Sash

No. Someone just correctly pointed out that the club was not going to fold and that CFG didn't 'save' us, like people claim. I want CFG to fuck off, not to get the old owners back, but because I can't reconcile with their policy of obliterating the club I supported in order to create their own. And people need to stop taking a 'wait and see' approach to them changing the red and white away kit. Everything they've done so far is enough evidence that the red and white away kit is gone, most likely next year. Welcome back Sash. Just visiting, or to stay? Thanks JW. I went to my first game game on Saturday and the night and reaction to it has sucked me back into the vortex of the whole Heart/City situation. Like Godfather III, 'I keep trying to get away, but they keep dragging me back in', or whatever the line is. To be honest, I just plan on following the A League by going to games, but being a bit more detached from it all. Apologies for getting a bit emotional in my first post for a while!

No. Someone just correctly pointed out that the club was not going to fold and that CFG didn't 'save' us, like people claim. I want CFG to fuck off, not to get the old owners back, but because I can't reconcile with their policy of obliterating the club I supported in order to create their own. And people need to stop taking a 'wait and see' approach to them changing the red and white away kit. Everything they've done so far is enough evidence that the red and white away kit is gone, most likely next year.

Lol, they were all on board long ago. Not everyone! I know this seems a minority view these days, but if you don't like the changes they made to the name and colours, if you don't want to see the team play in a Manchester City shirt, and you don't like the way they ignored the fans when making these decisions, the best thing you can do is not get a membership and tell the club why you're not getting one. For me, it's based on a principle, so no amount of money or marquees can change my view on it.

Now that it's been a few days, I'm only becoming more convinced that I'm out. Supporting Heart was a really special time for me as a football supporter. I've celebrated grand final wins as an AFL supporter, but the 4-0 derby win last season, as well as a couple of others, was every bit as joyous and memorable as any sporting win I've ever experienced. Usually you're born into supporting a club, but Heart was the only club I've consciously adopted because being a part of it just felt right for me. Supporting a subsidiary of a mega-rich EPL club that I've never supported as part of it's global marketing operations isn't why I follow football. And I don't believe they've honoured Melbourne Heart or it's supporters in the way they've pushed through with their changes. The only way I could still feel connected to the club would be through it's supporters being prepared stand up and fight to make the club feel like we want it to, because I've always believed it could be, at least in a large measure, OUR club, not just the plaything of wealthy owners. We've supported it from the start while owners have now come and gone. I liked how the 'keep Melbourne red and white' campaign attempted to demand that fans be part of the decision making. But unfortunately, it seems that many fans have now accepted what's been decided for them and moved on. I can't do that. I really liked the 'One Melburnian' campaign from a couple of years ago in the way supporters themselves took the initiative to build the club. I'm a bit old for active support, but I thought Yarraside became one of the best supporter groups in the country. This unique supporter culture was part of what I loved about being a Heart supporter. I sense a lot of that has now been lost. And this is part of the reason why the colours are important. It's got nothing to do with red opposed to blue in some aesthetic sense. It's that the colours represent the history of this club and who we are. For me, too many important things have been lost. The club I've followed since I was a kid in the AFL disappointed me greatly by running a dodgy and probably illegal drugs program a couple of years ago. But now I'll see if I can repair that fractured relationship. I'll turn up to some 'City' games next year and what I hope to see most of all is everyone in the stands continuing to wear the red and white.

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.

The home strip is still a hand me down Man City shirt. There's nothing of our club on it. They can't possibly say with a straight face that 'the home kit combines the white of the original kit...' It's bollocks. Just like the crap they keep feeding people about 'consulting with members'. I can't believe they even mentioned that survey in their email. Personally, I'd rather a sky blue shirt with a red and white stripe as it would be our shirt, not a Man City shirt, and would retain something of our colours. But even more important than the colours is the disregard of supporters. Yes we don't 'own' the club, but good clubs actually listen to their supporters and make them feel like they hold an important place in the club - like the fan forums WSW held to decide what their club would look and feel like. I'll go to matches but it just doesn't feel like my club now. For me, it's a sad day. And I hope Melboune City keep fighting to keep their name.

