Thoughts?
fucking grim. respect to teams that have kept their non generic/non circular badge
Stoke's rebrand: fineCambridge's rebrand: probably necessary because the old one looked shitPeterborough's rebrand: absolutely dreadful
>>154493778stokes looks like those MLS ones where they all had the same logo. just make a generic shield and put a couple things that stoke is known for in a badge, idk uuuh when we were formed, our kit colour.. uuhso fucking soulless
>>154493778>a fucking pretzel
At least clubs are moving away from this soulless shit.
>>154493778all of them are worse, pure slop
A FUCKING FOOTBALL READING A BOOK
>>154493923I actually like Forest Green's new badge, and Welling's has just removed the pointless inclusion of their nickname.The others are embarrassing
>>154493778Is that a Pretzel on Stoke's?
>>154494255its an oroboros, because when they have the ball they immediately hoof it back to the opponent and it begins anew
>>154493923>that Dorking oneSurprised it isn't just cunt White's face.
>>154494255https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stafford_knot
>>154494330Oh, actually soulful
>>154493778I find Stoke‘s the most dreadful, the color scheme is so fucked up now. And having a full field for the founding year looks wrong as well. Yeah, the old one wasn’t that creative, very basic with its stripes … but it was solid enough to be easily better than whatever this isI understand changing Cambridge‘s crest, it really looks quite bad. But the new one is actually worse. Shitty black on empty, very blandPeterborough is actually somewhat okay. I at least have some sympathy for it because it „only“ magnifies the defining feature of the old design and abandons the basic circle shape. I‘d still put something around it, though
>>154493778I'll miss the CU
>>154493778the old stoke city crest looks more modern than the new one, are you sure this isn't reversed? or maybe it's going back to an old crest designeither way, i like the old design a bit more, the new one ain't that bad either, i'd say it's neutralto be completely honestly the old cambridge crest is ugly as shit but the new one isn't any better, the lettering idea is good but it looks like a good detail that should be part of a complete crest, not the WHOLE crestfor peterborough i like the idea of simplifying the lion and key pairs to one holding the key but making the crest JUST that is TOO simple and looks soulless, plus the simplification is too flat
>>154494129SOVL
>>154494129Ball knowledge
>>154494990>>154503423>maybe it's going back to an old crest designYeah its an old one they used in the 90s. Might not be exactly the same but I recognise it.
>>154493778grim
>>154493923WTF did they all hire the same designer?Welling had some merit to it, straight up simplification of an existing emblem, but the fackin Brentford, Bristol, Stevenage, Maidenhead and Dorking (a fackin cock!) got the same basic template and run with it lmao.City - no comment.Stockport is kinda ok-ish, but why did they change the escutcheon?Harrogate shield thingy is interesting, but looks NOTHING like the original, no semblance whatsoever.At least Forrest Green isn't red...It's all a plain money-grab, innit. Can't copyright existing old emblems, right?
>>154494129>cambridge university>cambridge footy clubI mean, how else would you do it?
