ThunderPower_14

11 minutes ago, Captain_Townsend said:

Ellis built three new standa at Villa Park, and the new Trinity was built even though we hardly ever sold out the 39,000 capacity in 99-00. 

This is fair, but part of that was forced by the end of terracing after Hillsborough. I'd guess the price of a stand has increased a bit since the 90s, even relatively.

Ellis also famously missed the opportunity to invest in the squad during the vital formative years of the Premier League, and we got left behind. Perhaps NSWE don't want to miss our chance.

14 hours ago, Captain_Townsend said:

I don't honestly see what's controversial  about putting forward the argument that the best solution (and cheaper than a new 1bn spend on a new stadium! ) is to go ahead with the £100m redevelopment of the North Stand with all its premium amd corporate offerings to help us keep pace with peer clubs and bridge some of the gap on revenue generating capacity.

Clearly the money doesn't line up though. If it was as simple as build a bigger stand and have more money, Ellis would have done it.

Every single major stadium work anywhere involves significant public funding. The only one I can think of that didn't was Metlife stadium in New Jersey in 2010, but that was shared between two teams.

I understand being limited in buying players, but it doesn't sit right with me at all that we may be forced to sell key players to avoid breaching FFP. 

Especially when we're in a league with the likes of Man City who have intentionally flouted it to great success and will probably receive a relative slap on the wrist.

2 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

He doesn't say that

What's the point of the post then? He's clearly trying to cast doubt over the lion being made for the badge.

7 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

I don't think he's done that at all. I think you're seeing something that isn't htere

He's definitely insinuating that the 2015 lion could have been stolen from Shutterstock, which is insane and absolutely misinformation that appears designed to discredit the club. He's not saying it definitively was stolen, but that's misinformation in the modern world isn't it. Insinuate without flat out making a direct claim so you can stir up unrest but back away from what you've said when it's challenged. The Jordan Peterson method. 

2 hours ago, nick76 said:

I guess you're advocating for the thoroughly underwhelming current round badge again?

9 hours ago, Rustibrooks said:

 

If this is correct it fixes the biggest issues with the badge for me. 

No more yellow on blue. 

No more drop shadow.

Added claret for a better colour balance. 

The lion retains its outline for smaller applications. 

Yellow and claret lion digital application looks spectacular. Gold lion physical application looks spectacular. 

I'd convinced myself that we were going to have a shit badge. If we end up with this it'll be the best badge we've had in 30 years, arguably ever. 

1 hour ago, sidcow said:

With unchecked Russian money before FFP was a thing, developing a monetised global fanbase using that unchecked money. 

And with London money we'd probably need at 52,000 stadium to get even close to their income from 40,000 seats. 

Sure, but how much revenue are we talking here, given the outlay and the 2 seasons without a stand? How long does it take to pay for itself?

There's a reason the big US sports teams hold their cities to ransom and threaten to move if the city doesn't contribute to stadium work. It's basically never a great financial move to build a stadium. They're almost always built with public money playing a big part.

We'll eventually have to rebuild the stand but the financial realities will always exist.

It's easy for me to say when i'm 16000km away and don't have to deal with the stand I guess.

Chelsea spent 20 years as one of the biggest clubs in the world with a 40,000 seat stadium. They're still playing in a 40,000 seat stadium. A delay of a few seasons won't kill us.

1 minute ago, nick76 said:

But that only works on Villa controlled media, on the vast amount on media we consume there will be no claret background…league tables, game graphics, reporting…just the every day use and even away kits, third kits, over half the training gear.  It’s a big deal to me even if others aren’t as bothered.  I’m not saying do a West Ham with full claret.  I just think some people are just now willing to accept what we are going to get from Heck because we have no choice and at least the detailed makes the badge look a bit better than than travesty that was first leaked.  We still don’t know if Bosko’sBoots version is actually real, it could just be another fan version.

Heck's badge has enormous issues. But what you're complaining about has been a problem for 15 years. Has anyone gotten confused and forgotten we wear claret in that time? Have we had a single identity issue because of the badge colours? I absolutely get the preference for claret and blue and that's fine, but my problem with gold on blue is about contrast, not identity. I think the lion rampant in our style screams Aston Villa even without the colours at this point.

17 minutes ago, nick76 said:

It’s still not claret and blue….so little claret is a big problem still.  It’s not seen because it’s on a claret background but in isolation on media, graphics, away shirt, league tables it still will be predominantly gold and blue badge.  

We are Claret & Blue!

It's not ideal but we've clearly decided that how it looks on the shirt is paramount, and we want the badge to stand out on the shirt, as opposed to West Ham who have decided to have their badge blend in. I personally think our badge

There's pros and cons for either method, and I think you'll find that badges all over the football world don't necessarily match up with the club's main colours. 

Some would argue that it's a very good thing that our primary focus is how the badge sits on the shirt as opposed to how it looks elsewhere. Even then, in every single social media application it'll sit on a claret background to give that colour balance.