The pitches at la trobe have been re-laid. It was begun last year and presumably why we moved training to Epping.

I remember how excited I was when the news about the takeover broke. And then reading all the posts here from Man City fans saying how great these new owners are. And I remember believing the statements about consultation and listening. The first seed of doubt was probably that survey that barely touched on any potential changes that might occur. But nah, surely that was just the first step and there would be follow up surveys and such? But with no one seeking supporters opinions, we took the initiative to make our voices heard on the colours issue, which was fantastic. We heard the odd general statement about understanding the supporters passion and trying to avoid a Cardiff situation. But all the while, they were preparing an application which would've had us playing home games in sky blue shirts and white shorts as well as being called Melbourne City. And we wouldn't have known about it if it wasn't for Sydney FC's objections and Sebastian Hasset's reporting on it. Let me make this clear. The problem isn't the lack of communication. It's that they tried to change our colours even though it was the one thing the supporters were clear about that we wanted to keep. Now I can't speak for other supporters, but for me, there was so much good will towards these owners a few months ago which has now evaporated. They could've had my enthusiastic support if they went about things in a better way. Now I feel in opposition to them. I continue to refer to them as 'them' and not 'us'. The thing is, I don't need to be constantly updated on all developments, I just need to feel as if I can trust them to do the right thing by us. And I don't. I feel like they've taken us for granted and arrogantly thought that a few big signings will smooth the waters. For some it might, but like I've said before, if I don't feel a connection to the club and it's owners, no signings are going to make the difference. The thing I'm glad about is that we have supporters who have been passionate enough to stand up and continue to make their voices heard. From here, the owners have got work to do if they're interested in earning back my allegiance and respect.

IF City were given some sort of indication/guarantee about rebranding some time before the takeover, it would've been misguided of them to seek it, and improper of the FFA to give it. The way it has played out is exactly how it should have. If you want to change colours etc, you need to seek approval from the FFA and the FFA should then take into account all the relevant stakeholders - clubs, fans, sponsors and whoever else is affected by the potential changes. In this case, it would've had a detrimental effect on one of the competitions existing clubs, and was opposed by supporters. Rejecting the colour change was absolutely the right decision and the owners have to suck it up. I'm so glad to see that the FFA isn't prepared to bend over to any wealthy owners who think they can do whatever they want regardless of the effect on the competition and it's stakeholders. (Especially the fans!) I certainly wasn't expecting them to knock City back. And I'd be surprised if it ended up in court at all. Sometimes threatening legal action is used to try to get what you want rather than actually being able to go through with it.

Indeed. If Melbourne were going to play in blue, and the badge was blue, it would look great (to City) lined up alongside their own badge and the blue one of NYCFC in promotional material. But it isn't. It's red and white, and as such would stick out like a sore thumb. And as soon as you start talking about red and Manchester (as many will) people instantly think United, and City will not want that, ever. That is basically the short and tall of it. This could get unbelievably messy, not just for the club, but the league itself. It doesn't have to be messy. City can just be big about it and accept that different clubs have their own identities. On this side of the fence it just looks like old fashioned imperialism. They've so far done nothing to build any loyalty to their brand before attempting to change fundamental things like name and colours. City can just come to the simple conclusion that there's a better way of doing business.

I don't see any conradiction at all. Adelaide is red. (Maybe some additional yellow and blue as they're the SA state colours.) We're red & white. And WSW are red & black. Each club is unique with their own colour combination. Sydney are sky blue, and if we became sky blue, there would be two sky blue teams. Which would be stupid and unneccesary. I'd say if City proposed a compromise which combined their sky blue with our red and white, they would be able to get it through the FFA and probably most of our fans. But they haven't even been prepared to compromise.

