Rags using the Manchester Coat of Arms badge

[spiny]

Interesting replies but I do think that with all the links and partnerships between City and Manchester City Council we should emphasise the joint branding with the City Crest and Manchester COA appearing together where appropriate.

The rags almost succeeded in making the term Manchester synonymous with them around the world. We have to reclaim this association as well as make us globally the only "City". To all intents MCC are a partner with us way beyond anything with the rags.

[dazby]

Gary, is the Salford Council or proud Salfordians upset that the rags claim Manchester as their own?

Anyone can answer this.

[john68]

Gary, is the Salford Council or proud Salfordians upset that the rags claim Manchester as their own?

Anyone can answer this.

The rags have absolutely nothing to do with the City of Salford Dazzler.

The rags play in the Borough of Trafford and have done so for all bar about 10yrs of their existence.

[dazby]

Gary, is the Salford Council or proud Salfordians upset that the rags claim Manchester as their own?

Anyone can answer this.

The rags have absolutely nothing to do with the City of Salford Dazzler.

The rags play in the Borough of Trafford and have done so for all bar about 10yrs of their existence.

OK then, remove Salford, replace with Trafford and ask the same question.

is the Trafford Council or proud Traffordians upset that the rags claim Manchester as their own?

[JamieMCFC]

OK then, remove Salford, replace with Trafford and ask the same question.

is the Trafford Council or proud Traffordians upset that the rags claim Manchester as their own?

I understand the hatred for the rags. This is one just seems silly. But then again over here their are lots of teams that stadium isn't actually in the city they "claim" more teams are moving to the suburbs due to land costs when building new stadiums. We have three teams that don't even play in the state they claim. Three New York teams play in New Jersey.

[Slim]

You should also ask john which city is in closest proximity to the swamp.

That'll get you back on track.

[Evenmydoghatesunited]

I understand the hatred for the rags. This is one just seems silly. But then again over here their are lots of teams that stadium isn't actually in the city they "claim" more teams are moving to the suburbs due to land costs when building new stadiums. We have three teams that don't even play in the state they claim. Three New York teams play in New Jersey.

I know about the Giants which are the other 2?

[zuricity]

I know about the Giants which are the other 2?

NYRed bulls and the Jets

[gary james]

I know about the Giants which are the other 2?

NYRed bulls and the Jets

And from what I hear New York City FC's stadium plans are not within the city of NY, so I'm sure that will be thrown at the club at some point by Utd fans.

As for the earlier comments about Romans and historic links... the guy who designed the modern badge claimed that he took elements from Manchester's past and his view (pretty understandable I guess) was that you couldn't actually get more historic in terms of Manchester's birth than the Romans. He could maybe have included something connected with the Brigantes (a Celtic tribe), which is earlier but I guess much less well known. The other elements based on Manchester he included were the central shield from the Manchester COA (changed the colours of the bottom section to blue & white though) which refers to Manchester's trading position (the ship does not reference the Manchester Ship Canal as it predates it by about 50 years, but it does refer to the city's status as a trading city). The latin motto Pride In Battle was totally invented and bears no historical significance to MCFC or Manchester, but is probably the best part of the new badge in terms of identity. The stars have no meaning whatsoever.

So of all the elements of the current badge the shield and the eagle are the 2 that most accurately refer to Manchester. Personally, I prefer the original round badge (the one before the red rose version) which was used up to 1972. I have a photo of a player wearing what looks like the original round badge in 1934. Interestingly, the current badge is the only one worn in a season when City have won the League (there are photos of a COA on a 1937 shirt but this appears to be for a team photo and possibly some 1937-38 games), but the COA has been worn for all winning finals except 1904 & 1970 ECWC. It did appear on the numbers in 2011.

The Manchester COA was used by both City and United on literature in the early years of the 20th Century, but the first to wear it on shirts was City in the 1926 FAC final. City wore no badge in 1904, but Utd wore a red rose in 1909. Utd did however have the COA painted on to the gable of their main stand when OT opened (in Trafford) in 1910.

[zuricity]

And from what I hear New York City FC's stadium plans are not within the city of NY, so I'm sure that will be thrown at the club at some point by Utd fans.

As for the earlier comments about Romans and historic links... the guy who designed the modern badge claimed that he took elements from Manchester's past and his view (pretty understandable I guess) was that you couldn't actually get more historic in terms of Manchester's birth than the Romans. He could maybe have included something connected with the Brigantes (a Celtic tribe), which is earlier but I guess much less well known. The other elements based on Manchester he included were the central shield from the Manchester COA (changed the colours of the bottom section to blue & white though) which refers to Manchester's trading position (the ship does not reference the Manchester Ship Canal as it predates it by about 50 years, but it does refer to the city's status as a trading city). The latin motto Pride In Battle was totally invented and bears no historical significance to MCFC or Manchester, but is probably the best part of the new badge in terms of identity. The stars have no meaning whatsoever.

So of all the elements of the current badge the shield and the eagle are the 2 that most accurately refer to Manchester. Personally, I prefer the original round badge (the one before the red rose version) which was used up to 1972. I have a photo of a player wearing what looks like the original round badge in 1934. Interestingly, the current badge is the only one worn in a season when City have won the League (there are photos of a COA on a 1937 shirt but this appears to be for a team photo and possibly some 1937-38 games), but the COA has been worn for all winning finals except 1904 & 1970 ECWC. It did appear on the numbers in 2011.

The Manchester COA was used by both City and United on literature in the early years of the 20th Century, but the first to wear it on shirts was City in the 1926 FAC final. City wore no badge in 1904, but Utd wore a red rose in 1909. Utd did however have the COA painted on to the gable of their main stand when OT opened (in Trafford) in 1910.

Flushing Meadows is in Queens, one of the Buroughs of New York. Corona Park. If the NYCFC proposals are given the green light

[gary james]

Flushing Meadows is in Queens, one of the Buroughs of New York. Corona Park. If the NYCFC proposals are given the green light

Phew! That's okay then. Thanks.

[DoomMerchant]

Flushing Meadows is in Queens, one of the Buroughs of New York. Corona Park. If the NYCFC proposals are given the green light

Phew! That's okay then. Thanks.

you have no idea how many starfuckers we will get supporting NYCFC. A couple big signings for some glamour and we'll be the talk of the US/MLS. I'm excited by this story. It's fun. If we seem like we're going to hire a quality manager and team i might even consider getting/sharing season tickets just for the fuck of it and see a few matches, despite living a few hours away on a plane.

[ant london]

All the best people live a few hours away on a plane dude

[zuricity]

All the best people live a few hours away on a plane dude

Yep, they are known as Canadians!

[Wonderwall]

Yep, they are known as Canadians!

Ouch....... No reply yet