems a bit unambitious to simply return to the badge we had in the 60s, mostly.

The shield isn't a single element, it's a mix of competing iconography that is unfortunately a much less compelling piece of visual communication than a single cannon, Eiffel tower, lion etc.

Put it this way - if a kid from any continent can't draw something like our badge in under a minute and find something deeply identifiable within it: it's failed the brief.

Part of the issue is the semiotics of what we have - ships are boring and anachronistic, the 3 rivers look like Adidas and the eagle (which is arguably the strongest symbol we have) is hated by the fans.

+1^...can't remember if it was your goodself NQ but the variant with the ship (that somebody put-up) devoid of the squiggly sea and with the stripes morphing out of the underside of said ship was the cleanest variation to me...very clean.

 

[Fat Chance]

Full colour better?

Could you reverse the colouring on the outer chapter pretty please PB.(blue lettering/white background) and possibly fatten the lettering type up a touch...thinking about it a trace of maroon down the edge of the stripes might be a touch sexy rexy

 

[GeekinGav]

As a City fan I completely understand what you're saying but considering the global reach and implications it seems a bit unambitious to simply return to the badge we had in the 60s, mostly.

The shield isn't a single element, it's a mix of competing iconography that is unfortunately a much less compelling piece of visual communication than a single cannon, Eiffel tower, lion etc.

Put it this way - if a kid from any continent can't draw something like our badge in under a minute and find something deeply identifiable within it: it's failed the brief.

Part of the issue is the semiotics of what we have - ships are boring and anachronistic, the 3 rivers look like Adidas and the eagle (which is arguably the strongest symbol we have) is hated by the fans.

Can you think of 1 single element or icon that sums up Manchester City Football Club?

And I think confusing using traditional elements as 'unambitious' or 'boring' is a mistake. A lot of clubs that that changed or updated their badges have done so in a way so it is modern, but no straying from its heritage. Teams like Arsenal, Chelsea, PSG haven't done anything ambitious, spectactular or outlandish just to make it appealing or eye candy for international or youthful audiences. Most have just updated what they had.

Unfortunately, Manchester isn't blessed with a landmark that is a Wonder of the Modern World, we just have the industrial revolution, historical trading and over a hundred years as a football club which obviously isn't deemed worthy enough over some random animal etc.

End of the day, the 'brief' only has to be is that the badge is relatable and recognised as Manchester City Football Club.

We are limited to what we can do without completely extracting ourselves from our own identity.

but please say what it should be, this simple, iconic entity that shows every Tom, Dick And Harry in the wider world should automatically think "Yep... That is Manchester City" so I have a better understanding of how international people think?

 

[Rorz88]

≈


Thing is ... we are City, not Bayern, Juve or Chelsea and shouldn't try and copy their's but retain some sort of identity that is City throughout. The shield is something that has featured in all of our badges and we can argue that that is synonymous to City, like the Lion is to Chelsea, Stripes are to Juve and the Bavaria Flag of Bayern.

if you take the Shield away (which has 'floated' with more space around the sides in the past), to fill the whole circle as which I assume you're suggesting, it just looks like a fat circle shield instead with more empty space ...

I actually quite like it without the shield, looks classy! I agree with a previous poster that the 3 strips almost looks 'adidasy' Could the 3 squiggly lines under the ship represent the rivers and then replace the lines with 'Est. 1894'

Just a thought ?!

 

[NQCitizen]

Can you think of 1 single element or icon that sums up Manchester City Football Club?

And I think confusing using traditional elements as 'unambitious' or 'boring' is a mistake. A lot of clubs that that changed or updated their badges have done so in a way so it is modern, but no straying from its heritage. Teams like Arsenal, Chelsea, PSG haven't done anything ambitious, spectactular or outlandish just to make it appealing or eye candy for international or youthful audiences. Most have just updated what they had.

Unfortunately, Manchester isn't blessed with a landmark that is a Wonder of the Modern World, we just have the industrial revolution, historical trading and over a hundred years as a football club which obviously isn't deemed worthy enough over some random animal etc.

End of the day, the 'brief' only has to be is that the badge is relatable and recognised as Manchester City Football Club.

We are limited to what we can do without completely extracting ourselves from our own identity.

but please say what it should be, this simple, iconic entity that shows every Tom, Dick And Harry in the wider world should automatically think "Yep... That is Manchester City" so I have a better understanding of how international people think?

