I rarely if ever comment on Demonland (although I read it most days) but today I was on the AFL site and again saw our new logo. It made me feel compelled to get something off my chest - I think it's terrible.

It's a mess of a million ideas - all of which are important but not needed in the one logo.

Design is about being succinct, editing and having a primary focus. There's so many bits thrown together your eye doesn't know where to look. It's also totally impractical- literally illegible when shrunk smaller than a postage stamp (see attached). Pick one or two things and do them well -like the beautiful old fashioned 1920's MFC type and our traditional red & blue V. I absolutely love this football club, I just wish they'd kept it simple.

I've seen other post on here about it and remember the majority of people being positive..is it just me that feels this way?

Edited October 23, 201015 yr by Alan Johnson

I think its just an emblem and they are still working on an official logo.

Personally for an emblem its good because what it shows and has represents a lot, i hope its not our logo!

I think its just an emblem and they are still working on an official logo.

Personally for an emblem its good because what it shows and has represents a lot, i hope its not our logo!

Well said and many echo these exact thoughts I think.

I too hope a more simple LOGO will be used as the MFC identity. The EMBLEM is great as an internal reminder of who we are and what we represent.

exactly, and im pretty sure we are bringing the demon back which is great.

The emblem is the logo and I like it.

Each to their own Clint..but what if we took your Air Jurrah logo and added a swoosh, a tiny mullet, 4 opposition players for him to fly over, an aboriginal flag and an air traffic control tower in background.

Better?

Each to their own Clint..but what if we took your Air Jurrah logo and added a swoosh, a tiny mullet, 4 opposition players for him to fly over, an aboriginal flag and an air traffic control tower in background.

Better?

It's got a tiny mullet, try to pay attention to detail.

Each to their own Clint..but what if we took your Air Jurrah logo and added a swoosh, a tiny mullet, 4 opposition players for him to fly over, an aboriginal flag and an air traffic control tower in background.

Better?

Haha nice one.

It's got a tiny mullet, try to pay attention to detail.

Sorry my eyes are still bleeding from the emblem.

Use one of your maxi pads to clean up the mess.

Wow.

Alan Johnson using the same expert judgement we've seen exhibited by his son.

Terrible, terrible thread.

Thank heavens you seem to be in the minority.

Use one of your maxi pads to clean up the mess.

Yeah cool, I like the ones with fancy detailed design on the box

Yeah cool, I like the ones with fancy detailed design on the box

:/

Each to their own Clint..but what if we took your Air Jurrah logo and added a swoosh, a tiny mullet, 4 opposition players for him to fly over, an aboriginal flag and an air traffic control tower in background.

Better?

As DA pointed out, I put the mullet/fin in already.

It is a busy logo, and when small it is a bit messy, but none of the logos look good when small. Simple logos can look fantastic, but so can extravagant ones, it depends on the context. With over 150 years of heritage I feel that this logo is entitled to be extravagant.

I think it looks fantastic on the Great Wall of China too.

Edited October 23, 201015 yr by Clint Bizkit

Design is about being succinct, editing and having a primary focus. There's so many bits thrown together your eye doesn't know where to look. It's also totally impractical- literally illegible when shrunk smaller than a postage stamp (see attached). Pick one or two things and do them well -like the beautiful old fashioned 1920's MFC type and our traditional red & blue V. I absolutely love this football club, I just wish they'd kept it simple.

I've seen other post on here about it and remember the majority of people being positive..is it just me that feels this way?

I also find the Collingwood, Man U, ChelseaFC, LiverpoolFC and Barcelona Fc emblems that way. So many things to look at. So much prestige, so much information, so much tradition.

The Melbournefc has got it right.

I also find the Collingwood, Man U, ChelseaFC, LiverpoolFC and Barcelona Fc emblems that way. So many things to look at. So much prestige, so much information, so much tradition.

The Melbournefc has got it right.

