Opinion Adelaide Crows New Logo Discussion

[Slippery Pete]

Do mm’s even melt?

You’re trying to set me up and I’m not taking the bait.

But spenze definitely will.

 

[Geoffa32]

Do mm’s even melt?

In your mouth....

 

[hugecannon]

In your mouth....

Not in your hand?

 

[NTRabbit]

It was done and dusted months ago, they can't change it now without having to tear up a half complete merch and gear order from O'Neills that is scheduled to be in the clubs hands by draft day at the latest - new draftee needs to be handed a new model guernsey for photos.

 

[baldandbroke]

It was done and dusted months ago, they can't change it now without having to tear up a half complete merch and gear order from O'Neills that is scheduled to be in the clubs hands by draft day at the latest - new draftee needs to be handed a new model guernsey for photos.

We all know this … was more an outlet for our frustrations / fears around what was leaked.

I’m hopeful that what they officially come out with is a massive leap forward for our branding.

 

[DJ75]

This was the logo that was posted on our forum:

View attachment 2133884

This where we ended up:
View attachment 2133885
Changes were:

• Re-did the wing feathers shapes slightly
• Straightened the line at the endpoint (head end) of the wing feathers
• Changed the head and the beak to be more like the 1990 logo
• Changed the colours to the official state guernsey
• Put the feather colours in the same order as the guernsey
• Added the text

Can we just get this to the club before they go further with that other monstrosity?

 

[DJ75]

Disappointing but not unexpected. Generally with these rebrands, those designs are worked on for months, sometimes a year. What was leaked wasn't an early concept design but as others have mentioned, close to the finished product and I doubt the final version will have any changes..

It is disappointing that others were able to mock up something more promising in a day or two. Was a fan of SA_Great and baldandbroke's concepts. I'd get those designs embroidered on some plain hats and shirts.

This club can’t go 5 weeks without embarrassing itself.
Sack everyone, and I mean everyone. From Olsen to the boot cleaners. Burn West Lakes to the ground and start again.

 

[crowcaine]

This club can’t go 5 weeks without embarrassing itself.
Sack everyone, and I mean everyone. From Olsen to the boot cleaners. Burn West Lakes to the ground and start again.

Yeah I don't like it, I get what they're trying to do (reference the original but a more modern version), but it could be much better. Wonder if it'll 'grow on people' over the next few years or it'll be another 10-15 years of most fans/members hoping for a new one.

I've been slightly more optimistic since we landed ANB and Cumming, with Peatling to hopefully be finalised soon. Don't mind we grabbed Davis, don't really know much about him but am hoping everyone brought in improves the Club. Plus we surely can't stuff up pick 4.

I said in another thread, Nicks has no excuses now.
This time next year if we're in the same position though..

 

[George Kramer]

Club has received the pictures sent however I was also advised the launch of the new logo and full re-branding will be released next month so I’m assuming it’s done and dusted. I did ask whether the leaked version was the actual version and I have been assured that the new design has been “done in consultation with “many members” including the members engagement panel”. For whatever that’s worth.

That didn’t answer your question though and sounds like buck passing

 

[relapse]

Why don’t we just go back to our 1991 logo?

View attachment 2134995

Just on that subject and to segue into something completely random.

I was actually talking with a mate a few weeks ago about whether the footy landscape would have been dramatically different had Jack Cahill gotten the Crows job and the early days of the club had been more Port centric.

I had only just become a teenager during this period, but can remember that there were a lot of Port supporters initially excited about the composite team, but one of the big catalysts for putting them offside was when Cornes got the job over Cahill (which never made sense). The whole thing felt like the club was an extension of Glenelg and Port were the red-headed stepchild, I think a lot of that stuff fueled the mindset with their supporters to want their own license.

Had Cahill been given the job and the whole thing felt a bit more Port friendly, I tend to think that the club would have been far more wildly accepted by Port supporters in the early days and there might not have been the undercurrent that saw them eventually get their own license.

 

[jenny61_99]

Can we just get this to the club before they go further with that other monstrosity?

I already sent it.

 

[1990crow]

Just on that subject and to segue into something completely random.

I was actually talking with a mate a few weeks ago about whether the footy landscape would have been dramatically different had Jack Cahill gotten the Crows job and the early days of the club had been more Port centric.

I had only just become a teenager during this period, but can remember that there were a lot of Port supporters initially excited about the composite team, but one of the big catalysts for putting them offside was when Cornes got the job over Cahill (which never made sense). The whole thing felt like the club was an extension of Glenelg and Port were the red-headed stepchild, I think a lot of that stuff fueled the mindset with their supporters to want their own license.

