The mancityfans.net football forum

Is it me or do the rags have the Manchester coat of arms rather than their "world famous brand" club crest on their blazers whilst on their current tour?

If so, whats all that about? City traditionally have had the Manchester badge on cup final shirts. Has this been authorised for a club in Stretford? I think we should know if the topic hasnt already been raised.

You know what we fucking bolloxed it up in the cup finals not using it the rags always use it on their official suits where as we use our three star eagle.

lets all have a disco wrote:You know what we fucking bolloxed it up in the cup finals not using it the rags always use it on their official suits where as we use our three star eagle.

Agreed.

I think the Rags are just not permitted to use it at Wembley for domestic cups, but can use it on other kits. They used it in 1968, when the European Cup final was at Wembley.

Manchester City Council own the rights to the Coat of Arms and give approval to bodies who want to use it. If anyone uses it without their consent then the MCC would (or at least could) take legal action if they felt it was necessary.

Sadly I think it's a myth that Utd can't use it. All it takes is for someone at Manchester city council to approve the use of it and then Utd can use it. In 1957 Manchester council decided that no sports organisation, including City, could use the coat of arms on their shirts and introduced the eagle badge which MCFC used on literature like handbooks and Utd wore on their 1958 FAC final shirts (though people, including the BBC, still incorrectly claim they wore a phoenix - absolute rubbish it was the Manchester emblem containing an eagle which forms the basis of MCFC's eagle today). The full story is in "Manchester A Football History".

So if the council allowed Utd (and City) to use the eagle emblem in 1958 (even though their ground is based outside of the City Of Manchester) instead of the council COA then it's possible and likely they allowed them to use the COA in 1963 (FAC final when Utd wore it) and at times since. The real issue for me is not so much Utd's use, but City's lack of use. As the only professional FC in the city of Manchester, the club should make sure it uses the COA as often as Utd, preferably more. City have chosen not to use it as often as Utd in recent years. Both sides, incidentally, used to wear it on suits and blazers when performing official tours and so on in the 1950s.

Its a hugely disappointing to me that we dont use the COA more considering were THE only Manchester club.

Yep that's the 1957 emblem that MCC introduced to stop City & Utd and others from wearing the COA. If you look at a Utd shirt from the 58 final that's the emblem they wore (I really get wound up when the BBC and others claim it's a phoenix to signify Utd rising from the ashes of Munich etc. - nothing to do with that at all). City used this on literature in the late 50s and 60s and the eagle is the one that's currently on our badge.

EDIT: Here's a link to the emblem as used by Utd in 1958 (didn't want to post the actual image on here): http://www.flickr.com/photos/35779154@N02/3792186647/

I've never understood why the chose a golden eagle. Never seen one in Manchester. Seen a lot of pigeons, though.

and someone give me the historical context about why we didn't use this on our badge when we redid it? Because it couldn't be trademarked? The eagle is *fine* but it's...just an eagle with vague stars. Something historical would really have been worth value.

Thanks for that! Have we been granted rights to use it 'in perpetuity' at Wembley or something? I'm sure I have read that we have 'one over on them' when it comes to using the Manchester crest (besides actually being from Manchester).

I've got a funny feeling their blue and white third kit from the mid-90s (or at least a variant of it) also had the City crest incorporated into it somehow...

Peter Doherty (AGAIG) wrote:I've never understood why the chose a golden eagle. Never seen one in Manchester. Seen a lot of pigeons, though.

I think this has been gone over before. The eagle has been associated with Manchester for years, and this style of eagle is carved into the ends of the pews in Manchester cathedral (I think).

Think its to do with the original Roman settlement

Nickyboy wrote:Think its to do with the original Roman settlement

I was looking for history. Not Game of thrones bollocks.

Gary James?

The eagle is supposed to represent Manchester's roman origins.

gary james wrote:The eagle is supposed to represent Manchester's roman origins.

So it could have been a long, straight road, then.

gary james wrote:The eagle is supposed to represent Manchester's roman origins.

What I mean Gary is why we didn't use a more historical image such as the coat of arms itself. I remember hearing it was because we needed a unique image we could trademark. Is that correct?

DoomMerchant wrote:

gary james wrote:The eagle is supposed to represent Manchester's roman origins.

What I mean Gary is why we didn't use a more historical image such as the coat of arms itself. I remember hearing it was because we needed a unique image we could trademark. Is that correct?

More historical than the bloody Romans?

Goataldo wrote:
More historical than the bloody Romans?

Yes. In fact. Yes.

And what? So what. And what?

DoomMerchant wrote:

Goataldo wrote:
More historical than the bloody Romans?

Yes. In fact. Yes.

And what? So what. And what?

I think people sometimes forget you're American and recorded history didn't start until 1776.

Slim wrote:
I think people sometimes forget you're American and recorded history didn't start until 1776.

Fuck off and celebrate your birthday. Asshole.

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