Jump to content

Leeds United New Crest


UnclearInitial
 Share

Recommended Posts

Regardless, it's not sticking. LUFC Managing Director Angus Kinnear just told a local station they're reopening the consultation process for the crest.

 

It makes sense regardless of whether or not you like the logo, because this was a PR fiasco. 16,000 fans had signed a petition to change it within 2 hours. The internet has been destroying it ever since they unveiled it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, GFB said:

 

I am very interested in hearing you defend this opinion.

The current logo is bland. It's a roundel with some wording and the outline of the original crest hidden in it. The original logo was unique and stood out from all the others, even with the Nike logos that were birthed at the same time. 

 

ALSO: Seeing as the person who changed to the current logo is also trying to take the team from Columbus, it adds to my dislike of the current badge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Asterix777 said:

Regardless, it's not sticking. LUFC Managing Director Angus Kinnear just told a local station they're reopening the consultation process for the crest.

 

It makes sense regardless of whether or not you like the logo, because this was a PR fiasco. 16,000 fans had signed a petition to change it within 2 hours. The internet has been destroying it ever since they unveiled it. 

 

Guess this one's headed for the "unused logo" thread pretty fast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, anythinglogos said:

 I don’t think a piece of fan culture should be the main representation of the team. It would be like the Packers having a cheesehead logo or Auburn using a tree covered in toilet paper as their logo.

 

I think I agree with this statement the most out of anything else in the thread.

 

This logo is almost perfect for a supporters club to use or an SB nation type thing but not for the football club itself. IMO, as mentioned earlier, they should build something off of the '84-'98 white rose logo or even just a modern update of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I have no stake in this team (or soccer in general), I have to say that I don't think this logo is awful. It's not great, and a rose would probably be better, but this one has nice color balance, a great font, and good design in general, however misguided the direction may be. Also, this new crest is a massive upgrade and is better than most others in the Championship. (Looking at you, Nottingham).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MJWalker45 said:

The current logo is bland. It's a roundel with some wording and the outline of the original crest hidden in it. The original logo was unique and stood out from all the others, even with the Nike logos that were birthed at the same time. 

 

ALSO: Seeing as the person who changed to the current logo is also trying to take the team from Columbus, it adds to my dislike of the current badge.

 

I don’t mean to be rude, but you simply restated your original opinion just with more words. Basically, new logo is bad and bland; old logo was good and unique. Feelings.

 

I was hoping that you would make some appeal to objectivity in your defense, because I can’t argue with your feelings. It’s the same reason why you can’t reason with flat-earthers; once objectivity gets thrown out the door, then it’s all only a matter of perspective. 

  • Why is the new logo bland? What specifically is to blame?
  • What is responsible for the old logo being so unique? What did it get 100% correct that the new logo doesn’t?
  • Is being unique the most important thing to a logo?
  • What bridges the large gap in execution/craftsmanship between the two logos? 
  • Should not liking the owner be relevant at all in a discussion about design?
TL;DR. You are 100% entitled to your opinion... but if you can’t point to anything more than your own personal feelings or taste, I’m not going to give your opinion any weight.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Gothamite said:

Okay, I’ll play contrarian.  I like it. 

 

I love using the Leeds Salute.

 

I find this take interesting . . . for reasons I'll note below.

 

20 hours ago, anythinglogos said:

 I don’t think a piece of fan culture should be the main representation of the team. It would be like the Packers having a cheesehead logo or Auburn using a tree covered in toilet paper as their logo.

 

17 hours ago, marble21 said:

 

I think I agree with this statement the most out of anything else in the thread.

 

This logo is almost perfect for a supporters club to use or an SB nation type thing but not for the football club itself. 

 

I agree with both of these statements . . . and I will add another analogy.  It would be like the Cleveland Browns using a dog logo because it represents the Dawg Pound.

 

I'm fairly certain the majority of us believe that the Browns should not use a dog logo as their primary logo (or maybe even a secondary). . . which is why I find Gothamite's embrace of this logo interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, GFB said:

I was hoping that you would make some appeal to objectivity in your defense

  • Why is the new logo bland? What specifically is to blame?
  • What is responsible for the old logo being so unique? What did it get 100% correct that the new logo doesn’t?
  • Is being unique the most important thing to a logo?
  • What bridges the large gap in execution/craftsmanship between the two logos? 
  • Should not liking the owner be relevant at all in a discussion about design?
 

If you take the current logo and compare it with every other roundel shaped logo, what causes it to stand out as superior to the other logos? Most people would probably not look at it favorably over similar logos. There are five teams with roundels in the league now. That original logo is something that immediately once you see it, you know it's the Columbus Crew. Isn't that the main idea of branding, to stand out? That's why most people within the Crew fan base don't like the current badge over the old one. Would a new badge that was neither logo be better received? It probably it would,but part of what would probably be the main factor is that the new logo stood out from a lot of the badges in the league. But as for the actual design itself, when discussing it objectively, you are correct that on it's own merits the owner's decisions shouldn't be considered in discussing the merits of the logo itself. LAFC's logo stands out because the few elements that are there are not seen anywhere else in the MLS. Seattle, Vancouver, Sporting KC and New England do this as well, though most of us would say that the Revolution badge needs to replaced by something else. Minnesota as well have a logo that fans so identified with that they feared that adidas/MLS would not to them justice when they moved up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn...the AOL bill doesn't get paid for a month and the first thing I see when I get back is this?  Wow...just...wow.  this actually makes me wanna go panhandling.  If only to scrounge up enough dough to get my internet back and put together an actual crest.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.