Popular Post johnno cpfc Posted March 31, 2014 Popular Post Report Share Posted March 31, 2014 Unfortunately we will be away on a cruise for the last game at AAMI which is a pity as we both wanted to give Harry a good send of but as i said we won't be there. As for the name /colour change we are both of the view that a name change is inevitable but we do NOT want the colours to change except maybe for a blue away strip. Thats our two-pennuth for what it is worth, See you all next season. 12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post silva10 Posted March 31, 2014 Popular Post Report Share Posted March 31, 2014 It would be good if people could stick to subject at hand. Instead of people like United taking an opportunity for sly digs at City. All of the City fans on here support the Heart fans in wanting to keep the club colours, and for me the name as well. I will be a very disappointed City fan if the Heart club colours are changed. 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted March 31, 2014 Report Share Posted March 31, 2014 I've been a member since day one, but tbh, our results haven't been good enough. This is a big step in our development in the a league and I can live with going blue. We'll always have our origins as heart though, so I hope some reference to heart is retained, like red and white stripes in the badge or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonyboozeadams Posted March 31, 2014 Report Share Posted March 31, 2014 Playing at Etihad. Fuck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
belaguttman Posted March 31, 2014 Report Share Posted March 31, 2014 Playing at Etihad. Fuck April Fool Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiro Kompiro Posted April 1, 2014 Report Share Posted April 1, 2014 I've been a member since day one, but tbh, our results haven't been good enough. This is a big step in our development in the a league and I can live with going blue. We'll always have our origins as heart though, so I hope some reference to heart is retained, like red and white stripes in the badge or something. Who will you be supporting though? It will be the new second team in Melbourne, not Heart. As for my $0.02 worth, before Hear came along I casually went to Victory games, even two Grand Finals. But I never felt any connection to them, I didn't ride every tackle, watch every pass. So if the colors are gone, to me its no longer Heart, and I may go as a casual, but not really care... Its interesting that my dad has said of the color change:" So what, Barca played in fluoro's, look at what you gain.." So its an individual decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deviant Posted April 1, 2014 Report Share Posted April 1, 2014 (edited) MELBOURNE CITY DETAILS LEAKED ONLINE TUESDAY, APRIL 01, 2014 It was always thought that after City bought out Melbourne Heart they would change their colours, logo and name, but it can now be revealed that this has been all but confirmed. The City of Melbourne website contained details of an apparent deal between Manchester City, the existing club, and the local government. In what appears to be a deal struck with the City of Melbourne, Heart are to adopt a new logo in line with the council's own artwork. It's an obvious connection between a club struggling to forge an identity and a council that desperately needs to connect with the community. Colours and style will be streamlined, with the club to use "This City is Ours" as their motto. On the webpage - the link to which has now been broken - intimate details of the partnership were shared. The Manchester City tour was confirmed by the council with Etihad Stadium naturally winning out over the MCG and the AAMI Park for hosting rights. Heart, which will in May be unveiled as Melbourne City, will also move all home games to Etihad Stadium, building on the relationship between their owners and the major sponsors of the venue. Finally, in what is an unfortunate revelation for Melbourne Victory fans, a linked document noted that Gui Finkler would be available for questions at the press conference. It's understood he will become the first official signing of Melbourne City under their new name. Heart was contacted late on Monday night but refused to acknowledge the leak, choosing instead to offer an interview with Harry Kewell to discuss his recent departure. In a strange twist of events... maybe this will change people minds or even reinforce your stance on the issue. Some really great signs, but also raising doubts... April Fools, Cunts!!! Edited April 1, 2014 by Deviant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD. Posted April 1, 2014 Report Share Posted April 1, 2014 MELBOURNE CITY DETAILS LEAKED ONLINE TUESDAY, APRIL 01, 2014 It was always thought that after City bought out Melbourne Heart they would change their colours, logo and name, but it can now be revealed that this has been all but confirmed. The City of Melbourne website contained details of an apparent deal between Manchester City, the existing club, and the local government. In what appears to be a deal struck with the City of Melbourne, Heart are to adopt a new logo in line with the council's own artwork. It's an obvious connection between a club struggling to forge an identity and a council that desperately needs to connect with the community. Colours and style will be streamlined, with the club to use "This City is Ours" as their motto. On the webpage - the link to which has now been broken - intimate details of the partnership were shared. The Manchester City tour was confirmed by the council with Etihad Stadium naturally winning out over the MCG and the AAMI Park for hosting rights. Heart, which will in May be unveiled as Melbourne City, will also move all home games to Etihad Stadium, building on the relationship between their owners and the major sponsors of the venue. Finally, in what is an unfortunate revelation for Melbourne Victory fans, a linked document noted that Gui Finkler would be available for questions at the press conference. It's understood he will become the first official signing of Melbourne City under their new name. Heart was contacted late on Monday night but refused to acknowledge the leak, choosing instead to offer an interview with Harry Kewell to discuss his recent departure. In a strange twist of events... maybe this will change people minds or even reinforce your stance on the issue. Some really great signs, but also raising doubts... April Fools, Cunts!!! April 1. Lol 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deviant Posted April 1, 2014 Report Share Posted April 1, 2014 (edited) lol you should have left it!!! did you highlight the bottom part of my text? Edited April 1, 2014 by Deviant 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MUTD/MLBHRT/ESSNDON Posted April 1, 2014 Report Share Posted April 1, 2014 I thought this was an April fools joke? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD. Posted April 1, 2014 Report Share Posted April 1, 2014 I thought this was an April fools joke? lol wot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD. Posted April 1, 2014 Report Share Posted April 1, 2014 (edited) lol you should have left it!!! did you highlight the bottom part of my text? also, don't forget our new motto, "This city is ours" haha Edited April 1, 2014 by Demon_Heart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexxandro Posted April 1, 2014 Report Share Posted April 1, 2014 Nice work. Especially the Etihad stadium bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexxandro Posted April 1, 2014 Report Share Posted April 1, 2014 I've been a member since day one, but tbh, our results haven't been good enough. This is a big step in our development in the a league and I can live with going blue. We'll always have our origins as heart though, so I hope some reference to heart is retained, like red and white stripes in the badge or something. Who will you be supporting though? It will be the new second team in Melbourne, not Heart. As for my $0.02 worth, before Hear came along I casually went to Victory games, even two Grand Finals. But I never felt any connection to them, I didn't ride every tackle, watch every pass. So if the colors are gone, to me its no longer Heart, and I may go as a casual, but not really care... Its interesting that my dad has said of the color change:" So what, Barca played in fluoro's, look at what you gain.." So its an individual decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
belaguttman Posted April 1, 2014 Report Share Posted April 1, 2014 The differences are that: Barcelona is a club not a franchise so its owned by the members Barcelona made those decisions themselves and so have ownership of the decisions, the jersey change wasn't imposed on them. Victory played their away games in their high visibility vests for 2 seasons. They were an aesthetic crime but it was a colour chosen by the franchise, not imposed by new owners. Context is important. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyalHeart Posted April 1, 2014 Report Share Posted April 1, 2014 From a branding and merchandising perspective it makes sense to have sky blue as our away kit, especially if/when we are in Asia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexxandro Posted April 1, 2014 Report Share Posted April 1, 2014 (edited) The differences are that: Barcelona is a club not a franchise so its owned by the members Barcelona made those decisions themselves and so have ownership of the decisions, the jersey change wasn't imposed on them. Victory played their away games in their high visibility vests for 2 seasons. They were an aesthetic crime but it was a colour chosen by the franchise, not imposed by new owners. Context is important. True and I don't want to become Sky Blue. Just proves the crux of the situation is not that we are changing colours but that the decision might be made for us. Fact is though that 90% of what City bring to Heart is going to be embraced by the fans. Nothing comes for free. Having said that I will fight the fight to keep the red and white. edit: this last sentence made me wonder if there should be a chant next match to keep the red and white Edited April 1, 2014 by Alexxandro 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Embee Posted April 1, 2014 Report Share Posted April 1, 2014 (edited) The differences are that: Barcelona is a club not a franchise so its owned by the members Barcelona made those decisions themselves and so have ownership of the decisions, the jersey change wasn't imposed on them. Victory played their away games in their high visibility vests for 2 seasons. They were an aesthetic crime but it was a colour chosen by the franchise, not imposed by new owners. Context is important. True and I don't want to become Sky Blue. Just proves the crux of the situation is not that we are changing colours but that the decision might be made for us. Fact is though that 90% of what City bring to Heart is going to be embraced by the fans. Nothing comes for free. Having said that I will fight the fight to keep the red and white. edit: this last sentence made me wonder if there should be a chant next match to keep the red and white Was thinking the same. I'm pretty useless when it comes to chants/songs but was thinking something along the lines of what Cardiff sing except with our own words obviously. Perhaps "We'll never be blue, we'll never be blue, we're not Man City, we'll never be blue" Edited April 1, 2014 by King Malta 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jw1739 Posted April 1, 2014 Report Share Posted April 1, 2014 The differences are that: Barcelona is a club not a franchise so its owned by the members Barcelona made those