old badge or current badge?

M9 Blue said:
Immaculate Pasta said:
508px-Manchester_City.svg.png


This one, a quality badge but remove the three stars.
Click to expand...
And replace them with 1894
Click to expand...


Why not 1880 ?
 
Bluemoon115 said:
johnny crossan said:
I make no apology for returning to this point. Bluevengeance has raised a serious problem here. The current badge should be changed immediately given its obvious similarity to the 1958 Man U one. The person who approved this design surely didn't realise this connection.

seriousproblem.jpg
Click to expand...

THe eagle is part of an old Manchester coat of arms type thing (there used to be an image).

It's part of Manchester that both clubs have used. Absolutely nothing wrong with that (Apart from them not being from Manchester, but thats a different issue).
Click to expand...
They had to ask permission to use it,we don't.
ps.it's amazing how many of them think it's a Phoenix.
traff-arms.jpg

The rags Trafford Coat Of Arms has the river Mersey going through the middle,i shit you not.
 
Like the new badge myself, has a more dynamic feel to it for me. I don't think we should worry too much about the stars thing, soon enough we'll have 3 titles to our name anyway.
 
urmston said:
How about no badge at all?

We didn't have a badge on the shirt until about 1972ish.

Do we need a badge?
Click to expand...
See, I've been thinking along those lines myself. We're City: badges, we don't need no stinking badges!
badges.jpg

On the other hand, you can't market / brand a nothing, er, you know, that kind of oo-jah spliff money-making thinking?

The major reason I like the "old" badge isn't because it's "old" or anything of the sort, it's because it's "in-your-face". Some of the blokes who like the new one claim it's "dynamic". I have no fecking idea what that means, but it sounds awfully "luvvie" or PEye Pseuds-like to me...also sounds a little Hughes-ish. Some have said the new one is (more) aggressive. I think I know what they mean, but to my mind there's nothing as "aggressive" as being confronted with "Manchester City F.C." in plain, bold, unmistakeable terms. There's no mistaking for a second who we are...with the old one. The perfect circle is the way...get it in Cooky!
 
Brucie Bonus said:
urmston said:
How about no badge at all?

We didn't have a badge on the shirt until about 1972ish.

Do we need a badge?
Click to expand...
See, I've been thinking along those lines myself. We're City: badges, we don't need no stinking badges!
badges.jpg

On the other hand, you can't market / brand a nothing, er, you know, that kind of oo-jah spliff money-making thinking?

The major reason I like the "old" badge isn't because it's "old" or anything of the sort, it's because it's "in-your-face". Some of the blokes who like the new one claim it's "dynamic". I have no fecking idea what that means, but it sounds awfully "luvvie" or PI Pseuds-like to me...also sounds a little Hughes-ish. Some have said the new one is (more) aggressive. I think I know what they mean, but to my mind there's nothing as "aggressive" as being confronted with "Manchester City F.C." in plain, bold, unmistakeable terms. There's no mistaking for a second who we are...with the old one. The perfect circle is the way...get it in Cooky!
Click to expand...

A "dynamic" design means that it is contemporary, forward thinking with an emphasis on motion and energy.

I was quite happy when we started using the new badge as the old one appeared boring to me.
 
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