ThunderPower_14

1 hour ago, gwi1890 said:

I think eventually the crest will be lion only hence the move towards a more detailed lion. 

I hope you're right. For the shirt especially, it's perfect.

1 hour ago, AvonVillain said:

It isn't a race backwards. I absolutely do not understand how our founding year "doesn't mean anything of any importance", or how it could possibly be "just a year". Those statements aren't remotely true.

I personally love to see a timestamp, and I hesitate to use the term, of big brands like Guinness, for example, sat in the logo. For me it brings a weight of heritage that elevates the brand beyond a mere drink, or football club, in our case. Even if the brand is relatively new, I like to see its stake in history when it was born. I don't see this information as trivial or unnecessary in any way, and graphically it can really work as a part of the whole story on offer.

It can, but we've shoehorned it in in the most meagre, 4:45pm on a friday way possible. If we're going to do it like we have, what's the point?

Crests need to be scalable and don't have a lot of real estate. If something isn't worth putting on the badge in a prominent way that specifically works with the design, is it worth putting on the badge at all? The star has the same problem for me.

Everyone has heard the audio. The court not being able to convict because the victim chose not to cooperate with the prosecution doesn't make Bellingham any less correct.

12 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

It’s exactly what happened with the Lerner badge. A survey goes out to fans and they get a load of things that fans want on the badge. But when you throw all that shit together it looks crap. 
 

It needs professionals to either assemble those elements correctly or make educated design decisions on what to include and exclude to actually make something look good. 
 

It feels like we never had that second element on the Lerner badge, and it feels exactly the same this time around 

I like the idea of supporters having a final sign-off, but surveying supporters about individual elements and then shoehorning in everything they vote for is the worst possible way to design a badge, and everything we've had since Lerner bought the club proves it. 

"Consultation" isn't automatically a good thing. 

50 minutes ago, Marka Ragnos said:

I feel it should almost go without saying that we must strive for the title. Yes, we all know it's a reach, but at our level, not striving gets us nothing, holds no advantages, offers us direction and a glittering prize.

Yep. It really is a case of if we want to punch a man in the face, aim for the back of his head. 

If we carry ourselves like title challengers and hold those expectations, a miss will see us in the CL spots. 

No limits under Unai Emery

He's a striker, he relies on service like any other. When the team has been playing well behind him he's been absolutely phenomenal this season. Constantly causing trouble on or off the ball, and linking up so well with his teammates. 

9 minutes ago, Lichfield Dean said:

Why though? It doesn't mean anything of any importance. It's not like we're the oldest team or anything. It's just a year.

Agree. Less is usually more with badges. The 1874 looks shoehorned in, in a hard to read white on light blue. 

That boost to goal difference today was huge, it'd be nice if we could smash a few teams like that to give us an advantage over the likes of Arsenal and Spurs. 

The detailing on the lion absolutely helps the badge significantly. It's not perfect and it's still got some design issues, but it's gone from a horrendous own goal to a fairly classy badge.

Gotta love him, shame he couldn't be his wizard best every week. Hope he does well at Villareal.

I think he's just settling into the league. He'll get there, he's showed he's got plenty of talent.

Remember 12 months ago when Bailey was in the same position?

4 hours ago, mrchnry said:

Luton too, loads of stuff outside their crest.

Similar to Forest, the text isn't outside their badge, it's part of it.

5 hours ago, MrBlack said:

I'm sure i was told the reason the star is in the badge was because the FA wouldn't let us have it outside isn't it?

It had to be part of the badge as you weren't allowed "decoartions" that aren't sponsors on the shirt.

Looking at the Forest badge would suggest that's rubbish, but if it can be outside I've no idea why it isn't already.

The difference with the Forest badge is that the stars are a part of the badge, much like our star. It's never displayed without them.

We could theoretically do the same thing, but then you lose a lot of readability at smaller sizes because the star has to fit so the rest of the badge is even smaller. Forest get around this by having one of the cleanest, simplest badges in football.

There would also be PL rules limiting on how much real estate a badge can take up on a shirt. Forest have been prepared to deal with that.

