SF33

The white socks make the home kit look a lot better than what they wore in Ballarat.

As a Spurs fan Adebeyor can go fuck himself........................... Most of the time. As a city fan Adebeyor can go fuck him self, except for when he celebrated in front of the arsenal fans As an arsenal fan, you can........ Ya get the picture. Drogba is also a bit of a headcase, as is lampard. And i would much prefer Rosicky to Totti. Rosicky was amazing last season for the gunners. Didn't look a day over 27 What makes Lampard a headcase? Seems pretty humble for a footballer to me. He's like a genius-level IQ as well, isn't he? I always thought he seemed to be a bit of a voice of reason around a bunch of shit blokes on the field (still got vivid memories of Drogba nearly bursting into tears when they wouldn't let him take a penalty - he wasn't the designated man - that would have given him the top goalscorer or something one year) and off the field (John Terry, for one).

Well, in fairness, most A-League clubs are losing money. Of course, a bit more star power might put more bums on seats, but we're obviously in a good position to be able to keep our international players, being in Melbourne. Might not be as easy for a club like Newcastle.

Of course, but considering we've squeezed Duff inside the cap, I think it's reasonable to assume that the international marquee will be a big name.

The 'home kit' is going to change next year, most likely, to full sky blue. Something to keep in mind. It would take a pretty drastic backflip for the FFA to allow that, considering the reason why the proposal was blocked in the first place. I'd say the much bigger risk is after giving us a few token 'compromise' years, they'll jettison the red and white stripes for an away kit without any red whatsoever.

Isn't Berisha already locked in to the marquee spot for Victory (and isn't that why he left Brisbane in the first place)? I couldn't imagine Karagounis being on less coin than him.

Reckon it's difficult to compare Kewell to the others; it depends on which people you're talking about. I think there'd be a heap of people in Australia that would name Harry as one of the five footballers they know and would never have heard of the others.

I think most cities like a winner, but Melbourne fans in general are more loyal to their clubs than most. Certainly unlike Sydney where the whiff of a bad performance will have 'fans' jumping off the wagon in no time. No doubt the sporting culture here is one where we get along to the games and AFL clubs like Richmond are renowned for having loyal supporters, despite having about two decent seasons in the past 30. In simple terms, our 'low-water' mark for sporting clubs would generally be better than clubs in other cities around Australia. But I think the numbers show that even with a club like Richmond (and definitely with any Victorian club that wins the AFL premiership) and even the Victory...the numbers go through the roof after they have some success (or relative success, in Richmond's case). We're less fair-weather than other cities, but by the same token and as Victory have shown, we have the potential to get the biggest crowds in the league, if we become the strongest club. Guys like Lampard and Villa might get people here, but just winning games and silverware is what will keep them here.

Really? You really hope this doesn't happen? That's what I said is it not? How about you read what I said and then say how I am wrong? Agree with you Dylan. This from a marketing sense would be unparalleled and would put us on the global stage. BUT it's a loan deal and once that is done will leave a gaping hole. What are the rules on loan players? I was under the impression you were limited to 1. I understand and agree with you both on leaving a hole in the side when both leave, however we are yet to understand fully how many games Villa will play meaning he could only appear for a small handful, you have to also keep in mind we need to get our crowed figures up and while I agree results are the main driving force behind this, you can't be blind to the fact that big marquee names draw in the crowds and again if both play 10 games I see us winning 8 of the 10 meaning we will be 80% on the way to making finals. Agree on the crowds but they bring the fans that will more likely drop off if we drop in form and once those big names are gone. Theatre goers: yes. But if there's one thing Melbourne sporting fans love, it's a winner. That's generally why our home crowds have been pretty pathetic thus far, while Victory was strong early and have maintained that momentum (granted, getting in first helped them, but winning trophies and consistently finishing higher than us has helped at least as much in keeping their fans and avoiding crossovers - until now). A big if, but if we remain the strongest team (or close to it) in the competition after Villa and Lampard leave, I'd suggest that our home crowds (and away crowds, for that matter) will still be massive compared to last year. We've got an Irish legend in the squad for the entire season, to appeal to another pretty big cross-section of the community. Regardless of those last spots on the roster that need to be filled (and, let's be honest, they're pretty huge: another visa, the AM and IM), if the club continues to drip feed the public with these exciting announcements and 'more to come' down the track (exhibition games in Melbourne against Manchester City an New York City, for a start), the people here aren't stupid. They'll realise that Lampard and Villa may be gone pretty soon, but we'll probably see another 1-2 absolute superstars come along for a visit at the start of next season. And the season after that. It's not exactly dragging Romario down for a kick in a few games. As for leaving a gap in the squad when they leave, my question would be: if we disregard the 10-game rule, how long would we estimate Villa and Lampard could stay, before it would be time for them to get back and start training with New York? With the gap for the Asian Cup, it seems likely that they'd leave after the January 4 game against Central Coast (Round 15). That gives them about two months until the season kicks off (assuming it's a similar start date to 2014). So, if Round 15 was the plan for them to leave anyway and a priority was put on not decimating the squad once they've left, wouldn't five Lampard-only games, five Villa-only games and five with both (or something along those lines) be the way to go (and very doable)?

