Most liked posts in thread: Club Crest (New Crest Revealed 5 October 2022) With Poll

The new logo still looks to me like a running ostrich with reins.

BCAFC = Bernie Clifton AFC.

Simply making the background white or cream makes the bird look like a bantam..

 

This one is better than anything the club have come up with.

 

I think that's the new logo of the 1903 club. Appears on the merch they are giving away as part of membership. Last years 1903 club had the same logo, but as a badge not a scarf. Doesn't make sense to me. Why is the head of the "bantam" white? If you look at it, it looks like some sort of eagle, with a moose's antler in the background

 

That looks like something you get on a handpull pump in an old style pub.

 

Who thought having the letter C considerably smaller than the B would be a good idea?

Just looks weird.

 

To be honest I can't get worked up about the club badge one way or another. As long as it isn't offensive in any way I can't get interested in the details.
Kits and colours a different matter.

 

Nick Kitchen doesn’t come cheap you know.

 

I think its awful! My first thought was Rod Hull and his emu but on reflection, its an ostrich and just needs Bernie Clifton sat astride it holding onto the reins. Even Bernies initials are on the crest!

 

Does this mean I have to get the tattoo on my leg altered?

 

got some hot takes here,

1) this does need to happen, I can't imagine everyone has read the doc listing the reasons why it needs changing. but if you have a minute I would recommend doing so.
2) they will most likely carry on with it because it does need to happen
3) genuinely to me - it just comes across as people thinking we don't need to change nor do they want to change the badge...

I remember the times where everyone was saying the club had no "ambition" saying that we need to generate more revenue and act like a "big club". Recently we have seen some changes that most "big clubs" have in place, yet people still moan. its just constant. Loyalty points - to generate higher attendances and more revenue to the club, was made out to be a scheme where the biggest fans accurately get the tickets they deserve instead of what it actually is. A mechanism to reward the fans who spend the most. People were moaning about WAGMI saying rupp was purposefully not selling up as he hated the club. look how that turned out. now people are moaning about a badge that frankly does need updating.

this is "big club" mentality, it is ambitions and its exactly what we need for this club.

personally for me, there was a modified version on twitter that had the star on the bantam and 1903 on the bottom. looked really nice in my opinion.

its the little things that all come together to make sure we go up and stay up.

 

I don't mind it but I don't quite like it. What I do like is that he's putting our club out there in people's faces. You can't go anywhere in Leeds without seeing something about them. It'll hopefully get into people's heads, I think it's a positive campaign to advertise our club and surely that's a benefit?

 

This is nothing like the fiasco of the L**ds badge. Firstly, City asked for opinions, followed up, presented an idea, and have asked for feedback from City supporters. Secondly, this badge incorporates that feedback, albeit within a framework of what works in a digital age, and is the epitome of fan consultation, which, some might suggest is the reason for the negative response - you can't please all of the people, etc. I've watched City (from afar for most of that time) for only about 30 years and I don't think it's a bad badge at all.
Is any design going to be acceptable to the majority? Our experience as fans has included a few different badge designs that were invariably liked and hated in similar ways to nowadays just without the social media reach. Whatever was presented to us had to be accepted and became loved. As, I think, will this one. Until they change it.

 

You really are a patronising arse.

 

Terrible design which, as others have said, looks juvenile and chicken shoppy. Typographically it's dodgy too. Good badges carry the suggestion of institutional weight behind them; this one carries the suggestion of a product, which I think makes sense given it's Sparks calling the shots.

'Supporter's pack' filled with complete guff about a 'bespoke typeface which represents the city' and riddled with spelling errors (one in massive letters) is patronising in the extreme.

I remember with Surridge we used to get a go at voting on kit designs and other clubs have done this too. It's odd that they didn't propose three designs and ask us to vote: a much easier way of proving you've engaged with the fans and giving people a sense they've been listened to. That way they could also have worked to a deadline without the uncertainty we seem to have surrounding the badge now.

I find the lines about making the chicken on our badge 'more aggressive to better represent the hard-working people of Bradford' (or similar) to be really cringeworthy. If you want an aggressive logo, which is mystifying in itself, don't pick a bloody chicken!

 

If 90% aren't bothered then keep it as it is. Ain't broke don't fix it.

 

You’ve nailed it for me - absolutely perfect!

 

I'm clearly in the minority then cos I think the star is tinpot

Hardly the biggest issue though

 

If I had them my spidey senses would definitely be tingling.

 

Yet you're happy to suggest people's sexuality makes people uncomfortable?

If you're going to make a fake account to play the morality card at least be consistent and other than that, if you've got a genuine point to make, either take a crap or get off the pot!