decisions themselves and so have ownership of the decisions, the jersey change wasn't imposed on them. Victory played their away games in their high visibility vests for 2 seasons. They were an aesthetic crime but it was a colour chosen by the franchise, not imposed by new owners. Context is important. Bela, IMO your penultimate sentence does not make sense. "Franchise" and "owners" are the same thing are they not? As I have expressed somewhere (there seem to be multiple threads on this subject) I hope that everyone is respected for the decision they take with respect to supporting what we currently call Melbourne Heart into the future. I would prefer to stay red-and-white, but for me the fundamental values of Heart are what counts, not the symbolism of a colour or crest; and from what I see those values are going to be enhanced by our new owners. So I'll be sticking around, just as before. Others may choose to do the opposite; I will respect their decision, but will not understand why they put symbolism before substance. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FB. Posted April 1, 2014 Report Share Posted April 1, 2014 The differences are that: Barcelona is a club not a franchise so its owned by the members Barcelona made those decisions themselves and so have ownership of the decisions, the jersey change wasn't imposed on them. Victory played their away games in their high visibility vests for 2 seasons. They were an aesthetic crime but it was a colour chosen by the franchise, not imposed by new owners. Context is important. Bela, IMO your penultimate sentence does not make sense. "Franchise" and "owners" are the same thing are they not? As I have expressed somewhere (there seem to be multiple threads on this subject) I hope that everyone is respected for the decision they take with respect to supporting what we currently call Melbourne Heart into the future. I would prefer to stay red-and-white, but for me the fundamental values of Heart are what counts, not the symbolism of a colour or crest; and from what I see those values are going to be enhanced by our new owners. So I'll be sticking around, just as before. Others may choose to do the opposite; I will respect their decision, but will not understand why they put symbolism before substance. Some would argue that the identity of the club is part of the substance of the club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyalHeart Posted April 1, 2014 Report Share Posted April 1, 2014 The differences are that: Barcelona is a club not a franchise so its owned by the members Barcelona made those decisions themselves and so have ownership of the decisions, the jersey change wasn't imposed on them. Victory played their away games in their high visibility vests for 2 seasons. They were an aesthetic crime but it was a colour chosen by the franchise, not imposed by new owners. Context is important. Bela, IMO your penultimate sentence does not make sense. "Franchise" and "owners" are the same thing are they not? As I have expressed somewhere (there seem to be multiple threads on this subject) I hope that everyone is respected for the decision they take with respect to supporting what we currently call Melbourne Heart into the future. I would prefer to stay red-and-white, but for me the fundamental values of Heart are what counts, not the symbolism of a colour or crest; and from what I see those values are going to be enhanced by our new owners. So I'll be sticking around, just as before. Others may choose to do the opposite; I will respect their decision, but will not understand why they put symbolism before substance. Some would argue that the identity of the club is part of the substance of the club. Yeah sorry JW have to respectfully disagree. Imagine if someone took over Carlton and even though they kept the same players, coaches and community ideologies but they changed the colours and identity that mirrored Hawthorn. There would be a riot. It wouldn't be the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FB. Posted April 1, 2014 Report Share Posted April 1, 2014 (edited) The differences are that: Barcelona is a club not a franchise so its owned by the members Barcelona made those decisions themselves and so have ownership of the decisions, the jersey change wasn't imposed on them. Victory played their away games in their high visibility vests for 2 seasons. They were an aesthetic crime but it was a colour chosen by the franchise, not imposed by new owners. Context is important. True and I don't want to become Sky Blue. Just proves the crux of the situation is not that we are changing colours but that the decision might be made for us. Fact is though that 90% of what City bring to Heart is going to be embraced by the fans. Nothing comes for free. Having said that I will fight the fight to keep the red and white. edit: this last sentence made me wonder if there should be a chant next match to keep the red and white Why is it assumed that we are not giving anything to Man City? Why does it have to be assumed that we have to give up our identity to get something from our new owners? Main reason Man City bought us, is to get around the financial fairplay rules and allow them to spend more in Europe. What we are giving them with all that, should be enough in itself for them. Edited April 1, 2014 by FB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jestr Posted April 1, 2014 Report Share Posted April 1, 2014 The differences are that: Barcelona is a club not a franchise so its owned by the members Barcelona made those decisions themselves and so have ownership of the decisions, the jersey change wasn't imposed on them. Victory played their away games in their high visibility vests for 2 seasons. They were an aesthetic crime but it was a colour chosen by the franchise, not imposed by new owners. Context is important. Bela, IMO your penultimate