Does Melbourne City have/need an 'identity'?

[Forever City]

Having listened to numerous people on social media, podcasts and journalists the one thing they all agree on is that Melbourne City 'lack an identity' and if we want more fans we need to have one.  Most people have said that we need to start looking if not 'rebranding as a team for the North of Melbourne'. As a supporter who lives 15 min east of the city, I'm not too thrilled to have the club 'rebrand' as such. I just want to gauge with my fellow supporters what the club can do to forge an identity?

Please merge if there is already a thread/similar thread to this question.

thanks 

Edited December 13, 2018 by Forever City

[kingofhearts]

Our identity is that we suck.

Edited December 13, 2018 by kingofhearts

[jw1739]

This jibe is now into its ninth season. IMO it's not worth worrying about. I doubt that having gone to the trouble of changing the name of the club to Melbourne City and adopting the arms of the City of Melbourne as the basis for the club's badge our owners are about to suddenly adopt a particular local area of Melbourne as the focus for the club.

IMO some sort of geographical identity is the only identity that we don't have, except perhaps that it is unfortunate that CFG chose to change our very distinctive  and bold red-and-white to an insipid sky blue almost the same as Sydney. But then I'm given to understand that absence of local geographical identity is a characteristic of people from Melbourne - when asked where we come from we simply say "Melbourne" and don't give any qualification to that as, I'm led to believe, Sydney people do - I'm from a "westie" from the western suburbs of Sydney, I'm from the North Shore of Sydney, etc. etc. I've come across articles on this subject.

Maybe in other countries there are clubs from multi-club cities that do have "identities" based on religion (Celtic/Rangers), politics (St. Pauli) socio-economic status etc. etc., but isn't that what the A-League is supposed to be getting away from?

Storm in a teacup as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Forever City]

29 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

This jibe is now into its ninth season. IMO it's not worth worrying about. I doubt that having gone to the trouble of changing the name of the club to Melbourne City and adopting the arms of the City of Melbourne as the basis for the club's badge our owners are about to suddenly adopt a particular local area of Melbourne as the focus for the club.

IMO some sort of geographical identity is the only identity that we don't have, except perhaps that it is unfortunate that CFG chose to change our very distinctive  and bold red-and-white to an insipid sky blue almost the same as Sydney. But then I'm given to understand that absence of local geographical identity is a characteristic of people from Melbourne - when asked where we come from we simply say "Melbourne" and don't give any qualification to that as, I'm led to believe, Sydney people do - I'm from a "westie" from the western suburbs of Sydney, I'm from the North Shore of Sydney, etc. etc. I've come across articles on this subject.

Maybe in other countries there are clubs from multi-club cities that do have "identities" based on religion (Celtic/Rangers), politics (St. Pauli) socio-economic status etc. etc., but isn't that what the A-League is supposed to be getting away from?

Storm in a teacup as far as I'm concerned.

 

A great way to look at it @jw1739, it's just odd that people from the outside persist with the Melbourne City have to go north narrative.

[haz]

But do Melbourne Victory have an indenity?

Literally they are the same. Only difference is that they have won more, and their colours are (a few shades) different.

Edited December 13, 2018 by haz

[HEARTinator]

42 minutes ago, Forever City said:

hat people from the outside persist with the Melbourne City have to go north narrative.

The narrative around City stretches back to the founding of the club as Melbourne Heart and the comments started by Victory chairman Geoff Lord that Heart should get out of the city (and leave it to Victory who were there first https://www.ftbl.com.au/news/victory-tell-heart-get-out-of-town-157250)

This talk has persisted and has taken on the idea that City have no identity. Rubbish. If we were winning trophies there would be no talk about an identity crisis. This is a manufactured argument perpetuated by Victory types and others who have forgotten its origin.

[JMSTEP123]

Too much thought it given to this IMO. BUT I know we mere mortals are overly sensitive and sentimental, so here are my 2 cents.

A culture does not exist outside of how we define it. Metaphysically speaking, it does not exist at all. We cannot use science to disclose the 'culture' and understand it.

Geography and colours IMO are given too much weight. It is a low fan league. Segregating fans even more by geographical borders will lesses even further the supporters base. Colours too. I get how they form an identity as in us VS them mentality, but they do not shape culture. In addition, we have no history in the scheme of things. Look at English clubs - over century old. Thats serious time for a narrative to be built and people to reteospecrively give meaning to.

