Watching the Fulham vs Sunderland match tonight, and my view is that the Fulham badge is simply devoid of anything of any merit or belonging to the location or community of where the club is / comes from
Putting aside the recent shockers (Leeds !!) what do you think is the worst club badge ?
Appreciate that many clubs (Charlton included) have had a few different badges - so feel free to pick a few from the same club if you want - obviously pics would be great !!
0
Comments
Otherwise I've always thought Watford's to be bad. It's supposed to be a Hertfordshire stag or elk but it looks like a moose.
Also, why do Shrewsbury now have three little lions? Why do Chelsea and Millwall have lions? I asked my ten year old son what kind of stupid club has a lion on it's badge when there are no lions in London. He replied 'but England have lions on their badge' which I thought was a fair point (although I did explain that the lions have a history going back to when a standard with three gold lions was carried into battle to inspire the troops).
Should clubs and countries have animals on their badges that do not represent their territory or history? I think Chelsea should put a dog on their badge as it was thanks to a dog that the club was formed in the first place.
In a similar attempt to recognise Arsenal's history I think they should have this as a badge:
Overly fussy badges like Barnsley and Bristol City also annoy me, they are essentially town emblems.
I give you Dungannon Swifts' badge:
So, first, what has a horseshoe got to do with anything? Second, I guess, maybe, that Dungannon once had a castle but I doubt it looked anything like that. Third, and finally, according to the RSPB, swifts are a sooty brown colour and look black in flight. Was their "swift" designed by the same person who gave our "robin" mascot yellow legs? I'm hoping @NornIrishAddick can assist by explaining these important issues.
They all seem to have a football at the main theme here. A lot of imagination used by the Australians.