I'm not defending flat yellow on blue if that's what we get, especially if they display it with that awful drop shadow, but the badge having fairly minimal claret isn't the end of the world provided we make sure it's sitting on claret the vast majority of the time. 

It's really not hard to represent the 3d texture in flat, digital applications. I'm not sure why they wouldn't do it. If they give the lion some contrast it completely changes the badge and erases one of its biggest issues. Not all of it's issues, but the biggest one. 

If we have a good digital version of the 3d lion and we primarily use that lion without the surrounding badge, we might just look good after all. 

If we just go the lion on the shirt, and go for a textured, relief lion like that leak, it's an absolute best case scenario given the new badge. Fingers crossed! 

Re the elite/standard/whatever level of our deal with Adidas, I just can't see that it would be lucrative enough if we had the same "standard" sort of deal that the likes of Leeds or Fulham have. 

If that's what Adidas offered us I'm certain we'd have kept looking. 

Really excited about this, I think we'll get something spectacular. 

I don't think the lack of clarity from the club is good for us, it tells me they're hoping the angst will die down by the time the unveiling happens.

I'm guessing they knew going back to the old yellow lion on blue would be wildly unpopular so they leaked it early to allow people to get angry before the official unveiling in the hope that we'll settle down and the public backlash won't be so strong.

I have a 2016 Adidas Germany away shirt from the world cup, just because I liked the design, and it's by far the most comfortable replica shirt i've ever owned and it's still in great condition 7.5 years later.

I'm fully on board with Adidas. Happy with Nike or Puma as well if it's one of those, which it sounds like it must be.

You'd have to assume there are some pretty significant crisis meetings going on at the club at the moment.

It's basically a Leeds badge reaction again, and they're getting rightly slammed for the process as well as the result. 

Heck putting a stop to the round badge talked about "not being happy with it's impact" and gave the strong impression that a much more comprehensive and well thought out rebrand. To end up with the badge we're about to get is a worst case scenario, it's a downgrade on last season's badge. Surely this isn't "having the impact" Heck wants?

3 hours ago, thabucks said:

Most of the fan badges look great online but not sure claret on claret works IMO … Have to see them on a shirt to really judge it fairly

The West Ham shirt is basically exactly this. I think it's generally fine, doesn't look weird etc. 

11 minutes ago, Jas10 said:

It’s stupid…

we wouldn’t have a say or voice without them… taking time out for the rest of us and representing our views…

They’re essential 

A supporters group existing and being given the opportunity to consult absolutely does not mean they're in step with the majority of the supporters. Given the nature and scope of these sorts of bodies, it is frighteningly easy to have a small group of individuals gain and maintain power and use the supporters trust to further causes important to them and not necessarily the wider supporter base because they think they know better.

I don't know enough about the Villa Trust to make a specific comment, but there are so many of these supporter groups who don't achieve a lot. Given the badge that's about to officially release, it certainly doesn't feel like we're having a say either way at the moment.

My anger is building over the money saving argument. Save money elsewhere and get the branding right. 

Clubs with far smaller resources than us have managed very successful rebrands. Look at Bristol City, Brentford and Crystal Palace. 

Just now, Rolta said:

That's what I wholeheartedly disagree with. There's nothing it doesn't do better or the same.

A drop shadow is not better. It doesn't fix the lack of readability. It just adds a baby's first logo design element to our badge that shouldn't be there. 

1874 shouldn't be there either. Or make it prominent. But if it's barely visible, what's it actually achieving? It's just clutter. 

18 minutes ago, Rolta said:

Not at all. That's obviously absurd, and the photo is overexposed in the lighter parts too.

The layout of the new one is absolutely fine. It's good in fact (as I say I am totally owning the fact I have worked 'a little' in design here—I actually freelanced but I wasn't really a 'pro' pro). My only problems with it are the colours and the shittier lion. I don't like the light blue light yellow combo at all, but if those colours are tweaked and at least one of them is made darker and more saturated, the design works.

The Lerner badge is nowhere near as good as the new one. And tweaking and honing and improving a design is a complicated process. Sure people have magic ideas for amazing magic badges in their heads, but in reality it's actually quite difficult.

And like it or not the Lerner badge has been our identity for 15 years. Improving on it (vastly improving on it) makes sense from a commercial point of view.

I'm not sure how it vastly improves on it. At best it's a break even. It's better to have the full club name on it, but a drop shadow and the 1874 in white on a sky blue base? Amateur hour. 

The Lerner badge has some obvious design problems but it's cleaner than the new badge, which has the same design problems plus a couple of new ones.

I don't get how an evolution of the Lerner badge is any less expensive than an entirely new badge. 

You still have to replace it everywhere. I guess maybe you don't have to in places where it's just the lion? 

Just do it properly ffs. Spend the money. Cheaping out on a rebrand is something you'd expect from a non-league club. If we want to be a massive global club we need to act like one and branding is integral to that. 

He'd be absolutely perfect in the Ramsay role and he'd be our best player. Every player around him would benefit.