Only a totally untrained eye would compare these classic logos to our new emblem. Here's what some unbiased designers had to say;

http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/everything_but_the_stadium_sink.php

Only a totally untrained eye would compare these classic logos to our new emblem. Here's what some unbiased designers had to say;

http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/everything_but_the_stadium_sink.php

Mate. Seriously... p!ss off if that's all you have to provide.

Bloody heck. Don't need that dribble.

Only a totally untrained eye would compare these classic logos to our new emblem. Here's what some unbiased designers had to say;

http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/everything_but_the_stadium_sink.php

I refuse to accept the opinion of somebody who calls our premiership a championship

Only a totally untrained eye would compare these classic logos to our new emblem. Here's what some unbiased designers had to say;

http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/everything_but_the_stadium_sink.php

Thanks for that. These "designer" guys knew what they were talking about:

The Melbourne Football Club isn’t one of the oldest teams in Australian rules football; it’s THE oldest club in the Australian Football League, and very close to being the oldest professional sporting club in the world.

It’s not a franchise; it hasn’t relocated based on the whims of owners and commercial interests. In fact it’s owned by a group of over 30,000 members and has been based in Melbourne since its creation in 1858. It has a soul.

The original logo - this is more an emblem (the commenter who mentioned heraldry, prestige and history had it exactly right) - was not an abstraction of an M. It was a representation of the club’s guernsey (the shirt they wear during games) and came about after a decision to move away from the nickname “the Demons” in the mid 2000s. The Demon has been brought back by the new administration (although is only hinted at by the trident here).

I realise this is not perfect and that many here are commenting from purely a design perspective. But others are completely missing the point and ignoring the context.

The emblem is very specifically designed to move away from the idea of the Melbourne Football Club as a cold corporate entity or some kind of johnny-come-lately franchise with a kid-friendly but totally insubstantial cartoon animal for a logo.

I’m a Melbourne supporter and I like it a lot.

- Jonathon

I think people are being overly hard on this one. I agree that it’s really a crest and that there’s far too much going on for it to function very well as a logo proper (imagine trying to print that in black & white); however, considering the vast amalgamation of visual elements, it surprises me how crisp and attractive it looks. It “feels” appropriate and conveys the sense of a club full of history and social possibilities. It is balanced and the colors work well; even the gradients are okay. The old logo is a dour, almost gothic looking thing that does absolutely nothing to evoke the sense of a football club. The new version makes better use of the abstracted “M” — it’s less immediately noticeable, but a pleasing nod to the old version that works. And in scanning the page at a glance, the eye is immediately drawn to the visual excitement of the new emblem; the old one barely even registers.

I do think there’s too much going on in it, and I’m not crazy about the “MFC” lettering at the top. But as a crest it’s far from terrible.

- CTYLST

Despite 35% liking the logo out of ~1400, I'm not surprised. I'm also not surprised that the majority aren't Melbourne supporters.

They are judging it based on being a logo and being logo designers who design for the purpose of a corporate entity.

The emblem of a sporting club is inherently different.

You are judging it with the wrong criteria & expectations.

They coulda done without the rules IMO .

The rest is fine .

They coulda done without the rules IMO .

The rest is fine .

Dude... those "words" are what has made our game the game it is today!! It's the cornerstone of our nation's great game - and it was created by Melbourne: the AFL rules.

My favourite comment on that link:

"Lots of typical people will completely love it. Designers will complain."

I'd be in the same boat, except I understand the concept and the intent.

Some people continue to miss the point.

I'm judging it as a designer and a passionate melbourne supporter...and it's still a badly designed "sporting club" logo

They coulda done without the rules IMO .

The rest is fine .

Disagree. I think recognising our clubs heritage is of importance. Significant in recognising our club is as old as the game itself and it's rules. It means the club stands for something. It is part of our brand. Where supporters of the greater AFL might sit back and say, "wow - Melbournefc are the oldest, they go way back, they are a significant contributor to the league, they need to hang around (it's important)...forever."