Sorry guys if this has been mentioned and delete if so, and I only noticed it because I'm a bit of a weird graphic designer, but has everyone noticed that the new kits (as seen in the training photos from today) have ditched the emblem created by CS and are using the traditonal MFC logo? I wonder if this will be put in place across the entire suite of items...ie merch, website, collateral etc?

Edited November 5, 201410 yr by Demonator

Sorry guys if this has been mentioned and delete if so, and I only noticed it because I'm a bit of a weird graphic designer, but has everyone noticed that the new kits (as seen in the training photos from today) have ditched the emblem created by CS and are using the traditonal MFC logo? I wonder if this will be put in place across the entire suite of items...ie merch, website, collateral etc?

We can only hope!

Sorry guys if this has been mentioned and delete if so, and I only noticed it because I'm a bit of a weird graphic designer, but has everyone noticed that the new kits (as seen in the training photos from today) have ditched the emblem created by CS and are using the traditonal MFC logo? I wonder if this will be put in place across the entire suite of items...ie merch, website, collateral etc?

is there any other kind ?

I emailed the club asking about the logo a few weeks back. I did this because i remember the President stating they were going to have a new brand strategy going forward in 2-3 months (stated in June or there abouts). They said at this stage they have not committed to a logo or visual identity change and that they took the opinions of members in the survey they dished out last year seriously and it will dictate future decisions.

After seeing all the kits today though i wonder if it is going to be another year of creeping the monogram idea into it without getting rid of the emblem. Personally i love the monogram, clean and simple. I know when i am looking at those pictures what stands out more looking at the new one on the top and emblem on the shorts.

Hope all is well Demonator!

Edited November 5, 201410 yr by Mousey

Already reserved premiership tattoo space on a stretch of pristine white under-forearm skin for our time-honoured MFC monogram . The upper side is too leathery and sun blotched to be of much use. Understandable , as I was only 15 years of age last time around .

I think that there should be some text underneath the monogram (Melbourne Football Club) and it should be superimposed over a blue background. I think that would be just right.

We seem to be going through an identity crisis

I have no problem with this.

I love the monogram. It is a logo, which is perfect for branding on shirts etc.

I also quite like the emblem which I think had its place in a formal context ie letterheads.

Why not both?

Thank god, we've finally purged the BS from the CS era. Tradition is the future. Great call MFC!

is there any other kind ?

Not that I've met!

Thank god, we've finally purged the BS from the CS era. Tradition is the future. Great call MFC!

Well, not really. As stated - you are going to see the emblem on your membership letter, you just won't see it on clothing.

The machines in China mustn't be that sophisticated yet...

I like the monogram, I like the emblem, I like the Demon, I don't 'not like' things simply because I don't like the person who brought it in.

I am glad this happened without a fuss or even a statement and am awaiting the walking, week long groan when the club does have some sort of re-branding in the next few months...

Just re-brand, then win games.

Not that I've met!

lol demonator, i'm well versed with the world of graphic designers and agencies with my son being one too

I have no problem with this.

I love the monogram. It is a logo, which is perfect for branding on shirts etc.

I also quite like the emblem which I think had its place in a formal context ie letterheads.

Why not both?

why not indeed for exactly the reasons you suggest. Each has a place.

wouldn't worry me if we had half a dozen logos/emblems/monograms with an appropriate place for each

just as long as they were good in their chosen application

I have no problem with this.

I love the monogram. It is a logo, which is perfect for branding on shirts etc.

I also quite like the emblem which I think had its place in a formal context ie letterheads.

Why not both?

why not indeed for exactly the reasons you suggest. Each has a place.

wouldn't worry me if we had half a dozen logos/emblems/monograms with an appropriate place for each

just as long as they were good in their chosen application

I think all you do then is have confusion and no focus on/or brand identity. It's the sort of indecision that's not needed.

I really like the MFC logo and think it should be on everything. We need to create a strong brand.

Of course it all means next to nothing if we are not wining games.

edit: by logo I mean the monogram not the shield. Simplicity .... MFC

Edited November 6, 201410 yr by rjay

I like the MFC monogram 1000 times more than the stupid Schwabby shield. The shield looks ridiculous on apparel. I was hoping that we would do something about bringing back the demon into our logo

wouldn't worry me if we had half a dozen logos/emblems/monograms with an appropriate place for each

just as long as they were good in their chosen application

I agree dc

They thing that really worries me is the lack of game wins.

The rest is running a long second.

I hate to rain on the parade kids, but the training gear last year had the MFC logo rather than the shield, I'll ask when I am in the club next week, what is going on, if anyone is that really interested

Must just keep raining, take a look at the demon shop online and all the 2014 gear has the shield on it.

The shield is so terrible. A classic case of design by committee.

There's a trident, a football, a scroll, est 1858, a southern cross, the MFC emblem, the red V, some signatures in the background, and there's even an unnecessary "flame" type thing above the M in Melbourne. There's way too much going on and I wouldn't buy merch with that logo on it.

I also am a graphic designer, so there's that...

Edited November 7, 201410 yr by G-max

I'm sorry, Gmax, but part of me wants to keep it purely to teach young Demons that sometimes busy clubs should have busy emblems.

Those 'signatures' are the rules of the game, written by the bloke who founded this game, concurrently with founding this club.

The flame is taking ownership of the city that hosted the Olympics - an ownership some would love us to continue. It is our name...

The southern cross is supposed to be an elegant shout out to the indigenous, the trident is the demons.

You don't have to like it, but know what is going on in there and why others take some level of pride in the clubs achievements, no matter how ancient.

Like your post rp, but I thought the flame was for the unknown soldier and link to our military past?

Perhaps another nudge to the convoluted nature.

Like your post rp, but I thought the flame was for the unknown soldier and link to our military past?

Perhaps another nudge to the convoluted nature.

Yeah, I remember I misread that we were first discussing it...

I am all for simplifying the logos we use for merch and message but I like the arrogance and busy nature of the emblem and what it signifies.

Yeah, I remember I misread that we were first discussing it...

I am all for simplifying the logos we use for merch and message but I like the arrogance and busy nature of the emblem and what it signifies.

Differing opinions make the world go round 'rp' but I think the MFC history and what it stands for is the culture of the club and the MFC emblem signifies this without all the clutter.

A little bit like the flag and anthem debates there is no right or wrong, but of course I'm more right lol!!

I don't like the shield at all.