1. How is what I'm saying 'completely wrong'? Enlighten me. I've asked a question and it seems like it's pissed an inordinate number of people off, for some baffling reason. 2. If 'something will always offend someone' as you suggest, maybe you could take the other popular suggestions for the active supporter group's name and come up with a way that each of them could possibly be construed as offensive (or, as I've suggested with the '1847' thing, that may require a bit of clarification). You know, if what you're saying isn't just empty rhetoric. 3. '...worry about offending the 3 indigenous people that support the club...' you can't be serious. Are you suggesting that it's fine to use terms that could (note: 'could', not 'definitely will', as I never said that) be culturally insensitive, as long as we don't have a large number of that specific group among the club's supporters? Whether people from that group are supporters of the club or not is completely irrelevant. 4. If some people spent a little less time getting outraged at a pretty simple and harmless suggestion and instead directed that time towards perhaps making a call to the club, or sending them an email, that might be all it would take to resolve the issue. And that is how a professional unit would handle it. 1. Did you even read my post about how the Aboriginal people from the Port Philip Bay area were nomadic and thus probably not offended about a date that refers to a permanent settlement being offically called a City? 2. Also do you even realise the date people are talking about is the year Melbourne offically became a City not the date White People settled in the Melbourne area? An equivlent in Australian terms would be the date of Federation (That I have never heard any Aboriginal group complain about) and not the controversial date of 1788. What I really mean is if you care so much about being politically correct with history - It would probably help if you knew your history. 1. Yes, I did. '...probably not offended'...I think that sums it all up. Why bother taking a few minutes to ask the question, right? 2. Really??! http://australia.gov.au/about-australia/australian-story/changing-face-of-early-australia Possibly worth sending an email, or making a phone call? Nah, she'll be right...

1. How is what I'm saying 'completely wrong'? Enlighten me. I've asked a question and it seems like it's pissed an inordinate number of people off, for some baffling reason. 2. If 'something will always offend someone' as you suggest, maybe you could take the other popular suggestions for the active supporter group's name and come up with a way that each of them could possibly be construed as offensive (or, as I've suggested with the '1847' thing, that may require a bit of clarification). You know, if what you're saying isn't just empty rhetoric. 3. '...worry about offending the 3 indigenous people that support the club...' you can't be serious. Are you suggesting that it's fine to use terms that could (note: 'could', not 'definitely will', as I never said that) be culturally insensitive, as long as we don't have a large number of that specific group among the club's supporters? Whether people from that group are supporters of the club or not is completely irrelevant. 4. If some people spent a little less time getting outraged at a pretty simple and harmless suggestion and instead directed that time towards perhaps making a call to the club, or sending them an email, that might be all it would take to resolve the issue. And that is how a professional unit would handle it.

Can I put it to you that I wouldn't have expected members of a Melbourne Heart/City message board to be the target group that might have an issue with it? Hence, you know, asking the question? Sure you asked and as far as I can tell you have already done so. Asking the people that might have an issue with it? I can assure you that I haven't.

