General Bombers Talk More talk of changing the logo. Post your thoughts here.

[Lore]

Letter from the President: Brand research project​

President Dave Barham provides an update on the club's brand research project.
By essendonfc.com.au - 1 hr ago

To all our Fans and Members,

The Essendon Football Club has a proud history as one of the oldest clubs in the AFL and we have a strong recognisable brand.

We are conducting a preliminary research project which centres around the Essendon brand and its elements.

The research project is in its early phase. Members and supporters have been and will continue to be canvassed as part of this process, in addition to the engagement of multiple Essendon Football Club stakeholders.

We have a proud history of more than 150 years and a deep connection to our members and supporters. This is and will always be respected and embraced.

There is no immediate action to change the club logo or any elements of the club brand. This is a longer-term project with significant work to be completed.

We proudly recognise that our future legacy begins with our proud history.

We will always be called the Bombers.

- Dave Barham

Letter from the President: Brand research project

President Dave Barham provides an update on the club's brand research project.

www.essendonfc.com.au

 

[Lance Uppercut]

View attachment 1718970

Amazing

 

[troybe]

View attachment 1718970

The Velvet Sledge Hammer & Sickle

 

[brain taylor]

No. The Martins
All players have to change their name to Martin.
Zack Martin. Darcey Martin. Sam Martin. Kyle Martin. Sam Martin II . Jye Martin. Will Martin. Will Martin II . Archie Martin. Nik Martin. Nic Martin . Nick Martin Lewis Martin. Anthony McDonald - Tipungwuti - Martin. Jye Martin II . Rhett Martin. Elijah Martin . Alwyn Martin . Massimo Martin. Zach Martin II . Jayden Martin . Andrew Martin . Matt Martin . Jake Martin . Mason martin . Kaine Martin . Jake Martin . Harrison Martin . Dyson Martin . Sam Martin II . Perter Martin . Nick Martin II . James Martin . Jayden Martin . Jordon Martin. Dylan Martin . Ben Martin . Andrew martin II. Anthony Martin. Brandon Zerk - Thatcher - Martin . Alister Martin .

Would make the nic names easy." G'Day Marto . Hows it going Marto". Good thanks Marto. Easy for the new blokes at training. " over here Marto "

Or we could Hyphon all the names as well.
Andrew MCGrath - Martin . Sam Draper - Martin. Darcy Parish - Martin . Kyle Langford - Martin . etc Then when the y leave the Martin comes off

ah, kinda like how every bulldogs player is named ‘bailey’

 

[Kong]

Yeah I recalled reading something awhile back and had thought it was you, but opinions often change over time.
Curious to read your view.

I've put together some of the key points to my thoughts on this.

To begin with, it isn't outrage or even strong offence that I have. It's a level of discomfort that I have; I hear/see the nickname bombers and think of... planes that bomb. That kill. It makes me uncomfortable, as does all war. I accept that war is a reality of life, but I don't agree with it nor do I have much interest in celebrating any part of it or people that participate in it. The exception being those that have no choice or are drafted against their will. They have my sympathy.

I've posted similar over the years, so I'm not going to repeat my thoughts on specific things (e.g. lions, the sun etc). However I do think people are either missing the point or being disingenuous when they say "the sun gives you cancer, do we get rid of that nickname?"

All of those things are matters of nature. They are neither good nor evil, they simply are. They can cause harm simply as a result of being, but that doesn't define them. To bring them up as a comparison is more cringeworthy than any argument that people such as myself put forward on the bomber.

The bomber plane is designed to kill. Yes, it defended our country and others. All weapons of death are used for territory, control and power. By killing.

To say it is justified because it prevented one country from owning ours is odd. Two wrongs don't make a right. What is one weapon used to defend against? Another weapon. They're all tools of death, and none should be celebrated. They are an unfortunate evolution in man's unnecessary obsession with power. They have no positive purpose.

I made a joke about guns earlier, but I do believe there's a parallel. Pro gun advocates often say they're a necessity to protect themselves. From other guns. It's the same absurd argument. The solution is no guns at all. The solution is no bomber planes at all. Regardless of who is using them.

I also don't know if they still use the air raid siren at games anymore, but I found that to be in poor taste, given it's to notify people of war. We live in a country that has many people that have fled their own war ravaged countries to survive, where hearing that siren means life or death. Our club used it to say the boys were about to kick a ball around.

I don't expect many here to agree with me. A friend of mine made a similar argument to me years ago, and at the time I laughed and told them to lighten up. So I've been on the other side of the discussions.

I'm not even trying to force the club to do anything. I'm voicing my displeasure and discomfort, of which I have a lot.

To anyone that says to go support another club, be better.

 

[windyhill]

On field going beautifully, off field these campaigners in charge cannot read the room.

