City Football Group (CFG) [Owner of Melbourne City]

[jw1739]

 

22 minutes ago, hedaik said:

Dont really care about international friendlies, got no interest in paying $50 for a meaningless game played on a cricket or footy oval. 

With most of the crowd being Eurowankers wearing the colours of the overseas club but very few of whom have actually been to that club's home ground.

I would think that we might be going to Manchester for part of pre-season, especially if we do well in the league this season.

Edited December 17, 2015 by jw1739

[drewmelbcity]

I think there is too much over sized emphasis on an a league team playing a big euro team. Whilst it would be nice for Melbourne City to play a big Euro team I see there being no positive advantages. The public already know we are owned by a big European side. There is nothing appealing about watching our club being beaten by a European team that is in the middle of their pre season. I'm happy for our boys to stay low key, even return to Manchester for a pre season. The results on the field is what is going to get our fans/ members and playing entertaining football (which we are starting to do).

[Imperial Pints]

I'd buy two memberships next year if we got our red & white home kits back. C'mon santa, give these cfg corporates a stocking full of common sense this Christmas!

[belaguttman]

7 hours ago, Cityamatic said:

Don't know if this has been confirmed, but It's just popped up in my twitter feed that Juve & Spurs will be here for the Int'l champions cup in July next year, along with another yet to be named Euro side - and the Tards. Yet another mountain for CFG to climb to try and raise both our profile, and the supporter base.

Fortunately, we'll probably get to play another team on the Gold Coast, or Cairns, or - do they have a ground in Port Headland?

 

FFS.

We could play the asylum seeker all-starts on Christmas Island. At least it's a good cause

[M13]

I´m sure that some of you might have notced that CFG is changing the Manchester City badge.. Making it similar in design to the Melbourne and New York City badges.

[n i k o]

Lol

[HeartOfCity]

2 minutes ago, M13 said:

I´m sure that some of you might have notced that CFG is changing the Manchester City badge.. Making it similar in design to the Melbourne and New York City badges.

Is this a joke? I'm no man city fan but that looks shit. This must be joke and I've taken it hook line and sinker.

[M13]

1 minute ago, HeartOfCity said:

Is this a joke? I'm no man city fan but that looks shit. This must be joke and I've taken it hook line and sinker.

You´ll know within 48h..

[jw1739]

No joke. See http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/manchester-city-new-badge-leaked-10647835

[KSK_47]

7 minutes ago, M13 said:

I´m sure that some of you might have notced that CFG is changing the Manchester City badge.. Making it similar in design to the Melbourne and New York City badges.

Yeah i saw this and posted it in another thread. I like that they are giving a nod to a classic badge but not convinced about the execution 

[Deeming]

Looks like someone forgot to colour it all in.

[raw10]

14 minutes ago, M13 said:

I´m sure that some of you might have notced that CFG is changing the Manchester City badge.. Making it similar in design to the Melbourne and New York City badges.

Someone must be having a laugh designing this!! Not to mention the shield is pretty much a carbon copy of Arsenal....If it ain't broke don't fix it!

[illeatyourheart]

To those who are confused about the design, it's a throwback to their previous designs. It's almost exactly the same as some of the badges they've had in their history.

eg:

 

And here are all 3 CFG logos together:

[Jimmy]

Exactly, City fans will love it as it's exactly what they've been asking for for years now. It's just their old badge with a slight tweak.

[thisphantomfortress]

26 minutes ago, illeatyourheart said:

To those who are confused about the design, it's a throwback to their previous designs. It's almost exactly the same as some of the badges they've had in their history.

eg:

 

And here are all 3 CFG logos together:

That is some brand synergy 

[HeartOfCity]

24 minutes ago, illeatyourheart said:

To those who are confused about the design, it's a throwback to their previous designs. It's almost exactly the same as some of the badges they've had in their history.

eg:

 

And here are all 3 CFG logos together:

Fair enough. 

[KSK_47]

2 minutes ago, Jimmy said:

Exactly, City fans will love it as it's exactly what they've been asking for for years now. It's just their old badge with a slight tweak.

I agree with what you are saying but i think it looks too much like app icon design so it loses that classic feel.

[raw10]

1 minute ago, KSK_47 said:

I agree with what you are saying but i think it looks too much like app icon design so it loses that classic feel.

