That's right, I feel Manchester City FC have sold out our history, we were formed in 1880 and not 1894. Yes I am fully aware St Marks aka Ardwick AFC became Manchester City in 1894, 8 years before Newton Heath became Manchester United. Not having 1880 on our badge is an almighty insult and slap in the face to St Marks of West Gorton, it is a disgrace that we do not celebrate their hard work and our history.
I believe it would have been better served if Manchester City FC, FOOTBALL CLUB, but we will deal with this in a moment, if Manchester City FC gave us fans a final consultation or a few badges to vote on instead of forcing an average and poorly designed Club Badge on us.
The Badge just looks like a cheap knock off of New York City's badge, but even NYCFC who are an American SOCCER club have Football Club in front of their Title? Sorry but the designers Manchester City FC employ need sacking, I'm an ex Art student and Artist myself so have plenty of experience to pass judgement not to mention having supported Manchester City since 1970's/1980's. as far as I'm concerned Manchester and City should never have been separated and Football Club should have still been present, it seems pretty clear to me that the minds behind this have a simple way of thinking. Design error No.1 you DON'T curve Manchester and then leave City un-curved, what were you thinking? that it makes some kind of statement or that it makes it stand out more?
I submitted a badge myself and even had a few other ideas like a small outer ring with Superbia in Proelio repeated all the way around within if not the ribbon below it as shown below. Yes I'm aware the three rivers are not present and I meant to add them but it's not something that can't be added so.
The only thing I like about the new badge is the outer ring which could be made a little larger to house Superbia in Proelio and the 3D design to it. Other than that it's an almighty failure as far as I'm concerned, so much so that I find myself compelled to abandon any future purchases of this new badge at the City Store and stick with my old shirts. Too buy anything with this new badge would mean I am ultimately conceding in buying something I do not like. You can say I'm spitting my dummy out and in all honesty I am I guess, but that's my choice but I'm intrigued to know how many other Manchester City fans feel the same.
So thumbs down on this one for me.
Feel free to have your say?
I on the other hand absolutely love the new badge and hated the stupid eagle and mean nothing stars.
ReplyDeleteDo not like new badge at all. Current badge is better and more dominating
ReplyDeletetotally disagree, love the new badge!!! Great job CITY!!!
ReplyDeleteI respect everyone's opinions but one thing I'd hoped was, for all to agree that 1880 should be one our badge, disgrace that it isn't. I suppose new age fans have no care or interest in our history and heritage, can lead a horse to water but can't make it drink.
ReplyDeleteI hate the shield is not within the inner circle, that City is not curved and the date. Looks like my 10 year old designed it as homework. I do however like the features that are represented
ReplyDeleteDefinitely should have 1880 and FC...really don't think it was thought through much
ReplyDeleteI don't like anything about it. Looks like a drag and drop effort where you're only allowed to use four features. How much did the club pay the ten year old who designed it?! Anybody who doesn't like it (and it sounds like many) should contact the club before its incorporated.
ReplyDeleteThe eagle with the three stars was the best design by far, the new one looks shit & I really don't like it. Looks boring & very retro.
ReplyDeleteI am a new age fan of MCFC from India, but started following MCFC before Abudabi takeover. I loved the Eagle badge. But I kinda liked this new badge too. The eagle badge was too modern and this new badge have a vintage look to it. But the year should have been 1880 rather than 1894.
ReplyDelete