Oh good, let's break even this season, but look at putting more money into the Footy Dept next season or let's get a new emblem again after four years and have to spend money on changing everything again, jumpers, signage, letterheads, merchandising...sigh and sigh...any way agree must we go back to cartoonish emblems..why?....and besides which if it is going to have a name on surely the name should be Dees, don't hear many people calling MFC the Demons these days....

I'd much rather be called MFC, than the Demons. People call us the Demons all the time or Dees and it's usually in a patronising way. It's rare to hear people refer to us as the MFC. Hopefully more strips like the indigenous strip this year will rectify this. I think we might find that the new MFC emblem is very minimalist with the simple MFC logo, ala the Indigenous jumper. I'd support that change, otherwise I kind of like the current emblem.

Every comment I have heard on our current emblem is that it's too busy, but I don't mind it as a business logo, probably looks alright on a letter head and so on, maybe doesn't reflect the " demons" side of the club well enough

There's a trident for a reason. That's your symbolism. They don't have to say "Demons".

I reckon the emblem could work in unison with a team logo. The current emblem can remain for all corporate or business matters, while a new more Demon-centric logo can be used for the team itself on merchandise and guernseys.

I keep seeing this idea floated, and I'm not entirely against it, but are there other examples of this in the league to point towards?

The current emblem is a stale corporate nightmare to my eyes, but I can see it being viewed as suitable for letterheads. I just question the merit in having two logos.

I keep seeing this idea floated, and I'm not entirely against it, but are there other examples of this in the league to point towards?

The current emblem is a stale corporate nightmare to my eyes, but I can see it being viewed as suitable for letterheads. I just question the merit in having two logos.

The MFC is a business. IMO, you shouldn't muddy your brand. It should be clear and concise. One emblem, for mine.

Edited June 2, 201411 yr by AdamFarr

Oh good, let's break even this season, but look at putting more money into the Footy Dept next season or let's get a new emblem again after four years and have to spend money on changing everything again, jumpers, signage, letterheads, merchandising...sigh and sigh...any way agree must we go back to cartoonish emblems..why?....and besides which if it is going to have a name on surely the name should be Dees, don't hear many people calling MFC the Demons these days....

Do you know for a fact that any money being put into a new emblem will be at the expense of the football dept or are you just ranting?

The MFC is a business. IMO, you shouldn't muddy your brand. It should be clear and concise. One emblem, for mine.

I would tend to agree. I'm open to the idea, but my preference would be for the one logo.

I love the current emblem and all that it stands for, but I also think there's a strong case for a logo that will be attractive to the kids who will form our future membership base. An angry, fire eating Demon would surely have more appeal to the youngsters. Like others have said, there is a place for both an official emblem as well as what I would call a logo, to be used on badges and in newspapers etc..

Dof, fire eaters at our home night games, I like it, brilliant idea. Pre game around the boundary, either side of the Run-Through, & at the long-breaks.

Quick someone ring the Club !!!

Edited June 2, 201411 yr by dee-luded

Only have fire eaters if they actually catch on fire or the burn the opposition cheer squad.

Lame otherwise.

Yeah I quite like the current one, it's just a little too busy.

I'd only have one of the trident, football and southern cross (whichever element is the most important - probably the trident as it's part of our identity, although it should be a smaller trident), and I don't think the flame above the M works well given the usual size of the logo.

I think this is pretty close to the mark.

So much going on in that logo competing for attention, that every facet gets washed out.

I'd be happy for a few tiny details representative of certain aspects of the club's history, but not immediately obvious and all tied together with a strong central theme - currently they're all practically on even footing and no one aspect is the clear central focus.

Only have fire eaters if they actually catch on fire or the burn the opposition cheer squad.

Lame otherwise.

why so?

I'd much rather be called MFC, than the Demons. People call us the Demons all the time or Dees and it's usually in a patronising way. It's rare to hear people refer to us as the MFC. Hopefully more strips like the indigenous strip this year will rectify this. I think we might find that the new MFC emblem is very minimalist with the simple MFC logo, ala the Indigenous jumper. I'd support that change, otherwise I kind of like the current emblem.

There's a trident for a reason. That's your symbolism. They don't have to say "Demons".

I do think the terms "Demons" and "Dees" have only been used in a patronisingly soft way because they are so inherently linked to the style of play we have served up for decades.

We could have been called anything and it would have been used in a patronising manner.

Turn the form around, and the perception will also change.

I recall under Ross Lyon they played their trademark "saints footy."

Now I think there are few things more weak and pathetic as a mascot than a "saint", but it was hardly looked upon as soft uncommitted footy.

That had nothing to do with the word "saints" and everything to do with what the players brought on the field.

Similarly the "swans" are a fairly lame mascot, but they did revert to a much more tough sounding "bloods" terminology.

Said it before and will say it again. The emblem as it is is just that an emblem - it is rich in what it stands for and should continue as such. However what is needed is a logo - a simple little design that works for when a little logo is required ie the little logos on the TV score board and on the header of the afl website. For me the little blue square with the red yoke works just fine for those situations as would the MFC monogram. We need an emblem for official things like big signs and letterheads etc as well as a little logo for the times when the detail isn't so necessary. I think that is where the problems are the emblem was needed - our song refers to an emblem that is otherwise non existent but a simple little logo is needed as well

I think this is pretty close to the mark.

So much going on in that logo competing for attention, that every facet gets washed out.

I'd be happy for a few tiny details representative of certain aspects of the club's history, but not immediately obvious and all tied together with a strong central theme - currently they're all practically on even footing and no one aspect is the clear central focus.