Even a culture defined by mediocrity is itself a culture. People spin is as that we are mediocre because we lack culture - regularly stated by Victory fans and Archie Thompson every week in post game analysis. I question this. 

Do we have a culture? Yes. Is it a culture to be proud of? No. Can we change it? Yes. Should we change it? Fucking yes. We are young in the whole scheme of things. We share more in common with most establishing football clubs internationally than not i.e. low performance and lack of silverware. Difference being we are backed by a powerhouse which is embarrasing to say the least.

My first game FFA at Heidelberg. Those warm Summer evenings when people were on the edge of their seats to see Mooy, Forna and Co. In action. Culture was building. It has now diminished under Joyce.

I am sure you spot many inconsistencies in this rant. But let me sum it up as saying - culture does not exist, it is up to us to define it. Thus far we are defined and underwhelming and mediocre. What script will be write next.

[Dylan]

I remember these threads back in the Heart days

[Forever City]

Thank you all for your responses! Much appreciated. 

Now that I think about it this sounds like the whole 'winning culture mentality'problem we had a couple of seasons back. I'm starting to think if we win trophies the 'identity and culture' problem will cease to exist. 

Edited December 13, 2018 by Forever City

[cadete]

2 hours ago, haz said:

But do Melbourne Victory have an indenity?

Literally they are the same. Only difference is that they have won more, and their colours are (a few shades) different.

MV are the club that every other club loves to hate, as they have had dirty players and troubled fans... that is their Identity. 

It’s the identity that Manly and Collingwood sort of have in their codes respectively and it might not sound like much but it’s a hell of a lot more of an Identity than what u can muster up for City.

Kevin Muscut’s Identity is MV’s Identity which is either hated by everyone but MV fans who love it.

As a Celtic, Manly and Port Melbourne (VFA) fan I completely understand what it’s like to support a team with this “Us vs Them” Identity. It’s def an Identity that a fan can feel attached too.

Also if West Melbourne do get Scott Brown - He is the ideal player for a new club to crate an identity around in that of a take no shit, hard as nails central Midfielder.

Edited December 13, 2018 by cadete

[strider]

no club in the a-league has an identity because there are no clubs in the a-league. just city-based franchises

 

west melbourne ole! 

[belaguttman]

We should change our jersey colour to beige, a true reflection of our franchise culture

[n i k o]

Course Melbourne City has an identity. CFG owned Melbourne based club that has never fulfilled its potential. That's a succinct as I could put it. 

[Jovan]

A potentially massive club that continually fails to deliver. 

[rass]

5 minutes ago, belaguttman said:

We should change our jersey colour to beige, a true reflection of our franchise culture

Apologies if it has been done on here before, but the below kit is probably the best representation.

A club longing for its sausage stand off the pitch and vomit inspiring football on.

 

[Imtellingyou]

New identity like a trophy, wining club with a new owner? 

[playmaker]

The word that comes to mind a a descriptor of our identity is FRAGMENTED.

Management is fragmented from both the players and supporters.

A club is strong and unified when management, players and supporters are working as one, which requires transparency, respect, and understanding that not one aspect is greater than another.

ALL NEED TO BE HARMONIOUS,

and no single aspect is bigger than the sum of the parts.

Unfortunately we have never been able to achieve this.

FRAGMENTED.

 

[Jacques Le Cube]

14 hours ago, haz said:

But do Melbourne Victory have an indenity?

Literally they are the same. Only difference is that they have won more, and their colours are (a few shades) different.

I would argue that under Del Pietro the visitors have a clear identity.

On the field, they are committed to playing possession based attacking football, regardless of the opponent. Coaches who were unable to deliver this (Merrick, Durakovic) were removed immediately.

In terms of recruitment they prioritise giving spots in their youth team to Victorians. They also still give senior contracts to local NPL players.

The visitors have also managed to win 2 championships, a premiership and made the ACL knockout phase while adhering to these ideals.

City on the other hand have no discernable on field philosophy, do not give the same opportunities to local players and are far less successful on the field.

 

[Cloughie]

Of course we have an identity, and it is a beautiful one. We are the club of farce.

If Douglas Adams wrote a book about a football club, if the Office was set in Bundoora instead of Stanford. If Monty Python had of chosen a different cup as the Holy Grail - that is us.

I for one now embrace the farce, and will continue to support, if only mainly now for the blokes at the pubs and in the stands who have shared so many lows and SFA highs.

[n i k o]

41 minutes ago, Jacques Le Cube said:

I would argue that under Del Pietro the visitors have a clear identity.

