Melbourne Heart FC buy out - Man City, Melbourne City FC, etc.

[Koerner4]

Perhaps they will follow the 'Heart of Midlothian FC' principal and keep everyone happy with the name 'Heart of Melbourne City FC'.

To not annoy all the fans that have invested in red & white clothing last 4 years, hopefully the home kit will stay as is and they instead have a light blue away kit. This will keep the balance nicely.

At the end of the day, I have been struggling to watch the Heart this past year, and was concerned it was going to disappear. The Heart now have a great chance of improvement and challenging for honours each season moving forward. It will be the club every young Player in Melbourne will want to get into the academy of. We could see the pick of Man City's 16-17 year olds coming here, to make professional debuts, that will go onto to be world stars - providing the coaching structure follows that of head office in Manchester. We may also get to see some top older players seeing out their final few seasons fresh from the Premiership as player-assistant coaches under a class act proven head coach.

I'm looking forward to seeing a competitive team that plays fast attacking and attractive passing football.

The Heart are on the up!

All we need now to round of this positive week is for Kev to be sacked at the Victory!

Nah keep Kev until after the derby. That way they'll keep losing and we will beat them on derby day.

[El Cunado]

 

Perhaps they will follow the 'Heart of Midlothian FC' principal and keep everyone happy with the name 'Heart of Melbourne City FC'.

To not annoy all the fans that have invested in red & white clothing last 4 years, hopefully the home kit will stay as is and they instead have a light blue away kit. This will keep the balance nicely.

At the end of the day, I have been struggling to watch the Heart this past year, and was concerned it was going to disappear. The Heart now have a great chance of improvement and challenging for honours each season moving forward. It will be the club every young Player in Melbourne will want to get into the academy of. We could see the pick of Man City's 16-17 year olds coming here, to make professional debuts, that will go onto to be world stars - providing the coaching structure follows that of head office in Manchester. We may also get to see some top older players seeing out their final few seasons fresh from the Premiership as player-assistant coaches under a class act proven head coach.

I'm looking forward to seeing a competitive team that plays fast attacking and attractive passing football.

The Heart are on the up!

All we need now to round of this positive week is for Kev to be sacked at the Victory!

 

Hang on now!

 

I hope they keep the useless bastard on for another 10 seasons! 

 

So long as he lasts til March 1st I'm happy. A public sacking the day after getting hammered in the derby is a dream result. 

I'm sure Magilton is looking for a job, so they'd have a like for like replacement. 

[jw1739]

"Heart of Melbourne..." was canvassed quite some time ago. I think that there was a view that a name that would be abbreviated to something starting with "Hom..." was not a very good idea.

[Torn Asunder]

Some discussion on the FRG appeared a few posts back ... Yes, I am a member of this group and yes this group was formed by the club to represents all member types, including Active (noting the group does not include an official Yarraside rep). The Terms of Reference for the group can be found under the Represent Heart thread.

For everyone's info, there was to be a FRG meeting earlier this week, but it has been postponed to a later yet unspecified date, due to the new owners coming in.

My impression in speaking with people at the club is that things are moving fast in terms of the new owners getting a proper handle on the current setup and working mechanics ... but the general indication was hugely positive and that we are in for exciting times.

I provided my contacts at the club with a summary of the things being discussed a-plenty at present on the forum with regards to colours / name, etc. The club was also interested to know we have a whole bunch of new Manchester City friends who have joined our forum, and they are pleased that these important topics are being discussed and debated.

Who knows for sure how things will play out in terms of the re-branding, but I think its fair to say that those involved with the club know what these things (the colours in particular) mean to the current fanbase.

[tigerou812]

Melbourne City Football Club with as someone pointed out not sure who but they suggested latin underneath with Heart of the City or something along those lines. Good idea I reckon from who ever it was.

[jw1739]

"Many voices - one Heart"

 

TA - as always thank you for the feed-back on the Representative Group. Your work is appreciated.

[thedukeofhearts]

"Heart of Melbourne..." was canvassed quite some time ago. I think that there was a view that a name that would be abbreviated to something starting with "Hom..." was not a very good idea.

We can all chant like buddhist monks hehe hommmmmmm

[Sash]

This thread is doing my head in!

 

Yes:

- We are owned by the same owners as Manchester City

- We are not Manchester City Junior, Man City 'lite' or 'mini' Man City.

