Man City Discussion
- Thread starter MrE
- Start date
The new Man City crest leaked from England's Intellectual Property Office. It will be officially unveiled 12/26, Boxing Day.
I wanted to see some reaction, so I did a Google Reverse image search for the logo. I'm sure this will change as the image becomes published more widely, but -- irony of ironies -- the results came up as a best guess of "Manchester United Sticker"
, he calmly stated.
This looks like a poorly done marketing ploy to try and sell more club merchandise.
I know I'm in the minority here, but I actually liked the logo with the eagle.
Eh, the fans have been demanding the club get rid of the eagle and star crest for years. If it's a marketing ploy then it's disguised quite well behind a response to a genuine request of the fans.
I'm kind of torn on this badge. It's not half as bad as it could be, but it could be a lot better too. The crest is too cartoony so it makes it look a bit stupid, I can't understand the logic behind not including the words "football club" at the bottom, I wish they'd use the 1880 date for the founding of the club rather than 1894 which is just the date when the club took its current name, and finally I wanted to see them using the cross pattee rather than the 1894 date anyway.
However, as I say, it's not an awful design. A 5 or 6 out of 10, perhaps. I'm sure I'll get used to it over the next 20 years, up until it gets completely redesigned yet again. At least it has no stars now...
I hope they copyrighted several logos and this is one of the ones they didn't choose. You know, make several iterations so people can't knockout the real logo. This one is terrible. Not enough Sky Blue. Is this a basketball team, or a hockey club, or an association of flower merchants? It looks like a cartoon.
Get rid of the triangle thing, or at least keep it in the circle. But Football Club on the bottom instead of City, move City to the top. Put the flowers where the 1894 is like NYCFC has the pentagon and Melbourne has their thing there. Put 1894 below the boat.
This may be one the worst logos in the league, or possibly all of soccer.
Get rid of the triangle thing, or at least keep it in the circle. But Football Club on the bottom instead of City, move City to the top. Put the flowers where the 1894 is like NYCFC has the pentagon and Melbourne has their thing there. Put 1894 below the boat.
This may be one the worst logos in the league, or possibly all of soccer.
They also registered the crest in a single color. Looks slight better. But this isn't even sky blue. And the 94 looks bigger than the 18.
Last edited:
Went over to a Man City forum to read their thoughts. At least it's a football club according to someone's custom design. At least this is more palpable. Apparently in the fan survey regarding the shape nowhere was the shield even a choice.
I took the fan survey, and although it was a month or two ago now, I'm pretty sure that the shield was one of the questions. I'm not really sure, I wasn't really trying to memorise the questions as I went through them, but I seem to recall there were two questions: first "do you want a shield?" and secondly "which of these two shields do you want?" where the options were a vague silhouette in these formats:
http://www.alonatwotrees.com/heraldry/shield1.gif
http://images.clipartpanda.com/shield-clipart-black-and-white-shield-white-md.png
I don't understand playing Kompany. When he's subbed on, you know you're going to win the game. Therefore, why risk injury? And now Kompany is injured heading into a key matchup at Leicester.
When a player is coming back from injury, they need match fitness. You don't just wait until they're 100% before playing them because they need the game time to get to 100%. You don't play them for 90 minutes when they're 80% either because that's suicide. What you do is play them for the final 30 minutes of a match when they're at 80%, then you play them for the first 60 minutes when they're at 90% and then and only then do you risk them on a full game.
Pellegrini was giving Kompany his last 30 minutes. In 99% of cases it would go fine. This is that one time when it didn't.
I'm sure the team got 14 different medical clearances before they even let him near the stadium. Sometimes things like this happen. I can't see blaming Pellegrini, though.
I was not sure until I saw it on a shirt but I think the new badge is good. Definitely an improvement on the last one. I wasn't also sure about the shield outside of the inner-circle but from a distance it will pop more. I will reserve final judgment until I get my new shirt next season. I agree it should say 1880 not 1894 as we just changed the name in 1894. At least the stupid stars have gone.
When I took the survey the type of shield was an option. Personally I still think we should wear the Manchester coat of arms when we reach any final. I think NYCFC should do the same when we in the very near future (No pressure PV) do the same.
Similar threads
