Change of Crest?

[GideaParkHammer]

Gidea,

I've explained why!! The Castle was added because of our location, I don't think we should incorporate it from 2014, nor should we have any reference to the Olympics.

Hammers only for me.

Pete,

Are you Barry Hearn??!!!

No need for a name change just a tweak of the logo just like we did in 1903.

Yeah I read your post....and still can not get beyond WHY? Do you just want to destroy all links with the past? I see they are not going to change the colour of the seats...so let's change the kid to black and white.

[Heysel76]

I guess the castle was added to represent The Boleyn Castle?
However it didn't appear on our shirts until the 1965 ECWC final.
No badge at all appeared on our shirts until 1950 & then it was exclusively crossed hammers (or no badge) until 1966, apart from the 1965 ECWC final.
Crossed hammers only, reappeared 1983-85

So...whats the big deal?, i like Hammers only 父 on shirts personally, but like the whole badge as the club crest


So, no the official club crest should stay the same IMO

[Ironworx]

With the move to the Olympic stadium underway, do you believe we should drop the castle and just keep the hammers?

It is not certain that the castle represents the Boleyn Castle, it is just as likely that it represents the Old Castle Swifts, the team that was taken over by Thames Ironworks FC on foundation in 1895....

So the answer is that the question doesn't even arise - No.

[Ironworx]

Between 1895 and 1903 there was no Castle. The reason for starting the thread was guage whether people see the Castle as representative of West Ham or a reference to our location in the Green Street.

Correction - 1895 and 1923 so far as I know as I've never seen an earlier one. Which begs the question why was a castle added then ? Could be either Boleyn Castle, Castle Swifts, or both.

[Ironworx]

Our castle looks nothing like the real one!!

[img]
http://www.markfynn.com/images/Lon002.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;[/img]

Our castle looked exactly like the one in the photo from 1923 to the late 1950s. Only in the late 1950s was it revised to look sililar to the one used today.

[Welling]

Deja vu

[James P]

So...whats the big deal?, i like Hammers only 父 on shirts personally, but like the whole badge as the club crest

Sorry to keep banging the same drum but again this is marketing suicide. No smart club would do this. You want the crest on the shirt to appear on your merchandise and for that merchandise to be sold the world over. That's how you draw the revenues to become a big club and have people handing you money from Barking to Brisbane.

[WCpete]

Gidea,

I've explained why!! The Castle was added because of our location, I don't think we should incorporate it from 2014, nor should we have any reference to the Olympics.

Hammers only for me.

Pete,

Are you Barry Hearn??!!!

No need for a name change just a tweak of the logo just like we did in 1903.

I hope I'm not him. That would be a blow.

Also out of curiosity, are you (singular) asking, or are you (plural) asking?

[Muddy]

& replace it with what exactly?

Maybe a pair of binoculars

Well done, that made me burst out laughing.

[eastsider]

No way get rid of the castle, why when we will have a moat at the OS!!!
COYI

[Hammer110]

Maybe a pair of binoculars

Well done, that made me burst out laughing.

[Up the Junction]

If we no longer play at the Boleyn why keep it?

It's been a while since we launched a warship too.

By this rationale there's no reason for keeping the crossed hammers either.

Between 1895 and 1903 there was no Castle.

And between 192x-2011 there has been.

The reason for starting the thread was guage whether people see the Castle as representative of West Ham...

See above.

An Englishman's home is his castle, whether it be in Upton Park or Stratford...

[Muddy]

That's class Hammer110

[smfc]

No,

Why? See UTJs post, says it all really.

[Cuenca 'ammer]

S'okay lads, when the Gollivans DO change the crest they'll be yet again able to say that the fans were consulted.

[The Old Mile End]

Trap - how can I say this politely?

Go forth and multiply.

For others who may be interested, you will find the crest / badge thread in the archives (might have made Hall of Fame). Was discussed and researched (but not conclusively) last year.

The castle could have been there from day one of West Ham, even if not on the shirts. It has certainly been there on the official badge since the move to the Boleyn. It has become as much a part of West Ham United as the crossed hammers, claret and blue and bubbles. Remove it, and you further the process of alienating people who are proud of the traditions they believe the club upholds.

What right do newcomers have to come in and remove the traditions of this club? Regardless of who they are and how much money they have.
x 1,000,000 to you Trap!

[Benfleet Pete]

Lose the castle and replace it with the 5 Olympic rings overlayed by the crossed hammers and at the same time change our name to the Stratford Dons or even better; the Olympic Dons. It won't matter because really, we will all know that we are still West Ham United. Then in five years, lose the crossed hammers.

[RichieRiv]

I see your ADHD is getting no better trap.

Now run along and play Football Club Executive

[Dan1326]

Correction - 1895 and 1923 so far as I know as I've never seen an earlier one. Which begs the question why was a castle added then ? Could be either Boleyn Castle, Castle Swifts, or both.

Thats what I thought, the link is on page 2

[yonni]

It's been a while since we launched a warship too.

By this rationale there's no reason for keeping the crossed hammers either.

True but as we are know the world over as the Hammers that is a very good reason to keep them where as we are not know outside clued up fans for playing on (or near) the former site of Boleyn House or as United with the Castle Swifts. Actually, on that point, as we are "united" it would follow that the two separate emblems on the same crest represent each club and the castle has nothing to do with the Boleyn gound. Hmm, I maybe rethinking my position now.

"Sorry to keep banging the same drum but again this is marketing suicide. No smart club would do this. You want the crest on the shirt to appear on your merchandise and for that merchandise to be sold the world over. That's how you draw the revenues to become a big club and have people handing you money from Barking to Brisbane."

Don't agree - this arguement only holds true for an academic discussion on branding but as football "brands" are more than their marketing logo (in fact when is it really used for marketing outside the UK anyway?), they are famous players which do far more to sell shirts and allegiance abroad. On your point no big brand like coke etc. would ever dare to change their logo when they have quite clearly done it several times. No one is suggesting going so far from the original, changing colours, name and logo as to be unrecognisable.