Club Badge (merged)

[mat]

This is where the new badge comes into it's own

Say what you like about the colour version but that is class

Would love that on a white away shirt next season.

 

[yatesy94]

Big whinge incoming.........so many features that should've/could've been included! St Marks cross, we were founded in 1880 not 94, 3 rivers barely stand out, no motto, dodgy shield shape protuding out, Manchester not been in Lancashire for 40+ years so why the red rose etc. I'll stop whinging now might not even but the real badge; still not confirmed. I hope that's not the one as it just looks dull as dishwaster. Looks as if City paid a low-level graphic designer to knock it up within a few hours. Lazy and uninspiring sorry for the rant. 3/10

 

[Keepingthefaithsince1976]

I don't look at any football badge and give design perspective that much thought, don't compare it to anything else, don't over think it, I love it and in a month so will every city fan. Keep smiling mucker if this is a worry in your life then you have a very nice life.

Cant disagree with that. Maybe I'm simple but ignorance is bliss.

 

[Shaelumstash]

I feel like I've really peed you off without meaning too. Obviously you and Gav have a handle on what a professional font, design, styling, tone etc etc is. I'm just looking at it as a badge. I like simple and uncluttered. I can read it clearly and have previously posted i don't like the shield outside the inner circle. Id also prefer 1894 together but where it would go i don't know. I love Manchester at the top. The rose could be 33.3333% smaller. The rivers might work continuing onto the back circle. Anything else is beyond my limited intelligence as i don't understand the terminology. I was surprised when i first saw it but it looks good on a shirt. I can't compare it to anything better but i loved some of Gavs work but not necessarily the colours ie silver but understand it was design not colour.

You've not peed me off at all mate.

It's hard to explain, but if you look at say the NYCFC badge as an example compared to this new one, the NYCFC one looks more stylish, more professional, more grown up. Whereas the style in which this City one has been designed it looks more rudimentary, more childish.

 

[Broadi]

Apart from the shield protruding from the inner circle I really like the design. However, I think it needs a more striking colour scheme than the one currently being used as that seems to make the badge seem rather bland and boring.

 

[Keepingthefaithsince1976]

Here's an example of what I mean, I think all 4 of these are an improvement on the final design. All look clean, modern, without the awkwardness of the rose on top of the rivers.

A.

B.

C.

D.

To me, all 4 of them look better than the one we have actually got:
E.

I'd need to see them on a shirt but not liking Football Club as previously stated. All are a massive improvement on the eagle of course. Someone else pointed out white stripes aren't really water which is why light and dark blue work. B,C,D and E all look good though. So does A but........

 

[masterwig]

Big whinge incoming.........so many features that should've/could've been included! St Marks cross, we were founded in 1880 not 94, 3 rivers barely stand out, no motto, dodgy shield shape protuding out, Manchester not been in Lancashire for 40+ years so why the red rose etc. 3/10

So you don't want the rose because it's out of date but you want the St Marks cross which hasn't been on the shirt for over a century?

It's typical of the reaction they were always going to get. They were never going to please everyone. And it was inevitable this forum would be full of moaning.

I agree there are flaws but it's not terrible.

I like the old round badge but there are two versions of that which have been used, one where the sky fades to white which looks awful and the version the club has used recently where it's a solid block which looks great. We might see similar adjustments and tweaks to the new design as time passes.

 

[Keepingthefaithsince1976]

You've not peed me off at all mate.

It's hard to explain, but if you look at say the NYCFC badge as an example compared to this new one, the NYCFC one looks more stylish, more professional, more grown up. Whereas the style in which this City one has been designed it looks more rudimentary, more childish.

Btw i meant nothing better to compare it to as in this design context.

 

[D Silva Surfer]

I hope that isn't the actual design, it's awful.

 

[Keepingthefaithsince1976]

You've not peed me off at all mate.

It's hard to explain, but if you look at say the NYCFC badge as an example compared to this new one, the NYCFC one looks more stylish, more professional, more grown up. Whereas the style in which this City one has been designed it looks more rudimentary, more childish.

Just checked the NYCFC design and obviously its much simpler so looks good. Font wise i cant see much difference. Sorry...just not getting where your at with this description.