- We play in the A-League; continents (and Leagues) away from where Manchester City play in their Sky Blue.

- We wear Red & White stripes with Red shorts and socks

- We are Melbourne Heart!

 

Until Mr. Soriano and co. advise otherwise, my focus is on smashing Sydney FC this Friday night (even if they wear sky blue).

When Mr. Soriano and co. makes any announcement of ANY changes "during the off-season", I'll worry about it then

The problem is, if everyone worries about it then, it will be too late to do anything about it. If people don't want the re-branding to go too far, now is the time to start saying it.

 

We don't know the intentions of the new owners, and to be honest, I expect them to do what they've said they'll do and consult widely before making changes. I'll say again that I'm really excited about the future, and don't have any real reason to distrust the new owners. They're obviously smart operators and will probably do things really well if the experiences of our mates from Manchester are anything to go by.

 

But I think many of us are motivated by the general view in the public and the media that already assumes we'll be called City and playing in sky blue. Also, the FFA sounds only too willing to accomodate whatever changes the owners might want. Us supporters are the only people who can stand up for what we want. If it wasn't for supporters responding to the first Lynch article, he wouldn't now understand the way many of us feel about our colours. Until these things are resolved, I'll be expressing my views on the matter whether it be in official serveys, on this forum, or to whoever I know.

 

Sorry, because it is going around in circles at the moment with the same things being said over and over. But I think it's important we're able to state our views.

 

Also, on one level, colours seem so trivial compared with all the benefits that will come with this investment. But for people with an emotional connection to the club, it still matters.

[wombegongal]

 

I'm still shocked at the amount of negatives this forum manages to generate. So many glass half empty people here. I guess it's the 4 years of worst case scenarios happening. As I see it this is the best thing that could of happened to the club.

 

If we lose change our name and colours well so be it (I'd prefer we keep the colours personally) as long as the same group of awesome supporters continue to support and make our club great we lose nothing but some plastic part of the club created by guys most people on here wanted out. As long as I see attractive possession based football and goals I don't mind if there is some minor rebranding as the true essence of the club (the supporters) can never be changed.

 

 

Thats the question though isn't it?

 

Here's The Age's Micheal Lynch PV:

 

"The other point to consider is how Victorian supporters of other EPL teams would react if Heart was to switch to sky blue? When Carlton Soccer Club was established in the NSL it drew small crowds, despite its on-field success, as many AFL fans wouldn't barrack for a team linked to the navy blues.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/sport/soccer/red-white-and-blue-20140128-31l21.html#ixzz2rkCATIRG"

 

 

Yeah I think you are right Kiro (and for reference I enjoy reading your opinions in these forums). However I believe that our identity is more so based in our membership and attitude towards football than our colours (which is closely aligned to MCFC although we have never fulfilled it).

 

Don't get me wrong I'd prefer we kept the red and white (I'll be attending in the old school colours either way) but the toss up between not changing colours or having half assed owners who don't give a fuck or changing colours and meeting the original mandate of the club and the reason I've followed since day dot is a pretty straight forward decision for mine.

 

End of the day I'd like to have my cake and eat it too. But I'd be satisfied with a team that played good entertaining football, promotes youth and improves the state of the game in Victoria and Australia.

[carlings]

It seems there has been a 'town hall meeting' 2 weeks ago with 'New York City FC stakeholders, something that sounds similar to the Fan Forums that the previous owners did with Melbourne Heart. According to reports, the event was somewhat fractious and colourful:

 

 

New York City F.C. Stadium Town Hall turns ugly

 

By Dave Martinez, January 16, 2014

 

BRONX, N.Y. | It didn’t take long for a well-intentioned town hall meeting to break down into chaos as opponents and backers of the proposed New York City F.C. stadium in the South Bronx clashed on the issue.

 

Over 300 people, mainly Bronx residents, gathered at 900 Grand Concourse for what started as a civil discourse but quickly deteriorated into jibes and insults, culminating in one person’s ejection after an expletive laden rant.

 

The event, hosted by the 161st street BID, had several local politicians in attendance, and even a representative from the Yankees.

 

“We view this process as a vital tool that will assist us all in moving forward in a productive manner,” Brian Smith, Senior Vice President of Baseball Operations of the New York Yankees said.