There is not a chance City will walk away from Heart over this. They signed a contract for a 20 year licence for the club, they knew FFA would have final say over such matters, and any return of the Heart licence would result in likely legal proceedings from the FFA. The negative publicity from walking away alone would be devastating to their reputation, and would make many federations weary from allowing them to further invest in other leagues across the world. Can't see it happening, and can't see them taking this to the Supreme Court without further putting the FFA, football public and media offside. FFA won't budge on the issue, cause if they do they will undermine the entire league and open every HAL club up to offers and complete rebrands from foreign football clubs in the future. It is the right decision from them for the integrity of the league. If going to the supreme court is what is required to get us playing in sky blue then that is what will happen. FFA have played a strong hand, which may come back to bite them as they need city to pump cash in the league to get it to grow. City can still "walk away" by running the club on a shoe string budget like it previously was run and then just focus on NYCFC. If you think any negative media will tarnish their brand then you are wrong as money and results ( for city not us) are ultimately what people focus on not a small team in a shitty league in a country full of people that don't even like the game. I know City will probably keep pushing and may eventually get their way, but I don't see on what basis the Supreme Court would overturn a ruling of the competition's governing body. Unless there's a contract or agreement that hasn't been honoured. But otherwise, I think courts are reluctant to get involved in the decision making processes of sporting bodies.

If City walk away, which they won't, but even if they did, we'd be administered by the FFA until suitable new owners came on board. Like WSW have been. And how successful was that?

Whatever the implications, this is the right decision. It was right for Sydney FC to fight for their identity. And it was right for the FFA to prioritise the competition as a whole ahead of one of it's licence holders. The only disappointing thing is that our owners seem so determined to fight it, despite opposition from the club's fans, Sydney, and the FFA.

THANK YOU FFA!!!!!!!!!!!!! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's not necessarily likely, but it's an intruiging possibility. When AD announced he was stepping down as CEO of the AFL, he was originally going to see out the rest of the year. But they made the changeover earlier than originally planned, and seemingly at least partly because he wanted to depart earlier, and coincidentally, at a time when Heart's new owners are putting things in place for next season. He's incredibly well credentialled, and knows the landscape in Melbourne as much as anyone. In fact, he's over-qualified to be a CEO of an A League club. But as this is becoming a global football brand, if City were looking to bring in an experienced, knowledgable, and IMO very accomplished sports administrator as part of it's operations, particularly if they want an Australian perspective, I'd be surprised if they wouldn't have sounded him out. The AFL has really led the way in Australia in terms of professionalism compared to the NRL, Rugby Union and the A League in recent years. (Although there have been a few issues recently which have blemished the leagues reputation.)

Ah shit I missed that. Oops.

That's true. But Sharpy gave us the news first. It's a done deal as far as I'm concerned. Welcome to Melbourne JK.

I agree that they can't go much lower, so IMO there's enormous pressure on key people at Bunker Latrobe. If there is not visible improvement from now on I expect to see changes being imposed. TBH I'm surprised some people have survived. Well to be honest, all along you've been the leading voice for sacking pretty much everyone. I think it's fair to say your overall outlook is pretty negative. But perhaps just take their words and actions at face value. Like when they say that they've looked at the club and our vision etc sits easily with the values they've instilled throughout the organisation. They haven't changed much because the way we already go about things is compatible with what they do. I'm sure they've basically said that. And that it's part of the reason they decided to buy us. It's always seemed apparent to me that what's needed isn't a cleanout, but more resources, better facilities, more staff, and more expertise in some areas. But the people we've got, by and large, do a very good job. By what metric "are they doing a very good job?" No metric. Just observing from the outside over the last 4 years like everyone else. There have been mistakes, and maybe I'm being a bit kind, but the one unequivocally stupid thing the club has done was to employ an L plate coach, which was then compounded by cutting spending at the same time. A lot of problems flowed from that. And ultimately, that was a board decision. The new owners have backed our people and we'll see how they go with better resources and support. Edit: I still think they'll probably bring in a new CEO though. I imagine we'll have a larger organisation and more ambitious goals which might need someone new to run it.

