|
|
Post by marshbowles10 on Dec 15, 2015 11:48:48 GMT
The Club has placed 4 logos on the website for us to chose our favourite. I'm therefore interested in the comments of the message board as my completely biased opinion ( I am in the design industry) is that they are all an opportunity missed. It doesn't appear they have used a professional designer and have just cobbled together elements of other logos. What do the rest of you think? MACMOISH EDIT - Options  |
|
|
|
Post by Bushman on Dec 15, 2015 11:51:39 GMT
The Club has placed 4 logos on the website for us to chose our favourite. I'm therefore interested in the comments of the message board as my completely biased opinion ( I am in the design industry) is that they are all an opportunity missed. It doesn't appear they have used a professional designer and have just cobbled together elements of other logos. What do the rest of you think? The year's wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Ashdown_Ranger on Dec 15, 2015 11:54:16 GMT
I get a 'page not found'... can you post the link MB10?  |
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Dec 15, 2015 11:54:44 GMT
Ditto - UNless they posted it and took it off
|
|
|
|
Post by Bushman on Dec 15, 2015 11:57:41 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Ashdown_Ranger on Dec 15, 2015 12:04:59 GMT
The Club has placed 4 logos on the website for us to chose our favourite. I'm therefore interested in the comments of the message board as my completely biased opinion ( I am in the design industry) is that they are all an opportunity missed. It doesn't appear they have used a professional designer and have just cobbled together elements of other logos. What do the rest of you think? Have to agree 100% MB, definitely an opportunity missed. I'd expected at least a couple of original, completely new concepts. That said, I have always liked the previous (ie, pre-Briatore clipart/tart's boudoir mash-up crest), so of the four, number 2 would get my vote. |
|
|
|
Post by Bushman on Dec 15, 2015 12:07:47 GMT
2 for me with an apostrophe added  |
|
|
|
Post by Marc on Dec 15, 2015 12:11:24 GMT
2 for me as well and please, for the love of all that's holy, Not 4!
|
|
|
|
Post by Bushman on Dec 15, 2015 12:14:53 GMT
2 for me as well and please, for the love of all that's holy, Not 4! The club like a crown, branding apparently. |
|
|
|
Post by Marc on Dec 15, 2015 12:17:42 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Marc on Dec 15, 2015 12:24:23 GMT
Just had a look at them on the shirt mock ups, definitely No.2 for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lonegunmen on Dec 15, 2015 12:32:04 GMT
To be blunt, what a load of wank. Jesus wept. From the very narrow minded and limited choice questionaire, we get 4 very stupid designs. Definately opportunity lost.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bushman on Dec 15, 2015 12:35:04 GMT
To be blunt, what a load of wank. Jesus wept. From the very narrow minded and limited choice questionaire, we get 4 very stupid designs. Definitely opportunity lost. Good to see you like them Andy  |
|
|
|
Post by sharky on Dec 15, 2015 12:54:12 GMT
What the Offie says NEW QPR CLUB CREST - VOTE NOW!PUBLISHED 12:00 15th December 2015 by @qprfc Fan vote opens for new QPR club crest ... Vote for QPR's new club crest now live R's supporters asked to select their favourite option Voting closes at 5.00pm on 23rd December QPR supporters can now have their say on the club's next club crest. Following feedback from our initial survey and various meetings with the Supporters Consultation Committee, we've narrowed down the vote to four options based on these findings - and now it's over to you to cast your vote! The QPR wordmark in option 1 is a play on the style of the 1975 crest. The font is the same as our current crest. The objective with this crest option was to create a crest, which was retro but at the same time aesthetically modern. The QPR wordmark in option 2 is a play on the style of the 1982 QPR crest. The font, as is the case in option one, is the same as our current crest. The objective with this crest option, was to create a crest that was clean and defined and had connotations to the 1982 crest. Option 3 is a new identity, and is built around full hoops, which are the clubs core equity, as well as QPR’s nickname. There is a fantastic opportunity to express our Hoops nickname in our branding and graphic communications, by creating a crest that is distinctive through ownable visual language. The main body of option 4 is the same as option 3, with the added crown in, keeping with the full hoops concept by creating a symbol that follows the same methodology through the intertwining of three full hoops. For a visual impression of how the four options could look on the current 2015/16 home kit please click HERE. Supporters unable to vote online will be able to have their say via leaflets that will be distributed at tonight's Sky Bet Championship fixture against Brighton & Hove Albion. The poll for all votes closes at 5.00pm on December 23rd. Read more at www.qpr.co.uk/news/article/qpr-club-crest-fans-vote-2852214.aspx#RXcmzhH0oUjyUMAk.99 |
|
|
|
Post by sharky on Dec 15, 2015 12:57:17 GMT
They must be joking. Were they designed by a 12 year-old craft class. Awful the lot of them IMO.  Having said that, once one of them is chosen I'll fall in line and back whatever it is. |
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Dec 15, 2015 13:04:08 GMT
Don't really like any. But since one of them WILL be chosen,might as well vote for the one one dislikes the least (or likes the most - or loves)
|
|
|
|
Post by terryb on Dec 15, 2015 13:07:28 GMT
Am I the only one who does not care about a new badge?
Will it increase income? Do any of us actually look at the badge?