 

Several people lined up to speak their mind on the project, with a plethora of community organizations, religious institutions and non-profit organizations lined up in favor of the Yankee-backed initiative, while labor workers and local residents offered tepid-curiousity or all-out opposition to the stadium.

 

Many of those organizations backing the NYCFC stadium did so from first hand knowledge of working alongside the Yankees in the local community.

 

“A lot of how we have been able to serve 1,500 children and continue to grow is largely due to the partnership we have, the volunteers and the great support of the New York Yankees,” Johnny Rivera of Harlem RBI said. “Soccer is something that is valuable, lots of people enjoy, it’s the number one sport in the world, so we support you.”

 

“We also support it because the Yankees are involved in it and the Yankees have always kept their promises to the church,” Bishop Doctor Timothy Burkett explained. “If the Yankees are involved in it, I will support it.”

 

Local residents turned a more critical eye towards the proposal, citing reported tax breaks, construction related vermin infestation, air pollution and the continued deterioration of local infrastructure in their opposition.

 

“The traffic problems are horrible, it’s not good for local businesses, after this construction, there won’t be any new jobs,” one concerned resident said. “The site will be unused more than 300 days a year. This is why people shot down Mayor Bloomberg’s idea of a Jets Stadium in Midtown.”

 

“Why would a soccer team not be able to play Yankee Stadium, Citifield or Metlife for only 35 games a year?” another resident exclaimed. “The owner of Manchester City Football is Sheihk Mansour. Why would he need public subsidies to build a stadium? His personal wealth is listed at $12 billion! Why does the South Bronx have to build him a stadium?

 

“How many jobs will the stadium create for only 35 games?” he continued. “I eat more than 35 days a year, I have to pay rent more than 35 days a year. It’s not full time jobs, it’s not benefit jobs.”

 

“Where is the Sheihk!” shouted another.

 

Those still stuck on either side of the fence seemed to have a similar message. As one Bronx resident put it, “If they want to build it, fine. Use your own money.”

 

With each speaker came plenty of sniping and cursing from the crowd. Frustrations boiled over as one speaker, a professed Communist who claimed to speak for “the working man,” unleashed an expletive laden rant on capitalism. Forced off the mic, he continued to shout and began to charge the front forum. Off-duty police and local security personnel forcibly tackled the man and escorted him from the building. Several labor representatives walked out with him in a show of solidarity.

 

This is only the beginning of what will continue to be a hot button issue. Moderator and 161st BID leader Cary Goodman called the event “a restart” to the South Bronx Stadium project. As he points out, the original Bloomberg plan, including all of it’s tax subsidies, have been shelved by the new administration. “We are starting from scratch,” he said, encouraging people to lay their concerns on the table.

 

NYCFC will likely hold the next town hall, with their representative revealing a coming forum on a date to be determined.

 

“I know for a fact that it is a priority of New York City F.C. to present the accurate facts related to the soccer stadium project and their commitment to this community in the near future in a forum similar to this this evening,” Rivera said. “That information will be confirmed and shared with all shortly.”

 

http://www.empireofsoccer.com/stadium-hall-turns-22555/

USA, nuff said.

[KSK_47]

I'm still shocked at the amount of negatives this forum manages to generate. So many glass half empty people here. I guess it's the 4 years of worst case scenarios happening. As I see it this is the best thing that could of happened to the club.

 

If we lose change our name and colours well so be it (I'd prefer we keep the colours personally) as long as the same group of awesome supporters continue to support and make our club great we lose nothing but some plastic part of the club created by guys most people on here wanted out. As long as I see attractive possession based football and goals I don't mind if there is some minor rebranding as the true essence of the club (the supporters) can never be changed.

 

 

Thats the question though isn't it?

 

Here's The Age's Micheal Lynch PV:

 

"The other point to consider is how Victorian supporters of other EPL teams would react if Heart was to switch to sky blue? When Carlton Soccer Club was established in the NSL it drew small crowds, despite its on-field success, as many AFL fans wouldn't barrack for a team linked to the navy blues.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/sport/soccer/red-white-and-blue-20140128-31l21.html#ixzz2rkCATIRG"

 

Yeah I think you are right Kiro (and for reference I enjoy reading your opinions in these forums). However I believe that our identity is more so based in our membership and attitude towards football than our colours (which is closely aligned to MCFC although we have never fulfilled it).

