Club Badge (merged)

[its a Barm]

Muffin

Twat

 

[west didsblue]

Ardwick did not receive any votes because Ardwick wasn't at that meeting. Dig out the contemporary reports. Who should we believe - the people who formed 'a new club for Manchester' and the journalists, League AGM minutes etc from the period or a writer writing over 100 years later who gets confused?

Everything before 1894 is important - vital even - in understanding City's story but the specific formation of MCFC is 1894. MUFC's formation is 1902 - City shouldn't bend the truth because Utd do.

According to Companies House, MUFC was registered as a company on 31 October 1907, so isn't that the equivalent date to our 16 April 1894?
Similarly most teams who claim formation in the 1870s and 1880s were registered as companies much later. For example Everton was registered in 1892 as was Liverpool, and Preston was registered in 1893. Seems like we're the only team that uses the company registration date, although I recall that after Middlesbrough reformed in the 80s, they had 1986 on their badge for a while until they reverted back to their original date a few years later.

 

[its a Barm]

The club have got the badge right as far as i am concerned, if you don't agree then show us what would be better, or shut the fuck up.

 

[SWP's back]

I always find it a bit odd that people are still attached to the 'old' counties. These counties were the definition of administrative areas, put in so the local sheriff knew where to stop oppressing the locals and leave it to the next door thug. It's just that they were set up a long, long time ago. However they were put there by a government, not God, and were just as 'artificial' as any other random political unit.

Any road, the badge isn't perfect, it's not what I'd have chosen, but it's better than the one in place. No badge is going to satisfy everyone, but this is a fair compromise.

May as well say the same about the national boundaries in that case.

 

[SWP's back]

Great post. I just don't understand the posts where people say "Greater Manchester is just an administrative area that the Tory's forced upon us". As opposed to Lancashire, which was an administrative area forced upon us by the ruling power a few hundred years ago! What's the difference?!

Manchester is no longer part of Lancashire in any political or commercial sense. Greater Manchester is it's own autonomous city region. The 10 Greater Manchester councils own Manchester, East Midlands and Stanstead airports. The GM city council are recieving devolved powers for taxation, transport, health, home building, and economic powers that no other city or region has ever had in the country.

Yet some claim Manchester is still really in Lancashire. In what possible way is it still in Lancashire?!! Greater Manchester city council is now the most important regional authority in the country, it has as much to do with Preston and Blackburn as it does with Leeds or Birmingham!

Aside from that, the rose adds a bit of colour and depth to the badge, and to me it represents an old popular City badge more than it does the county of Lancashire.

In what way is it still part of Lancashire? Look at an old map.

 

[grim up north]

Yeh I've got no problem with the rose being on the badge mate. I grew up with the original rose badge and the birdie never meant anything to me.

The ship, shield and rivers are all historic symbols of Manchester and are on the CoA. As the club represents the city of Manchester, it's right and proper that these things are represented.

From a symbolic point of view, while the rose is on the CoA, it was originally on our badge to represent Lancashire. The club is no longer in Lancashire, so it's a bit antiquated to include it, but it does make the design a bit more eye catching, so I'm happy for it to be there.

There's lots of things we could include, plane, microchip, atom, computer etc, but for me the Greggs pasty is similar to the rose, much more Lancastrian than Mancunian. I could get behind a barm being included though....

Greggs the Benwell dody

 

[Shaelumstash]

In what way is it still part of Lancashire? Look at an old map.

Look at a what map?

 

[SWP's back]

Look at a what map?

An old one, showing Manchester in Lancashire. Red Rose county. House of Lancaster. Henry Tudor and all that.

"Greater Manchester" may be correct but it's all very clinical, modern and doesn't have the same romanticism.

 

[Cheadle_hulmeBlue]

Great post. I just don't understand the posts where people say "Greater Manchester is just an administrative area that the Tory's forced upon us". As opposed to Lancashire, which was an administrative area forced upon us by the ruling power a few hundred years ago! What's the difference?!

Manchester is no longer part of Lancashire in any political or commercial sense. Greater Manchester is it's own autonomous city region. The 10 Greater Manchester councils own Manchester, East Midlands and Stanstead airports. The GM city council are recieving devolved powers for taxation, transport, health, home building, and economic powers that no other city or region has ever had in the country.

Yet some claim Manchester is still really in Lancashire. In what possible way is it still in Lancashire?!! Greater Manchester city council is now the most important regional authority in the country, it has as much to do with Preston and Blackburn as it does with Leeds or Birmingham!

Aside from that, the rose adds a bit of colour and depth to the badge, and to me it represents an old popular City badge more than it does the county of Lancashire.

its not been greater manchester for very long at all though, you can't just ignore hundreds of years of history. the rose if anything is more relevant to manchester and its history then the ship. what happens if the boundaries change again and manchester ends up in another region.... do we then forget about greater manchester ?. its on the coa, lots of buildings around manchester and is an important symbol of our past, just like the ship.you can't just forget about it because the council changed it.

 

[Falastur]

According to Companies House, MUFC was registered as a company on 31 October 1907, so isn't that the equivalent date to our 16 April 1894?
Similarly most teams who claim formation in the 1870s and 1880s were registered as companies much later. For example Everton was registered in 1892 as was Liverpool, and Preston was registered in 1893. Seems like we're the only team that uses the company registration date, although I recall that after Middlesbrough reformed in the 80s, they had 1986 on their badge for a while until they reverted back to their original date a few years later.

There are better examples than this. If we have to take the date that the club as a company was founded then - aside from that it sets a dangerous precedent for encouraging the viewing of football as a business first and a sport second - Arsenal were founded in 1910, Spurs in 1983, Chelsea in 1990, Liverpool in 1997 and Leicester City in 2002. I'm sure if I'd looked up the whole PL I would've found examples registered in the last two years but I stopped after about seven attempts because virtually every example I looked up was proving my point.

I love Gary's work but I can't side with him on this one. A football club is defined by its core, not by its corporate registration. We existed as a club before 1894, it's just that the directors chose to re-register the club. Aside from the strict legal registration which involved a name change, nothing really changed. The same players played, the same stadium hosted, the same fans attended. The fact that there were all of these press clippings from the time is just testament to the desire of the directors to spin the story as a new club in order to shake the lingering debt issues but it doesn't change the fact that the club as a core entity remained the same. I agree with Gary that we can't conclusively prove that the club started operating in 1880 but given the lack of better alternatives, and the fact that 1894 is a transitional year, not a formative one, I think we should respect it as the closest we can come to understanding our birth year.