I agree that they can't go much lower, so IMO there's enormous pressure on key people at Bunker Latrobe. If there is not visible improvement from now on I expect to see changes being imposed. TBH I'm surprised some people have survived. Well to be honest, all along you've been the leading voice for sacking pretty much everyone. I think it's fair to say your overall outlook is pretty negative. But perhaps just take their words and actions at face value. Like when they say that they've looked at the club and our vision etc sits easily with the values they've instilled throughout the organisation. They haven't changed much because the way we already go about things is compatible with what they do. I'm sure they've basically said that. And that it's part of the reason they decided to buy us. It's always seemed apparent to me that what's needed isn't a cleanout, but more resources, better facilities, more staff, and more expertise in some areas. But the people we've got, by and large, do a very good job.

Money has strings attached and I think you are making the argument regarding 'image' not colours as I've stated above. If anyone thought that someone would buy the club and plow money in and listen to supporters (most of whom have varying opinions anyway) and not their 'experts', I could have told you they need their head checked. In fact look around where in Australia are supporters being listened too? Suburban footy grounds? Gone. Waverly? Gone. The Melbourne Tigers? Changed. Bela is right that we are almost pseudo stake holders in all this. We do however have the opportunity (as do other supporters in other codes) to bring our unique and friendly supporter base and still provide the same camaraderie in the stands. We can maintain this no matter what the guys up stairs do. Perhaps the colours are the straw that broke the camels back after Aloisi now a shit stain on the club) did his ample best with the full backing of the board to run it into the ground. All the stuff the old guys did was much worse than City have done so far. They promised everything spoke to the fans and did fuck all. If people are pissed at them still (and I am) why take it out on the new guys at least let them run the club as they want and see if it reflects the values you like. It may not then I would agree with you and you can vote with your feet as you are entitled too. But at least give them the time to get their house in order and see h ow their changes pan out. It could be great or diabolical I don't wear rose coloured glasses they haven't set the world alight yet but I'm willing to give them the chance. Remember they need something out of this as an investment of their money. What they want is brand alignment and goodwill. Is that such a big price to pay for beginning to recognise the original mandate of the club. To recruit young talent and play attractive possession based football. I struggle to see how strategic alignment of colours and names even hold a candle to the ideals behind the club (which Aloisi genuinely tried to destroy). Clearly the signings made so far have reflected the valuing of youth compared to Aloisi's signings and show the club heading in the correct direction (according to my reasoning). For your information and I'd say this is a reasonable source the colour issue I've heard is or is going to be heard in Court between the club and ffa as i understand it. To that end I think we haven't heard anything yet as its still playing out. I like you would love the club to stay red and white and will be disappointed by the change but I'd say that will be more than balanced out knowing that I can watch a team that has the backing of the owners to begin realising its potential. As I've said in other posts at various times. I'm not trying to fling shit Sash and you seem like a mature poster and have very legitimate line of reasoning one in this case I disagree with for the time being. Yeah, passions can get inflamed, but it's important to keep in mind that everyone's got a right to their opinion. Great rumour by the way. If the FFA were prepared to go to court to protect our colours or whatever, that would be incredible. I've always assumed they would just rubber stamp anything the City group wanted. What a plot twist! If true, it's probably at the behest of Sydney FC.

But the owners themselves don't seem to think the supporters have a role in forging the identity of the club. Why should we stay around and support a club that will impose these changes without consulting us? Who impose these changes, not for our benefit, but to suit their 'brand allignment' strategies. Changes that have nothing to do with Melbourne or the club we've supported. So therefore, I think the 'if they change our colours they can fuck off' argument is a perfectly acceptable one.

Under our current owners, yes I would!

