Club Badge (merged)

[teddykgb]

But the word City doesn't look more prominent it looks out of sinc with the Manchester, the ship should be a third of the shield not half,football club should be in there & the rose just looks like an after thought. When something is being designed, you take basic elements you want & put them together so as to create something that looks like a single entity, omitting things that just don't look right, I mean even the lettering font doesn't look right. A competent graphic designer could sort this out in half an hour. It looks amateurish, someone on here has made it look miles better by putting white in the stripes & football club back in. These are things that should have been played around with by the designers, it looks to me like they've just said ' it's not important & that'll do'. They pretend to listen but actually the people that sanctioned this hav'nt got a clue.

First off, your initial post was that what I said was incorrect -- you didn't even make a passing mention as to why in this post.

It's very hard to type what a design process is, but what you described isn't it. I work in this field, albeit not as a designer, and while there is a lot of tinkering, the process ALWAYS includes dozens of options. I've received upwards of 75 options on one logotype at one point, and that was just logo type! Whatever combination you think makes it perfect was almost assuredly looked at and rejected by someone at the club for some reason. It's entirely valid to say that that person was wrong, but to act like this process didn't take a look at probably hundreds of permutations is naive at best. For reasons we won't know, they decided they liked these elements -- they wanted double blue rivers (perhaps worried about applicability on white with white rivers), they wanted City set off by itself in white space, they wanted to drop Football Club.

As to showing it to other designers, while a useful mechanism for gathering input, it's not something I do much of professionally. It's very rare to find a designer who doesn't think another designer's work is horribly misplaced. It's sort of natural to the work that they do and one person's design ethos is seldom replicated by another person's. That doesn't make the person who did this badge "right". There are things I might have done differently or like to have seen different according to my personal tastes, but I'm not going to be surprised if you ask 8 designers about it and get 8 different opinions about what is wrong with it either. Unless you were party to the conversations about what they wanted to project with this image and what was important to them, you're highly unlikely to be able to get into this with them.

 

[ballinio]

You need to look at your life ha ha, there are no "basic" errors.......what design college did you attend! It just not one of Gavins designs that everyone was jizzing over.

You don't have to attend any college to recognise when something's designed badly , at least I thought you didn't, maybe some people just can't see it, bit like being colour blind I suppose .

 

[ballinio]

First off, your initial post was that what I said was incorrect -- you didn't even make a passing mention as to why in this post.

It's very hard to type what a design process is, but what you described isn't it. I work in this field, albeit not as a designer, and while there is a lot of tinkering, the process ALWAYS includes dozens of options. I've received upwards of 75 options on one logotype at one point, and that was just logo type! Whatever combination you think makes it perfect was almost assuredly looked at and rejected by someone at the club for some reason. It's entirely valid to say that that person was wrong, but to act like this process didn't take a look at probably hundreds of permutations is naive at best. For reasons we won't know, they decided they liked these elements -- they wanted double blue rivers (perhaps worried about applicability on white with white rivers), they wanted City set off by itself in white space, they wanted to drop Football Club.

As to showing it to other designers, while a useful mechanism for gathering input, it's not something I do much of professionally. It's very rare to find a designer who doesn't think another designer's work is horribly misplaced. It's sort of natural to the work that they do and one person's design ethos is seldom replicated by another person's. That doesn't make the person who did this badge "right". There are things I might have done differently or like to have seen different according to my personal tastes, but I'm not going to be surprised if you ask 8 designers about it and get 8 different opinions about what is wrong with it either. Unless you were party to the conversations about what they wanted to project with this image and what was important to them, you're highly unlikely to be able to get into this with them.

Glad we agree .

 

[Cheadle_hulmeBlue]

You don't have to attend any college to recognise when something's designed badly , at least I thought you didn't, maybe some people just can't see it, bit like being colour blind I suppose .

thats just your opinion. every has there own opinion especially when it comes to design. i dont think its badly design just needs reworking a little, if they add fc to it it would be great

 

[nmc]

First time I have posted in this thread - I have followed the discussions closely but have never been that bothered by the badge. When we moved to the Eagle I thought it looked more modern and my only issue was with the three stars. I think the new design is good - but I'm easy to please because I'm really not too bothered. Essentially the new badge has been designed by committee - the fans have said what is important and the club have tried to incorporate these elements into a design. I think the rose and the three rivers was an either or - so it may have been better to have had a few designs and then given the fans a choice like NY did. I think the new design looks very retro - I'll learn to like it - I think better use of colors could have made it a lot more classy but it's okay as it is - and I think we all now need to move on and focus on what's really important - results on the pitch - where we could do with an uplift in fortunes.

 

[kaz7]

The acid test is; will it look good on a bald fifty somethings leg?

Who is going to volunteer to be the first,i would but i'm not bald

 

[nmc]

Who is going to volunteer to be the first,i would but i'm not bald

Your legs arn't bald. Eeerrrrrrrr

 

[pudge]

Even take out the "F.C.", put "1894" where the dot is, add an extra line for a third river and Bob's your uncle. Maybe @GeekinGav could do a mock up?

 

[bladdered]

It would be interesting if we could have a poll on here to guage reaction before its officially launched on Saturday. A simple Like/Dislike/Unsure would do the trick. If there was a negative response to it, this might persuade them to consider making a few tweeks at some stage later rather than present it as the finished article.

 

[Corky]

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!)

For the last 40 years I was under the impression that the change of name in 1894 was to attract more fans, and to be honest if it was done for marketing reasons of course they are going to claim it is a new club for the whole of Manchester. I'm not convinced at all by this change in formation dates, such as how could city be re-elected into division 2 in 1984 if they didn't already exist? Surely Ardwick would have had to have resigned from the league?