TimmerD Posted March 1, 2005 Report Share Posted March 1, 2005 See link...... http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/displayNode...tentPK=11919711 Some interesting quotes. Wonder how the club will react now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cardy Posted March 1, 2005 Report Share Posted March 1, 2005 Please bring back the Robin and Suspension Bridge. That badge got us to the Old First Division. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chivs Posted March 1, 2005 Report Share Posted March 1, 2005 See link...... http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/displayNode...tentPK=11919711 Some interesting quotes. Wonder how the club will react now? ← And the quotes are all from Forum members who are very vocal on here. Is this representative? I don't know but we should be careful to assume that forum members reflect the views of the wider City community. This forum is made up of many different viewpoints but I still think it has a very focussed demographic (able to use a computer for starters) makeup. Huw Griffiths (who ever he is ) made the good point that City could poll their supporters outside the ground. This makes a lot of sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timdunn Posted March 1, 2005 Report Share Posted March 1, 2005 No it didn't. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the suspension bridge was only introduced in 1976, before that it was a five bar gate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmerD Posted March 1, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2005 And the quotes are all from Forum members who are very vocal on here. Is this representative? I don't know but we should be careful to assume that forum members reflect the views of the wider City community. This forum is made up of many different viewpoints but I still think it has a very focussed demographic (able to use a computer for starters) makeup. Huw Griffiths (who ever he is ) made the good point that City could poll their supporters outside the ground. This makes a lot of sense. ← Very fair points, but it is pleasing that the issue has now been raised to a wider audience. Polling fans is of course an option, but the questionnaires need to be short and to the point and would probably involve showing say 4 - 6 designs for people to comment on. There would also need to be quite a lot of staff involved to ask the questions. These issues do of course cost money, but if the club is serious about involving fans in the decision then its a price worth paying - IMHO. There are numerous other ways which the club could still canvess the opinion of the wider fan base and I for one hope they do choose to do this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zookeeper Posted March 1, 2005 Report Share Posted March 1, 2005 Very fair points, but it is pleasing that the issue has now been raised to a wider audience. Polling fans is of course an option, but the questionnaires need to be short and to the point and would probably involve showing say 4 - 6 designs for people to comment on. There would also need to be quite a lot of staff involved to ask the questions. These issues do of course cost money, but if the club is serious about involving fans in the decision then its a price worth paying - IMHO. There are numerous other ways which the club could still canvess the opinion of the wider fan base and I for one hope they do choose to do this. ← It is also important to note that what is put down on paper is not what it would look like on a shirt, or on a massive sign outside the ground. Also it's the big issue of change and the most likely outcome of something like this is that they will want it kept the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Ian M Posted March 1, 2005 Admin Report Share Posted March 1, 2005 And the quotes are all from Forum members who are very vocal on here. Is this representative? I don't know but we should be careful to assume that forum members reflect the views of the wider City community. This forum is made up of many different viewpoints but I still think it has a very focussed demographic (able to use a computer for starters) makeup. Hence the reason the BEP is covering it, to keep the 1000's of City fans who don't have internet access in the loop. Huw Griffiths (who ever he is ) made the good point that City could poll their supporters outside the ground. This makes a lot of sense. ← It's interesting to note already a conflict in the sequence of events between RG's version as told to the BEP and the FCC members' version as told to us by TomF & richieb on here. If my username was cynic I would suggest that the club was trying to shift the blame squarely onto the FCC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmerD Posted March 1, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2005 Also its interesting to note that the Club have made no comment about this on the website. One of the things I find most incredible about this is the lack of thought that went into "releasing" the details about it - I mean putting a new logo into a brochure about the debenture seats is hardly giving it your full backing. Normally with something such a this a full scale launch would be done, not trying to hide the logo in a brochure about debenture seats. Then to say, when someone