On the field, they are committed to playing possession based attacking football, regardless of the opponent. Coaches who were unable to deliver this (Merrick, Durakovic) were removed immediately.

In terms of recruitment they prioritise giving spots in their youth team to Victorians. They also still give senior contracts to local NPL players.

The visitors have also managed to win 2 championships, a premiership and made the ACL knockout phase while adhering to these ideals.

City on the other hand have no discernable on field philosophy, do not give the same opportunities to local players and are far less successful on the field.

 

Im having difficulty buying your stated points of difference in our identities bar one. 

They have never stated an intent for possession based football. I don't think they care about possession as such. We have and deliver it. (Its effectiveness is a different argument)

They do prioritise Victorian youth and NPL. But we prioritise on playing more Australian youth in our first team. 

Results is the big difference. 

We do have a stated philosophy. We do give Australian youth players opportunities. This is well documented and known amongst all Aleague supporters (refer to the constant bullshit references of CFG developing youth 'for financial benefits'). Again, agree with far less on field success. 

Edited December 14, 2018 by n i k o

[fensaddler]

23 minutes ago, Cloughie said:

Of course we have an identity, and it is a beautiful one. We are the club of farce.

If Douglas Adams wrote a book about a football club, if the Office was set in Bundoora instead of Stanford. If Monty Python had of chosen a different cup as the Holy Grail - that is us.

I for one now embrace the farce, and will continue to support, if only mainly now for the blokes at the pubs and in the stands who have shared so many lows and SFA highs.

I fear we are the Black Knight of the A League. 

1 minute ago, n i k o said:

Im having difficulty buying your stated points of difference in our identities bar one. 

They have never stated an intent for possession based football. I don't think they care about possession as such. We have and deliver it. (Its effectiveness is a different argument)

They do prioritise Victorian youth and NPL. But we prioritise on playing more Australian youth in our first team. 

Results is the big difference. 

 

Indeed. We'd have an identity if we had a trophy cabinet. 

[playmaker]

34 minutes ago, n i k o said:

(refer to the constant bullshit references of CFG developing youth 'for financial benefits')

It's not bullshit Niko, it is exactly what Marwood said.

Believe what you want to believe but don't try to bend the truth to suit your narrative.

[mus-28]

36 minutes ago, fensaddler said:

Indeed. We'd have an identity if we had a trophy cabinet. 

 Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.

 

I'm sick of people disrespecting the 2012 Craig Foster Cup win, the pinnacle of footballing achievement in this country. I regale my children with daily  stories of the impenetrable defence that day led by Gerhardt and Gray, the fluidity of the attacking trio of Dugandzic, MacAllister and Williams and the sublime coaching of Aloisi. I also believe we topped ESPN's power rankings that week and Shaka Hislop devoted a whole segment discussing Redders performance in the penalty shootout. What a time to be a Heart fan.

[n i k o]

4 hours ago, playmaker said:

It's not bullshit Niko, it is exactly what Marwood said.

Believe what you want to believe but don't try to bend the truth to suit your narrative.

Well what is my narrative? That our focus on youth development is positive for Australian football. 

Does this also tie in with a vested interest from CFG? For sure it does. 

Of the two which is the bullshit narrative that other supporters choose to use when giving City shit? The second one

From an identity perspective do we have just as strong focus on youth that competes with victory? I'd say better

Whats the conclusion? That claiming victory have an identity through youth development and we don't is rubbish. 

[fensaddler]

1 hour ago, n i k o said:

Well what is my narrative? That our focus on youth development is positive for Australian football. 

Does this also tie in with a vested interest from CFG? For sure it does. 

Of the two which is the bullshit narrative that other supporters choose to use when giving City shit? The second one

From an identity perspective do we have just as strong focus on youth that competes with victory? I'd say better

Whats the conclusion? That claiming victory have an identity through youth development and we don't is rubbish. 

Agreed, in and of itself youth development is excellent and a credit to the club. But it must contribute to success on the pitch, or at least not detract from it. That's the bit CFG need to get right. No use having a great youth development program and finishing sixth. 

[Imtellingyou]

No one won the league with mostly youth players or had a great success.  It's unlike Ajax in comparison. There's a gap between youth development here and rest of the world. Although they are much less used in general. 

[dconder13]

I miss Melbourne Heart 

[playmaker]

1 hour ago, n i k o said:

Well what is my narrative? That our focus on youth development is positive for Australian football. 

Does this also tie in with a vested interest from CFG? For sure it does. 

Of the two which is the bullshit narrative that other supporters choose to use when giving City shit? The second one

From an identity perspective do we have just as strong focus on youth that competes with victory? I'd say better

Whats the conclusion? That claiming victory have an identity through youth development and we don't is rubbish. 

Hence why it is not bullshit as it is true and probably the reason why our club continues to be in this quagmire of unsuccessful filth.

However just because the tards don't give priority to their youth in their senior team doesn't mean they haven't had equal or better youth success or whereby youth potential will choose city over Victory. Now we note the other point you are making, in that the main purpose of youth in our senior team is to find the diamond in the rough so CFG can cash in (which is true according to Marwood), at the expense of team success and the club's ongoing growth. Yes it is true and needs to be called out.

Hence why we are discussing the disgraceful position of our club right at this moment, the disconnect it has with its supporter, the discussions that are occuring all across the media by football experts saying that we have got it wrong and nobody knows what city's identity is.

The identity has nothing to do with youth, women's team or any side show marketing/social outreach bullshit it puts on, where I view all of the above to just adding to the confusion.

The club and it's identity is a dog's breakfast but instead, if the management was total focussed on the what the fans want and totally focused on improving on what Heart was, then maybe we would be getting somewhere.

Look at the Tards for example, everyone in that club would bleed for that club, from the CEO to the manager  to the players. All of them.

And their total priority is for the senior team to win trophies, that's it.

Can the same be said about Munn, Joyce, Petrillo and half the player list? No it cant.

Is City's total focus on the senior team winning trophies, no it is not?

Therefore this is our identity.

 

 

[cadete]

God this thread is really funny now because believe the best thing for Melbourne City Identity (Whilst it well could be the worse for attendances) is it West Melbourne FC....

We not only get to say "We did not want to be MV supporters", we now also IF we choose to stay get  to say "And we didn't want to jump on to West Melbourne".

We have now been and chosen the New Thing, and now IF we reject West Melbourne we are choosing the Old Thing over the New Thing... seriously this is the biggest Identification point we ever have had - Its a least a Superior philosophical point of difference than what he had a few weeks ago. 

Edited December 16, 2018 by cadete

[SF33]

On 12/14/2018 at 11:52 AM, Jacques Le Cube said:

I would argue that under Del Pietro the visitors have a clear identity.

On the field, they are committed to playing possession based attacking football, regardless of the opponent. Coaches who were unable to deliver this (Merrick, Durakovic) were removed immediately.

In terms of recruitment they prioritise giving spots in their youth team to Victorians. They also still give senior contracts to local NPL players.

The visitors have also managed to win 2 championships, a premiership and made the ACL knockout phase while adhering to these ideals.

City on the other hand have no discernable on field philosophy, do not give the same opportunities to local players and are far less successful on the field.

 

Apart from the winning thing, I haven't really noticed any of the others. Not saying you're wrong, just that it's a stretch to think that most people think of Victory as anything other than Muscat, Thompson, Berisha, Milligan a few other players (who were either spectacular for a couple of seasons or who were solid for 5+ years), navy blue, big crowds at Docklands and winning.

If Kisnorbo sticks around and maybe we can coax someone like Sorensen to be part of the club, that could help us with regards to an identity if/when we ever become a top team. Guys like Jamieson, Malik and Brattan are at a good age and have potential to become long-term members of the City family (I honestly thought Jamieson was like in his mid-30s).

Mooy became too big for the league, Engelaar played half a season, we've apparently dismissed Bruno in the most unceremonious way and we don't really have too many others who were truly memorable. If/when we'd had any real success when they were with us, guys like Behich, Wielaert, Novillo, Jakobsen, Brandan etc. would be looked at much differently. We went nowhere with them, so they are quickly forgotten.

[KSK_47]

On 13/12/2018 at 10:43 PM, Dylan said:

I remember these threads back in the Heart days

I was about to ask if someone has copied and pasted this whole thread from a 2011 Melbournevictory.net post

[Rasputin]

Melbourne Heart had an identity and people chose to follow it.  City came along and forcefully changed it's identity and alot of people felt obliged to continue to follow.  You can see it in the stands - some people wear sky blue, some people red and white.  Mixed up like the clubs identity.  The only reason people put up with the take over and forced change of identity was the money which doesn't help build a strong identity.  