If anyone can find my old lapel badge of the Hammersmith Coat of Arms I would gladly wear it. Otherwise, I say quietly, it makes no differnece to me!
|
|
|
|
Post by Bushman on Dec 15, 2015 13:08:43 GMT
Don't really like any. But since one of them WILL be chosen,might as well vote for the one one dislikes the least (or likes the most - or loves) Makes you wonder who is on the Supporters Consultation Committee! |
|
|
|
Post by terryb on Dec 15, 2015 13:19:11 GMT
Don't really like any. But since one of them WILL be chosen,might as well vote for the one one dislikes the least (or likes the most - or loves) Makes you wonder who is on the Supporters Consultation Committee! I heard that the meeting took place in Nando's with a well respected club official chairing the meeting! He will publish the minutes in five years time! |
|
|
|
Post by Markqpr on Dec 15, 2015 13:29:25 GMT
Makes you wonder who is on the Supporters Consultation Committee! I'll be having words with a few of them tonight. These are shockingly poor awful designs and as you point out the year is wrong. The club doesn't even know the year it was founded. Amateurish in the extreme. That crown is pure embarassment. |
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Dec 15, 2015 13:37:01 GMT
The Club's History (QPR Official Site) Queens Park Rangers Football Club was originally formed in 1882 by the old boys of Droop Street Board School. The boys were members of the St. Jude's Institute as they used this as the Club headquarters, and in the early days were known as St. Jude’s. They obtained the name of Queens Park Rangers when they merged with a team called Christ Church Rangers in 1886. They called themselves Queens Park Rangers because most of the players came from the district of Queen’s Park. t www.qpr.co.uk/club/history/potted-history/index.aspx#FjSFlRqRWk6eFhzS.99 |
|
|
|
Post by marshbowles10 on Dec 15, 2015 13:37:12 GMT
I'm really sorry but I am useless putting images onto this site.
The visuals as originally show featured white text for the lettering as shown by Bushman and featured in the early part of the article.
However what we are asked to vote for is the opposite colour palette, the lettering is blue.
So is it a blue badge with white lettering or a white badge with blue lettering?
If this is what we have then number 2 is the better option. But is it just the best of a poor selection?
I thought I'd never see or say this but logo Number 4 is even worse than current…and that takes some doing.
Qualification MB10?
Originator of the UEFA Champions League logo in 1991/2.
|
|
|
|
Post by terryb on Dec 15, 2015 13:54:08 GMT
The Club's History (QPR Official Site) Queens Park Rangers Football Club was originally formed in 1882 by the old boys of Droop Street Board School. The boys were members of the St. Jude's Institute as they used this as the Club headquarters, and in the early days were known as St. Jude’s. They obtained the name of Queens Park Rangers when they merged with a team called Christ Church Rangers in 1886. They called themselves Queens Park Rangers because most of the players came from the district of Queen’s Park. t www.qpr.co.uk/club/history/potted-history/index.aspx#FjSFlRqRWk6eFhzS.99Actuall Mac, By there own words, Queens Park Rangers could not have been formed in 1882. The formation could only be when the amalgamation took place. Previous to that two different clubs existed. Neither being Queen's Park Rangers! |
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Dec 15, 2015 14:11:20 GMT
To be fair our old crest also showed us as 1882  |
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Dec 15, 2015 15:05:21 GMT
Option 1 "The INFAMOUS 1975 Crest"  ? I think they may have used the wrong word |
|
|
|
Post by harr on Dec 15, 2015 15:55:59 GMT
If had to choose from those 2 it is . 3 and 4 look horrid .
|
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Dec 15, 2015 16:12:50 GMT
Well i would urge everyone to chose/vote for one of them. Even if none are the ones you'd have chosen
|
|
|
|
Post by stylecouncillor on Dec 15, 2015 16:35:13 GMT
Voted for 2 always thought the 82 badge was best would of rather had it back as I don't think option 2 is enough alike it and it seems to not actually fit inside the circle and looks scruffy prefer the outer text of 3 also...... so all in all not sure why i even voted for it .
|
|
|
|
Post by Bushman on Dec 15, 2015 17:09:31 GMT
The Club's History (QPR Official Site) Queens Park Rangers Football Club was originally formed in 1882 by the old boys of Droop Street Board School. The boys were members of the St. Jude's Institute as they used this as the Club headquarters, and in the early days were known as St. Jude’s. They obtained the name of Queens Park Rangers when they merged with a team called Christ Church Rangers in 1886. They called themselves Queens Park Rangers because most of the players came from the district of Queen’s Park. t www.qpr.co.uk/club/history/potted-history/index.aspx#FjSFlRqRWk6eFhzS.99Actuall Mac, By there own words, Queens Park Rangers could not have been formed in 1882. The formation could only be when the amalgamation took place. Previous to that two different clubs existed. Neither being Queen's Park Rangers! The guy who designed the badges knows they were not formed in 1882. I've told him enough times well before he knocked up the final 4 options. Gordon Macey must be pissed off. They didn't consult him at all. What's the point of having an official club historian. |
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Dec 15, 2015 17:25:24 GMT
But on the other hand, as I noted above: We've long said "1882" - The old logo said it
|
|
? I think they may have used the wrong word
