I like the new logo

the serifs are another disaster as well

Does he even know what a serif is?

If they had paid consultants come up with this....

The "MELBOURNEfc" moniker has been around at least since 2005. The only thing that has changed in the new logo is the infantile lower case "e" being including.

And they have stuck that on the car bumper sticker.

Brilliant.

As for the arguments that "demons" need to be dropped because of a push into Asia, these have little or no substance looking at recent events. It would be fair to say that Manchester United are the most widely supported soccer team in Asia. Have a look at their logo - particularly the little devil with a pitch fork in the middle of it. Unsurprising given their nickname is the "red devils".

I have no problem with making "Melbourne" more prominent in the logo/emblem. I do have a problem with this one. Somewhere significantly lower on the scale than "uninspiring".

What is more of a pull: 'Demons' or 'Melbourne'?

The fortunate happenstance of our name is what will save the 'Demons.'

So, ironically, if we wish to remain the 'Demons' we have to stop marketing ourselves as the 'Demons.'

And away jumpers...meh.

If Man Utd can wear royal blue, and Arsenal gold, and Chelsea fluro green, and Juventus pink, and Barca tan, etc. then we should wear whatever if we are the away team.

What is more of a pull: 'Demons' or 'Melbourne'?

The fortunate happenstance of our name is what will save the 'Demons.'

So, ironically, if we wish to remain the 'Demons' we have to stop marketing ourselves as the 'Demons.'

And away jumpers...meh.

Not sure what your game is pal, but you seem to be overly dismissive of anyone who thinks our Demons brand and Red and Blue logo are to be protected. Any time the issue arises your new moniker pops up putting the kibosh on those against it.

You wouldnt by any chance have a stake in the new marketing, would you?

Our training jumper with some silver/grey in it (with the now old logo on the front) was decent.

Our training jumper with some silver/grey in it (with the now old logo on the front) was decent.

I doubt the validity of 2 or every 3 members responding to the Advisory Panel would hev been in favour of the new proposed logo. as shown in this thread it is not imaginative or inspiring and at best it is OK.

Begs some questions regarding the Advisory Panel - 1. is the Ad. Panel comprised of a broad range of MFC supporters or is there some bias in its make up, 2. how are the responses from Members being interpreted/used or 3. is the MFC seriously considering the responses from the included members OR perhaps thereis a predetermined outcome the Admin is seeking to legitimise via the Ad Panel. for example has the new logo already been decided upon and would it be dropped if the response of Ad Panel was negative??? Given 150th would think already in production possibly!

I have warmed to the notion of this new logo so this following quote i dont agree with but i asked my mate who is a signwriter what he thought this was what he said-

Sorry mousey, but your mates comment belongs in 70's technical drawing book.

Graphic Designers, I'm one, design logos. Not signwriters. It's kind of like asking Andrew Johns about the hands in the back rule. Sure he's got an opinion but he should stick to his own game.

Now I'm not a huge fan of the logo myself, I think it'll grow on me, but it's certainly not technically deficient or dated, quite the opposite infact. This, as we know, is all about branding and in my opinion, the move toward us becoming the football club of Melbourne, is a very good one indeed.

We are attempting to differentiate ourselves in the market, this move sets us apart from all of the other clubs. Only two other clubs have this opportunity, Brisbane and Adelaide. Both of which do not have the same history, or marketing ‘pull’ as Melbourne. This is not about now, this is about our past (150 years) and particularly stepping above the others to look at our future.

With our interest into new realms of potential bases of support. We need to present as something other than one of the Melbourne teams. We need to be the team of Melbourne and with so many new arrivals in Melbourne every week we are separating ourselves away from the pack and potentially becoming the obvious choice.

Give this a chance. It’s not about the bloody logo, it’s about attracting new supporters, future members and in our 150th year our timing is perfect.