[KSK_47]

Personally, I was initially exited about the takeover and continued to follow us as city in the hopes CFG would fix a lot of the mistakes made by Heart (and as much as I loved them- like the way you love a scruffy dog) they certainly had a lot to fix. Unfortunately all they seem to have done is removed the stuff I liked and kept the stuff I wanted to change.

[cadete]

6 minutes ago, KSK_47 said:

Personally, I was initially exited about the takeover and continued to follow us as city in the hopes CFG would fix a lot of the mistakes made by Heart (and as much as I loved them- like the way you love a scruffy dog) they certainly had a lot to fix. Unfortunately all they seem to have done is removed the stuff I liked and kept the stuff I wanted to change.

We are the Muddy Paddock right up the back of the CFG Farm where they keep the low quality Steers...

Edited December 17, 2018 by cadete

[n i k o]

Markus Babbel was given a rap over the knuckles by Western Sydney Wanderers senior staff on Saturday night but it wasn’t because of his decision to take star playmaker Alex Baumjohann off midway through the first half. Instead, the Wanderers’ coach broke one of the club’s strictest rules by wearing an all blue outfit. The Wanderers forbid all staff from wearing the colour of their fiercest rivals while on the clock. It’s not the first time a Wanderers coach has breached this rule - Josep Gombau’s decision to wear a blue suit at his unveiling last year made for a poor first impression with his bosses
 

 

 

Seems WSW feel there was an issue with the clubs identity over the colour their coach wore on game day. Appears displaying your cross town rivals colours is a form of identification. Good thing our people don't get caught up in such trivial matters. Our club is colour fluid/neutral and all inclusive of colours from all teams including our cross town rivals. 

[jw1739]

19 minutes ago, n i k o said:

Markus Babbel was given a rap over the knuckles by Western Sydney Wanderers senior staff on Saturday night but it wasn’t because of his decision to take star playmaker Alex Baumjohann off midway through the first half. Instead, the Wanderers’ coach broke one of the club’s strictest rules by wearing an all blue outfit. The Wanderers forbid all staff from wearing the colour of their fiercest rivals while on the clock. It’s not the first time a Wanderers coach has breached this rule - Josep Gombau’s decision to wear a blue suit at his unveiling last year made for a poor first impression with his bosses
 

 

 

Seems WSW feel there was an issue with the clubs identity over the colour their coach wore on game day. Appears displaying your cross town rivals colours is a form of identification. Good thing our people don't get caught up in such trivial matters. Our club is colour fluid/neutral and all inclusive of colours from all teams including our cross town rivals. 

Send a copy of the article to Munn...I notice that the club tie, as worn by the players, is majority dark blue...

[Tony999]

4 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

Send a copy of the article to Munn...I notice that the club tie, as worn by the players, is majority dark blue...

Not a bad idea to send it to our dweeb in the office. This guy has been let off the hook for so long. Time we spam the club and tell them what we think of him. I'll do one now since I'm do FA at work.

 

Btw, what would be the best email address to send this to? 

Edited December 21, 2018 by Tony999

[jw1739]

1 hour ago, Tony999 said:

Not a bad idea to send it to our dweeb in the office. This guy has been let off the hook for so long. Time we spam the club and tell them what we think of him. I'll do one now since I'm do FA at work.

 

Btw, what would be the best email address to send this to? 

@Tony999 The one that hit home last time, and resulted in telephone calls from the Membership Manager (Dale?) to members, was membership@melbournecityfc.com.au

[HEARTinator]

Lynch has read this forum and turned it into an article. Nice work.

 

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/soccer/who-are-ya-frustrated-fans-yearn-for-city-identity-20181221-p50nlz.html

Who Are Ya? Frustrated fans yearn for City identity

By Michael Lynch

What makes a club?

Is it their shirt and colours? Their name? Geographical location?

Is it their style, a particular way of doing things?

Is it their reputation or character? A team may be characterised as winners, fans rejoicing in arrogant fashion at their seemingly endless triumphs. Or they may be regarded as battlers, losing as often as winning, the stoicism of their supporters being their most defining feature.

Is it their ground, their nickname, their star players, their reputation as a nursery? There are many reasons why supporters gravitate to one team over another.

It is a question worth pondering as Melbourne Victory, the best-supported club in the country, prepares to take on local rival Melbourne City in Victoria's now traditional Christmas derby.

The game will be played on Saturday evening at AAMI Park and is ostensibly a City home game, but the crowd, if past experience is any guide, will be mainly decked in dark blue.