 

Don't get me wrong I'd prefer we kept the red and white (I'll be attending in the old school colours either way) but the toss up between not changing colours or having half assed owners who don't give a fuck or changing colours and meeting the original mandate of the club and the reason I've followed since day dot is a pretty straight forward decision for mine.

 

End of the day I'd like to have my cake and eat it too. But I'd be satisfied with a team that played good entertaining football, promotes youth and improves the state of the game in Victoria and Australia.

Ran out of likes, but pretty much this. Particularly the part about improving the standard of football Vic and Aust

[tigerou812]

 

 

I'm still shocked at the amount of negatives this forum manages to generate. So many glass half empty people here. I guess it's the 4 years of worst case scenarios happening. As I see it this is the best thing that could of happened to the club.

 

If we lose change our name and colours well so be it (I'd prefer we keep the colours personally) as long as the same group of awesome supporters continue to support and make our club great we lose nothing but some plastic part of the club created by guys most people on here wanted out. As long as I see attractive possession based football and goals I don't mind if there is some minor rebranding as the true essence of the club (the supporters) can never be changed.

 

 

Thats the question though isn't it?

 

Here's The Age's Micheal Lynch PV:

 

"The other point to consider is how Victorian supporters of other EPL teams would react if Heart was to switch to sky blue? When Carlton Soccer Club was established in the NSL it drew small crowds, despite its on-field success, as many AFL fans wouldn't barrack for a team linked to the navy blues.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/sport/soccer/red-white-and-blue-20140128-31l21.html#ixzz2rkCATIRG"

 

 

Yeah I think you are right Kiro (and for reference I enjoy reading your opinions in these forums). However I believe that our identity is more so based in our membership and attitude towards football than our colours (which is closely aligned to MCFC although we have never fulfilled it).

 

Don't get me wrong I'd prefer we kept the red and white (I'll be attending in the old school colours either way) but the toss up between not changing colours or having half assed owners who don't give a fuck or changing colours and meeting the original mandate of the club and the reason I've followed since day dot is a pretty straight forward decision for mine.

 

End of the day I'd like to have my cake and eat it too. But I'd be satisfied with a team that played good entertaining football, promotes youth and improves the state of the game in Victoria and Australia.

 

LIKE. I just want to see good football at the end of the day and know that the club wants to be the best it can be. 

[tigerou812]

Let's be positive.

 

 

Love Oddball

Edited January 29, 2014 by tigerou812

[FB.]

The way I see it, if the option back in 2010 was between following Melbourne Victory and a satellite EPL club called Melbourne City playing in sky blue (even if it was a nominal amount) I would probably have ended up following the Mongs instead or continued my uninterest in the A-League.

And knowing most people on bere who were there at the start of Melbourne Heart, I imagine most would have done the same aswell.

Most of us followed Heart because we wanted to support a club from the start that was from Melbourne and represented Melbourne. Not a club that reperesents a sporting club from overseas that's based in Melbourne.

Regardless of whether a theoretical mini Man City in Melbourne had of fulfilled a mandate of raising the game in victoria or not. The majority of us would not have gotten behind that club, either because of our own epl allegiances or because It didn't represent Melbourne.

This is the crux of the matter. If a mini man city wouldn't have interested you in 2010 as a second licence, then it shouldnt interest you now just because they've replaced our previous half arsed owners. And any change in name, colours and logo that the new owners brings takes us closer to becoming that mini man city.

Edited January 29, 2014 by FB.

[kingofhearts]

I think that regardless of what new owners we were going to get, they were always going to change the club to suit them. Lets remember there have been numerous reports of people being interested in buying heart over the years but a refusal to sell due to the new owners wanting to completely remodel the club.

 

Maybe the Man city group showed they would only change certain aspects of the club, but not the whole thing? Thats why they got the nod over other overseas buyers 

[Rellum]

To be honest I don't "#believe" anything anybody is saying. When they start doing is when I will make judgements on if I will continue to follow the Heart/City. Our Manchester friends info on what City did there gives me hope but I never take what someone in a suit is saying a face value.

[belaguttman]

I think that if anyone from MCFC is reading this they should understand that for the last 2 years we have either been given no information from the club, outdated information (everyone was always injured for 6 more weeks no matter what) or just asked to #believe even when this was contrary to evidence. Whilst I can understand the desire to gather information, consult and then announce an action (and I have no doubt that this will happen) in the absence of any communication from the new management there is anxiety that we will just end up with more of the same. Whilst this is not rational, by definition anxiety id not rational, its emotional. Some form of communication is not necessary in the decision making process at this stage but may be helpful 'stakeholder management' as the only information that we have in the vacuum is idle speculation and media musings.