 

[yodellinhank]

C'mon man that's sinking to a new low

Are we really going to do sub-standard puns?

 

[MiguelM]

I've put together some of the key points to my thoughts on this.

To begin with, it isn't outrage or even strong offence that I have. It's a level of discomfort that I have; I hear/see the nickname bombers and think of... planes that bomb. That kill. It makes me uncomfortable, as does all war. I accept that war is a reality of life, but I don't agree with it nor do I have much interest in celebrating any part of it or people that participate in it. The exception being those that have no choice or are drafted against their will. They have my sympathy.

I've posted similar over the years, so I'm not going to repeat my thoughts on specific things (e.g. lions, the sun etc). However I do think people are either missing the point or being disingenuous when they say "the sun gives you cancer, do we get rid of that nickname?"

All of those things are matters of nature. They are neither good nor evil, they simply are. They can cause harm simply as a result of being, but that doesn't define them. To bring them up as a comparison is more cringeworthy than any argument that people such as myself put forward on the bomber.

The bomber plane is designed to kill. Yes, it defended our country and others. All weapons of death are used for territory, control and power. By killing.

To say it is justified because it prevented one country from owning ours is odd. Two wrongs don't make a right. What is one weapon used to defend against? Another weapon. They're all tools of death, and none should be celebrated. They are an unfortunate evolution in man's unnecessary obsession with power. They have no positive purpose.

I made a joke about guns earlier, but I do believe there's a parallel. Pro gun advocates often say they're a necessity to protect themselves. From other guns. It's the same absurd argument. The solution is no guns at all. The solution is no bomber planes at all. Regardless of who is using them.

I also don't know if they still use the air raid siren at games anymore, but I found that to be in poor taste, given it's to notify people of war. We live in a country that has many people that have fled their own war ravaged countries to survive, where hearing that siren means life or death. Our club used it to say the boys were about to kick a ball around.

I don't expect many here to agree with me. A friend of mine made a similar argument to me years ago, and at the time I laughed and told them to lighten up. So I've been on the other side of the discussions.

I'm not even trying to force the club to do anything. I'm voicing my displeasure and discomfort, of which I have a lot.

To anyone that says to go support another club, be better.

Do we stop calling good players guns?

 

[Kong]

Do we stop calling good players guns?

I haven't really thought about it.

What's the historical context of that?

 

[Old man fletch]

View attachment 1718970

Does this mean the club would want to lean into the grey away strip more?

 

[jmoo wan]

On field going beautifully, off field these campaigners in charge cannot read the room.

by literally asking the room?

 

[windyhill]

by literally asking the room?

Well, the room has snapped back. Hard.

 

[MiguelM]

I haven't really thought about it.

What's the historical context of that?

No idea.

I can't believe the hoo haa with a logo change.

Put up options (including current one) let MEMBERS vote, that is all.

Storm in a teacup.

 

[Lore]

I haven't really thought about it.

What's the historical context of that?

If you believe the internet, it comes from calling a dependable comrade a "good gun".

Urban Dictionary: Gun

Pew pew

www.urbandictionary.com

But then the word "gun" itself is apparently short for a Norse name, Gunhilda, which in turn means something like "killer battle maid"... and was first used to refer to cannons at Windsor Castle in the 1300s?

gun | Search Online Etymology Dictionary

The online etymology dictionary (etymonline) is the internet's go-to source for quick and reliable accounts of the origin and history of English words, phrases, and idioms. It is professional enough to satisfy academic standards, but accessible enough to be used by anyone.

www.etymonline.com

I assume that started out a bit like the way people even now name large technologies with women's names and refer to it as 'her' and 'she'... ships and trains and whatnot.

So we've gone from naming people after wars, to naming firearms after people, and then back to naming people after firearms, it seems.

 

[ghostdog]

If you believe the internet, it comes from calling a dependable comrade a "good gun".

Urban Dictionary: Gun

Pew pew

www.urbandictionary.com

But then the word "gun" itself is apparently short for a Norse name, Gunhilda, which in turn means something like "killer battle maid"... and was first used to refer to cannons at Windsor Castle in the 1300s?

gun | Search Online Etymology Dictionary

The online etymology dictionary (etymonline) is the internet's go-to source for quick and reliable accounts of the origin and history of English words, phrases, and idioms. It is professional enough to satisfy academic standards, but accessible enough to be used by anyone.

www.etymonline.com

I assume that started out a bit like the way people even now name large technologies with women's names and refer to it as 'her' and 'she'... ships and trains and whatnot.

So we've gone from naming people after wars, to naming firearms after people, and then back to naming people after firearms, it seems.

"KILLER BATTLE MAIDS" would be a great banner for an AFLW game.

