billymumphrey

Is he going to bring Beanie as his assistant?

Seagulls get a mention here...

Mooy scores in the derby against Leeds!

I would disagree. That is prefaced by taking, at face value, the assertion made by his agent that the loan at the Terriers was for City to assess his level and then determine whether there is a spot in the squad for him. No matter how good Mooy can continue his development I don't think he will be able to find a spot competing against Silva, KDB, Nolito, Sane, Sterling and Ihenacho in playing as a number 10 or attacking midfielder. And that doesn't take into the young players that City already have in the academy (the two Garcias, or Brahim Diaz) on loan (Jack Byrne and Patrick Roberts) or the young players they've recently bought (Zinchenko, Gabriel Jesus and Moreno). Further, he wouldn't be able to unseat Fernandinho, Gundogan or even Toure for the central midfielder role. Where he can make an impact is to play the Delph/Fernando role. The water carrier or defensive midfielder. And the only way to show that he can is to play a similar role for Huddersfield.

So not sure how relevant this is, but saw an assessment on Pep's new tactics for city this coming season ==> http://www.mcfcwatch.com/2016/08/10/tactics-previewing-pep-guardiolas-first-season-at-city/ Makes for an interesting read, but of more relevance to this thread, the guy who compiled it, Tom Payne, works for Huddersfield Town as a football analyst. Might be worthwhile reaching out to him to get the inside scoop about Mooy's progression. His twitter handle is @TomPayneftbl

This is such a laughable assertion. That a loan fee for Aaron Mooy is part of plan to sidestep FFP. I suggest you actually spend some time researching Manchester City's financial situation before making such ill informed statements.

Danny Allsopp actually had a fairly decent career with Victory after coming through Manchester City's academy...

Absolute showbags...

For some reason that quote made me think of that Grinspoon song "More than you are"...

For all those advocating Canberra - think again. As a current resident (yeah yeah get your jokes in now), the city is characterised by fair weather supporters. The raiders barely get decent crowds at all, and the running joke is that each time they announce the crowd figure it's a cumulative total for the season, and includes all staff, cheerleaders and the players themselves.Not only that but it is extremely difficult to retain quality players, (carney, duggan, ferguson, zilman, milford etc) because frankly they don't want to live in Canberra when they could live in Sydney or Brisbane. The Brumbies are not that much better in terms of ongoing support, despite being fairly successful in recent years (something that the Raiders haven't be able to maintain). Again fans come out of the woodwork when the teams scrape into the finals, but dwindle when the mediocrity sets in - which for w new football franchise the chances are that they'll have to crawl before they walk and the crowds won't support them Granted that both the Raiders and Brumbies play over winter (which to anyone who has had the misfortune of attending a game at Bruce stadium in july - it is colder than a witches tit) and an A League franchise playing over summer wouldn't have to deal with that I still can't see them generating the critical mass of fans to become a viable club. There is some extensive support, Ivan Slavich a prominent businessman in the region has been a great advocate and has put his money where his mouth is. He also secured some support from other business leaders but again failed to secure a license when they were previously up for grabs. Maybe if the local government pushed through with plans for a stadium in the city as part of the City to the Lake plans rather then stumping up for a useless light rail project then that might make it a more attractive proposition. But for those expecting Canberra to be a viable option in the short to medium term, think again...

Its stuff like this that gets me most excited about what City can provide for all of Australian football. A rising tide lifts all boats.

No need to apologise. I agree 100% about the on field succcess, balancing the books means nothing if you aren't constantly performing and challenging for titles. People will decide to go to the games or watch on TV based on the onfield display and not the accounting and financial chicanery behind closed doors. I can see short term wholsesale changes to bridge the gap (think of the big name signings lured by big money like Tevez, Adebayor, Bridge, Roque Santa Cruz), but once the place at the top of the league is entrenched, then hopefully the youth philosphy of bringing players through the academy will be paying dividends for Melbourne. This is what is happening now at City. The spending has become normalised. You would be surprised to note that, not including transfers made this window, City has been outspent by both Chelsea and United in total over the last three seasons. Once established Melbourne will be able to attract the best, as the benefits they get through developing at the club will outweigh the extra cash they could get elsewhere.

