Club Badge (merged)

[DJBusinesscake]

Some people need to moan

Its called venting, i think people use Bluemoon for a free alternative to counselling.

 

[mancityvstoke]

16th April the club became a limited company. The dates on the prospectus are the offer period when shares were available. I try to explain the dates here . The 'Look Inside' feature allows all of the period prior to 1895 to be read for free and covers every incarnation of St Marks, Gorton, Ardwick and City. Cheers

Great work mate...........no one can claim to have done what you have to actually find out the facts

 

[Keepingthefaithsince1976]

Great work mate...........no one can claim to have done what you have to actually find out the facts

+1

 

[Corky]

@Corky in ruins.

Hardly chief, people just need to think about it for themselves.

Why would a genuine new football club need to state "new football club", this was likely to be needed to try and persuade people at the time it was. The same in the League AGM minutes, the motivation behind having to state it is a new club may be because people at the time didn't see it as such, which reflects on the perception of the transition at the time. There could also be drivers such as debts, marketing and director politics (which shouldn't be underestimated).

A legal split as seen with other clubs does not mean that the club isn't rationally the same (e.g. Rangers), and the question why a club only existing a few days, without even playing in the Lancashire League as others did, manage to get into the league without using Ardwick's mandate? Why did this never happen to any other football club in history, and how would a brand new club have do much more support from all the other clubs compared to a founder member and other existing clubs?

The rational continuation of a football clubs and its perception by the public and peers overrides legal status (there are many examples). As we are not allowed to think, challenge or rationalise any of this ourselves (without publishing it of course), and the forum always resorts to the lowest common denominator sheep mentality, we may as well close the thread. Facts and Historical facts/ Rover 100 and Austin Mini Metro etc.

 

[Shaelumstash]

Hardly chief, people just need to think about it for themselves.

Why would a genuine new football club need to state "new football club", this was likely to be needed to try and persuade people at the time it was. The same in the League AGM minutes, the motivation behind having to state it is a new club may be because people at the time didn't see it as such, which reflects on the perception of the transition at the time. There could also be drivers such as debts, marketing and director politics (which shouldn't be underestimated).

A legal split as seen with other clubs does not mean that the club isn't rationally the same (e.g. Rangers), and the question why a club only existing a few days, without even playing in the Lancashire League as others did, manage to get into the league without using Ardwick's mandate? Why did this never happen to any other football club in history, and how would a brand new club have do much more support from all the other clubs compared to a founder member and other existing clubs?

The rational continuation of a football clubs and its perception by the public and peers overrides legal status (there are many examples). As we are not allowed to think, challenge or rationalise any of this ourselves (without publishing it of course), and the forum always resorts to the lowest common denominator sheep mentality, we may as well close the thread. Facts and Historical facts/ Rover 100 and Austin Mini Metro etc.

I think you raise some good points here mate, and it all makes sense. I wouldn't for one minute try to question Gary James on historical matters because there is literally no person on earth better qualified to comment on City's history.

It's crystal clear that "Manchester City" was formed in 1894. We can say that with absolute certainty. The history of Adrwick and Gorton St Marks is less clear, and Gary has said there may have been games played before 1880, but there is no definitive evidence.

Because of that uncertainty, if we are including a date on the badge, I think 1894 is sensible, because this can be backed by definitive evidence.

However, going off your post, looking at this from a common sense point of view, it seems extremely likely that Manchester City was essentially Ardwick in all but name. As you say, the Rangers Newco is a good recent example.

If what recently happened to Rangers happened 120 years ago, and when they were re-elected to the Scottish League, they changed their name to Glasgow City, the historical records would show this was a brand new company, a brand new club with new directors and shareholders. However, because there is so much media coverage nowadays and the common man is much more educated when it comes to business matters, it's clear to everyone that Rangers is not a new club formed in 2013 or whatever. It's the same club it has been for over 100 years, it was just an administrative matter that made it have to dissolve and reform.