Edited January 29, 2014 by belaguttman

[Rellum]

I think that of anyone from MCFC is reading this they should understand that for the last 2 years we have either been given no information from the club, outdated information (everyone was always injured for 6 more weeks no matter what) or just asked to #believe even when this was contrary to evidence. Whilst I can understand the desire to gather information, consult and then announce an action (and I have no doubt that this will happen) in the absence of any communication from the new management there is anxiety that we will just end up with more of the same. Whilst this is not rational, by definition anxiety id not rational, its emotional. Some form of communication is not necessary in the decision making process at this stage but may be helpful 'stakeholder management' as the only information that we have in the vacuum is idle speculation and media musings.

Yes I should qualify my above statement that I am exited about the possibilities of the takeover and I am comforted about the level of involvement and listening the new owners have undertaken in England , but as Bela says, we have put up with a load of gimmicks at this club so the natural state for most fans would be scepticism.

[jw1739]

The way I see it, if the option back in 2010 was between following Melbourne Victory and a satellite EPL club called Melbourne City playing in sky blue (even if it was a nominal amount) I would probably have ended up following the Mongs instead or continued my uninterest in the A-League.

And knowing most people on bere who were there at the start of Melbourne Heart, I imagine most would have done the same aswell.

Most of us followed Heart because we wanted to support a club from the start that was from Melbourne and represented Melbourne. Not a club that reperesents a sporting club from overseas that's based in Melbourne.

Regardless of whether a theoretical mini Man City in Melbourne had of fulfilled a mandate of raising the game in victoria or not. The majority of us would not have gotten behind that club, either because of our own epl allegiances or because It didn't represent Melbourne.

This is the crux of the matter. If a mini man city wouldn't have interested you in 2010 as a second licence, then it shouldnt interest you now just because they've replaced our previous half arsed owners. And any change in name, colours and logo that the new owners brings takes us closer to becoming that mini man city.

Why bother with hypotheticals that did not happen?

[Brad J]

First post here, but I’ve been reading this forum for ages. Day one member, I’m at most home games.

 

I’m personally not too worried about the name or colours in the future, but my preference is to stay with Red & White (they’re our colours after all), and keep Heart as an unofficial nickname. I don’t like those names like ‘Victory, Jets, Roar’ etc.

 

Having said that the point about the amount of other teams in Blue is a valid one, and one I’m sure they will consider when weighing all this up.

 

Aside from that what the club means to me is our goals when we started up (quality football and youth development as the path to on field results), and the quality of fans that have gotten behind it.

 

The first derby gave me all the confidence that it was going to work long term, though we seemed to  change direction under JA. 

 

The way I look at it, is colours and names aside, what are the new owners proposing to bring in? Quality coaching, youth development, good football, and the finances, experience and desire to make that happen. Brilliant! Can’t wait.

 

At the risk of being cheesy it’s whats under the surface that matters most I think. We stuck though this shit the last couple of years and didn’t go anywhere. Says a lot about the place. That’s the club to me. If they happen, I can handle some aesthetic changes on the surface.

 

In the future we will all see a familiar face or two at a game, who you know had been there too over the last few years (particularly during the JA period..), and know that they as well were putting up with all that shit leading up to the Adelaide game last year. Even if we’re in Sky Blue stuff like that will make it still feel like the same club.

[moops]

I think that of anyone from MCFC is reading this they should understand that for the last 2 years we have either been given no information from the club, outdated information (everyone was always injured for 6 more weeks no matter what) or just asked to #believe even when this was contrary to evidence. Whilst I can understand the desire to gather information, consult and then announce an action (and I have no doubt that this will happen) in the absence of any communication from the new management there is anxiety that we will just end up with more of the same. Whilst this is not rational, by definition anxiety id not rational, its emotional. Some form of communication is not necessary in the decision making process at this stage but may be helpful 'stakeholder management' as the only information that we have in the vacuum is idle speculation and media musings.

Brilliant post Bela.