sentence does not make sense. "Franchise" and "owners" are the same thing are they not? As I have expressed somewhere (there seem to be multiple threads on this subject) I hope that everyone is respected for the decision they take with respect to supporting what we currently call Melbourne Heart into the future. I would prefer to stay red-and-white, but for me the fundamental values of Heart are what counts, not the symbolism of a colour or crest; and from what I see those values are going to be enhanced by our new owners. So I'll be sticking around, just as before. Others may choose to do the opposite; I will respect their decision, but will not understand why they put symbolism before substance. Some would argue that the identity of the club is part of the substance of the club. I would.... City group have made some bald statements regarding our future. They mentioned retaining some core elements which they regard as important to supporters and the club Very soon we will all know whether we are just another cog in the city group business model or they fundamentally believe in this club and its short yet colourful history. They will show their true colours when it's time. For now I just wait and disregard the ambiguous reporting which gives us little if any substance yet lots of angst. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
belaguttman Posted April 1, 2014 Report Share Posted April 1, 2014 The differences are that: Barcelona is a club not a franchise so its owned by the members Barcelona made those decisions themselves and so have ownership of the decisions, the jersey change wasn't imposed on them. Victory played their away games in their high visibility vests for 2 seasons. They were an aesthetic crime but it was a colour chosen by the franchise, not imposed by new owners. Context is important. Bela, IMO your penultimate sentence does not make sense. "Franchise" and "owners" are the same thing are they not? As I have expressed somewhere (there seem to be multiple threads on this subject) I hope that everyone is respected for the decision they take with respect to supporting what we currently call Melbourne Heart into the future. I would prefer to stay red-and-white, but for me the fundamental values of Heart are what counts, not the symbolism of a colour or crest; and from what I see those values are going to be enhanced by our new owners. So I'll be sticking around, just as before. Others may choose to do the opposite; I will respect their decision, but will not understand why they put symbolism before substance. I'll clarify what I mean.'club' and 'owners' are used interchangeably but they aren't quite the same thing. CFG and the Storm consortium are the owners of the franchise, but the fans are 'owners' of the club, not in a legal sense but the fans are more than just stakeholders or customers, we are the heart and soul of the club even though we have no financial stake in it. The franchise owners are custodians of the club through their ownership of the franchise. As we can see with other HAL franchises this is sometimes a difficult relationship and there are inherent fault lines in this model. Changes of important symbolic things like name and colours can happen at the whim of the franchise owner, but will only work with the support of the fans. CFG are still unproven 'outsiders' as far as their custodianship goes, if they want any change of colours to work for them then timing is important. It makes little sense to change colours at this early stage in their relationship with us and risk the benefits of our relationship with them, when a colours change at a time that is consensual and occurs from a position of trust and occurs from within the 'club' (as opposed to the 'franchise owners') will be accepted in a positive way, just as a club like Barca can change their colours without there being any question of identity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jw1739 Posted April 1, 2014 Report Share Posted April 1, 2014 Bela, you are making the assumption that the "club" exists outside the franchise. It doesn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bt50 Posted April 1, 2014 Report Share Posted April 1, 2014 [quote name="Jestr" post="169866" timestamp="I would.... City group have made some bald statements regarding our future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
belaguttman Posted April 1, 2014 Report Share Posted April 1, 2014 Bela, you are making the assumption that the "club" exists outside the franchise. It doesn't. Yes, I'm saying that there is a large overlap between the 2, Franchise + supporters = club Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheStig Posted April 1, 2014 Report Share Posted April 1, 2014 (edited) How's this for an idea. Rather than being red and white or light blue and white, why can't we simply be red, white and blue?. In other words we keep our heritage but add a bit of sky blue to the mix? That seems like a reasonable compromise and one that could be accommodated easily. In other words we would have a similar logo to New York City but the outside circle would be red. If City are sensible they will look over at Victory and the way that the supporter base there has been put offside. Do City really want the kind of boycotts that the Victory supporters have been staging because that's where it will lead? Also red, white and blue are Australian colours and the inclusion of the southern cross somewhere on the uniform would be an appropriate nod to Victoria's history - just look at the Eureka flag. cheers Peter Edited April 1, 2014 by pberrett Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate Posted April 1, 2014 Report Share Posted April 1, 2014 How's this for an idea. Rather than being red and white or light blue and white, why can't we simply be red, white and blue?. In other words we keep our heritage but add a bit of sky blue to the mix? That seems like a reasonable compromise and one that could be accommodated easily. In other words we would have a similar logo to New York City but the outside circle would be red. If City are sensible they will look over at Victory and the way that the supporter base there has been put offside. Do City really want the kind of boycotts that the Victory supporters have been staging because that's where it will lead? Also red, white and blue are Australian colours and the inclusion of the southern cross somewhere on the uniform would be an appropriate nod to Victoria's history - just look at the Eureka flag. cheers Peter We are red and white. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caddy Posted April 1, 2014 Report Share Posted April 1, 2014 How's this for an idea. cheers Peter Terrible idea. How's this for an idea: We stay red and white? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M13 Posted April 1, 2014 Report Share Posted April 1, 2014 When are stuff like next seasons shirt normally leaked or displayed?.. I mean, it´s not an instant thing so something might get leaked from China or wherever they manufacture the stuff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Falastur Posted April 1, 2014 Report Share Posted April 1, 2014 Main reason Man City bought us, is to get around the financial fairplay rules and allow them to spend more in Europe. What we are giving them with all that, should be enough in itself for them. I doubt that. UEFA have been very hot on closing loopholes and on restating that they reserve the right to cross out any entry in the accountant's logs which they disagree with (which they think is above "market value") and replace it with the figure that they think is correct. There's some debate over whether or not the "intellectual property" cited in City's latest accounts was to do with selling the name or not - it could easily be a number of other things - but if UEFA decide that City is bending the rules one way or another to save/make money for the Manchester club, they will simply take out the red pen and cross the sums out of our accounts. There'd be no point in spending all of this money just to make one season's worth of extra income before UEFA slam the door and hammer the boards over it, then padlock the boards and finally weld the padlocks to the metal-plated UEFA goon standing in front of the door. Personally, I think it's much more about the idea of creating a global network in an attempt at overcoming United's fanbase and trying to create something on a scale not seen before in all of world sports. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rellum Posted April 1, 2014 Report Share Posted April 1, 2014 When are stuff like next seasons shirt normally leaked or displayed?.. I mean, it´s not an instant thing so something might get leaked from China or wherever they manufacture the stuff Around July to August. There will be no colour announcement if the history of the A-League is any guide, they will just have a jersey un-veiling. The first chance we will get to see a major hint on the colours is when they release the logo and new name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Posted April 1, 2014 Report Share Posted April 1, 2014 When are stuff like next seasons shirt normally leaked or displayed?.. I mean, it´s not an instant thing so something might get leaked from China or wherever they manufacture the stuff Around July to August. There will be no colour announcement if the history of the A-League is any guide, they will just have a jersey un-veiling. The first chance we will get to see a major hint on the colours is when they release the logo and new name. I think you'll see it much earlier than that, to establish the new ownership with the public. Wouldn't be suprised if it's in May when man city is here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
japiedog Posted April 1, 2014 Report Share Posted April 1, 2014 When are stuff like next seasons shirt normally leaked or displayed?.. I mean, it´s not an instant thing so something might get leaked from China or wherever they manufacture the stuff Around July to August. There will be no colour announcement if the history of the A-League is any guide, they will just have a jersey un-veiling. The first chance we will get to see a major hint on the colours is when they release the logo and new name. I think you'll see it much earlier than that, to establish the new ownership with the public. Wouldn't be suprised if it's in May when man city is here I can't see a colour change before that Imagine Man City in Sky Blue versus Melbourne City in Sky Blue ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Posted April 1, 2014 Report Share Posted April 1, 2014 When are stuff like next seasons shirt normally leaked or displayed?.. I mean, it´s not an instant thing so something might get leaked from China or wherever they manufacture the stuff Around July to August. There will be no colour announcement if the history of the A-League is any guide, they will just have a jersey un-veiling. The first chance we will get to see a major hint on the colours is when they release the logo and new name. I think you'll see it much earlier than that, to establish the new ownership with the public. Wouldn't be suprised if it's in May when man city is here I can't see a colour change before that Imagine Man City in Sky Blue versus Melbourne City in Sky Blue ! Away kits...