Well that's the issue really...

It's as much about building a brand from this point forth as it is supporting the existing iconography.

The fact no one can pick out a definitive one symbol of ourselves is as much a problem to be solved as it is a confusion to be preserved.

(I say all this from a universal branding perspective - as opposed to a City season ticket holder (which I am))

 

[Shaelumstash]

As a City fan I completely understand what you're saying but considering the global reach and implications it seems a bit unambitious to simply return to the badge we had in the 60s, mostly.

The shield isn't a single element, it's a mix of competing iconography that is unfortunately a much less compelling piece of visual communication than a single cannon, Eiffel tower, lion etc.

Put it this way - if a kid from any continent can't draw something like our badge in under a minute and find something deeply identifiable within it: it's failed the brief.

Part of the issue is the semiotics of what we have - ships are boring and anachronistic, the 3 rivers look like Adidas and the eagle (which is arguably the strongest symbol we have) is hated by the fans.

I understand where you are coming from, but look at Barca's badge. It has no iconic element, it has a catalan flag which is their identity, just like elements of the Manchester CoA are our identity.

Real Madrid's badge is certainly not an easy one for kids around the world to draw. These are the two biggest brands in world football, their badges don't fit the brief that you outlined, but it's not done them any harm.

As Gav has said, our badge needs to represent the club, the city of Manchester, be instantly recognisable as our own, and for today's modern marketing practices it's preferable that it's clean, simple, works in full colour and monochrome. Gav's core design does all of those things, it's an absolute no brainer for me.

Also one thing I've not seen mentioned is the CFG branding is a circular badge with the clubs name round the outside, and the inside should represent the city that club represents. NYC have the ivonic NY design, instantly recognisable as New York, Melbourne has elements of the Melbourne CoA, Manchester City should have something the represents the city of Manchester.

The crest with the ship and 3 rivers does that perfectly, that iconography is all over the city and the CoA. The eagle is not. The eagle has some obscure link to the city for a period of 4 years in the late 50s, and appeared on The Shite's cup final shirt. That's it. The connection to the city is looser than loose.

All CFG badges should represent the locality of the city where that individual club operates, we're by far the most important club in the group, so it's essential our badge represents our city. No matter what anyone says, the eagle is not a representation of Manchester.

 

[NQCitizen]

I understand where you are coming from, but look at Barca's badge. It has no iconic element, it has a catalan flag which is their identity, just like elements of the Manchester CoA are our identity.

Real Madrid's badge is certainly not an easy one for kids around the world to draw. These are the two biggest brands in world football, their badges don't fit the brief that you outlined, but it's not done them any harm.

As Gav has said, our badge needs to represent the club, the city of Manchester, be instantly recognisable as our own, and for today's modern marketing practices it's preferable that it's clean, simple, works in full colour and monochrome. Gav's core design does all of those things, it's an absolute no brainer for me.

Also one thing I've not seen mentioned is the CFG branding is a circular badge with the clubs name round the outside, and the inside should represent the city that club represents. NYC have the ivonic NY design, instantly recognisable as New York, Melbourne has elements of the Melbourne CoA, Manchester City should have something the represents the city of Manchester.

The crest with the ship and 3 rivers does that perfectly, that iconography is all over the city and the CoA. The eagle is not. The eagle has some obscure link to the city for a period of 4 years in the late 50s, and appeared on The Shite's cup final shirt. That's it. The connection to the city is looser than loose.

All CFG badges should represent the locality of the city where that individual club operates, we're by far the most important club in the group, so it's essential our badge represents our city. No matter what anyone says, the eagle is not a representation of Manchester.

I'd agree with all that.

Barcelona and Real Madrid are interesting as perhaps their fan ownership model doesn't allow the rampant commercialism of the clubs identity. The identity of Catalunya also makes for a massively emotive brand. As does the royalty of Madrid. You could easily argue Manchester has a much less clear identity and it'd be one we shared with our biggest rivals.

A shape, one localized icon. I think you've nailed it - every 100 pages or so I pop up to reiterate it ;)

Unfortunately our current suite of icons are less than compelling.

... Without wanting to piss everyone id imagine they're considering just how closely related to the word Manchester they want it.