[Ademchee61]

http://espnfc.com/news/story/_/id/1696696/manchester-city-face-legal-battle-melbourne-heart-re-brand?cc=3436

[jw1739]

http://espnfc.com/news/story/_/id/1696696/manchester-city-face-legal-battle-melbourne-heart-re-brand?cc=3436

And the comment underneath:

 

Victoria State 5th division.... I'm sorry, this is the equivalent to the Dog & Duck in the Oldham sunday league. A nice little donation to club funds from City should appease the amateur club

[Viva el City]

 

http://espnfc.com/news/story/_/id/1696696/manchester-city-face-legal-battle-melbourne-heart-re-brand?cc=3436

And the comment underneath:

 

Victoria State 5th division.... I'm sorry, this is the equivalent to the Dog & Duck in the Oldham sunday league. A nice little donation to club funds from City should appease the amateur club

 

That's solvable, a friendly agreement that they add 'Amateur' to their official club name (Melbourne City Amateur Football Club), along with a large donation of new equipment for them...

[jw1739]

I think that if anyone from MCFC is reading this they should understand that for the last 2 years we have either been given no information from the club, outdated information (everyone was always injured for 6 more weeks no matter what) or just asked to #believe even when this was contrary to evidence. Whilst I can understand the desire to gather information, consult and then announce an action (and I have no doubt that this will happen) in the absence of any communication from the new management there is anxiety that we will just end up with more of the same. Whilst this is not rational, by definition anxiety id not rational, its emotional. Some form of communication is not necessary in the decision making process at this stage but may be helpful 'stakeholder management' as the only information that we have in the vacuum is idle speculation and media musings.

We need to give them time. It's not yet a week since the new owners took charge. Soriano said that there would be no major announcement before the end of the season. That doesn't preclude minor announcements, and doesn't preclude consultation. The journos will soon find something else to latch on to. 

[Sash]

 

The way I see it, if the option back in 2010 was between following Melbourne Victory and a satellite EPL club called Melbourne City playing in sky blue (even if it was a nominal amount) I would probably have ended up following the Mongs instead or continued my uninterest in the A-League.

And knowing most people on bere who were there at the start of Melbourne Heart, I imagine most would have done the same aswell.

Most of us followed Heart because we wanted to support a club from the start that was from Melbourne and represented Melbourne. Not a club that reperesents a sporting club from overseas that's based in Melbourne.

Regardless of whether a theoretical mini Man City in Melbourne had of fulfilled a mandate of raising the game in victoria or not. The majority of us would not have gotten behind that club, either because of our own epl allegiances or because It didn't represent Melbourne.

This is the crux of the matter. If a mini man city wouldn't have interested you in 2010 as a second licence, then it shouldnt interest you now just because they've replaced our previous half arsed owners. And any change in name, colours and logo that the new owners brings takes us closer to becoming that mini man city.

Why bother with hypotheticals that did not happen?

 

Because it illustrates some important points.

 

Look, beyond any emotional argument about keeping our club identity, just on pure business grounds it would be dumb to implant a whole brand of anoher club into the league. As well as alienating current fans, it wont resonate with most people, like the forgotten and gone Carlton and Collingwood NSL sides and Rangers owned Northern Spirit. (To be honest, I can't even remember that that ever happened.)

 

The club can be a 'City' club, which will bring plenty of attention and other benefits. But more importantly, to succeed locally, it HAS to be a Melbourne club too. And it has to have authenticity.

Edited January 29, 2014 by Sash

[FB.]

The way I see it, if the option back in 2010 was between following Melbourne Victory and a satellite EPL club called Melbourne City playing in sky blue (even if it was a nominal amount) I would probably have ended up following the Mongs instead or continued my uninterest in the A-League.

And knowing most people on bere who were there at the start of Melbourne Heart, I imagine most would have done the same aswell.

Most of us followed Heart because we wanted to support a club from the start that was from Melbourne and represented Melbourne. Not a club that reperesents a sporting club from overseas that's based in Melbourne.

Regardless of whether a theoretical mini Man City in Melbourne had of fulfilled a mandate of raising the game in victoria or not. The majority of us would not have gotten behind that club, either because of our own epl allegiances or because It didn't represent Melbourne.

This is the crux of the matter. If a mini man city wouldn't have interested you in 2010 as a second licence, then it shouldnt interest you now just because they've replaced our previous half arsed owners. And any change in name, colours and logo that the new owners brings takes us closer to becoming that mini man city.