 

[ghostdog]

I've put together some of the key points to my thoughts on this.

To begin with, it isn't outrage or even strong offence that I have. It's a level of discomfort that I have; I hear/see the nickname bombers and think of... planes that bomb. That kill. It makes me uncomfortable, as does all war. I accept that war is a reality of life, but I don't agree with it nor do I have much interest in celebrating any part of it or people that participate in it. The exception being those that have no choice or are drafted against their will. They have my sympathy.

I've posted similar over the years, so I'm not going to repeat my thoughts on specific things (e.g. lions, the sun etc). However I do think people are either missing the point or being disingenuous when they say "the sun gives you cancer, do we get rid of that nickname?"

All of those things are matters of nature. They are neither good nor evil, they simply are. They can cause harm simply as a result of being, but that doesn't define them. To bring them up as a comparison is more cringeworthy than any argument that people such as myself put forward on the bomber.

The bomber plane is designed to kill. Yes, it defended our country and others. All weapons of death are used for territory, control and power. By killing.

To say it is justified because it prevented one country from owning ours is odd. Two wrongs don't make a right. What is one weapon used to defend against? Another weapon. They're all tools of death, and none should be celebrated. They are an unfortunate evolution in man's unnecessary obsession with power. They have no positive purpose.

I made a joke about guns earlier, but I do believe there's a parallel. Pro gun advocates often say they're a necessity to protect themselves. From other guns. It's the same absurd argument. The solution is no guns at all. The solution is no bomber planes at all. Regardless of who is using them.

I also don't know if they still use the air raid siren at games anymore, but I found that to be in poor taste, given it's to notify people of war. We live in a country that has many people that have fled their own war ravaged countries to survive, where hearing that siren means life or death. Our club used it to say the boys were about to kick a ball around.

I don't expect many here to agree with me. A friend of mine made a similar argument to me years ago, and at the time I laughed and told them to lighten up. So I've been on the other side of the discussions.

I'm not even trying to force the club to do anything. I'm voicing my displeasure and discomfort, of which I have a lot.

To anyone that says to go support another club, be better.

Yeah, respectfully, I don't agree.

Your principle is right. It doesn't matter if we're talking about guns or bombs or hand grenades; remove it from society and it's no longer a violent problem. And I'm a total advocate of gun control and the removal of firearms from society (except maybe farmers, but that's a different discussion).

Our historical use of a defence force is a different context than the Port Arthur massacre. To say that its use is only about territory, control and power is a bit disingenuous. I'll refer to WW2, because this was our only genuine defence; what was defended was the way of life that Australians had hoped to preserve for future Australian children. We're not simply talking about a defence of an asset for elite power brokers. That's a dismissive view that discounts the decisions of individuals to want to fight to preserve. I think this is a key issue; it's a symbol of that desire for the fight when the stakes are at their ultimate. I don't believe in war at all - I understand the need and power of politics to avert - but when the future liberties of country are on the line, of course, readiness is key. It's ugly, but it's a truth, because humans are humans.

A bomber is a key part of our club's identity and nothing will change that; especially with our club, so steeped in its traditions as it is. And I'm glad that it is. When I look at that plane, I don't see something that is designed to simply go out and murder people. Again, that ignores nuance and measure and perspective. It can, but that's not what anyone would want it used for, unless it preserves us from being murdered and the future of our lifestyle being destroyed by some autocratic regime. Instead, I see something that should remind us of the want to fight to defend and preserve that we have demonstrated in the past, and that we should be ready and prepared to demonstrate now and in the future if the need arises. Footy is a combative sport. I hope our players have desire for the fight. The plane is a fitting reminder of that need and is part of the club's identity that I love.

I wrote that there are 17 other clubs available to support. I respect your point of view on this, as I respect the values of people like William White and to be honest, I probably would have been an anti-Vietnam War hippy in that era; but I understand if the preservation of the club's identity simply can not reconcile with your own values. You can sloganistically tell me to "be better", but my reminder to you that you have the freedom to choose is me being respectful of your pacificism.

 

[Happyskeret]

I did notice on Brad’s mid season review video there was about 8 different Essendon logo’s on the backdrop behind him. 9 if you included the watermark of the current logo. There was the 150th celebration one and the previous plane emblem and some other ones that I am not as familiar with.

 

[bommer16]

I don’t have to agree with changing the logo as some sort of bandaid to cover up the clubs lack of success over the last 20 years. Its the easiest thing to change but they should get to the core of what really needs to change and why these last 20 years happened. Then put their energy into making solid and lasting changes that ensures they don’t go missing again for another 20.



