Club Badge (merged)

[Centurions]

I doubt you have any idea what other clubs have done.

QPR letting the fans decide is a much better way than better than City's, other clubs let fans chose from a list like I suggested. City can't even get the established date correctly according to Football League records.

http://www.qpr.co.uk/news/article/qpr-club-crest-fans-vote-2852214.aspx

QPR 1 - Manchester City 0

Are you claiming to have not seen Gary James's explanation for settling on that date or have you just decided to ignore it as it doesn't suit your purpose (what ever that may be)?

 

[Corky]

Are you claiming to have not seen Gary James's explanation for settling on that date or have you just decided to ignore it as it doesn't suit your purpose (what ever that may be)?

I presented evidence from the football league history book showing Ardwick were voted back into Division 2 with he most votes (20) in 1894 which contradicted an explanation on here by someone who claimed it was a brand new club in 1894 and Ardwick resigned rather than face re-election. Obviously there may be mistakes in the football league history book (which no one has picked up on though), but it is also plausible that other accounts are not entirely correct.

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

Can't believe this debate is still going on, there was a democratic vote and the people who lost now want it all changed to the way they want the badge to look. Imo close this thread, decision is made. Or at least stop moaning

 

[warpig]

Oh do piss off. If you're gonna claim shite like that and call Gary James a liar then there's no help for you.

Put your tin foil hat on and go start your own club.

Please enlighten me and show me where I have called Gary James a liar.

 

[HellYeah]

Please enlighten me and show me where I have called Gary James a liar.

Gary has stated numerous times that the consultation is genuine and the badge had not been decided prior to the consultation. You however have said the club had designed the badge months ago.

So either you are making it up or Gary is lying.

Which is it?

 

[warpig]

Gary has stated numerous times that the consultation is genuine and the badge had not been decided prior to the consultation. You however have said the club had designed the badge months ago.

So either you are making it up or Gary is lying.

Which is it?

I've no doubt the consultation bit was genuine. It ticked a box.

I'm Not disputing that Gary hadn't been told the badge had not already been redesigned. That was the clubs party line. They are hardly going to say otherwise are they. So again, please enlighten me and tell me when I have called Gary a liar.

if the club wanted to genuinely put a badge out to consultation they would have release a short list to vote on. They didn't that's there perogative. Doesn't bother me that. Just be honest about it .

 

[Gary James]

I presented evidence from the football league history book showing Ardwick were voted back into Division 2 with he most votes (20) in 1894 which contradicted an explanation on here by someone who claimed it was a brand new club in 1894 and Ardwick resigned rather than face re-election. Obviously there may be mistakes in the football league history book (which no one has picked up on though), but it is also plausible that other accounts are not entirely correct.

Oh dear. Believe what you want. I've researched every newspaper from that period and seen the MCFC prospectus which talked of this being a new club. I've done the research but if you've performed the research yourself and have hard contemporary evidence then great, publish it. I've published the evidence in my books and academic papers. Happy to be proved wrong though if you find something contemporary that says it's simply a name change. I've spent thousands of hours... Days even researching April 1894. But show the contemporary facts and I'll admit I'm wrong

 

[Shaelumstash]

I've no doubt the consultation bit was genuine. It ticked a box.

I'm Not disputing that Gary hadn't been told the badge had not already been redesigned. That was the clubs party line. They are hardly going to say otherwise are they. So again, please enlighten me and tell me when I have called Gary a liar.

if the club wanted to genuinely put a badge out to consultation they would have release a short list to vote on. They didn't that's there perogative. Doesn't bother me that. Just be honest about it .

I don't agree with you mate, and here's why. Gary James has said in the past that when Khaldoon first became involved in the club, he booked a meeting with Gary to learn about the history of the club. He was particularly interested in the rose badge, and the meaning and history behind it. He clearly had a fondness for this badge. If the club had wanted to simple please Khaldoon, they could quite easily just updated the rose badge.

Instead, they took the time to find our what fans wanted. There is no question the fans wanted a return to a round badge, that was very clear on these boards and the MEN vote. Other popular elements were the ship, the inner shield, the rivers and the rose. Going off the MEN poll, and on here, the rivers were slightly more popular than the rose, but it was close. The statistics released by the club are exactly in line with the posts on here and the MEN poll.

If the club had just did what they want, it would be a remarkable coincidence that the badge they had designed in advance contained all of the most popular elements!

As I've said previously, my first choice was the rivers. However, I think if they wanted to include the rose, it would actually look cleaner, more simple, more iconic without the rivers. The fact the club has included both has probably made the design worse, but they've done it to appease the fans.

It's ridiculous to claim the club have designed a badge without listening to the fan's views on the consultation. All of the evidence points strongly towards the exact opposite!

 

[HellYeah]

I've no doubt the consultation bit was genuine. It ticked a box.

I'm Not disputing that Gary hadn't been told the badge had not already been redesigned. That was the clubs party line. They are hardly going to say otherwise are they. So again, please enlighten me and tell me when I have called Gary a liar.

if the club wanted to genuinely put a badge out to consultation they would have release a short list to vote on. They didn't that's there perogative. Doesn't bother me that. Just be honest about it .

So the last line of the above is your evidence is it. From what you said before I thought you had some proper evidence. Now you want the club to honest without being able to prove they're not


If you believe it's a fix then fine.

 

[SWP's back]

I've no doubt the consultation bit was genuine. It ticked a box.

I'm Not disputing that Gary hadn't been told the badge had not already been redesigned. That was the clubs party line. They are hardly going to say otherwise are they. So again, please enlighten me and tell me when I have called Gary a liar.

if the club wanted to genuinely put a badge out to consultation they would have release a short list to vote on. They didn't that's there perogative. Doesn't bother me that. Just be honest about it .

You missed Gary's posts about the different designs the club tried regarding 'football club', 'F.C.' And curling 'City' etc?