Well, yeah, but there's more than one way to skin a cat. You can operate like Donald Sterling did for decades with the L.A. Clippers, pay the bare minimum, let your free agents walk time and again, rather than paying them market value and reap the rewards of a) having a franchise in L.A.; and b ) being fortunate enough to be an owner when the league went through an unprecedented boom. That first part sounded quite similar to how Heart was operating and our owners probably were a bit fortunate that the club was in Melbourne (chances are always pretty good that someone will want to buy one of the two football franchises in Melbourne). An NBA owner, even in a small market city like Milwaukee, can operate like Sterling and just rake in the money, especially if and when they decide to sell, because someone will always be keen to purchase an NBA franchise, whatever the cost and because most teams, regardless of how rubbish they are, generally play to packed stadiums every night. But, I don't think that's the way to make money, long-term, as an A-League owner, because unlike most big-time international sports, in Australia the supply (in terms of seats) generally far outweighs the demand. Being in Melbourne (rather than say, Gosford or Newcastle) and having AAMI as the home stadium are already a couple of advantages. Really, I would have thought they were the two biggest ticks next to the club, when CFG was looking to buy. But I would say the way to make money as an A-League owner, long-term, is to do what our owner is doing. If we get the squad that we anticipate we'll get, we're either going to: 1. Win a truckload of trophies 2. Be playing in a much more highly-rated league, as other teams scramble to catch up; or 3. Both If either 1 or 2 happens, the value of the team will rise considerably. Then, if and when CFG looks to sell, rather than it looking like a fire sale of the franchise at the end of last year, he'll be fielding offers for massive money, that will dwarf the original investment. I reckon the model/plan for increasing the value of this asset is to spend the money, win lots of games, build the crowds. And then there's the stuff on the periphery like the academy (if you're one of the best young footballers in the state and had a choice, you'd probably go to the academy with a direct link to the EPL, wouldn't you?), the training base(s) that have been built and so on. The sky's the limit. I take your points, but I don't think CFG are in the business of flipping football clubs like houses. A lot of fans of other club throw out the refrain of "How is Manchester City going to look like when the owner walks away?" failing to see that they are in it for the long haul. You don't invest billions of dollars in property and development turning derelict industrial land surrounding the stadium into new infrastructure if you've got a short term investment horizon.

We need to learn how to conductor selves better in staying on topic. How are we going to get it back on track?

Don't really have much of an opinion on the name - so won't really comment on that. But I feel, as an outsider, that you're leaving yourself open to have the piss mercilessly taken out of you by including the 1847 stuff. A lot of comments in this thread have said that taking the name Melburninans is having a sly dig at Victory fans which I can see is a good thing banter wise, but on the other side, trying to co-opt some historical data that bears next to no relevance for a club that is only a few years old is rolling out the red carpet to invite taunts. It seems the reason why Yarraside was retired was becuase the founding members felt that it was connected to Heart and not City, and it was respecting their wishes which led to that name being taken off the table. The new name, group and colours were there to represent the new incarnation of the club - yet to revert to predominantly red and white for the badge seems a bit out of step with the logic which resulted in Yarraside not being continued.

I agree. It's like with nicknames - you don't get to pick you're own nickname - it just happens.

That is a gay club in brisbane And how would you know????

Why is this thread even still open? And why isn't the thread discussing the new active group given the prominence it needs by being made a sticky?

What about "The Beat" Reference to a hearts beat, and a "beat" is also someones turf or territory.