Yes i understand the club opening discussions on it from a marketing perspective. We are at a point where organisations these days are doing what they can to send a msg that they want to be ethically responsible. What doesn’t change is that they all want to make money and it would be remiss of any marketing department not to find strategies to do this. It’s their job to promote and elevate the brand however they can. And while the older generation don’t need to be convinced - they are supporters for life, but for the sake of longer term success of the club, it’s important to capture a new audience.

But for now for this particular club if it wants to really change its ‘image’ the focus should be the on-field results first. That’s one of the most quickest and effective ways to increase memberships and revenue. It’s tangible results.

 

[Kong]

Yeah, respectfully, I don't agree.

Your principle is right. It doesn't matter if we're talking about guns or bombs or hand grenades; remove it from society and it's no longer a violent problem. And I'm a total advocate of gun control and the removal of firearms from society (except maybe farmers, but that's a different discussion).

Our historical use of a defence force is a different context than the Port Arthur massacre. To say that its use is only about territory, control and power is a bit disingenuous. I'll refer to WW2, because this was our only genuine defence; what was defended was the way of life that Australians had hoped to preserve for future Australian children. We're not simply talking about a defence of an asset for elite power brokers. That's a dismissive view that discounts the decisions of individuals to want to fight to preserve. I think this is a key issue; it's a symbol of that desire for the fight when the stakes are at their ultimate. I don't believe in war at all - I understand the need and power of politics to avert - but when the future liberties of country are on the line, of course, readiness is key. It's ugly, but it's a truth, because humans are humans.

A bomber is a key part of our club's identity and nothing will change that; especially with our club, so steeped in its traditions as it is. And I'm glad that it is. When I look at that plane, I don't see something that is designed to simply go out and murder people. Again, that ignores nuance and measure and perspective. It can, but that's not what anyone would want it used for, unless it preserves us from being murdered and the future of our lifestyle being destroyed by some autocratic regime. Instead, I see something that should remind us of the want to fight to defend and preserve that we have demonstrated in the past, and that we should be ready and prepared to demonstrate now and in the future if the need arises. Footy is a combative sport. I hope our players have desire for the fight. The plane is a fitting reminder of that need and is part of the club's identity that I love.

I wrote that there are 17 other clubs available to support. I respect your point of view on this, as I respect the values of people like William White and to be honest, I probably would have been an anti-Vietnam War hippy in that era; but I understand if the preservation of the club's identity simply can not reconcile with your own values. You can sloganistically tell me to "be better", but my reminder to you that you have the freedom to choose is me being respectful of your pacificism.

Sure, I disagree with you, but appreciate the respectful response.

 

[Corleone]

Voted Keep It, still think we should, but was playing Cuphead last night (the "new" DLC for it anyway) and forgot how much I love the art style of this game.

 

[fairbump_playon]

Do we stop calling good players guns?

There’s the concept of bombing a goal from outside 50 which I reckon is a good one to connect with

 

[Bomber_Bad_Boy]

Who said we were a plane?

Essendon airport, it's was where the bombers were!

 

[Bomber_Bad_Boy]

Letter from the President: Brand research project​

President Dave Barham provides an update on the club's brand research project.
By essendonfc.com.au - 1 hr ago

To all our Fans and Members,

The Essendon Football Club has a proud history as one of the oldest clubs in the AFL and we have a strong recognisable brand.

We are conducting a preliminary research project which centres around the Essendon brand and its elements.

The research project is in its early phase. Members and supporters have been and will continue to be canvassed as part of this process, in addition to the engagement of multiple Essendon Football Club stakeholders.

We have a proud history of more than 150 years and a deep connection to our members and supporters. This is and will always be respected and embraced.

There is no immediate action to change the club logo or any elements of the club brand. This is a longer-term project with significant work to be completed.

We proudly recognise that our future legacy begins with our proud history.

We will always be called the Bombers.

- Dave Barham

Letter from the President: Brand research project

President Dave Barham provides an update on the club's brand research project.

www.essendonfc.com.au

I've been a mad bomber fanatic since i can remember, and the old traditional shield were great for 60 years or so, the competition was all the same and that was great! Essendon's logo was never that good? It did the job just like our theme song, but it never stood out as awesome! The same goes for the current day logo! It does the job but it isn't awesome when compared to some of the others?

Below are a couple of designs i saw online, none are designed by me so i cannot take any credit but i like the area in which both travel!

A couple of things I'd like to see considered to be implemented are the following, red shorts instead of white, or silver, to go with the number on the back of the jumper being silver, we have silver in our logo we might as well embrace it, and the reverse pattern jumper with the black sash over the bomber red jumper!

 

[Stopher]

No idea why they didn't just go with a slightly simplified version of the 150 logo.

 

[The Prosecutor]

I just pray we're not letting our in-house graphic designers anywhere near this.

 

[Beerfish]

What about something like this (but in our colours of course not this ghastly combo):