spots it, its not finalised yet is absolutley pathetic in my mind. This whole episode is being handled very badly and unless someone at the club takes a firm grip on the situation I think it will just snowball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Man In Black Posted March 1, 2005 Report Share Posted March 1, 2005 Following on from what Madger points out... Someone is telling porkies... It's not right to say we haven't consulted the fans. We are one of very few clubs to have a Fans Consultative Committee and the design of a new badge has been discussed in three meetings, so it has been an evolving process. So says Richard Gould. Members of the FCC claim that it was only shown in passing in one meeting. I too agree that the buck is attempting to be passed here. Oh, to be able to look back at some minutes to see who is correct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Ian M Posted March 1, 2005 Admin Report Share Posted March 1, 2005 Following on from what Madger points out... Someone is telling porkies... So says Richard Gould. Members of the FCC claim that it was only shown in passing in one meeting. I too agree that the buck is attempting to be passed here. Oh, to be able to look back at some minutes to see who is correct ← I read a great book last Summer..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cider head Posted March 1, 2005 Report Share Posted March 1, 2005 No it didn't. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the suspension bridge was only introduced in 1976, before that it was a five bar gate. ← the crest was used on city's shirts before top flight football and was on citys shirts in the promotion season and as you say the robin was used from 1976 onwards, but the five bar gate was used on programs 1972 / 1973 and i could be wrong but it has not been on a city shirt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest i&jmh Posted March 1, 2005 Report Share Posted March 1, 2005 Following on from what Madger points out... Someone is telling porkies... So says Richard Gould. Members of the FCC claim that it was only shown in passing in one meeting. I too agree that the buck is attempting to be passed here. Oh, to be able to look back at some minutes to see who is correct ← Just as a thought. How many of the 8000 plus season ticket holders are actually on the fcc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waffleflap Posted March 1, 2005 Report Share Posted March 1, 2005 I like the one we have now.I didnt sit through 4 hours of pain for nothing getting it tattooed It is probably cheaper to produce the new one.if they do change it, the robin with the bridge will be fine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milo Posted March 1, 2005 Report Share Posted March 1, 2005 I'm impressed with the investigative journalism that unearthed the whereabouts of Huw Griffiths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brady bunch Posted March 1, 2005 Report Share Posted March 1, 2005 The Crest is best, I hated the old designs. I am happy to hear that a Robin is going to replace the cat as mascot, but thats it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milo Posted March 1, 2005 Report Share Posted March 1, 2005 Or maybe they just called him? ← I'm sure you're right. I was simply musing on his recent low profile on the forum. I miss the arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richieb Posted March 1, 2005 Report Share Posted March 1, 2005 It's interesting to note already a conflict in the sequence of events between RG's version as told to the BEP and the FCC members' version as told to us by TomF & richieb on here. If my username was cynic I would suggest that the club was trying to shift the blame squarely onto the FCC ← The Badge was discussed at 3 meetings = 3 months. Went from no Name on it to name on it. Went from no Robin to having a robin. The one issue that should have been executed was the details of FCC meetings published on the Official site & programme - then fans would have been aware that the badge was being discussed. The FCC members must be more accessable to ALL fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
openEnd Posted March 2, 2005 Report Share Posted March 2, 2005 The Badge was discussed at 3 meetings = 3 months. Went from no Name on it to name on it. Went from no Robin to having a robin. The one issue that should have been executed was the details of FCC meetings published on the Official site & programme - then fans would have been aware that the badge was being discussed. The FCC members must be more accessable to ALL fans. ← Well then it appears we have a conflict of the events within the FCC itself! The FCC were shown the prototype of a propsed badge, about 3 months ago. Nothing more was really said about it. The meeting at which it was shown was before the Brentford reply and we were only about 6 people strong. Care to explain, how can that be? Not only that after it was raised on 3 seperate occasions by the club, you (collectively) chose to: 1) Ignore the club were serious 2) Not inform a single supporter of the club's intentions. How did all of you manage to go 3 months without mentioning it to a single friend? FCC, what a joke. Are you going to sort this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chivs Posted March 2, 2005 Report Share