Fans blast Melbourne Tigers plan to abandon past Russell Gould From: Herald Sun May 19, 20144:46PM THE Melbourne Tigers decision to shed their skin and become a new entity drew a fierce backlash from basketball fans and stars of the game today. The club’s owners this morning abandoned the most iconic brand in Australian basketball and adopted a new name, Melbourne United Basketball, and new dark navy colours. Club legends Lindsay and Andrew Gaze had earlier described the change as “gut-wrenching”. Star Tigers player Lanard Copeland said he would ask that the honour of having his singlet draped from the rafters at the club arena be revoked. “It’s been a sad 18 hours,” Copeland said since he heard of the owners’ decision. “Two guys are ripping the heart out of the club. “I feel like it’s for financial gain. “I don’t want to be a part of it anymore.” Fans flooded social media to express their dismay. “No Tigers? It’s like Melbourne with no Luna Park, Flinders St clocks or MCG,” said one irate supporter on Twitter. Even the club’s Facebook site was flooded with vitriol about the decision. A failure to convert basketball fans who supported long-defunct NBL teams like the Magic, Titans and South Dragons is thought to be one of the reasons for the change. The criticism on social media comes despite the Tigers playing in front of packed houses at The Cage this season. Attendances also topped 5000 for games the Tigers played at Hisense Arena, including their first playoff matches in three season. Millionaire owners Larry Kestleman and Michael Slepoy took control of the Tigers in 2013 and vowed to make it the biggest sporting show in Melbourne. ``Basketball is going to be back, the Melbourne Tigers are back. We won’t be the quiet ones in town. We have spent some money and we’ll spend more,” Kestelman said at the time. Other changes to the club’s administration could also be announced today. The Tigers entered the NBL in 1984 and won championships in 1993, 1997, 2006 and 2008, and produced Australian legends like four-time Olympian Andrew Gaze. Geez, these rich owners sound similar to ours. And it looks like their going to be wearing navy blue!

By the way, the Melbourne Tigers NBL club are apparently changing their name to Melbourne United. Which is wierd. I don't really know much about it, but it looks like another bullshit marketing exercise from above which seems to have very little support and is being roundly criticised. It might not be particularly relevant to this thread, but I thought I'd mention it as it looks like there are parallels with us. Melbourne Tigers greats dismayed at name change Former Melbourne Tigers champion Lanard Copeland has passionately condemned the decision to change the club's name to Melbourne United, describing the move as a "disgrace." Speaking on SEN with close friend and long-time Tigers teammate Andrew Gaze, Copeland made no secret of his bewilderment and sadness at the move, which will formally be announced on Tuesday morning at 11AM. "I heard Andrew and Lindsay (Gaze) this morning, and God bless those guys they are two of the most diplomatic guys I've ever met in my life, and that's why I love them. Me at times I don't have to be as diplomatic, and can say things that are on my mind. I think it is a disgrace what these guys are going and ripping the heart out of the Melbourne Tigers," Copeland said. The two-time All-NBL First Team member, and dual championship winner with the Tigers believed that the name change had been initiated purely for financial gain, and struggled to find a single positive stemming from the call to end the Tigers' 30-year presence in the NBL, despite the fact that the nation's oldest male professional basketball team will continue to exist at both state and junior level. "The NBL itself has had its troubles, I'm gutted, I don't want to be a part of it anymore, it makes me sick to my stomach. Why tear down all this history, all the legacy, all the atmosphere, all the fun we've had over the years, why just tear that down?" Copeland said. Copeland indicated that he would not accept his retired jersey being promoted by the newly named club. "Please take my singlet down, it's not a Melbourne Tigers game. It's not a Melbourne Tigers team, I don't want my jersey hanging from the rafters." Speaking earlier on SEN, Andrew Gaze emphasised that despite the immense disappointment at the decision, the club had to look brightly into the future. "It's the end of an era for the Melbourne Tigers, and that is great, great sadness for many, many people," said Gaze. "I think the most important thing is the Melbourne Tigers live on, I'm not going to go into the history of it, but it has a long, long history and one where it will still continue to be involved in the junior competitions and the senior competitions, it just won't have that representation in the NBL, and that is particularly disappointing." Gaze took a broader view, arguing that it was in the game's best interests that the newly-named club succeed. "I don't want them to fail because it is so important for the sport and the growth of the game to have our kids to be able to play professional basketball in this country," he said. Commentator and former Tiger star Nigel Purchase later said there were opportunities for the Melbourne Tigers arising from the shock change. "(I) Certainly don't feel that Melbourne Tigers at the highest level is done and dusted," he told SEN Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/sport/basketball/melbourne-tigers-greats-dismayed-at-name-change-20140520-zri2e.html#ixzz32DcYhB5X