How, in a city where geography has played little part in identifying both clubs, where the two play at the same home ground, where both wear shades of blue and are restricted by competition rules on foreign signings and squad numbers, can there be such a disparity?

It's an issue that has become the subject of much greater debate this season as Victory embark on their title defence and City handle the fallout from the row over talismanic star player Bruno Fornaroli.

The soul searching among the fan group over the Fornaroli's axing has been far more than just about the exile of a favourite player. It has been a discussion about what City really is, and has acted as a catalyst for a wide-ranging discussion about the club's purpose and identity. The angst has not been lost on management.

Coach Warren Joyce has described the decision to axe Fornaroli as an issue of culture: that the club had set certain standards for all at Bundoora, from office staff to players, and that their star South American striker wasn't meeting them.

Fans, of course, care little for such niceties. Given a choice between a hard-nosed culture and watching an exciting player, they will choose the latter every time irrespective of his behaviour or whether he is meeting internal standards.

The leadership of City's active fan group announced during the week that it was giving up after the derby, a decision which prompted much reaction and debate about just what City is.

Is it a genuine alternative to Victory – something that offers more than a stopping place for those who didn't like the powerhouse club – or is it merely a farming factory franchise for an offshore superpower, the City Football Group; a club whose main function is to find, nurture and then harvest the best young Australian talent before passing them on to which ever club in the City network would best suit them.

There are many who look back fondly to the early days, when City was established as Melbourne Heart.

It was always up against it as few at that time really appreciated the power of incumbency. Victory had had five years to cement its place in the city's sporting landscape and had won two titles already.

Most soccer fans who had been yearning for a new club and a new league flocked to Victory right from the start, leaving Heart with the choice of mopping up the dissidents or trying to establish an identity for themselves that was really different to that of their powerhouse neighbours.

They tried. The red and white stripes could not have been more different. In hiring Dutch coach John van 't Schip they tapped into a link with the great European traditions of the game, back to the wellspring of total football.

Johan Cruyff, who had inspired a generation of players who were now coaches including then Barcelona boss Pep Guardiola, had been van 't Schip's mentor too.

Heart didn't have much success but they were beginning to gain some traction and a small foothold.

The purchase by the City Football Group brought radical change. The Heart identity was wiped out as the name was changed to Melbourne City, the colours changed to reflect the sky blue of Manchester and New York City, the CFG's two other wholly owned affiliates.

It is tempting to think that had the CFG nurtured that original identity, keeping the name and colours, things might have been better.

But it was never likely to happen. Buying the Australian club was part of a plan to own teams in major regions of the world to feed into the CFG's brand and network. Sky blue is the corporate colour, City is the brand name, and that was never likely to change.

Disgruntled fans hoped City's endless cash resources would at least compensate. Big name players would come in, stars would play exciting football and trophies would be won.

But that hasn't happened either. David Villa came and stayed four games. Attempts to sign Frank Lampard were stymied by other clubs. And Tim Cahill, well past his best, was a relative bust.

City are not stupid and recognise these are issues they must resolve.

Nobody likes playing in semi-deserted stadiums and while they have been competitive, their 2016 FFA Cup win remains their sole trophy.

Their research, if it is telling them anything, is that their fans would rather see an exciting team play a thrilling brand of football and losing 4-3 than a competitive one grinding out 1-0 wins.

City do have plenty to be praised for.

Their W-League team has been a standard-bearer for women's football for the past three years, winning successive titles. They have a dedicated professional training set-up and invest in their players more than any other club in the competition.

Their youth strategy is also best in class. For the last Under 19 Young Socceroos tournament, City had seven members in the squad, while in the most recent Joeys set-up they had five.

City's stated aim is to improve the quality of the game in this country. It's something they are achieving at most levels outside of the senior men's team.

It might not ameliorate the discontent of fans right now, but it's a narrative they need to push, as it can at least give them an identity beyond the amorphous one they currently possess. The incoming West Melbourne team next season makes it even more necessary.

[jw1739]

I prefer the red-and-white stripes, of course I do, but I don't object to the Sky Blue. I don't believe the "brand argument" - because I can't see that the way CFG run Melbourne City benefits its brand in any way whatsoever - but if CFG want  their majority- and wholly-owned clubs to play in sky blue, then so be it.

But the "brand argument" fell over once the club started to ram navy/dark blue down our throats. And navy/dark blue certainly sticks in mine.

As for "...the angst has not been lost on management...", well, if it hasn't, then management is giving a fucking good impression that it has.

Edited December 21, 2018 by jw1739