Think the situation is a little different and wouldn't be an issue. "Australia Est 1788" basically suggests that nothing occurred or existed previous to this date. That the history of the indigenous population had no significance or relevance to the country. Demon_Heart is correct in that "Melbourne 1847, M47 etc." is factually based and isn't inflammatory as the city this was when the city was founded. Having said that, you may be onto something in engaging with the indigenous section of society. I, for one, would love to see us create a connection with them. I know "Yarra" is an aboriginal word, but maybe this could be an angle we could go for in terms of a new name. Not only could our active supporter group be a voice for our team, it could be a voice of support for our aboriginal brothers and sisters. I'm just spitballing though, might be a bit too political. Or something to think about at a later date. I couldn't agree more...that's all I'm saying. I don't want to be the bad guy. It's as much a comment that the new active group will have a lot of strength, a lot of power and a lot of responsibility. You represent all of us, whether we are active supporters or not. Whether you agree with me or not (that's really irrelevant), you must be able to look at your decisions from these sort of angles and understand the possible consequences before implementing them. 1847 is when the city of Melbourne was established, called a name, made into a 'city' and what have you. Euro settlements started around 1835 in the area and the 5 tribes of the Kulin were here a long time before that. So the 1847 is the same situation as the date of federation and not like the 1788 reference you cited. So as Malloy said, its completly different By the comparison that you're drawing, I'd say it's not completely different, since the furore was all about merchandise with 'established 1788' plastered all over it. From your explanation, it's actually the same thing. I'll wear that the nature of Australia Day, compared to the proposed use for a football club is quite different, but as far as I'm concerned, it's the same principle. And of course, I'm happy to have a discussion/debate about it, but it's really the sort of thing that could be much better and more easily resolved by simply asking a few questions to the relevant people and getting a 'no worries' from them. Do the Wurundjeri people, for example, recognise that 1847 date, or do they treat it as an insult? I honestly don't know. Couldn't hurt to ask them, right? who cares what they think? We're just naming an active area, we're not trying to re-name uluru. Just don't use an aboriginal name and problem solved. Probably the club, at a guess.

Can I put it to you that I wouldn't have expected members of a Melbourne Heart/City message board to be the target group that might have an issue with it? Hence, you know, asking the question?

I think the people who want to use '1847' in the name should probably be charged with that responsibility. I'll leave it in their capable hands.

Think the situation is a little different and wouldn't be an issue. "Australia Est 1788" basically suggests that nothing occurred or existed previous to this date. That the history of the indigenous population had no significance or relevance to the country. Demon_Heart is correct in that "Melbourne 1847, M47 etc." is factually based and isn't inflammatory as the city this was when the city was founded. Having said that, you may be onto something in engaging with the indigenous section of society. I, for one, would love to see us create a connection with them. I know "Yarra" is an aboriginal word, but maybe this could be an angle we could go for in terms of a new name. Not only could our active supporter group be a voice for our team, it could be a voice of support for our aboriginal brothers and sisters. I'm just spitballing though, might be a bit too political. Or something to think about at a later date. I couldn't agree more...that's all I'm saying. I don't want to be the bad guy. It's as much a comment that the new active group will have a lot of strength, a lot of power and a lot of responsibility. You represent all of us, whether we are active supporters or not. Whether you agree with me or not (that's really irrelevant), you must be able to look at your decisions from these sort of angles and understand the possible consequences before implementing them. 1847 is when the city of Melbourne was established, called a name, made into a 'city' and what have you. Euro settlements started around 1835 in the area and the 5 tribes of the Kulin were here a long time before that. So the 1847 is the same situation as the date of federation and not like the 1788 reference you cited. So as Malloy said, its completly different By the comparison that you're drawing, I'd say it's not completely different, since the furore was all about merchandise with 'established 1788' plastered all over it. From your explanation, it's actually the same thing. I'll wear that the nature of Australia Day, compared to the proposed use for a football club is quite different, but as far as I'm concerned, it's the same principle. And of course, I'm happy to have a discussion/debate about it, but it's really the sort of thing that could be much better and more easily resolved by simply asking a few questions to the relevant people and getting a 'no worries' from them. Do the Wurundjeri people, for example, recognise that 1847 date, or do they treat it as an insult? I honestly don't know. Couldn't hurt to ask them, right?

Think the situation is a little different and wouldn't be an issue. "Australia Est 1788" basically suggests that nothing occurred or existed previous to this date. That the history of the indigenous population had no significance or relevance to the country. Demon_Heart is correct in that "Melbourne 1847, M47 etc." is factually based and isn't inflammatory as the city this was when the city was founded. Having said that, you may be onto something in engaging with the indigenous section of society. I, for one, would love to see us create a connection with them. I know "Yarra" is an aboriginal word, but maybe this could be an angle we could go for in terms of a new name. Not only could our active supporter group be a voice for our team, it could be a voice of support for our aboriginal brothers and sisters. I'm just spitballing though, might be a bit too political. Or something to think about at a later date. I couldn't agree more...that's all I'm saying. I don't want to be the bad guy. It's as much a comment that the new active group will have a lot of strength, a lot of power and a lot of responsibility. You represent all of us, whether we are active supporters or not. Whether you agree with me or not (that's really irrelevant), you must be able to look at your decisions from these sort of angles and understand the possible consequences before implementing them.

