Woody1000 Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villa_Vids Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 (edited) Deleted Edited February 2 by Villa_Vids Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jas10 Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 4 minutes ago, Woody1000 said: What an utter bar steward 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick76 Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 6 minutes ago, Woody1000 said: So Bosko’s was fake but the club have taken that one and made it worse than Bosko’s by the removal of claret detailing. So much for trusting the professionals! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAMAICAN-VILLAN Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 12 minutes ago, Woody1000 said: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Townsend Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 (edited) 3 hours ago, Stevo985 said: Just boring watching you argue with the same people in here over and over again just because they don’t like the badge. what he meant was obvious. It’s boring Thanks Stevo, I thought it was pretty obvious what I meant. Our badge should have more claret and blue. I don't even like the pre 2007 badge, but a dig about "nostalgia" came at me! I just made the point it better represented our colours than the post 2007 one did. I am too young to have been around for the original round badge. Yet I have always thought it superior to the 90s-00s shield, as it just looked classy and the claret and blue looked right. My favourite badge of all is the 1957 cup final one. It is timeless, it is classic. Anyway, I have said all I am going to say on the matter. Edited February 2 by Captain_Townsend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayEm Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 24 minutes ago, Woody1000 said: That is hilarious and also insane. I wonder if the club felt they couldn't use claret detailing on the lion given that would be an exact copy of this guy's work? How does copyright, IP etc. work in that scenario? Seems such a shame to have the new version with the dark yellow detailing when there's the clearly superior claret detailing version out there. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen_Evans Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 3 minutes ago, jayEm said: That is hilarious and also insane. I wonder if the club felt they couldn't use claret detailing on the lion given that would be an exact copy of this guy's work? How does copyright, IP etc. work in that scenario? Seems such a shame to have the new version with the dark yellow detailing when there's the clearly superior claret detailing version out there. Come on Chris, we know you or someone at the club is monitoring this… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick76 Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 27 minutes ago, Woody1000 said: Can somebody quickly knock up a new big North Stand 3D image taking our capacity to 55,000. Then release it online slowly and then Heck will pinch that as well like Bosko’s badge…we may still get our ground increase 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teale's 'tache Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 1 minute ago, jayEm said: That is hilarious and also insane. I wonder if the club felt they couldn't use claret detailing on the lion given that would be an exact copy of this guy's work? How does copyright, IP etc. work in that scenario? Seems such a shame to have the new version with the dark yellow detailing when there's the clearly superior claret detailing version out there. The detailing was already trademarked by the club long ago, all he did was put it over another design that was also already trademarked by the club, and then did a fancy render, so I don't think legally he'd be able to kick up much of a fuss. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa89 Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 3 minutes ago, Teale's 'tache said: I don't think legally he'd be able to kick up much of a fuss. The club could just ask him as well, he'd say yes and the club could send him a shirt or some merch as a thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAMAICAN-VILLAN Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 Fair play, still not feeling the white though. Have a feeling it would improve alot if we just removed the 1874 and Star and just make the lion bigger or something. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ejs1111 Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 (edited) deleted Edited February 2 by ejs1111 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 2 hours ago, El Segundo said: I like the idea of having a link to Birmingham in the badge - not necessarily the word "Birmingham" but in a split shield design like this you could have the Lion where the castle is, a Bull/Bull's head representing Brum where the harp is and maybe something else where the ship is - perhaps a bear with a ragged staff to represent Warwickshire. Maybe a start where the ball is too. Edit- just added a very rough example as my personal icon I'm intrigued by your image there, can you increase the size and post it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MapleVilla Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 8 minutes ago, jayEm said: That is hilarious and also insane. I wonder if the club felt they couldn't use claret detailing on the lion given that would be an exact copy of this guy's work? How does copyright, IP etc. work in that scenario? Seems such a shame to have the new version with the dark yellow detailing when there's the clearly superior claret detailing version out there. If anything it's the other way round. He's used the trademarked lion that is registered on the government site. I'm no expert but what he's put on twitter is in public domain. Basically shouting from the rooftops but in digital form. So as the lion was registered on it's own using that in anyway without the clubs permission is copyright. I may be completely wrong, but that is my understanding of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Paddywhack Posted February 2 Popular Post Share Posted February 2 I still think it looks shit but I’ve been bored into submission. 3 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomaszk Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 Absolutely mental. Presume this guy could sue the club if he could be bothered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen_Evans Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 10 minutes ago, villa89 said: The club could just ask him as well, he'd say yes and the club could send him a shirt or some merch as a thanks. Or a chance to purchase tickets for the Lower Grounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ejs1111 Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 18 hours ago, allani said: 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. I do agree with this take. I was very unhappy about the development pause/cancel. But if the numbers don't add up then it certainly make sense to hold the expansion. It also certainly makes sense from a commercial standpoint to maximize the 'easier' areas first before making a large financial commitment. Updating our sponsors, badge update (regardless of whether I agree/disagree with the design), acquire new sponsors, etc. All these elements can be done to increase revenues without capital expenditure. Once Heck has maximized AVFC, then we can look at facility expansion. But yes initially it was very disappointing- and the comms/excuses were very poorly handled. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen_Evans Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 Honestly, if the detailing on the lion is not claret having decided to have detailing at all, then this is a Heskey shot against the bar from 3 yards. 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts