Would you consider changing the tiger (and only the tiger) on our badge? Obviously this is a preference issue of appearance and aesthetics. I think most would agree it looks a little **** (when you compare it to an actual tiger it looks nothing like it, if anything it resembles a leopard more) but it's been on there for ages. Just wondering whether people against the name change are just people that love their habits and hate change in general or whether we could agree unanimously to change something.
Im against the name change but I dont care if they change the badge. Not because of how it looks, as I think it looks fine, but because badges change. It isnt like we havent had a bunch of them anyway. I find no problem with a periodic change of the badge.
Tough choice this one. I like our current badge, but I know that the tiger does look a bit silly. The main problem is what would the new tiger look like? Personally, at the end of it all, I wouldn't change it.
If it was an american team it would already have been done no doubt. (NY Red Bulls) Regular changes are fine with me, craziness would be a no.
if you type "tiger logo" in google the majority on there are better looking but I do agree that there's just an element of nostalgia and that was my main point. No matter how logical a change may be more often than not logic doesn't come into play.
Urgh yes, I dislike the current badge immensely. In my mind I'd update the Tiger to make it much more current than it's current 'tame' look, chuck the three crowns back on (if we can?) and take out the ' ' marks around The Tigers as if to show it's a nickname. Just have "Hull City AFC" with "The Tigers" along the bottom (without the quotation marks).
I voted to change it, but I agree with Macca; with change comes risk and we could end up with something worse. How about a Tiger, lying on top of a burnt out Vauxhall Nova with Kingswood Asda looming in the background? Well, if it's heritage you want...
i think the badge can be simplified and no doubt any marketing team would want to start with that before tackling the name . Many clubs simplified the logos over the last decade to make winning copyright issues easier . Personally (and if he/she is still alive) i'd speak to the person responsible for the Wolves badge and push a picture of a tiger under their nose
That's pretty smart; has anybody seen Castleford's logo? It looks pretty fierce, but I don't know if I'm a fan or not.
I think the badge is fine. Change isn't always bad, but it should never happen without good reason or justification. I see none here. The badge has changed before yes, but the last one was due to some dodgy owners messing about in the same way the current ones have tried to and it was rightly changed back to our traditional tiger (albeit with a new emblem surrounding it) when AP took over and saved the club. The badge was the equivalent of changing East Yorkshire to Humberside. Ridiculous and better forgotten. At one point we had a tiger that looked a bit like a Chinese parade float thing. The current one is the best we've had I'd say.
No doubt we'd get some bellend suggesting we got Tigger on there bouncing on his tail. I don't like the current badge, but Tiger's head is fine with me. I don't want the anything similar to Castleford or Leicester Tigers. They look really cartoonesque. If we get something ridiculously cheesy to pick from, i'm up for just having Hull's three crowns logo as the badge, but in our colours, like Hull & Rovers do respectively. As long as a kid doesn't draw it and all (see below)
The problem with that point is that if it's about aesthetics and personal taste then that isn't really a good reason. Simply a subjective one. So basically we'd never change anything unless we mysteriously all feel like changing it simultaneously or if our owner feels like changing it on a whim.