Why bother with hypotheticals that did not happen? Why not?

The reasons above are why many of us chose to support the 2nd Melbourne licence over the other mob.

We didn't chose to support a satelitte arm of some English/Arabic sports group. We wouldn't have bought into it then, and we don't want too now.

It's completely relevant to the thread topic.

And if Man City ppl are actually reading this thread they need to know that the current colours, logo and name etc. Are important to us and that we don't want this to be Red Bull style takeover that turns us into a mini Man City.

We are our own club with our own legacy.

Edited January 29, 2014 by FB.

[Huzie]

Wouldn't mind Robinho on 10 game guest stint

[DieHardRed]

@ FB

 

Some fine sentences there my friend - well said 
 

Have to agree and add.

I relocated from Western Suburbs of Sydney in 2009 - I didn't like SydneyFC ( had WSW been around things could have been different - but they weren't ) so i never had a club , just watched the game.

When i arrived in Melbourne I heard about a new club joining the A League and waited with baited breath . 
Firstly the Colours = My Choice ( though to be truthful i would have preferred Red & white like our third kit or just Red. 

The team = Some great choices, Aloisi,Colosimo, Skoko & Sibon, players i have seen play in different countries during there career.

The 2nd coach = Jesper Olsen - Excellent,  a player i used to admire standing on the terraces of the Stretford End during the 80's

The Name = "Heart",  Melbourne Heart Football Club - took awhile to grow on Me i have to admit, i have never taken the other names seriously as a Football Club i.e." Jets / Glory / Victory / Roar - not exactly United / City / Town / Rovers. But the more i got involved with the club the "Heart" Got Me. 

I was hooked - My new home town / My New Club 

 

Had the option been Melbourne City and the colours blue etc etc - things may have been different, I may have chosen Visitors who knows - I doubt it , but who knows .

 

At the end of the day - Melbourne Heart is the established club and has been around in this wonderful city since I have -

I want change , I welcome it - But  to me it is very important to keep the Identity > MHFC / Red & White to remain, the background staff the facilities the players etc etc this change is very exciting and City have put us on the Football merry-go-round that excites us all. 

 

If the Board and decision makers make the change to the staff / team and facilities and not touch the Shirt colours and name we will all be happy. 

If they make major changes to our identity - I anticipate a loss in memberships, not huge but some loss . 

We dont want Loss - we need to grow 

[jw1739]

 

 

The way I see it, if the option back in 2010 was between following Melbourne Victory and a satellite EPL club called Melbourne City playing in sky blue (even if it was a nominal amount) I would probably have ended up following the Mongs instead or continued my uninterest in the A-League.

And knowing most people on bere who were there at the start of Melbourne Heart, I imagine most would have done the same aswell.

Most of us followed Heart because we wanted to support a club from the start that was from Melbourne and represented Melbourne. Not a club that reperesents a sporting club from overseas that's based in Melbourne.

Regardless of whether a theoretical mini Man City in Melbourne had of fulfilled a mandate of raising the game in victoria or not. The majority of us would not have gotten behind that club, either because of our own epl allegiances or because It didn't represent Melbourne.

This is the crux of the matter. If a mini man city wouldn't have interested you in 2010 as a second licence, then it shouldnt interest you now just because they've replaced our previous half arsed owners. And any change in name, colours and logo that the new owners brings takes us closer to becoming that mini man city.

Why bother with hypotheticals that did not happen? Why not?

The reasons above are why many of us chose to support the 2nd Melbourne licence over the other mob.

We didn't chose to support a satelitte arm of some English/Arabic sports group. We wouldn't have bought into it then, and we don't want too now.

It's completely relevant to the thread topic.

And if Man City ppl are actually reading this thread they need to know that the current colours, logo and name etc. Are important to us and that we don't want this to be Red Bull style takeover that turns us into a mini Man City.

We are our own club with our own legacy.

 

Well, you've got your point of view and that's fine with me. But you don't speak for me. I did not join up with Heart because of the name, colours or logo (the things that seem to be so precious to you) but because of the three fundamental values that I saw the club as having - community engagement, development and promotion of young talent, and possession-based Euro style football. To me those things were and are far more important than the name, colours and logo. And if - the hypothetical if - in 2010 the club had been started by overseas interests it would not have affected my adoption of the Heart. It could have been any club - even though I'm a Gooner.