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melburnian Posted April 2, 2014 Report Share Posted April 2, 2014 Red and White. Or out. Simple as that for me. It will not be our club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milanista93 Posted April 2, 2014 Report Share Posted April 2, 2014 When it all boils down, in this instance, changing colours isn’t about changing colours. If the club, upon consultation with the fans, decided to change to say, green kits, there’d be no issue. Things like that aren’t uncommon in football. But that’s not what we have here. The situation we are faced with is a super-dooper rich club coming in and buying out a small club on the other side of the world. Which is fine. In fact, it has the potential to be great – for the club, the league and the game here in Australia. However, if the new owners of Melbourne Heart were to wipe the slate clean, and change the clubs name, colours and logo – its identity – we aren’t just left with a new club, we’re left with a corporate entity. Corporatisation is rife in modern football, and supporters around the globe are constantly complaining about the money hungry ruining what we love about the sport. Fans being pushed aside for the sake of an extra dollar – it happens every day. “Against modern football” is a common catch-cry in today’s terraces, and for good reason. It’s no longer about ‘the beautiful game’, but ‘the beautiful dollar’. Some may argue that MCFC may not be gaining much financially by changing our colours, and this remains to be seen, however, what they would be doing is expanding their brand. I don’t want to support a brand, I want to support MY club. Football shouldn’t be about the brand. On top of this, it’s what a change in name and colours (because let’s face it, while more are okay with a name change, there still doesn’t seem to be more than a handful who actively WANT one) says about the new owners view of the current fans. It’s been made very clear that, given the choice, we want to stay red and white, and for the majority, remain Melbourne HEART. One of the first things CFG said after the takeover was announced was that they would listen to what the fans want. Given that, if they were to now turn around and turn us into a mini Manchester City – Melbourne City, playing in sky blue, to me, that’s nothing more than a big ol’ fuck you to those of us who have put our blood, sweat and tears into this club. I chose Heart because they stood for the fans, they stood for the community. If the new owners were to kick off with such disrespect to us and to their word, that erases the core values of what I love so much about Melbourne Heart. I simply can’t support that. Credit to those who can, but that’s just not what I want in a club. Look, at the end of the day, nothing is set in stone until announcements are made. CFG have shown with NYCFC that they can take fans opinion into account, so I have faith they will do the same here. Only time will tell. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jestr Posted April 2, 2014 Report Share Posted April 2, 2014 Red and White. Or out. Simple as that for me. It will not be our club. I think it's the other thread Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shahanga Posted April 2, 2014 Report Share Posted April 2, 2014 When it all boils down, in this instance, changing colours isn’t about changing colours. If the club, upon consultation with the fans, decided to change to say, green kits, there’d be no issue. Things like that aren’t uncommon in football. But that’s not what we have here. The situation we are faced with is a super-dooper rich club coming in and buying out a small club on the other side of the world. Which is fine. In fact, it has the potential to be great – for the club, the league and the game here in Australia. However, if the new owners of Melbourne Heart were to wipe the slate clean, and change the clubs name, colours and logo – its identity – we aren’t just left with a new club, we’re left with a corporate entity. Corporatisation is rife in modern football, and supporters around the globe are constantly complaining about the money hungry ruining what we love about the sport. Fans being pushed aside for the sake of an extra dollar – it happens every day. “Against modern football” is a common catch-cry in today’s terraces, and for good reason. It’s no longer about ‘the beautiful game’, but ‘the beautiful dollar’. Some may argue that MCFC may not be gaining much financially by changing our colours, and this remains to be seen, however, what they would be doing is expanding their brand. I don’t want to support a brand, I want to support MY club. Football shouldn’t be about the brand. On top of this, it’s what a change in name and colours (because let’s face it, while more are okay with a name change, there still doesn’t seem to be more than a handful who actively WANT one) says about the new owners view of the current fans. It’s been made very clear that, given the choice, we want to stay red and white, and for the majority, remain Melbourne HEART. One of the first things CFG said after the takeover was announced was that they would listen to what the fans want. Given that, if they were to now turn around and turn us into a mini Manchester City – Melbourne City, playing in sky blue, to me, that’s nothing more than a big ol’ fuck you to those of us who have put our blood, sweat and tears into this club. I chose Heart because they stood for the fans, they stood for the community. If the new owners were to kick off with such disrespect to us and to their word, that erases the core values of what I love so much about Melbourne Heart. I simply can’t support that. Credit to those who can, but that’s just not what I want in a club. Look, at the end of the day, nothing is set in stone until announcements are made. CFG have shown with NYCFC that they can take fans opinion into account, so I have faith they will do the same here. Only time will tell. Sensational post. Wondering when Man City are going to start their promised "consultation"? Surely they aren't counting that crappy survey they sent out. All in can say is they might have the power to "Do a Tan" BUT they can't decide how I will respond. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.