Club Badge (merged)

[Neville Kneville]

If the above is the actual design it's different from the snip it city have released.
On the snip it above, the blue band on the shield is the opposite way around. From the red petal you have blue banding before the gold?

I think you're right, if that is indeed part of the badge which City have released, then it doesn't seem to correspond with the one from the ipo.

 

[The Fat el Hombre]

We have some fucking spoilt brats as supporters.

The new badge is fine...fucking grow some.

Why are people spoilt brats?

 

[IanBishopsHaircut]

If the above is the actual design it's different from the snip it city have released.
On the snip it above, the blue band on the shield is the opposite way around. From the red petal you have blue banding before the gold?

Curiouser and Curiouser

 

[M3 Blue]

If the above is the actual design it's different from the snip it city have released.
On the snip it above, the blue band on the shield is the opposite way around. From the red petal you have blue banding before the gold?

This is what confused me about the leak, it was a completely different style to the teaser campaign. I would've expected them to use the same style for the ads as the badge, that style being similar to the NYCFC branding.

I can hope anyway...

 

[bluesoup]

Yes it is curious. If it is upside down, the border is a bit different. City do like to tease though... All is to be revealed later on.

 

[1961_vintage]

Why are people spoilt brats?

Lots of reasons but I would blame the parents.

 

[IanBishopsHaircut]

Yes it is curious. If it is upside down, the border is a bit different. City do like to tease though... All is to be revealed later on.

The dark blue border in the corner is closest to the Rose yet on the leaked badge it shouldn't be there at all

 

[George Hannah]

It doesn't really matter though does it George

Whether we were a direct follow on from Ardwick/St Marks, the fact remains that 1894 was when Manchester City were formed..that in itself is completely correct

The whole point about publishing your founding date is to emphasise a long and hopefully distinguished history. To pick a later date by reference to a particular title is not the way it is done by any other club. Consequently we fail to do justice to the continuity of our traditions and supporters compared to our competitors. Bizarre and unjustifiable in my view.

 

[Elbow beards]

The dark blue border in the corner is closest to the Rose yet on the leaked badge it shouldn't be there at all

I don't think the teasers are close ups of the actual badge, I think they are just showing elements of it, to give you an idea of what to expect. If that's the case, then everything they've showed us so far matches up to the leaked badge

 

[George Hannah]

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

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Manchester_City_F.C._(1880–1928)
Somebody needs to have a look at changing this then.