villan95 Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 4 minutes ago, Rolta said: The round badge has grown on me to a degree—I prefer it to the blue and yellow of the Lerner era, but we just can't keep it when it looks like Chelsea's. It's silly. Maybe if we keep ours long enough Chelsea will get fed up and change 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Mic09 Posted February 1 Popular Post Share Posted February 1 4 minutes ago, Rolta said: The round badge has grown on me to a degree—I prefer it to the blue and yellow of the Lerner era, but we just can't keep it when it looks like Chelsea's. It's silly. I hate this argument. The shield looks like West ham with reversed colours or a claret and blue Middlesbrough. It's a badge and there is a million clubs. It's gonna look like other teams, unless we do something creative like Forest or Juventus. The problem is it seems a typical Villa fan wants nothing that might resemble any innovation or change. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich192 Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 I wonder if anything was mentioned about this last night. @OutByEaster? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolta Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 5 minutes ago, Mic09 said: I hate this argument. The shield looks like West ham with reversed colours or a claret and blue Middlesbrough. It's a badge and there is a million clubs. It's gonna look like other teams, unless we do something creative like Forest or Juventus. The problem is it seems a typical Villa fan wants nothing that might resemble any innovation or change. As been said in the argument, Chelsea are a huge team with massive recent success. It's a huge issue and very probably the biggest issue with them not continuing with the round badge. To my mind anyone dismissing that argument is missing the exact point why we likely won't continue with it. If we ignore the problem it doesn't go away. West Ham's shield features two crossed hammers—we're nowhere near. Middlesbrough's design obviously has similarities, but details like that ribbon, placing of text, and the actual shape of the shield make a big difference. The key thing is though is that we're not competing with Middlesbrough for anything. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icouldtelltheworld Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 5 minutes ago, Rolta said: The key thing is though is that we're not competing with Middlesbrough for anything. You are Gareth Southgate and I claim my £5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villa_Vids Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 Won't it revert to Lerner's badge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Townsend Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 24 minutes ago, Rolta said: The round badge has grown on me to a degree—I prefer it to the blue and yellow of the Lerner era, but we just can't keep it when it looks like Chelsea's. It's silly. 1.Our lion is superior and doesn't have a walking stick. 2. There's is blue and white, ours is claret and blue. 3. There's says 'Chelsea', ours says 'Aston Villa'! On a more serious nite, you could say any shield we have looks Like West Ham. Our classic badges always had a claret lion on blue. So, either: 1. Stick with the round badge, or 2. Make the shield a claret lion on blue background. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick76 Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Rolta said: As been said in the argument, Chelsea are a huge team with massive recent success. It's a huge issue and very probably the biggest issue with them not continuing with the round badge. It’s not really a big issue, it’s a dumb issue because we have vastly different colours, different lion, different name….only because it’s round is this issue raised. There are more shield badges than round badges as somebody fact checked the other week. 10 minutes ago, Rolta said: To my mind anyone dismissing that argument is missing the exact point why we likely won't continue with it. No, it’s because Heck wanted to change it…end of! It was in stone that it was to be our badge but Heck unilaterally wanted to change it. Edited February 1 by nick76 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allani Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 16 minutes ago, Mic09 said: I hate this argument. The shield looks like West ham with reversed colours or a claret and blue Middlesbrough. It's a badge and there is a million clubs. It's gonna look like other teams, unless we do something creative like Forest or Juventus. The problem is it seems a typical Villa fan wants nothing that might resemble any innovation or change. You can make a shield any shape you like so that it becomes unique to your club (it doesn't even need to be a shield). I think that the more elements of the badge that you have that are unique (or at least identifiable) the more scope you have to use each of them independently - which in turn widens the palette of brand components that you can use. It's much harder to draw a round badge that isn't... well just a circle. And then when you use the round design on it's own it has no identity - it's just a circle. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allani Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 5 minutes ago, Captain_Townsend said: 1.Our lion is superior and doesn't have a walking stick. 2. There's is blue and white, ours is claret and blue. 3. There's says 'Chelsea', ours says 'Aston Villa'! On a more serious nite, you could say any shield we have looks Like West Ham. Our classic badges always had a claret lion on blue. So, either: 1. Stick with the round badge, or 2. Make the shield a claret lion on blue background. The claret lion on the blue background is one of the design elements I do like about the new round badge (it's better than the pale yellow on pale blue for sure on the Lerner badge for sure). So we've finally found something that we can both agree on!!! Based on that I'll limit my response to the other points to the fact that Chelsea and Villa both use monochrome versions of the badge (which looks really cool on some of our training / leisure gear) and so colour shouldn't be the major differentiator as the badge needs to work with no colour. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allani Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 25 minutes ago, nick76 said: It’s not really a big issue, it’s a dumb issue because we have vastly different colours, different lion, different name….only because it’s round is this issue raised. There are more shield badges than round badges as somebody fact checked the other week. No, it’s because Heck wanted to change it…end of! It was in stone that it was to be our badge but Heck unilaterally wanted to change it. In that case we should be looking at NSWE in a very different light. They are the owners. They should have had the balls to tell Heck that they didn't agree and vetoed his decision. Now either they don't care (which would seem unlikely given everything else they are doing) or they are so rich that they are happy to throw money around to "fix" something multiple times. I would be incredibly disappointed in them if Heck just walked in and said I don't like the badge I'm going to do a new one and they didn't seriously grill him on why they should do that having just spent a lot of money doing it once. They sign the bills and if they are happy writing cheques out because someone just says "I don't like this" then the club is in very bad hands. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Townsend Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 I think it is glaringly obvious Heck vetoed it and they backed their man. Remember there was a big launch planned for the final home game. Somebody on here said a video had been shot and everything.Heck was announced, all went quiet, no launch happened and he vetoed the video. Also, our kit launch video with the new crest was not featured on our official socials, it leaked into some fan channel (the allez, allez, allez one). Its the only kit launch video you won't find on our official channel as it happens I am confident the North Stand issue is the same. He probably spent months arguing that it shouldn't go ahead for x, y and z reasons And they backed their man, same way they back their man in the dugout. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick76 Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 23 minutes ago, allani said: In that case we should be looking at NSWE in a very different light. They are the owners. They should have had the balls to tell Heck that they didn't agree and vetoed his decision. Now either they don't care (which would seem unlikely given everything else they are doing) or they are so rich that they are happy to throw money around to "fix" something multiple times. I would be incredibly disappointed in them if Heck just walked in and said I don't like the badge I'm going to do a new one and they didn't seriously grill him on why they should do that having just spent a lot of money doing it once. They sign the bills and if they are happy writing cheques out because someone just says "I don't like this" then the club is in very bad hands. That’s not what proper owners of any big company do. They hire elite executives and give them massive leeway to complete their job because they are the experts. They obviously knew what was going on but they would’ve let him do what he does otherwise what’s the point of having him and unlikely Heck would’ve taken the job without certain authority. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolta Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 1 hour ago, nick76 said: It’s not really a big issue, it’s a dumb issue because we have vastly different colours, different lion, different name….only because it’s round is this issue raised. There are more shield badges than round badges as somebody fact checked the other week. No, it’s because Heck wanted to change it…end of! It was in stone that it was to be our badge but Heck unilaterally wanted to change it. End of? And if Heck wanted to change it because it looks like Chelsea's badge... I believe that was mentioned somewhere. Because it really does look like Chelsea's badge. You can ignore that if you want. If I was a marketing guy (I kind of now am) then I'd have issues with a rebranding that made a badge look so close to a (more recently) much more successful rival. It's an insane decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allani Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 7 minutes ago, Captain_Townsend said: I think it is glaringly obvious Heck vetoed it and they backed their man. Remember there was a big launch planned for the final home game. Somebody on here said a video had been shot and everything.Heck was announced, all went quiet, no launch happened and he vetoed the video. Also, our kit launch video with the new crest was not featured on our official socials, it leaked into some fan channel (the allez, allez, allez one). Its the only kit launch video you won't find on our official channel as it happens I am confident the North Stand issue is the same. He probably spent months arguing that it shouldn't go ahead for x, y and z reasons And they backed their man, same way they back their man in the dugout. I don't have a problem with them backing their man. I do have a problem if the only business case that was presented was "I don't like the badge" and "I don't think we should redevelop the stand because that was proposed by someone else". I absolutely do think that Heck vetoed the badge because he made it clear to the Board and the owners that the "new" one didn't serve the needs of the business / brand and presented a compelling case at to why it didn't. That's very different to suggesting that he just threw it out because it upset his ego. Same with the redevelopment - he clearly felt that the business case was no long valid and persuaded the Board that there were better options at present for improving revenue. In both cases he has done what any responsible CEO should do and prevent major spend on projects that he thinks no longer have a good business case. That's a very different situation to the suggestions that he's pulled the plug on both because of his ego or because they weren't his ideas. Obviously either could be the real reason - but I'd be deeply concerned if the owners allowed any major decision (with both the badge and the redevelopment were) to be made without the approval of the Board and without a strong business case to support it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allani Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 5 minutes ago, nick76 said: That’s not what proper owners of any big company do. They hire elite executives and give them massive leeway to complete their job because they are the experts. They obviously knew what was going on but they would’ve let him do what he does otherwise what’s the point of having him and unlikely Heck would’ve taken the job without certain authority. I disagree. I had a lot of leeway to do my job because I was a trusted expert - but I still had to present a business case for major initiatives that I wanted to adopt and I needed to get them signed off (sometimes that was a pretty quick and easy process and others it needed a full presentation to the Exec). There will be a whole load of things that don't require sign-off but I'd be shocked if Heck could scrap a stand redevelopment or announce a new stadium development without Board approval. Just as Emery and Monchi are given plenty of leeway for the footballing side of things - but there's no way that Monchi would be able to sign a player for £100m on £250k a week without having that ratified and signed off by someone. There's a whole heap of cases where companies / executives have been taken to court for not applying sufficient corporate oversight to poor / illegal business practices conducted under their watch. At the very least they will be keen to ensure that there is a process in place that they can point to that shows that all the appropriate boxes have been ticked. After