I appreciate the City / Ardwick case is slightly different, but just because the historical records show that City was a brand new club, it doesn't mean that everyone at the time didn't realise "Off the record" that this was an administrative procedure and Ardwick were essentially changing their name. As I said, the historical records will show the Rangers that are currently playing in the Scottish Championship are a brand new club formed in the 2010s, but everyone knows in reality it's the same club it has been for 100 plus years.

The problem is, we will probably never know. It may have been with a nod and a wink that Manchester City's application was rushed through, with everyone present knowing off the record that this was essentially Ardwick changing their name. But if that's the case there would certainly not be any written evidence of it, so it would be very hard for Gary or anyone else to know this for sure.

 

[citizen_maine]

I could be wrong, but I seem to recall Gary saying that the 'newco' and Ardwick were playing games at the same time? Wouldn't this disprove the claim that they were the same club re-branded?

 

[Corky]

I could be wrong, but I seem to recall Gary saying that the 'newco' and Ardwick were playing games at the same time? Wouldn't this disprove the claim that they were the same club re-branded?

No overlap in actual fixtures though, two end of season friendlies it seems well before the football league elections. If both teams actually played at same time it would disprove it.

 

[Blue Mooner]

No overlap in actual fixtures though, two end of season friendlies it seems well before the football league elections. If both teams actually played at same time it would disprove it.

I would say that Manchester City came out of the Ashes of Ardwick FC, what happened seems strikingly similar to what happened to Wimbledon who are now known as Milton Keynes dons. Most people would rightly argue that MK Dons formation was 2004. No one can argue that MCFC was formed in 1894 and for that reason I believe the club to be right.

 

[RichardDunneOwnGoal]

Are you for fucking real?

It's basically our old badge back and ever single City fan I've spoken to in the flesh likes it and you moaning?

They've clearly listened exactly to the fans feedback, it contains everything we've asked for.

How's your reading comprehension?

Nowhere in my comment do I discuss what I think of the badge, I'm touching on whether or not the consultation was genuine or a box ticking exercise designed to give us the impression our voice mattered.

I don't think our input counted for much, the survey was very limited and the new badge was churned out incredibly quickly with no option for a vote on a final design.

I don't think our input counted for nothing, but I think some of you are overestimating how much it counted for.

As to my thoughts about the badge, I'm pretty ambivalent about it. I half expected it to be worse, so I'm happy in that respect. It's about as inoffensive and generic as they could make it though, just a bit 'meh'. I however really don't like the fact there's no inclusion of the words 'football club' or 'FC', and I don't like the amount of Navy accents and the Navy text in it, doesn't look right IMO.

And as to your anecdotes, mine are pretty mixed, as per this forum. Season ticket holder besides me who's been going before I was born really doesn't like it, and we're in full agreement that there should have been a greater involvement of the supporters in the final design, for example a transparent vote on the final design out of a selection of a few.

That'd be real consultation that couldn't be at all accused of being a box ticking exercise, but that isn't what we got.

I'm not up in arms or anything though, just been left a bit disappointed by the whole charade.

 

[CatMan]

How's your reading comprehension?

Nowhere in my comment do I discuss what I think of the badge, I'm touching on whether or not the consultation was genuine or a box ticking exercise designed to give us the impression our voice mattered.

I don't think our input counted for much, the survey was very limited and the new badge was churned out incredibly quickly with no option for a vote on a final design.

I don't think our input counted for nothing, but I think some of you are overestimating how much it counted for.

As to my thoughts about the badge, I'm pretty ambivalent about it. I half expected it to be worse, so I'm happy in that respect. It's about as inoffensive and generic as they could make it though, just a bit 'meh'. I however really don't like the fact there's no inclusion of the words 'football club' or 'FC', and I don't like the amount of Navy accents and the Navy text in it, doesn't look right IMO.

And as to your anecdotes, mine are pretty mixed, as per this forum. Season ticket holder besides me who's been going before I was born really doesn't like it, and we're in full agreement that there should have been a greater involvement of the supporters in the final design, for example a transparent vote on the final design out of a selection of a few.

That'd be real consultation that couldn't be at all accused of being a box ticking exercise, but that isn't what we got.

I'm not up in arms or anything though, just been left a bit disappointed by the whole charade.

Good post and 100% spot on.