I don't care what kind of spin people put on this about it being all about positioning the brand better blah blah blah it won't change the fact that it's still a boring, uninspiring and ugly logo but at the end of the day it should be our on field performances and success that attracts new supporters not a logo.

I don't care what kind of spin people put on this about it being all about positioning the brand better blah blah blah it won't change the fact that it's still a boring, uninspiring and ugly logo but at the end of the day it should be our on field performances and success that attracts new supporters not a logo.

Apart from missing the entire point about the distinction between:

1. the clubs forward thinking attempt at branding (bringing us up to speed with the rest of the league)

and

2. the new logo,

you have a point. It doesn't mean however that we should ignore everything off the field and be happy with our paltry 28007 members.

I doubt the validity of 2 or every 3 members responding to the Advisory Panel would hev been in favour of the new proposed logo. as shown in this thread it is not imaginative or inspiring and at best it is OK.

Begs some questions regarding the Advisory Panel - 1. is the Ad. Panel comprised of a broad range of MFC supporters or is there some bias in its make up, 2. how are the responses from Members being interpreted/used or 3. is the MFC seriously considering the responses from the included members OR perhaps thereis a predetermined outcome the Admin is seeking to legitimise via the Ad Panel. for example has the new logo already been decided upon and would it be dropped if the response of Ad Panel was negative??? Given 150th would think already in production possibly!

Bang on Tony, I was at the demons shop at the 'G yesterday, and there's already an enormous version of the new logo stuck under the main counter, clearly the club had already made up their mind about the logo but used the advisory survey as a means of justifying it by wording the question about the new logo as such that most people would simply say 'no preference'.

You would think also that the demographic who undertook the survey would've been heavily skewed to the under 40 demographic that are more internet savvy too, and they are more open to change and less wary of tradition generally. (sorry if these are considered sweeping generalisations!)..

Possibly I'm missing something, but I like the new logo. It's simple, classy, reflects our jumper and colours, is instantaneously recognisable which is important for brand awareness, and unlike some of the others it doesn't look like it belongs in a comic strip. Then again I also like our very first logo - the interwoven MFC.

Obviously I like plain and less messy logos.

Not sure what your game is pal, but you seem to be overly dismissive of anyone who thinks our Demons brand and Red and Blue logo are to be protected. Any time the issue arises your new moniker pops up putting the kibosh on those against it.

You wouldnt by any chance have a stake in the new marketing, would you?

I am abrupt when I type, I get that. But I just want the supporters to know the importance of the new push to brand ourselves as MelbourneFC. We are down to 220 000 supporters and we need to attract new Australians and new Victorians and the best way to do that is embrace the city...and not the spawn of satan.

Apologies for any dismissiveness, I know the 'Demons' are close to everyone here. I just don't see the connect between marketing branding and the death of a clubs' moniker.

I now see the reason for the logo change.

Then again I also like our very first logo - the interwoven MFC.

That's my favourite one too, but I guess it is too similar to the MCC logo and Carlton's too, and we're trying to stand out and differentiate ourselves, so it's no good.

I now see the reason for the logo change...

you make a good point. we appear to be overhauling a lot of things at the end of this season. could some of it be in relation to the overall change? maybe not directly, but it definitely is indirect.

for mine, the logo is a logo, its a little boring but if thats the image we are going for whatever. what i dont like is the lower case e. it makes me cringe. maybe it will grow on me...

you make a good point. we appear to be overhauling a lot of things at the end of this season. could some of it be in relation to the overall change? maybe not directly, but it definitely is indirect.

for mine, the logo is a logo, its a little boring but if thats the image we are going for whatever. what i dont like is the lower case e. it makes me cringe. maybe it will grow on me...

I was more alluding to the fact that in a strange way they look similar (at least with that photo of Neale).

But what you said makes more sense.

I've got no problem with the concept, I would just like to have seen it done better.

EDIT: I just my membership today and after seeing the new logo in action I'm happy with it. After only seeing a small version I wasn't all that keen but it has now grown on me.