Club Badge (merged)

[HellYeah]

I think it looks as good as could be expected in this day & age. The last one looks horrible imo & there's nothing about the 'old' ones which is better than this, they have elements of crapulance about them too, just that we grew up with it & don't mind.

It's ok. Which is the best we could have hoped for imo.

Why exactly is this the best we could have hoped for, and why is 'this day and age' relevant to your point.

I certainly hoped and expected better. Especially given the effort put in for the badge consultation.

 

[George Hannah]

I think it looks as good as could be expected in this day & age. The last one looks horrible imo & there's nothing about the 'old' ones which is better than this, they have elements of crapulance about them too, just that we grew up with it & don't mind.

It's ok. Which is the best we could have hoped for imo.

You're are being unusually kind - the lack of 'fc' is simply unacceptable to many fans and the 1894 date highly controversial despite the views of Gary. If you look at at the founding date of many venerable league clubs they have had various name changes along the way. 1880 saw the beginning of City arguably even earlier.

 

[Neville Kneville]

Why exactly is this the best we could have hoped for, and why is 'this day and age' relevant to your point.

I certainly hoped and expected better. Especially given the effort put in for the badge consultation.

Because things these days are cheap looking & shit & designed by people with braces & coloured spectacles & little beards etc. If you give them the opportunity to fuck about with something, it could end in utter disaster, like putting a cartoon Eagle & 3 Champs Lg winners stars on top, because they don't know what it means . This is 'ok' imo & will look alright on stuff .

 

[Neville Kneville]

You're are being unusually kind - the lack of 'fc' is simply unacceptable to many fans and the 1894 date highly controversial despite the views of Gary. If you look at at the founding date of many venerable league clubs they have had various name changes along the way. 1880 saw the beginning of City.

I'd prefer f.c. but ever since the 'City' Football Group thing appeared, I assumed the word 'City' to be important to them. The other point is an argument they can't win.

 

[mcfc1632]

The middle one is the best and the one on the right comes a close second, the one we are stuck with is a poor third.

Like many have said, having City straight and it looks lost is wrong.

The middle one is superb, the club have got it close to what we want but wrong. Surely we can fight for the middle one and the club would listen.

Come on blues, voice our opinions, unity is powerful

You're missing the point.

I'm pleased the club asked fans what they wanted too.

But I think they should have asked fans which final design they liked, not just which symbols they liked.

That way, "design types" road digger types, factory worker types, accounting types, everyone could have picked the final design they liked best.

That is (IMO) a bit simplistic and idealistic.

This is a big decision that will last for years - CITY are building a brand and could not have the final decision left to a load of fan's personal selection. Of course if it had been done that way you would have got 1000s of pages on here with probably a small number of posters seeking to lobby/influence the vote and a load of falling out.

I personally wish they had gone for a totally new design to absolutely WOW and not been constrained by the past symbols -but surely respect has to be given to the club for seeking and incorporating the views of fans - most clubs would not have done that.

The club deserve enormous respect but do not really seem to be getting it.

 

[SWP's back]

You're are being unusually kind - the lack of 'fc' is simply unacceptable to many fans and the 1894 date highly controversial despite the views of Gary. If you look at at the founding date of many venerable league clubs they have had various name changes along the way. 1880 saw the beginning of City arguably even earlier.

It wasn't just a name change though was it.

@Gary James has explained this far better than I can, and at length.

 

[mad4city]

Did it ever occur to any of ye that Sheik M might be using the 1894 date because 8's are squiggly and the printer might have only had one?
No, it didn't, did it?
That's because you only ever think of yourselves.


PS: I like the new badge. I'd prefer if it had FC on but if that's what it took to choke that fecking eagle, well and good.

 

[George Hannah]

It wasn't just a name change though was it.

@Gary James has explained this far better than I can, and at length.

Gary's excellent credentials and persuasive explanations have convinced many including the club hierarchy that Ardwick FC wasn't a direct antecedent of City - but not me. Here is not the place to expand but I'll do it in the 1880 vs 1894 thread.

 

[blueparrot]

Did it ever occur to any of ye that Sheik M might be using the 1894 date because 8's are squiggly and the printer might have only had one?
No, it didn't, did it?
That's because you only ever think of yourselves.


PS: I like the new badge. I'd prefer if it had FC on but if that's what it took to choke that fecking eagle, well and good.

I think they use 1894 because as Gary James has explained it's the most accurate date.

 

[Centurions]

That is (IMO) a bit simplistic and idealistic.

This is a big decision that will last for years - CITY are building a brand and could not have the final decision left to a load of fan's personal selection. Of course if it had been done that way you would have got 1000s of pages on here with probably a small number of posters seeking to lobby/influence the vote and a load of falling out.

I personally wish they had gone for a totally new design to absolutely WOW and not been constrained by the past symbols -but surely respect has to be given to the club for seeking and incorporating the views of fans - most clubs would not have done that.

The club deserve enormous respect but do not really seem to be getting it.

And if they had been given (say) 3 options to choose one from it's not like everybody would have chosen the same one anyway leading to exactly the same whinging we're getting on here anyway.

BTW, I'm confused by your last sentence. Isn't it a bit contradictory to the rest of your post or have I missed the point?