Let's just see how it goes with their fans back in Manchester once this has been revealed. I suspect the leak was done on purpose to see fans' reactions. If sales of the new shirts are not picking up, then we know for sure how many buy into this "new" badge. 

[hakz7]

Lol Melbourne and NY will have more sky blue on their badges than Manchester.

[DFG_82]

34 minutes ago, Jimmy said:

Exactly, City fans will love it as it's exactly what they've been asking for for years now. It's just their old badge with a slight tweak.

Not everyone on Blue Moon is happy about it.. Main complaint is that  many would prefer it to say Manchester City Football Club instead of just Manchester City.  

Edited December 24, 2015 by DFG_82

[jw1739]

Tail wags dog.

[DFG_82]

4 minutes ago, hakz7 said:

Lol Melbourne and NY will have more sky blue on their badges than Manchester.

Yeah the colours would have suited us better actually since our home shirt mostly white with some sky blue.  

[malloy]

29 minutes ago, DFG_82 said:

Not everyone on Blue Moon is happy about it.. Main complaint is that  many would prefer it to say Manchester City Football Club instead of just Manchester City.  

Interesting that Melbourne and New York badges have "Football Club" on them, but Manchester won't

Edited December 24, 2015 by malloy

[kingofhearts]

I'm probably in the minority but from an aesthetic point of view i actually don't mind the badge......

[Deeming]

But for the beloved synergy don't they need the same colouration as us and NYCFC.

[possiblygeorge]

How do you go from a mint of a crest, being ours, to dishing up whatever the f**k NYC's and Manchester City's one is?

You'd be shattered lmao

Edited December 24, 2015 by possiblygeorge

[Falastur]

11 hours ago, DFG_82 said:

Not everyone on Blue Moon is happy about it.. Main complaint is that  many would prefer it to say Manchester City Football Club instead of just Manchester City.  

"Not everyone" is a bit of an understatement. I know that on the internet it tends to be that the negative voices speak out in far greater numbers relative to their overall proportion of the community, but the reaction against the badge is pretty overwhelming.

For my take, it's just far too cartoony. It looks ridiculous.

6 hours ago, possiblygeorge said:

How do you go from a mint of a crest, being ours, to dishing up whatever the f**k NYC's and Manchester City's one is?

You'd be shattered lmao

In fairness, NYCFC's came first...

Edited December 24, 2015 by Falastur

[Dylan]

The problem these days with trying to make an older style logo is that they look over produced and too polished.

There are someways to fix it. Changing the font is one thing. Looks too bland imo. That's the one thing I don't like about melbournes logo is the font. But at least now of all the cfg clubs Melbournes is the best looking

 

[Shahanga]

5 hours ago, Falastur said:

"Not everyone" is a bit of an understatement. I know that on the internet it tends to be that the negative voices speak out in far greater numbers relative to their overall proportion of the community, but the reaction against the badge is pretty overwhelming.

For my take, it's just far too cartoony. It looks ridiculous.

In fairness, NYCFC's came first...

Not a Man City fan so I guess it's none of my business, but I think I missed something here. What was wrong with the current badge?

[Falastur]

18 minutes ago, Shahanga said:

Not a Man City fan so I guess it's none of my business, but I think I missed something here. What was wrong with the current badge?

It will probably come as no surprise to you to hear that in 1997, MCFC were not exactly financially stable. They were in the third year of former City legend Francis Lee's disastrous four-year spell as chairman of the club and were tanking in every way possible - this was the year in which they were relegated to the third tier of English football, after all. In light of this, Franny decided to make the absolutely fantastic decision to mortgage off a large part of the club's pride and identity by selling the copyright to the club badge, which was at the time a circular design not too dissimilar to the one just above, but far less clipart-y. I'm going from memory here, but I believe the figure he sold it for was a measly £1.5m. We were that desperate.