Posted March 2, 2005 Well then it appears we have a conflict of the events within the FCC itself! Care to explain, how can that be? Not only that after it was raised on 3 seperate occasions by the club, you (collectively) chose to: 1) Ignore the club were serious 2) Not inform a single supporter of the club's intentions. How did all of you manage to go 3 months without mentioning it to a single friend? FCC, what a joke. Are you going to sort this? ← The official website is asking for new members for the FCC. Why don't you sort it? Hindsight is a 20-20 vision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Port Said Red Posted March 2, 2005 Report Share Posted March 2, 2005 I'm sorry but I think that you are all being manipulated here. It's like some sort of mini propaganda war on a tiny insular BCFC planet, similar to the way the papers wheel out Royal Family stories when we should be concerned about the war or the way the country is being run. Just when people start to question some of the decisions made about the IMPORTANT parts of running this football club, the rather less serious subject of what badge should represent the club is thrown out without discussion and causes uproar. Look at the "ask steve/colin" forum, how strange that the numerous posts in the aftermath of the Walsall debacle were "merged" into one less obvious post within a day or two. As of writing this (9:23am 2/3/05) the first section of that forum is awash with separate posts on the subject of the badge. That clearly shows that this is what really upsets us, doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StapleHillPhil Posted March 2, 2005 Report Share Posted March 2, 2005 You know what. It's a point like this that makes me think 'why bother' ← Tom, The strange thing is that if the badge design was discussed at three seperate meetings then why did you, richieb, or any other FCC member decide against posting something on here about it? Was it a case that you didn't think the club were looking at a complete rebranding of the badge? Did the club ask that it be kept confidential for the time being? For those of us not involved with the FCC its a little frustrating that we know so little about what it does. Even if minutes arent going to be posted on the official site (although I cant see why they shouldnt be) then perhaps somebody could put a post on here which quickly goes over the main points of the meetings. Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tompo Posted March 2, 2005 Report Share Posted March 2, 2005 I'm sorry but I think that you are all being manipulated here. It's like some sort of mini propaganda war on a tiny insular BCFC planet, similar to the way the papers wheel out Royal Family stories when we should be concerned about the war or the way the country is being run. Just when people start to question some of the decisions made about the IMPORTANT parts of running this football club, the rather less serious subject of what badge should represent the club is thrown out without discussion and causes uproar. Look at the "ask steve/colin" forum, how strange that the numerous posts in the aftermath of the Walsall debacle were "merged" into one less obvious post within a day or two. As of writing this (9:23am 2/3/05) the first section of that forum is awash with separate posts on the subject of the badge. That clearly shows that this is what really upsets us, doesn't it? ← Personally I'm more concerned about what's IN the shirt than what's ON it (and I'm not talking about the material). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Port Said Red Posted March 2, 2005 Report Share Posted March 2, 2005 Personally I'm more concerned about what's IN the shirt than what's ON it (and I'm not talking about the material). ← As am I my friend, and who tells the wearer what to do......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nogbad the Bad Posted March 2, 2005 Report Share Posted March 2, 2005 I'm sorry but I think that you are all being manipulated here. It's like some sort of mini propaganda war on a tiny insular BCFC planet, similar to the way the papers wheel out Royal Family stories when we should be concerned about the war or the way the country is being run. Just when people start to question some of the decisions made about the IMPORTANT parts of running this football club, the rather less serious subject of what badge should represent the club is thrown out without discussion and causes uproar. Look at the "ask steve/colin" forum, how strange that the numerous posts in the aftermath of the Walsall debacle were "merged" into one less obvious post within a day or two. As of writing this (9:23am 2/3/05) the first section of that forum is awash with separate posts on the subject of the badge. That clearly shows that this is what really upsets us, doesn't it? ← The Club badge clearly is very imorportant to many of us even if a it is a side issue to you. The reason why the Sl forum is awash with posts on the badge is that it is a specific issue that people are irate about and hope to do something to change. We were all upset about Walsall but apart from having a good moan at SL there wasn't actually alot we could do about it. If you think the badge topics should be merged as well, there's little doubt they soon will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.