By Kris Gonzo | Senior West Ham Columnist (Follow on X)
A welcome change in approach
West Ham United’s decision to consult fans over a new club crest signals a new period of supporter engagement from the club.
Aside from the word “London” at the bottom, I have nothing against the crest itself. My problem instead lies with what it symbolises, which was the ditching of our heritage as the former owners sought to rebrand the club in an attempt to encourage that most hated of words… new customers.
Therefore, the decision to not only change the crest but to engage supporters at every level is maybe an easy win for the club, but an important one. Much like the crest itself, the gesture symbolises a new dawn of club and fan engagement, and the building of bridges towards a new relationship.
Taking the time to get it right
Quite rightly, the club and chief executive Karim Virani are going to take their time over the decision. Anyway, it’s too late for the forthcoming season, with kits already designed and the manufacturing process well underway.
By targeting the 2028-29 season, the club is allowing itself the time to engage with the Fan Advisory Board, season ticket holders, Claret Members and, indeed, anybody who has attended more than five games at the London Stadium.
For me, I don’t care too much what the new crest looks like. I’m just pleased that, finally, it seems like the supporters have a club that is listening.
It’s what the current badge represents
Irrespective of the design, the word “London” on the current crest symbolises a failed ownership and one which most fans have come to despise. Therefore, a change is important.
I have little doubt that, if fans are consulted, most will vote to go back to the castle, which I completely understand because, for many, that is what they remember most fondly.
For me, the first replica kit I ever truly wanted was seeing Tony Cottee in an Avco Adidas top, which actually didn’t have the castle on it at all. It just had the two crossed hammers.
Also on my bedroom wall as a boy was a picture of Billy Bonds. Once again, there was no castle, just the crossed hammers on his shirt.
So I don’t mind whether it’s crossed hammers on their own or crossed hammers with a castle. What must go is the name “London” and its association with a shameless rebrand.
A young Tony Cottee sporting a very basic West Ham badge
Building bridges with supporters
So well done to West Ham for reaching out.
Unlike the previous occasion the badge was changed, I am certain that, this time, supporters will end up with a badge that most of us want.
No doubt there will be a few who don’t like the final design, but with these things you can’t please everybody.
What I am certain about is that almost everybody will welcome the change and the further distancing it puts between the club and the former owners.
1999 or something very similar would do it for me Kris.
I believe that the FA requires that the club engage with the fans when changing the club’s crest.
Get rid of “London” and replace it with “1895”
Yup completely agree, remove LONDON and any of them are good.
Like you say though the consultation is a great step and suggests the new management have more idea about how to engage the fans.
Good move by the club. I agree with Paul. I’d prefer the 1999 castle, but as long as ‘London’ goes, I’ll be happy.
To me it’s a matter of the history of the club. Thames Ironworks FC came into existence essentially by taking over Castle Swifts the works team of the Castle Shipping Line. Castle Wharf is still there is was directly opposite the Ironworks on the creek.
The Castle shipping line later became Union Castle, famous in the 30s, 40, 50s…
Castle Swifts played in essentially Man City colours but with scarlet socks, it’s where our pale blue comes from. Claret was the commercial colours of the Ironworks.
It’s where United comes from, the two teams united when Thames Ironworks FC came into existence.
There was a second Castle come 1904 when we moved to the Boleyn. The Boleyn Castle was an octagonal single Castle turret that stood on Green Street close to the gates of the ground until 1955.
There are two Castles in our history and the first one came before the Hammers.
The Castle should be reinstated in some way as it’s so historically important and I think in todays world the word London is a commercially sensible necessity that is very unlikely to be dropped. Most people in the world know where London is.
It’s a weird one because the castle symbolises the Boleyn castle which we aren’t at anymore, however, we also aren’t a ship building club either. So I see no reason why we can’t include the castle as well as it represents our heritage.
I actually think our current badge isn’t too bad really.
I know people are upset about having London, well maybe change it too East London.
We need to think forward not backward.
☝️ agree with East London. Personally think our best badge was the 1999 with the castle.