Re the bolded bit - I hope they do as well, and maybe learn how to spell whilst you're at it... All jokes aside I really don't understand why you're so bitter - it's almost as if unless they did everything your way then you wouldn't be happy. I reckon no matter what they did you would find some gripe about it. Which is fair enough I suppose but not exactly a mature and measured response in regard to the situation. You claim that the strip is a hand me down Man City strip and I can can definitely see why, however it is white and it was a predominant color of your previous home shirt, which by the way is is now your away shirt. To claim there are no links at all is extremely disingenuous. You don't know who they consulted, but just because you weren't consulted it means they mustn't have done anything. You also confuse listening with doing exactly what you want them to. Just because they haven't done exactly what you've desired they mustn't have listened. I reckon they probably have listened, taken it on board, considered what feedback they have received and then presented this as a compromise. At it's core it's a name change, a logo change to something that is a more traditional crest and not the cringey bullshit the A League is known for, which retains the original colors and includes the Melbourne crest, and a move from the home to an away shirt and a new home shirt that is 90% one of the original colors. Ah yeah and David Villa and more to come. I've lurked on this forum for a good few months and I've seen a heap of comments about protecting identity but also a lot of other comments about changing the culture of the club. The same thing happened at City. Look up Typical City to get a vibe about what was the City identity pre-takeover. Winning the league one year and then getting relegated the next despite scoring the most number of goals in the division. Winning Cups for cock ups best sums it up. You could argue that 'typical city' was an intrinsic part of our identity. However success on and off the pitch has engendered a new identity. Success and typical city cannot live hand in hand. I think it's every fans dream to have a successful team - and success on and off the pitch will shape your identity. I will admit that i'm not a Heart fan, however I am excited about what this will mean for football in Australia. Football has always been a poorer cousin to the other codes. This is such a great opportunity for football in Australia full stop. Great new facilities leveraging off the expertise at a global level. Hopefully this will start the process of lifting the standing of the game by the bootstraps. And with league and union in a bit of a disastrous state at the minute, now is the perfect time to strike. This can result in football becoming the second biggest code in the country (don't think it will be able to dent the AFL). Yet much like the story of Australia's football history and like typical city there have been so many instances in the not to distant past of the code shooting itself in the foot. We know the coverage for the A League is still not supportive, someone bringing a flare into a game will be reported as being 'hooliganism gone wild' whereas the countless drunk idiots who beat the shit out of eachother at league and union matches barely get a mention. This is a chance to start correcting that. If people objectively looked at the greater good that City's involvement with Heart would bring to football in Australia, they would be tearing down the roadblocks rather than erecting them. Put the self interest aside for the good of the game in the country and then they might actually start going places. Are you fucking serious? Your club has changed the name, badge, colours, and home shirt of my club and I'm the one not prepared to compromise? As my post said, I just want some red and white on our shirt, even combined with the sky blue of our owners. The shirt has absolutely nothing on it to suggest that Melbourne Heart ever existed, while away kits can be easily changed and mean very little. What's to stop City from changing the away strip in a couple of years time? Then the makeover to mini Man City will be totally complete. Nearly as bad as having another club change everything about my club is having their supporters come here to tell me how I should feel about it. So fuck off. Yeah mate I am. You say absolutely nothing on the new shirt has a link to the Heart ever existing - apart the fact it is predominantly white (one of the foundation colours) contains the two heart's on the logo - and the red and white flag and even adding the Melbourne CoA. And by all means ignore all the other points I make, and the entire context of what I said because it suits your own purpose. I didn't say you should feel this way, rather questioning why you were - and maybe that comes down to me not being a heart supporter which is fair enough. However it doesn't stop me having an opinion on it and expressing it, without resorting to getting so worked up about it and telling others to fuck off. I stand by what i've said. So many people have confused "not listening" with getting an undesirable outcome. You say the Club has not compromised because you didn't get the outcome you wanted - however you cannot say that as you don't know what was on or off the table. Repeating it doesn't make it fact. This is a great opportunity for Australian Football and hopefully one which can elevate the standing and quality of the game in this country - and that is something I would say most football fans would agree is a good thing.

I didn't use the word 'lie', although I think there's even an argument for that word. I used the word 'deceptive', which they were. How is the decision to change our red and white strips home kit to this white with some blue home kit 'well-supported'? It isn't, at all, in any way. That's also true of the large body of text stating that "any decisions" will be "guided" by the club's traditions and the passion for red and white, even though there's those final few words that go on about "opportunities". Call it want you want. It's either 'misleading in the extreme' or deceptive. Either way, it's not a respectable way to go about communicating with supporters that try to be loyal to the club. This is splitting hairs, really. The point still stands that supporters only asked the club for one thing, a red and white home kit. A name change, a badge change, an away kit change and many other changes all were ready to be tolerated, and even though Man City couldn't get what they wanted (a sky blue home kit), they didn't give supporters the only 1 real thing we've been asking for. And then, as I said, on top of that they knowingly used language that was misleading in the extreme (don't belittle them. They would have known exactly what they were doing, and were consciously trying to placate supporters in the lead up to these changes). Going forward, I hope for the sake of this club and its supporters that the club works to build a better relationship, where the supporters can be trusting of the club. Because right now, supporters don't have many reasons to seriously trust this club. What about what the owners want? You know the one's who are actually paying the bills? They get no say at all? Be realistic. The new owners are the ones that wanted everything their way, supporters were unwilling to compromise on one thing, the home kit. How the fuck do you read that as "they get no say at all"? I did not say they have got no say at all. What I was implying is that some of the fans on here would have preferred it if the owners got no say at all in the decision on home and away kits. I was pointing out that as they are the ones actually footing the bills they should probably have some say in these decisions. The accusations labelled at the owners have been that they have not had the fans interests at heart (pun not intended), that they cant see the situation through the fans eyes. Equally, I would counter, that some of the fans here have an inability to see things from the owners perspective. Hence the be realistic comment.