I think they only way we could have a badge with the star above like forest do is to scrap the shield altogether and just run with the lion.

7 hours ago, est1874 said:

No it doesn't. The biggest issue with the crest (the one we've had for 15+ years now) is the lack of Aston Villa. A freestanding lion doesn't solve that. It doesn't solve anything in fact, it's just a freestanding lion.

Aston Villa is the most beautiful club name in English football and maybe the world, but ultimately everyone still recognised us with AVFC at the top. It was still clearly a Villa badge. 

The yellow on light blue is the biggest problem with that badge. 

14 hours ago, est1874 said:

This is very radical

But inspired by the "no badge at all" comment

What if Adidas just did claret & blue shirts with the text "ASTON VILLA" over one side, and no crest, until this whole debacle is sorted once and for all.

They'd sell like hot cakes! I'd buy two!

Perfect time for them to do a freestanding lion. Removes a lot of the issues with the crest.

29 minutes ago, Risso said:

Because there's a timescale required to produce new kits with badges on, and we're well into that. That podcast the other day with that Tanswell fella, he said he's already seen the kits with the badge on. The trademarked badges are what they intend to use. It's not that gold, engraved mock up, it's the shit slightly modified Lerner nonsense. If they had anything else in mind, it would have to be trademarked by now.

I agree with this, but is it possible they've made the rest of the shirt but commissioned a replacement badge (whether it be rubber, a patch or whatever), and they'll attach those to the shirts that have been produced instead?

Leeds released their horrible unpopular badge on January 24th 2018, cancelled it 6 days later and managed to get the old badge on the kits for the following season. I'm hoping we can do the same with the more 3D lion. 

19 minutes ago, paul514 said:

Correct Arsenal were Arsenal. They didn’t have rich owners, and had to borrow the money for an entirely new stadium.

Financially, how has that gone for them?

They got bought out by rich owners about a year after the Emirates opened, so pretty well I guess.

16 minutes ago, paul514 said:

This completely just ignores they could pay for it themselves.

Yes, with 100 million pounds, that doesn't vanish into thin air if we don't spend it on a new North Stand, and could potentially be invested elsewhere for greater returns.

1 minute ago, paul514 said:

I already have and you posed the same question. Get a new line, I don’t agree.

You simply adjusted the matchday revenue up by the percentage the capacity will increase. I'm sorry but that's wildly simplistic given how bullish you're being about the financial implications of a new stand. If you've got something more detailed i'd love to read it.

Just now, paul514 said:

No we apply that people on here ask questions repeatedly that are impossible to answer by a fan as they aren’t the person making the decision 

If you're going to claim that "there is no way the new stand wouldn't pay for itself if we decided to do it", i'm surely allowed to ask you to expand on and clarify that claim?

I don't agree that it's automatically a sound investment. Major stadium work is almost never a sound investment long term unless you're forced into it by rule changes or safety. Most major professional sports stadiums get built using public money for a reason.

22 minutes ago, paul514 said:

Have I not already said during this conversation 

i

don't

know

Then surely we apply Occam's Razor and deduce that the numbers don't add up as simply as you're saying.

1 hour ago, paul514 said:

you can simply divide the current revenue by current attendance and then times it by the added capacity.

That's very simplistic and doesn't take into account the opportunity cost of what else we could do with 100 million pounds to increase our revenue. Does this take into account what we'll be borrowing/repaying etc?

If it's such a clear financial uplift, why did we cancel it?

8 minutes ago, paul514 said:

There is no way a new stand wouldn't pay for itself if we borrowed the money to do it.......

I'm not sure that's true. There is a reason that major stadium works, basically everywhere over the last 20 years have involved significant public money or at the very least government loans at a very low rate.

If building new stadiums and new stands paid for itself, there would be a lot more of them getting built.

8 hours ago, sidcow said:

How's the price of buying tickets gone since the 90's?

A lot, but clearly not enough to make a new stand financially viable.

It's not ideal for people who go to Villa Park every week and want it modernised, but why do we think they've shelved these plans?