Club Badge (merged)

Shaelumstash said:
Done my best for you mate. I'm not a graphic designer so apologies that they look amateurish.

9ShkfSi.png


QP1dWVz.png
Click to expand...

Perfect, thanks for that. Think the top one ticks most of the boxes for me, although I think maybe for the club that text makes the name slightly difficult to read, but 2 lines of text reminds me of United's badge and 'Football Club' in full isn't really necessary (or at all according to those bastards!).

Although if I'm being picky I'd prefer the modern day ship symbol rather than the old one (thanks to the club survey I now know there is a difference!!!)
 
PBLZ129 said:
Instead of reposting the same general idea, as a nod to St. Marks; do either or both of the 2 flag positions below work?



The front one is more of a subtle nod, which i quite like on its own.
Click to expand...

This is a good idea, incorporates the cross well without it being shoehorned into the design.
 
tailspin747 said:
If we go from the St Marks formation it's 1880.

City use 1894 for some reason and ignore the St Marks and Ardwick years.

I'm sure Gary James would know [emoji6]
Click to expand...
Oh don't get me started...

Our earliest known game was Nov 1880 but it's possible we played earlier than that. Mufc have no evidence of a footy game before 1880 yet they claim 1878 as NH formation. NH had athletics etc before 1880. So should City use 1880? In my opinion we can stress that our earliest known game was 1880 but if we find an earlier one that messes that up. Also St Marks were playing cricket in 1860s, so using mufc logic then that could be used, but it's all a bit vague. Best to stick to the facts of mcfc formation which was 1894. No ifs or maybes, 1894. For anyone saying yes but Ardwick becameCity - well yes, but not initially. Ardwick played after mcfc was formed and Josh Parlby had to stress mcfc was NOT Ardwick, so let's not have wooly stuff, let's leave that to Utd. We should always talk of the club's roots but putting a St Marks related date that could change in future years would be an error. I'll be happy to talk more about this at the lectures - I'd urge everyone to book on asap.
 
PrestwichPeteMcfc said:
The 3 rivers running through Manchester City centre, the Irk, Medlock and Irwell. Features on the Manchester City Council coat of arms, the old City badge, the old United badge and the Current FC United badge.

For me, the rose, although it looks good, is completely irrelevant to modern Manchester. Also, City draw a fair portion of support from area of Greater Manchester which have never been part of Lancs, such as Hyde and Stockport.
Click to expand...

Cheadle_hulmeBlue said:
that shouldnt have anything to do with it imo, its manchester and that should be relevant, nothing to do with stockport or salford or places like that
Click to expand...

3 Rivers has been on various versions of our badge and is from the Manchester coat or arms, that makes it very relevant and it should be on there.

The Lancashire rose was on one version. It represents Lancashire, it is on the Manchester coat or arms as historically Manchester was in Lancashire but it isn’t anymore. They were small roses on a F**k of big lion and Unicorn thing but no one is suggesting they should go on the new badge!
We are not Lancashire county so the rose can F**k off. The ship and the 3 rivers stays!
 
mansour's tow ropes said:
Perfect, thanks for that. Think the top one ticks most of the boxes for me, although I think maybe for the club that text makes the name slightly difficult to read, but 2 lines of text reminds me of United's badge and 'Football Club' in full isn't really necessary (or at all according to those bastards!).

Although if I'm being picky I'd prefer the modern day ship symbol rather than the old one (thanks to the club survey I now know there is a difference!!!)
Click to expand...

No worries mate. I don't mind the text at the top and bottom, I think it looks a bit more modern and sleek. Also fits in with the NYCFC and Melbourne designs. On that note, that's a worry for me that because those two have a blue circle I think we will probably get the same.
 
Something to keep in mind...

I'm in the embroidery/screen printing business and the more colours/borders/details etc are in the logo the more stitches (and thread breaks) it will take for embroidery and it will take more screens for screen printing which all results in taking more time/money to run. Some of the designs are great looking but I'm sure the owners will be taking Nikes input into account of how these will actually print/embroider on the final garment and what makes money. I'd expect to see a more cleaner badge with less borders, bits and bobs that everyone is trying to incorporate to make everybody happy. I'm not sure all these little roses, bees, crosses, ocean waves and borders will make the final cut, we printers like simple stupid designs :)
 
Stop trying to shoehorn crosses or bees in there. For one thing, the cross could potentially be problematic in the Middle East - look what Real did not too long ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top