Thought I wouldn't quote all the rest of the text as it would have clogged up the page. I'm not confused at all mate. CFG have not changed everything they wanted to change. I would hazard a guess that if they could, they would have removed red from all shirts away or home (unless they went with a red and black striped guernsey similar to City's from the 70's). You cannot sit there and they they've only made one compromise. You don't know what they wanted to do. The only people who knew exactly what the executives wanted are the executives themselves. They may have wanted to do so many other things but decided not to for various reasons. How can you say that they have ignored the fans when half of the kits are the exact same as the previous home kit? How can you say they have ignored the fans when the badge has a a strong link to the red/white colors of Melbourne, and not only that but the Melbourne Coat of Arms? And in response to your point about not being consulted - we live in a world of a 24 hour news cycle - do you really think the extensive consultation that the fans expected would have been kept under wraps? That there would have been no leaks if they ran focus groups? Sydney FC leaked the story about the strip challenge to serve their own purpose. A disgruntled fan who, if consulted in the way that has been suggested, would probably also leak information to stir up opposition - and it is typical in organisations to have a communications strategy in place to mitigate on the chances of this happening. Just out of interest - you say they had no intention, or did not communicate with fans - what exactly did you do to make your opinion heard? Communication is a two way street after all...

I didn't use the word 'lie', although I think there's even an argument for that word. I used the word 'deceptive', which they were. How is the decision to change our red and white strips home kit to this white with some blue home kit 'well-supported'? It isn't, at all, in any way. That's also true of the large body of text stating that "any decisions" will be "guided" by the club's traditions and the passion for red and white, even though there's those final few words that go on about "opportunities". Call it want you want. It's either 'misleading in the extreme' or deceptive. Either way, it's not a respectable way to go about communicating with supporters that try to be loyal to the club. This is splitting hairs, really. The point still stands that supporters only asked the club for one thing, a red and white home kit. A name change, a badge change, an away kit change and many other changes all were ready to be tolerated, and even though Man City couldn't get what they wanted (a sky blue home kit), they didn't give supporters the only 1 real thing we've been asking for. And then, as I said, on top of that they knowingly used language that was misleading in the extreme (don't belittle them. They would have known exactly what they were doing, and were consciously trying to placate supporters in the lead up to these changes). Going forward, I hope for the sake of this club and its supporters that the club works to build a better relationship, where the supporters can be trusting of the club. Because right now, supporters don't have many reasons to seriously trust this club. What about what the owners want? You know the one's who are actually paying the bills? They get no say at all? Be realistic.

Re the bolded bit - I hope they do as well, and maybe learn how to spell whilst you're at it... All jokes aside I really don't understand why you're so bitter - it's almost as if unless they did everything your way then you wouldn't be happy. I reckon no matter what they did you would find some gripe about it. Which is fair enough I suppose but not exactly a mature and measured response in regard to the situation. You claim that the strip is a hand me down Man City strip and I can can definitely see why, however it is white and it was a predominant color of your previous home shirt, which by the way is is now your away shirt. To claim there are no links at all is extremely disingenuous. You don't know who they consulted, but just because you weren't consulted it means they mustn't have done anything. You also confuse listening with doing exactly what you want them to. Just because they haven't done exactly what you've desired they mustn't have listened. I reckon they probably have listened, taken it on board, considered what feedback they have received and then presented this as a compromise. At it's core it's a name change, a logo change to something that is a more traditional crest and not the cringey bullshit the A League is known for, which retains the original colors and includes the Melbourne crest, and a move from the home to an away shirt and a new home shirt that is 90% one of the original colors. Ah yeah and David Villa and more to come. I've lurked on this forum for a good few months and I've seen a heap of comments about protecting identity but also a lot of other comments about changing the culture of the club. The same thing happened at City. Look up Typical City to get a vibe about what was the City identity pre-takeover. Winning the league one year and then getting relegated the next despite scoring the most number of goals in the division. Winning Cups for cock ups best sums it up. You could argue that 'typical city' was an intrinsic part of our identity. However success on and off the pitch has engendered a new identity. Success and typical city cannot live hand in hand. I think it's every fans dream to have a successful team - and success on and off the pitch will shape your identity. I will admit that i'm not a Heart fan, however I am excited about what this will mean for football in Australia. Football has always been a poorer cousin to the other codes. This is such a great opportunity for football in Australia full stop. Great new facilities leveraging off the expertise at a global level. Hopefully this will start the process of lifting the standing of the game by the bootstraps. And with league and union in a bit of a disastrous state at the minute, now is the perfect time to strike. This can result in football becoming the second biggest code in the country (don't think it will be able to dent the AFL). Yet much like the story of Australia's football history and like typical city there have been so many instances in the not to distant past of the code shooting itself in the foot. We know the coverage for the A League is still not supportive, someone bringing a flare into a game will be reported as being 'hooliganism gone wild' whereas the countless drunk idiots who beat the shit out of eachother at league and union matches barely get a mention. This is a chance to start correcting that. If people objectively looked at the greater good that City's involvement with Heart would bring to football in Australia, they would be tearing down the roadblocks rather than erecting them. Put the self interest aside for the good of the game in the country and then they might actually start going places. Are you likening CFG changing everything about the club with supporters wanting everything their own way? For the majority, everything was acceptable except changing the home colours to sky blue. That was a change few wanted and many considered a step too far. The fact that CFG went to the FFA with their plans for a sky blue home kit, without speaking to the members or STH about it doesn't help build good sentiment with their leadership. I think it is far from unreasonable to expect people to be upset and your comments on it are baseless. However, I absolutely agree on your other points, this is a huge boon for the sport in this country, and dare I say, the region. Mate - I'm responding to Sash's post about him complaining about the fact that even though 95% of the colors of both the new home and away strips are the clubs original colors he is still railing. The home kit is not sky blue. It is 85% white with a strip of blue. If the home kit was predominately sky blue, then yes I would say that the criticism of you, the fans, would be warranted. But it's not, yet that's still not good enough. As I stated so many fans are confusing consultation and listening with doing exactly what they wanted. CFG not only have the fans interests to take into account but their own business interests as well. How would you feel if you bought a house for $12mil but then the tenants in it told you you can't make any changes to it? What CFG has done, in my opinion. is a pretty decent compromise so that the original tenants can still enjoy the house, and that CFG can achieve their objectives in increasing the value of the house, and attempt to reshape the housing landscape... From what was proposed to what has now been delivered - I couldn't see why there was still this outrage.