Without want to rant here, I feel like this has Schwab's fingerprints all over it. I'm only speculating, but surely the designer would have said, 'you need to focus on a strong central theme'. I remember when they wheeled it out on the club website and they had a little video to explain every aspect. Every element seemed to be as important as the other. That doesn't speak designer to me. That speaks of an executive that doesn't understand design. Anyway, I still think that logo looks classy.

I do think the terms "Demons" and "Dees" have only been used in a patronisingly soft way because they are so inherently linked to the style of play we have served up for decades.

We could have been called anything and it would have been used in a patronising manner.

Turn the form around, and the perception will also change.

I recall under Ross Lyon they played their trademark "saints footy."

Now I think there are few things more weak and pathetic as a mascot than a "saint", but it was hardly looked upon as soft uncommitted footy.

That had nothing to do with the word "saints" and everything to do with what the players brought on the field.

Similarly the "swans" are a fairly lame mascot, but they did revert to a much more tough sounding "bloods" terminology.

I agree. It's linked with our past failures, but I'd like to get away from that really. That said, I loved how Roos was conscious of the 'bloods' nickname and what it stood for. Even if he can something remotely similar with the Demon, I'll be a very happy man. But as you say, M, the connotation of the 'Demon' will change with our performances.

Edited June 2, 201411 yr by AdamFarr

Hahah i'm not sure you'd want to brag about being " the Toffees", but I take your point.

Comes from a Toffee Lady who used to walk around the ground before kick off throwing toffees into the crowd. I have been an Evertonian since 1976 and was there when we won our last FA Cup, magical day

Said it before and will say it again. The emblem as it is is just that an emblem - it is rich in what it stands for and should continue as such.

However what is needed is a logo - a simple little design that works for when a little logo is required ie the little logos on the TV score board and on the header of the afl website. For me the little blue square with the red yoke works just fine for those situations as would the MFC monogram.

We need an emblem for official things like big signs and letterheads etc as well as a little logo for the times when the detail isn't so necessary. I think that is where the problems are the emblem was needed - our song refers to an emblem that is otherwise non existent but a simple little logo is needed as well

nicely articulated jako13

The current emblem is unbearably self-important. It doesn't offer a challenge to the world, it sits on its backside and says "We are the Royal and Ancient. Admire us."

The sooner we lose it the better.

I like the current emblem and would hate to see it superseded, as would one of my sons who has it tattooed on his bicep.

The current emblem is unbearably self-important. It doesn't offer a challenge to the world, it sits on its backside and says "We are the Royal and Ancient. Admire us."

The sooner we lose it the better.

I've come to think this, also.

At first I liked it because I thought the club should be proud of its history (and it should), but holding it up as justification for respect is a bit rich considering the club's lack of success over such a long period.

It's time to redefine the club and we're in the middle of this, I'm not sure the current brand reflects where the club wants to go.

Hahah i'm not sure you'd want to brag about being " the Toffees", but I take your point.

Presumably they stick together when the going gets hot (unlike Melbourne in the recent past).

I've come to think this, also.

At first I liked it because I thought the club should be proud of its history (and it should), but holding it up as justification for respect is a bit rich considering the club's lack of success over such a long period.

It's time to redefine the club and we're in the middle of this, I'm not sure the current brand reflects where the club wants to go.

The team on the park reflects where we want to go, not an emblem, the emblem was introduced to replace that horrid modern red V and blue abomination, want to go back to that?......I do not want a Demon anywhere near the emblem/badge/brand....it is Americanised, cartoonish and childish

Edited June 2, 201411 yr by Satyriconhome

Maybe we can take the large sum of money out of football operations it would cost to think tank and design an emblem to everyone's taste.

Honestly we have far more important things to attend to, and put our limited funds toward, than a new logo.

I want to win games of footy and don't give two stuffs what emblem is on our polo shirts while we do so.

Doesn't our new emblem run around the paddock with a number 7 on his back?

The current emblem is unbearably self-important. It doesn't offer a challenge to the world, it sits on its backside and says "We are the Royal and Ancient. Admire us."

The sooner we lose it the better.

You've obviously never played a round at St Andrews

It's an emblem, it says to me MFC, that's all it is supposed to say, what do you want something Americanised, it asks you how you are and how your are feeling

Maybe we can take the large sum of money out of football operations it would cost to think tank and design an emblem to everyone's taste.

Honestly we have far more important things to attend to, and put our limited funds toward, than a new logo.

I want to win games of footy and don't give two stuffs what emblem is on our polo shirts while we do so.

No to pay a design agency, I was one of a small select group who was shown a prototype of the emblem by the said Mr Schwab, there were actually a couple of changes put in place, if you would like to see the inspiration behind the emblem ....tried to paste it wouldn't work...look up Barcelona Football Club emblem

Edited June 2, 201411 yr by Satyriconhome

The current emblem is a dogs breakfast of symbolism. New one should definitely have a cartoon pic of Roosy with horns on his head. All class.

I've come to think this, also.

At first I liked it because I thought the club should be proud of its history (and it should), but holding it up as justification for respect is a bit rich considering the club's lack of success over such a long period.

It's time to redefine the club and we're in the middle of this, I'm not sure the current brand reflects where the club wants to go.

we don't need to divorce our past, to become a force, & move forward as a modern growing club. we are not a different club, we are the same with many faults that have been left to grow through our fibres.

we need to realise & recognise these rotten parasitic fibres entwined in our being, & then shed them as we grow another skin.

we do need to open up to a broader demographic of people to grow our support base. but Not doing this in our past 50 Yrs is part of the infection.

Edited June 2, 201411 yr by dee-luded