all if Heck screws up our revenues or Monchi overspends his budget then it will be the owners / Board that will feel the wrath of the authorities for any regulation breaches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick76 Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 31 minutes ago, allani said: I disagree. I had a lot of leeway to do my job because I was a trusted expert - but I still had to present a business case for major initiatives that I wanted to adopt and I needed to get them signed off (sometimes that was a pretty quick and easy process and others it needed a full presentation to the Exec). There will be a whole load of things that don't require sign-off but I'd be shocked if Heck could scrap a stand redevelopment or announce a new stadium development without Board approval. Just as Emery and Monchi are given plenty of leeway for the footballing side of things - but there's no way that Monchi would be able to sign a player for £100m on £250k a week without having that ratified and signed off by someone. There's a whole heap of cases where companies / executives have been taken to court for not applying sufficient corporate oversight to poor / illegal business practices conducted under their watch. At the very least they will be keen to ensure that there is a process in place that they can point to that shows that all the appropriate boxes have been ticked. After all if Heck screws up our revenues or Monchi overspends his budget then it will be the owners / Board that will feel the wrath of the authorities for any regulation breaches. You’re presenting to Execs, Heck is an actual Exec…in fact essentially the CEO for off the field matters. Additionally I wasn’t talking about the stadium, I agree the owners would require sign off on that but as a senior finance dude I’ve been involved in rebranding when a new CMO comes in and business case wasn’t needed. Of course the CMO kept the board apprised of progress and plans but the decisions and budget was within his remit. Yep I also know about the corporate governance as somebody who has had to police it in the past along with legal with my company and to have it audited by external regulatory bodies. The basic fact is we don’t know Heck’s remit, his delegated authority, we don’t know the internal processes, how hands on the owners are on certain topics and whether it’s within his budget. We also don’t know what his demands were to take the job, re things like rebranding. All this is unknown and in my experience varies from company to company and Exec to Exec. Anyway, we don’t know, it’s the club that has made the rebranding decision and it’s become a farce. The rest is just noise and for us to discuss on speculation and guesses. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fun Factory Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 2 hours ago, Captain_Townsend said: I think it is glaringly obvious Heck vetoed it and they backed their man. Remember there was a big launch planned for the final home game. Somebody on here said a video had been shot and everything.Heck was announced, all went quiet, no launch happened and he vetoed the video. Also, our kit launch video with the new crest was not featured on our official socials, it leaked into some fan channel (the allez, allez, allez one). Its the only kit launch video you won't find on our official channel as it happens I am confident the North Stand issue is the same. He probably spent months arguing that it shouldn't go ahead for x, y and z reasons And they backed their man, same way they back their man in the dugout. These key strategic decisions should be based on one person saying yes or no. That is why you have consultations and planning processes. Football can be so small time even in the premier league and all of its milllions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Townsend Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 (edited) I of course understand that, but to me they don't look like good decisions. Our identity is a shambles now. We have three logos! An unpopular badge, a badge with a mandate but disowned by the club, and a trademarked dog's dinner of an effort. So, is this good decisive decision making? I don't think so. We looked like an ambitious club going places and needing to develop the oldest, most out dated and cramped part of our stadium. Then we pull the plug and the mood music just all feels off now. Are the club saying we now have less ambition. Are the club saying "the ground is big enough for you lot". Are the club saying "we aren't as committed to the current location as we let on". I just don't like the way these issues have been handled. And I think my position is legitimate. It just feels like everything Heck does dampens the mood. Edited February 1 by Captain_Townsend 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allani Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 1 hour ago, Captain_Townsend said: I of course understand that, but to me they don't look like good decisions. Our identity is a shambles now. We have three logos! An unpopular badge, a badge with a mandate but disowned by the club, and a trademarked dog's dinner of an effort. So, is this good decisive decision making? I don't think so. We looked like an ambitious club going places and needing to develop the oldest, most out dated and cramped part of our stadium. Then we pull the plug and the mood music just all feels off now. Are the club saying we now have less ambition. Are the club saying "the ground is big enough for you lot". Are the club saying "we aren't as committed to the current location as we let on". I just don't like the way these issues have been handled. And I think my position is legitimate. It just feels like everything Heck does dampens the mood. Understood. But I do think that part of the issue with the badge pre-dates Heck (but I've explained that above so no point going over it again). Also I think there are quicker ways to bring in more revenue to spend on the team than an expensive redevelopment that was also going to reduce our revenue over the next 2 seasons because it would reduce our capacity in the short term. Given everything that is happening with FFP in that same period that looks like quite a big risk and something that would mean we'd have less cash to spend on the team. So I kind of see this in the exact opposite way to you - it's a sign (to me) that the club want to invest as much as possible in the squad over the next couple of years and to me that shouts ambition to establish ourselves in the top group as quickly as possible. Get things on the pitch sorted first and then look at the surrounding infrastructure. I hope that's what it signals anyway! But I do get / appreciate where you are coming from and I had expected a more "professional" / engaged approach to complex issues (blimey that's almost me agreeing with you twice in one day !!). We could have avoided a lot of the noise around the badge and the redevelopment had the comms / engagement been better handled and the decisions better explained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts