Change of Crest?

[WCpete]

]Just loooking at the previous shirts on the old kits website it's clear that the castle has come and gone a few times and hasn't always been associated with some of our classic teams. For example, there was no castle on the shirt in the early to mid-sixties, which I suppose a lot of people would associate with all that's good about the West Ham tradition.

I wouldn't go mad if they just went to a pair of hammers, but judging by the response to his thread, it'd be a bit of a PR blunder if they went completely out with the old to tie in with the stadium move. Probably best keep the castle then.

http://www.historicalkits.co.uk/West_Ha ... United.htm

The thing is we have seen in our history that the castle is a dispensable part of our crest. For me, the club needs to strengthen the club's image and the crossed Hammers represent a good way of achieving us in the new era of post 2014.

People are often against change because they known no different, the fans of West Ham teams long, long ago appeared to associated the team through the crossed Hammers and not the castle. A more striking image allows the club to highlight it's history with more ease to a new generation.

I don't know why a new crest, if in fact one is completely necessary, that is inclusive of the castle can't be striking. I'm also not sure what about the castle prevents the club from highlighting its history. The castle is a big part of the club's history. It ought not to be discarded.

[JonG86]

Drop the castle and keep the hammers.

A more striking image for a more forward thinking club.

[Up the Junction]

Football clubs are not recognisable solely by their badge. More specifically by their players and their club colours.

Old = sh*t. Modern = good.

What are the colours if not part of West Ham's 'tradition' and 'history' and therefore 'old'? Let us know when you've finished arguing with yourself, we'll talk it over and I'll explain why you're wrong

Your stubbornness would leave my generation with an undeveloped football club with less and less fans as the years pass by.

More unsubstantiated nonsense I don't recall having read... sorry.

[WCpete]

I had to laugh at the suggestion that we need to keep a castle on our badge so that the Somalian Hammers don't forget who we are. Football clubs are not recognisable solely by their badge. More specifically by their players and their club colours.

Pretty much everyone that drones on endlessly about 'tradition' and 'heritage' will be on their death bed in a few (ok, maybe more than a few) years, clutching a picture of Syd Puddefoot and feeling a faint stirring in their perma-flaccid cock when they proudly tell their Ars*nal supporting Grandchild how they preserved the memory of [now bankrupt, second division] West Ham United. How he represented West Ham's roots in East London [refusing to up sticks to Somalia where the other West Ham fan lives] even though everyone else in his area now supports Chelsea, Man City and Ars*nal.

Like it or not, we need supporters. You'll all be dead in 40 years. Your stubbornness would leave my generation with an undeveloped football club with less and less fans as the years pass by. I want my Son and his future kids and his kids future kids to follow West Ham. I don't care what West Ham looks like, as long as it's West Ham. We have museums (and nowadays we also have things called online archives) that anyone wanting to bathe in the glory of our former years can peruse should they so desire. If we want to continue as a football club (and note I said "continue" not "progress") then we need to modernise to continue attracting new fans.

I have formulated an equation to help with this:

Old = sh*t. Modern = good.

In answer to Trap's question: Yeah, I think it'd look nicer back in the traditional manner with just the crossed hammers....

So, the inclusion of the castle in the crest will prevent the club from "continuing" and from modernizing? I had no idea. What a fool I've been.

More seriously though, it is this generation that is being asked to make this extremely significant change. It is in the club's interest to allow the supporters to retain a sense of their identity (not saying this means the castle) in making the change. If the club eliminates too much of what made their supporters support the club in the first place, the club will marginalize its base and subsequently lose generations of potential supporters.

[RichieRiv]

The castle is as much West Ham as Claret and Blue and the hammers.

Wikipedia is not the holy grail. There is many a West Ham historian on this site who will tell you the castle's meaning is undetermined. However what can you expect from someone who is so vocal about West Ham's business but doesn't even have the decency to turn up to games.

Just because the ground is changing, doesn't mean that everything has to change. Maybe we should lose 'The Academy of Football' moniker whilst we at it.

The notion of changing the badge is moronic. I bet if you conducted a straw poll on Green St (that's the road the BG's on BTW) you wouldn't make it home alive.

[JonG86]

Bobby Moore:
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/08/ ... 68x589.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.virginmedia.com/images/west- ... allery.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Billy Bonds:
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/4 ... 26_get.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/4 ... nds226.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Trevor Brooking:
http://www.whoateallthepies.tv/PA-393787.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The castle is just one part of the history of West Ham and doesn't HAVE to be part of our badge, as is shown by the pictures of the 3 legends all who wore kits with and without castles (theres plenty of brooking wearing a kit with a castle on the badge and this forum doesn't let you post up mroe than 5 URLs...)