That's fine. All I'm saying is maybe check with a few people in the Indigenous community (particularly those with connections to the club) before locking it in. Speak to people from the club, ask them for their thoughts. The potential for controversy is, as far as I'm concerned, very, very high. And opposition supporters (particularly those from the other club) would be desperate to seize on it. I reckon you're kidding yourself, if you think they wouldn't. Is it really worth it? Just asking the question... i think its a complete non issue tbh. Nobody in this situation is discrediting 10,000 years of cultural history like Aldi did. Melbourne became a city in 1847, part of what was mentioned in the meeting at the imp was being an inclusive terrace. Being resisdents of the city is something that unites us all and so its something that people are celebrating by suggesting 1847 in the name. It really shouldnt be an issue unless we're getting hyper-sensative Some people are hypersensitive. That's all I'm saying. Would an Australian active supporters area (in whatever sport) ever consider using '1788' in its name? I seriously doubt it. Anyway, I've said my piece. I'm just asking you to consider it.

That's fine. All I'm saying is maybe check with a few people in the Indigenous community (particularly those with connections to the club) before locking it in. Speak to people from the club, ask them for their thoughts. The potential for controversy is, as far as I'm concerned, very, very high. And opposition supporters (particularly those from the other club) would be desperate to seize on it. I reckon you're kidding yourself, if you think they wouldn't. Is it really worth it? Just asking the question... Two totally different things. I understand it isn't exactly the same thing (same principle, as far as I'm concerned), but stuff like this matters. A simple query to the club and at least taking the time to ask shouldn't be too much trouble.

That's fine. All I'm saying is maybe check with a few people in the Indigenous community (particularly those with connections to the club) before locking it in. Speak to people from the club, ask them for their thoughts. The potential for controversy is, as far as I'm concerned, very, very high. And opposition supporters (particularly those from the other club) would be desperate to seize on it. I reckon you're kidding yourself, if you think they wouldn't. Is it really worth it? Just asking the question...

Just with all the '1847' stuff, I think it's worth considering a bit of potential controversy, along the lines of the 'Australia - established 1788' merchandise that some retailers had to recall and issue public apologies for. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/apologetic-aldi-withdraws-racist-australia-day-shirts-from-stores/story-e6frg6nf-1226797444037?nk=080d3822b1de8cfcdb63761547f9e129 I hate to be a spoil sport, but if you end up choosing to go with it, I think it would at least be worth sounding out some Indigenous contacts that have been involved with the club (perhaps through the club, if possible?) to get their feedback on how it would be viewed. Probably worth doing a bit of due diligence, to avoid a potential shitstorm and (more importantly) upsetting a pretty vital section of our community.

That's how I see it. I'd be the first to admit that my tactical knowledge is nowhere near the level of some on here and I've only been really on board with the Heart in the past two years. But the way I see it, there can't be many teams in the competition with as good an Australian marquee as Josh Kennedy. Damien Duff is probably the best international player to ever sign inside the cap for an A-League club, at a guess. With our network and resources, there is no reason we can't aim to sign one of the best players in the history of the league (if not, the best) in the IM spot. And we've got David Villa for a third of the season. And Josh Kennedy in last year's side would have been an absolute godsend. As others have mentioned, David Williams was our Australian marquee last year. Even if you don't think Kennedy is a 10/10 signing, he's got to be like an 8/10 as a minimum, doesn't he? If this is confirmed, the season can't start quickly enough, as far as I'm concerned.

Even without factoring in the doors that will be opened for Campbell by being affiliated with CFG, considering the previous ownership broke even with the sale, when the team has been pretty much rubbish for its entire existence, I guess they figured it would be money for jam, if and when they do decide to sell their stake.

Let's lock in 'Clap Bang Drum' before someone else pinches it.

This isnt the worst suggestion, except for the established local football clubs. Don't like it personally. The club isn't old, nor does it consist of 'old boys' of Melbourne Grammar (which is what the current 'Old Melburnians' is - 'Old Melbourne Grammarians'). And that's without factoring in the link that could be made with the Melbourne Football Club supporter base (rightly or wrongly, they're considered to be a bunch of old 'rah-rah' grammar boys who flee for the ski fields in their Land Rovers at the first sign of a disappointing season for their team). People are talking about specific 'try hard' things about the name, but I reckon using a name that makes it sound more historic than it really is is just as try hard as anything else. Don't mind 'The Wall', though I wonder if it's a bit generic for the club (i.e. what does it have to do with the club, or the city, specifically?). And 'The Red Wall' probably makes it sound a little bit Iron Curtainy, though maybe that's not necessarily a bad thing. I also wonder if using the colour red in the name might create issues with new recruits, both now and down the track.