Had Cahill been given the job and the whole thing felt a bit more Port friendly, I tend to think that the club would have been far more wildly accepted by Port supporters in the early days and there might not have been the undercurrent that saw them eventually get their own license.

They would have wanted their own eventually.

 

[Interceptor]

Just on that subject and to segue into something completely random.

I was actually talking with a mate a few weeks ago about whether the footy landscape would have been dramatically different had Jack Cahill gotten the Crows job and the early days of the club had been more Port centric.

I had only just become a teenager during this period, but can remember that there were a lot of Port supporters initially excited about the composite team, but one of the big catalysts for putting them offside was when Cornes got the job over Cahill (which never made sense). The whole thing felt like the club was an extension of Glenelg and Port were the red-headed stepchild, I think a lot of that stuff fueled the mindset with their supporters to want their own license.

Had Cahill been given the job and the whole thing felt a bit more Port friendly, I tend to think that the club would have been far more wildly accepted by Port supporters in the early days and there might not have been the undercurrent that saw them eventually get their own license.

After Port's hostile attempt to gain the first licence, there was no way the league was going to effectively make the composite side pseudo-Port.

In a scenario where Port didn't backstab the league, then yes, Cahill would have been objectively the better candidate.
Such was the fierce rivarly back then though, that whoever got the job would have put significant numbers of people off.

 

[Slippery Pete]

Just on that subject and to segue into something completely random.

I was actually talking with a mate a few weeks ago about whether the footy landscape would have been dramatically different had Jack Cahill gotten the Crows job and the early days of the club had been more Port centric.

I had only just become a teenager during this period, but can remember that there were a lot of Port supporters initially excited about the composite team, but one of the big catalysts for putting them offside was when Cornes got the job over Cahill (which never made sense). The whole thing felt like the club was an extension of Glenelg and Port were the red-headed stepchild, I think a lot of that stuff fueled the mindset with their supporters to want their own license.

Had Cahill been given the job and the whole thing felt a bit more Port friendly, I tend to think that the club would have been far more wildly accepted by Port supporters in the early days and there might not have been the undercurrent that saw them eventually get their own license.

I was younger than you, but even as a kid, yes, I remember it not making sense that Cahill wasn’t the coach.

However, absolutely nothing would’ve appeased Port fans, not even that.

 

[Slippery Pete]

So unfortunately we had to be the Adelaide Crow-Tigers for the first few years, until we finally got rid of enough Glenelg to have some success.

 

[Samcro24]

I was younger than you, but even as a kid, yes, I remember it not making sense that Cahill wasn’t the coach.

However, absolutely nothing would’ve appeased Port fans, not even that.

Please. You’d have been frothing about Gerry McIntyre being captain coach.

 

[JPetro83]

So unfortunately we had to be the Adelaide Crow-Tigers for the first few years, until we finally got rid of enough Glenelg to have some success.

Thats where the crows went wrong in those first 5 years.. we had too many people at the club from mediocre SANFL clubs. No way we would have won those flags in 97/98 if Cornsey had stayed on in 95.. he even said so in an interview "I would never have traded Chris Groom" lol
The trade of Chris Groom and other recruitment when Shaw was at the helm help set up the Blight era

 

[SA_Great]

Sorry for the spam but I'm too far gone now, I can't stop.

 

[dude316]

Sorry for the spam but I'm too far gone now, I can't stop.

View attachment 2135877 View attachment 2135879 View attachment 2135880

Your logo idea looks great.
I look forward to using it as the before photo in a Homer Simpson “That’s one fine looking logo…WHY DOESN’T MINE LOOK LIKE THAT” gif when the new one is officially released

 

[FR0GGY]

I’m assuming there’s no legal implications around using a logo that’s not the official one to create merchandise?

 

[1990crow]

I’m assuming there’s no legal implications around using a logo that’s not the official one to create merchandise?

....

 

[dude316]

I’m assuming there’s no legal implications around using a logo that’s not the official one to create merchandise?

Interesting. I haven’t bought merch for ages because of our current logo. I’d happily go to the SA_Great merch store and buy a couple things though.

 

[GreyCrow]

So unfortunately we had to be the Adelaide Crow-Tigers for the first few years, until we finally got rid of enough Glenelg to have some success.

We then became the WWTCrows and got Burton and Godden in the bargain

 

[Slippery Pete]

Please. You’d have been frothing about Gerry McIntyre being captain coach.

Attention: moderators.

 

[Runnin Blue]

I’m assuming there’s no legal implications around using a logo that’s not the official one to create merchandise?

As long as it doesn’t say ‘Adelaide Crows’ or ‘Crows’, I guess? They would be trademarked.

It’s an interesting thought.