Keepingthefaithsince1976
Well-Known Member
What times the stoning?
Club Badge (merged)
- Thread starter MCRJON
- Start date
What times the stoning?
Cheadle_hulmeBlue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 27 Oct 2012
- Messages
- 16,997
the eagle has only been used since the 50s ? a council created design also used by united ( not 100% sure there) . the red rose is relevant we have hundreds of years of history with it, how isn't it relevant ? greater manchester was invented barely any time ago. the eagle was so poorly designed and not thought out, this is miles better imo. it doesn't matter that it was the least successful, if we win everything over the next ten years it will be the most successful, you can't not have something on a badge because we didn't win with it 40 odd years ago
Shaelumstash
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 30 Apr 2009
- Messages
- 8,254
If you read back my posts, I've been a bit advocate of Gav's design. When the club released the ship and rivers teasers, I was delighted and thought they were going for something similar.
Right from the beginning of the consultation I said it should be the rose OR rivers. Including both in an attempt to please everyone will end up pleasing no one. As another poster said, if half vote for yellow, half vote for blue, you don't give them green. No one voted for green.
When the club released the red rose teaser I was gutted. I thought it was a wind up at first. It turned out to be true and they've included the rose and rivers, and to me it looks awkward and a fudge. They should have been bold and gone for one or the other.
If you look at my post from late last night you'll see I mocked up a few alternatives based on this design, and my favourite from them was C which had the rose on a white background, no rivers. If there was a second round consultation I would have voted for that.
Especially with such a modern, simple design, including the rivers and rose just looks untidy and awkward, especially in monochrome.
But, as I have said, I can live with that fudge, it's not the end of the world. If, for example Gav had designed a badge using those core elements I would probably be on here raving about how amazing it is and booking myself in at the tattoo studio.
But I'm convinced they've booked the guy who did Arsenal's badge, and in an attempt to make it "Modern, Original" I think they've made it look cartoony and childish.
You're asking why it looks cartoony, I guess that it something you can either see or you can't. I can't explain to you why, but dozens of other posters have said it, and it was my initial reaction.
Neville Kneville
Well-Known Member
None of the badges actually look any good on there including the old ones. The green water on the old one looks fucking atrocious.
CitizenTID
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 9 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 5,053
I've got his book I've just never got round to reading it!
Cheadle_hulmeBlue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 27 Oct 2012
- Messages
- 16,997
he might post this himself but just incase he doesn't
gary james - mcfc 1880 or 1894 the facts: over the last 24 hours I've seen lots of comments about the formation date of Manchester City and so, to ensure everyone's aware, I thought I'd add my comments here. If you attended my badge talks or have read my books you'll know this anyway, but if not here goes....
Manchester City was established in 1894, April to be more precise, and was described as a new football club for Manchester at its birth. Josh Parlby, a prime mover, eloquently talked of the new club at the May 1894 League AGM where he stressed that MCFC was not Ardwick in disguise. In fact Ardwick played on after MCFC was founded and so the two organisations were in existence at the same time. Ultimately, Ardwick gave up and most - but not all - connected with Ardwick joined MCFC.
So Manchester City was a new team, formed in 1894. This however does not mean that everything that came before 1894 is irrelevant, far from it, but it does mean that Manchester City's formation is 1894.
Some people say 1880 should be the club's formation, but we have no idea whether 1880 was actually the year the football club came into existence. We know they played games in 1880, but it's possible they played games before1880 that weren't reported. By comparison MUFC claim 1878 as formation, but there's no evidence of Newton Heath playing football before 1880, so what were they doing before 1880? And how does this compare to St Mark's? We know there were regular cricket games at St Marks in the 1870s and before, should that be included? There were even cricket matches in the 1860s, so what should we do?
City fans have often said that MUFC's formation should be 1902 and that's true, because Newton Heath was the club before 1902, so City should ensure their date is accurate. 1894 is exactly right - it's the year MCFC was formed.
gary james - mcfc 1880 or 1894 the facts: over the last 24 hours I've seen lots of comments about the formation date of Manchester City and so, to ensure everyone's aware, I thought I'd add my comments here. If you attended my badge talks or have read my books you'll know this anyway, but if not here goes....
Manchester City was established in 1894, April to be more precise, and was described as a new football club for Manchester at its birth. Josh Parlby, a prime mover, eloquently talked of the new club at the May 1894 League AGM where he stressed that MCFC was not Ardwick in disguise. In fact Ardwick played on after MCFC was founded and so the two organisations were in existence at the same time. Ultimately, Ardwick gave up and most - but not all - connected with Ardwick joined MCFC.
So Manchester City was a new team, formed in 1894. This however does not mean that everything that came before 1894 is irrelevant, far from it, but it does mean that Manchester City's formation is 1894.
Some people say 1880 should be the club's formation, but we have no idea whether 1880 was actually the year the football club came into existence. We know they played games in 1880, but it's possible they played games before1880 that weren't reported. By comparison MUFC claim 1878 as formation, but there's no evidence of Newton Heath playing football before 1880, so what were they doing before 1880? And how does this compare to St Mark's? We know there were regular cricket games at St Marks in the 1870s and before, should that be included? There were even cricket matches in the 1860s, so what should we do?
City fans have often said that MUFC's formation should be 1902 and that's true, because Newton Heath was the club before 1902, so City should ensure their date is accurate. 1894 is exactly right - it's the year MCFC was formed.
Gordyola
Well-Known Member
If you followed Gary James you would know that the designer of the Eagle badge spent a considerable amount of time studying the club's history as I said the Eagle was used by the club in the sixties Yes the stars were wrong the MCFC was wrong didn't like the Latin motor but I'd have them all before the rose, and I'm a Lancastrian, but to me other clubs represent Lancashire more than City do. yes Greater Manchester as an authority came about in 1974 as a place it has existed for centuries. I could have accepted a redesign of the original badge done by an expert consultancy even if football club was omitted but the shambles that is being presented is not what I expect from an organisation that has the resources the club has.
Champions2012!
Well-Known Member
I love it
Champions2012!
Well-Known Member
That one is mint, looks menacing
"Greater Manchester" is an administrative term that was invented by government in 1974, which isn't long ago; the older "Lancashire" has more sentimental and emotional meaning. And the eagle was pretentious, not ambitious.