Re the bolded bit - I hope they do as well, and maybe learn how to spell whilst you're at it... All jokes aside I really don't understand why you're so bitter - it's almost as if unless they did everything your way then you wouldn't be happy. I reckon no matter what they did you would find some gripe about it. Which is fair enough I suppose but not exactly a mature and measured response in regard to the situation. You claim that the strip is a hand me down Man City strip and I can can definitely see why, however it is white and it was a predominant color of your previous home shirt, which by the way is is now your away shirt. To claim there are no links at all is extremely disingenuous. You don't know who they consulted, but just because you weren't consulted it means they mustn't have done anything. You also confuse listening with doing exactly what you want them to. Just because they haven't done exactly what you've desired they mustn't have listened. I reckon they probably have listened, taken it on board, considered what feedback they have received and then presented this as a compromise. At it's core it's a name change, a logo change to something that is a more traditional crest and not the cringey bullshit the A League is known for, which retains the original colors and includes the Melbourne crest, and a move from the home to an away shirt and a new home shirt that is 90% one of the original colors. Ah yeah and David Villa and more to come. I've lurked on this forum for a good few months and I've seen a heap of comments about protecting identity but also a lot of other comments about changing the culture of the club. The same thing happened at City. Look up Typical City to get a vibe about what was the City identity pre-takeover. Winning the league one year and then getting relegated the next despite scoring the most number of goals in the division. Winning Cups for cock ups best sums it up. You could argue that 'typical city' was an intrinsic part of our identity. However success on and off the pitch has engendered a new identity. Success and typical city cannot live hand in hand. I think it's every fans dream to have a successful team - and success on and off the pitch will shape your identity. I will admit that i'm not a Heart fan, however I am excited about what this will mean for football in Australia. Football has always been a poorer cousin to the other codes. This is such a great opportunity for football in Australia full stop. Great new facilities leveraging off the expertise at a global level. Hopefully this will start the process of lifting the standing of the game by the bootstraps. And with league and union in a bit of a disastrous state at the minute, now is the perfect time to strike. This can result in football becoming the second biggest code in the country (don't think it will be able to dent the AFL). Yet much like the story of Australia's football history and like typical city there have been so many instances in the not to distant past of the code shooting itself in the foot. We know the coverage for the A League is still not supportive, someone bringing a flare into a game will be reported as being 'hooliganism gone wild' whereas the countless drunk idiots who beat the shit out of eachother at league and union matches barely get a mention. This is a chance to start correcting that. If people objectively looked at the greater good that City's involvement with Heart would bring to football in Australia, they would be tearing down the roadblocks rather than erecting them. Put the self interest aside for the good of the game in the country and then they might actually start going places.