Club Badge (merged)

[CitizenTID]

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. City use authentic dates, others have no evidence for theirs!

For more on 1894 read the Look Inside stuff from 1894 on Amazon for my book Manchester a The City Years (that section's free!)

Thanks Gary!

 

[George Hannah]

so, leaked by the Intellectual Property Office on their web site....

the crimson leak should be traced to its source in this tin-pot outfit and blotted.

 

[Big Yaya Wilko 12]

Mods - think this account has been hacked. :-)

Hahaha!

I'm in the christmas spirit!

 

[Gary James]

People keep asking me for my view, when City officially release the badge I'll give my views. In the meantime Merry Christmas.

 

[Innsbruckblue]

Never thought I would ever say this, but I like the idea of leaving out 'football club' and FC. We are City, and from Manchester, so making those two words more prominent works for me.
Have never liked the eagle badge, so like the idea of going back to what, for me, is our traditional look.
I do, however, believe the club should have looked at @GeekinGav's designs.

 

[Shaelumstash]

I love your passion but don't speak for others when others do not share your opinion.

I think the club have done a good job and whilst it is not 100/100 it is very good imp and I already love it

I was paraphrasing "Try to please everyone and you end up pleasing no one" there mate, I was making a point about decisive decision making, not trying to speak for everyone.

I'm glad you like it, many blues seem more happy with this than the eagle which is only a good thing.

I stand by my point that the rivers OR the rose look better than both squashed together. I put up a few designs late last night in the new style design with either the rose or rivers, and both looked infinity better imo.

Feel free to have a look at them and see which you prefer.

 

[RichardDunneOwnGoal]

Black Text:

Much, much better.

Good effort mate.

This is why I think the club should've given us a vote.

So, so straightforward. And would've given us a much better end product.

 

[SebastianBlue]

So what is this execution please? Surely these 3 mid to high level designers are only voicing their personal opinion. As we all are on here.

Inconsistent application of shading, several elements that violate basic design principles (like the unbalanced use of white space and the poor positional lines of the shield relative to the proportions of the whole), and the use of "trending" design styles which are usually reserved for more transient applications (rather than longer term branding initiatives).

In the end most things outside of hard science are opinions, but they did reference generally accepted design principles that were ignored (and others have already discussed in this thread).

It's not horrific, it's just not good design and I suppose I expect more from our generally excellent executive/management team.

 

[TFC]

People keep asking me for my view, when City officially release the badge I'll give my views. In the meantime Merry Christmas.

You've just been added to the list of things to complain about mister... ;)

 

[Higor Douglas]