Realising he had made a mistake, or possibly in a deliberate and cynical follow-up to his action in order to restore the initiative, not long afterwards the club then announced it was going to bring out a new badge, which they would of course suddenly have copyright ownership of again, thus allowing them to merchandise once more. However, it had to be significantly different in order to prevent any possible legal challenge from the guy who had just bought the copyright of the old design, and therefore thought he was sitting pretty on the right to control all merchandise himself. The new badge had a couple of throw-backs in the form of the shield in the centre, but it introduced several new elements, being A: the eagle/phoenix/buzzard (no-one is certain which it's supposed to be), B: the motto, which actually the fans have quite taken to, and C: the three fecking stars. These were - and the club openly admits - purely put in to mimic European clubs. What they didn't consider was that European clubs use them to signify trophies won, and at that stage there was no trophy we had won exactly three times.

Since then, the stars have become a massive sore point to the fans as they represent a huge source of embarrassment - other fans have an easy avenue to mock us over them, particularly up until a few years ago in combination with the stupid "you've not won anything, you have no history" taunt. Additionally, few fans took to the design (although it's worth adding that those who were still young when it was brought in, such as myself, are noticably less negative towards it, and the johnny-come-latelies following the 2008 takeover which led to the creation of CFG have only ever known it and generally really like it) and there's a huge wave of nostalgia/animosity over the enforced loss of the previous badge which means that the over-30s demographic has been campaigning pretty much since the change of badge in 1997 for the new design to be gotten rid of and replaced with the old one. It just so happens that now, for reasons that probably relate to the design of the other CFG badges offering a chance to create brand association, CFG have finally out of nowhere decided to take up the course and design a new badge that harks back to the old design.

Edited December 24, 2015 by Falastur

[jw1739]

I quite like that new Manchester City badge TBH. Clean and uncluttered. And I'd say that leaving out "Football Club" or "F.C." is making a statement that City are sufficiently well-known everywhere as "Manchester City" without the need for the qualifier. IIRC several other EPL clubs do exactly the same thing - including Arsenal and Manchester United. It's all about "brand."

[Shahanga]

Thanks @Falastur

the history of the current badge is simply horrible then. I consider myself enlightened.

[Jimmy]

12 hours ago, jw1739 said:

I quite like that new Manchester City badge TBH. Clean and uncluttered. And I'd say that leaving out "Football Club" or "F.C." is making a statement that City are sufficiently well-known everywhere as "Manchester City" without the need for the qualifier. IIRC several other EPL clubs do exactly the same thing - including Arsenal and Manchester United. It's all about "brand."

Ditto. Wish ours had that little blue.

[M13]

[Kiro Kompiro]

There is too much white in their new badge-my instant reaction was Real Madrid.

I know they've done it to match the 1972-1997 badge, but then why not go the whole hog and just use the 1972-1997 badge and keep all the nostalgic older fans happier.

On 12/25/2015 at 10:27 PM, Jimmy said:

Ditto. Wish ours had that little blue.

which is why theirs should have not have white.  Its undermining their sky blue.

[Dylan]

This thread should be pinned

[jw1739]

56 minutes ago, Kiro Kompiro said:

There is too much white in their new badge-my instant reaction was Real Madrid.

I know they've done it to match the 1972-1997 badge, but then why not go the whole hog and just use the 1972-1997 badge and keep all the nostalgic older fans happier.

which is why theirs should have not have white.  Its undermining their sky blue.

Real Madrid? I cannot see the slightest resemblance.

FWIW IMO the proposed badge is easily the most readable and readily identifiable of the four versions shown above.

[Dylan]

Looks like we own the mcfc now

[Falastur]

3 hours ago, Kiro Kompiro said:

There is too much white in their new badge-my instant reaction was Real Madrid.

I know they've done it to match the 1972-1997 badge, but then why not go the whole hog and just use the 1972-1997 badge and keep all the nostalgic older fans happier.

which is why theirs should have not have white.  Its undermining their sky blue.

As mentioned on the last page, they can't use the old badge as they sold the trademark ownership decades ago. If they reinstated it, they would ironically be guilty of trademark infringement. They had to make certain alterations just to prevent a legal case.

Edited December 27, 2015 by Falastur

[raw10]

30 minutes ago, Falastur said:

As mentioned on the last page, they can't use the old badge as they sold the trademark ownership decades ago. If they reinstated it, they would ironically be guilty of trademark infringement. They had to make certain alterations just to prevent a legal case.

I know money is not always the answer but why can't they buy the trademark back from whom ever has it now? Saves a lot of trouble and also being able to reintroduce it back at some stage in the future.