john68

Red or Dead, With respect my friend, you seem to have either missed the point I made or been a tad mischievous with my words. The date that Man City made those changes is really irrelevant, the point was that as a young club, it was necessary to accept "hard to accept change" that allowed the club to evolve and grow. Man City were far from a parks team then as you mischievously suggest, they had already been a member of the Football League for 2 years. My point is that whilst many seem to understand that, some don't. You are free to choose whatever you want my friend. But I can tell you that the current ownership has given us a very successful team, playing open attractive football and scored 158 goals in all competitions this seasons. It has increased the work done in the community, which is a source of pride to Mancunians, Built the best academy facilities in Europe, comparable to anywhere in the World, providing jobs for the local and regenerated an urban wasteland. The Youth system has seen trophies at almost every level. And finally it has respected the fans as fans and not as mere customers. If you get a share of that, you will have got one helluva good deal. I will tell you now that jumping up and down with a huge stupid grin on your face as your captain lifts a trophy, having watched your team play the best football your team has ever played, coupled with the knowledge that your club is financially secure into the future, has got to be a far better experience that slumping in your seats with your head up your arse in misery because you have just lost another and are propping up the League. I know cos I've been there too. They arrive as strangers, offer this and ask you for nothing except your support.

My apologies but I read quite a lot of this thread but 138 pages is quite a lot more. As a newby on here, I did realisethe risk that what I had posted would more than likely have been covered somewhere. ...and thanks for your patience and your breathing Deeming, both appreciated. I have to add though, that as a long term supporter with a knowledge of our history, I hold Man City's heritage, customs and traditions dear to my heart. When the new owners arrived, I probably took a more suspicious look at them than most. Up to now, I am well pleased with the way they have conducted themselves with regard to our club, its traditions and our community and our fans. i am still keeping a watchful eye out though.

If I may introduce myself, I am a Manchester City fan, supporting the club since 1956. I have a great love of my club and especially of its history and I can trace my family's support for Man City to around 100 years. I have read many of the pages on this thread, not all and sympathise wholly with many of the sentiments regarding the changes many feel are being forced unwillingly upon you by a bunch of strangers with no ties nor emotional links to your club. I also fully understand the pride you have in your club,its short history, its name, its crest and its colours. Had our new owners made any attempt to change our colours from our sky blue, I would have been 1st in line to rant at such a drastic change....But Man City have used sky blue for around 120 years. Our history shows that in our early years, the pioneers of our club not only played in a variety of colours, red & black, Black with a Maltese cross, Blue & white stripes and plain white, they also changed their name from St Marks (West Gorton), West Gorton (St Marks, Gorton, Ardwick, finally settling on Manchester City FC, wearing Cambridge blue in 1894, some 14 years after the 1st recorded game. Some of those changes didn't come easily nor were readily accepted. It was only after a very volatile meeting and an uplifting and emotional speech by one Joshua Parlby, that the name and colour and even the club became firmly established. But what has this got to do with Melbourne? While I understand some of the furore, it should be remembered that your club is still a relatively new club and as relative newcomers to the A league, may be a few years behind other clubs in evolving and firmly establishing themselves. A mere four years is no time at all. Like Man City, that takes time and sometimes it takes accepting unwelcome changes in the short term, for the longer term gain and a better club. When I look back at the bigger picture, I am glad that most (not all) of those early pioneers accepted those changes that helped establish my club. I am quite sure that similar arguments were had in Manchester at that time too. In 10 years time, you will have been Red for 4 years and Blue for 10, been Heart/City for the same timescales. like those Mancunians of 1894, you are the pioneers of your club and if a change of name, crest and club colour,held for four years is all you have to pay for the future of your club, the future fans...I'm glad those early Man City fans paid it. Thanks.