Spurs, Arsenal, Man Utd are all clubs that have updated their livery without losing the important part of their history, so why should it effect us more if they want to modernise the brand?

Also means you can sell throwback versions with the castle on it...

[Trap1]

Jon,

I love the one of Bobby Moore, wearing badge that is just what we are........hammers!!!!

[WCpete]

Again, I fail to see why the brand cannot be modernized with the castle included. Why is it that West Ham can only be modernized only when the castle is gone? Why does modernization hinge on this?

BTW, Spurs, Arse and Manu U all kept their crest iconography, the canon, the chicken and the ship, they just updated them.

[JonG86]

Jon,

I love the one of Bobby Moore, wearing badge that is just what we are........hammers!!!!

Matches the branding for the BM fund that West Ham used.
http://www.whufc.com/javaImages/87/96/0 ... 551,00.png" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Trap1]

The castle is as much West Ham as Claret and Blue and the hammers.

Wikipedia is not the holy grail. There is many a West Ham historian on this site who will tell you the castle's meaning is undetermined. However what can you expect from someone who is so vocal about West Ham's business but doesn't even have the decency to turn up to games.

Just because the ground is changing, doesn't mean that everything has to change. Maybe we should lose 'The Academy of Football' moniker whilst we at it.

The notion of changing the badge is moronic. I bet if you conducted a straw poll on Green St (that's the road the BG's on BTW) you wouldn't make it home alive.

I take it your having a dig at me?

Explain those kits Jon has given us links for, its clear the castle isn't as highly valued. The fans in the sixties didn't seem to mind, it would appear the castle has taken prominance in the last forty years.

[JonG86]

Again, I fail to see why the brand cannot be modernized with the castle included. Why is it that West Ham can only be modernized only when the castle is gone? Why does modernization hinge on this?

BTW, Sp*rs, Arse and Manu U all kept their crest iconography, the canon, the chicken and the ship, they just updated them.

They removed all the background clutter like most modern brands have (Apple, Nike, Pepsi, Starbucks) and stripped it down to the bare basics.

The bare basics for us are the crossed hammers.

[Hammer110]

Decluttered



One of for the first season at the O/S?

[WCpete]

Again, I fail to see why the brand cannot be modernized with the castle included. Why is it that West Ham can only be modernized only when the castle is gone? Why does modernization hinge on this?

BTW, Sp*rs, Arse and Manu U all kept their crest iconography, the canon, the chicken and the ship, they just updated them.

They removed all the background clutter like most modern brands have (Apple, Nike, Pepsi, Starbucks) and stripped it down to the bare basics.

The bare basics for us are the crossed hammers.

I don't think our crest is cluttered. Utd added the red devil to their crest, they didn't remove background they added to it. Apple, Nike, Pepsi, Starbucks all dropped their name from their logos.

At any rate, the original question was, drop the castle yes or no. You're a yes, I'm a no. Different strokes.

[Trap1]

Hammer110

The first one is excellent, simple but effective.

I certainly don't want a reference to the OS in any other design.

[Heysel76]

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/_4emn ... ed-fc2.jpg

I love this badge so much

[Hammer110]

Cheers. I must admit I not sure about getting rid of the castle but it certainly looks better without.

[James P]

Everyone's a graphic designer these days.

[Mike420]

How about a crossed hammers with Brady holding the olympic torch in the middle? Sorted!

[WHU_Del]

Leon Rivers wrote:
Old = sh*t. Modern = good.

In answer to Trap's question: Yeah, I think it'd look nicer back in the traditional manner with just the crossed hammers....

So if old = sh*t, why do you want to *back* to something traditional, i.e. old

[JonG86]

I don't think our crest is cluttered. Utd added the red devil to their crest, they didn't remove background they added to it. Apple, Nike, Pepsi, Starbucks all dropped their name from their logos.

At any rate, the original question was, drop the castle yes or no. You're a yes, I'm a no. Different strokes.

You know, I thought Man Utd had modernised their badge more than that, but upon checking all they did was simplify their kit

Apple made their branding much simpler and everyone else copied them (even Fosters beer changed their brand to simplify).

Starbucks have done much more than drop their name. http://www.suite101.com/content/starbuc ... ee-a328947" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;