 

Please don't interpret the above as saying that I don't care about the colours and the name of Melbourne Heart - I do (although I confess I'm not overwhelmed by the logo). And will express that view firmly if, as and when there is an opportunity or need to say so to our new owners.

 

But please don't assume that everyone, all 7000+ season-ticket holders, joined up with Heart for the same reasons you did.

[Rellum]

60 pages of passionate debate from supporters of a club that supposedly has no identity.

Edited January 29, 2014 by Rellum

[ton1no]

Money will grow the club Ffs!

[Guido]

After letting it sink in over the past few days I have had a bit of a change of mind and definitely think we need to keep our name and colours of course.

 

Even though associated with mediocrity, the current name is something that I have grown to love over the past few years, especially through the bad times. To change the name would just seem to be disrespectful to the passionate supporters that have actually stuck around when things were shit. Also the fact that even though we didn't all like the name Heart at the start, it is the name that we got behind as the beginning of a new era of Australian football.

 

Bad history is still history, even short and the Heart name represents the club I support. Changing to City and sky blue to connect with the Man City brand is a bad idea, because we are already connected to the Melbourne identity that we have grown to.

 

(Not to mention the fact that Sky Blue represents everything NSW and everything Melbourne isn't.

[Red or Dead]

The only thing we need to change is that red sash on our away top!!

 

I reckon playing in an "Argentinian" style top with white shorts as our away kit might look great; it'll also pay homage to the original Melbourne City FC after they agree to forego their name! haha

[Sash]

 

 

 

The way I see it, if the option back in 2010 was between following Melbourne Victory and a satellite EPL club called Melbourne City playing in sky blue (even if it was a nominal amount) I would probably have ended up following the Mongs instead or continued my uninterest in the A-League.

And knowing most people on bere who were there at the start of Melbourne Heart, I imagine most would have done the same aswell.

Most of us followed Heart because we wanted to support a club from the start that was from Melbourne and represented Melbourne. Not a club that reperesents a sporting club from overseas that's based in Melbourne.

Regardless of whether a theoretical mini Man City in Melbourne had of fulfilled a mandate of raising the game in victoria or not. The majority of us would not have gotten behind that club, either because of our own epl allegiances or because It didn't represent Melbourne.

This is the crux of the matter. If a mini man city wouldn't have interested you in 2010 as a second licence, then it shouldnt interest you now just because they've replaced our previous half arsed owners. And any change in name, colours and logo that the new owners brings takes us closer to becoming that mini man city.

Why bother with hypotheticals that did not happen? Why not?

The reasons above are why many of us chose to support the 2nd Melbourne licence over the other mob.

We didn't chose to support a satelitte arm of some English/Arabic sports group. We wouldn't have bought into it then, and we don't want too now.

It's completely relevant to the thread topic.

And if Man City ppl are actually reading this thread they need to know that the current colours, logo and name etc. Are important to us and that we don't want this to be Red Bull style takeover that turns us into a mini Man City.

We are our own club with our own legacy.

 

Well, you've got your point of view and that's fine with me. But you don't speak for me. I did not join up with Heart because of the name, colours or logo (the things that seem to be so precious to you) but because of the three fundamental values that I saw the club as having - community engagement, development and promotion of young talent, and possession-based Euro style football. To me those things were and are far more important than the name, colours and logo. And if - the hypothetical if - in 2010 the club had been started by overseas interests it would not have affected my adoption of the Heart. It could have been any club - even though I'm a Gooner.

 

Please don't interpret the above as saying that I don't care about the colours and the name of Melbourne Heart - I do (although I confess I'm not overwhelmed by the logo). And will express that view firmly if, as and when there is an opportunity or need to say so to our new owners.

 

But please don't assume that everyone, all 7000+ season-ticket holders, joined up with Heart for the same reasons you did.

 

He didn't say he joined because of the colours or name. He joined because he wanted to follow a club from the start, which was a Melbourne club.

 

Which I'm sure is an important part of the reason many of us did.

 

It's easy to understand that if the club we've followed from the start, whether they've been great or shit, if that club changes fundamentally, loses it's connection to what it was previously, some unknowable number of us won't feel as attached.

[Rellum]

After letting it sink in over the past few days I have had a bit of a change of mind and definitely think we need to keep our name and colours of course.

 

Even though associated with mediocrity, the current name is something that I have grown to love over the past few years, especially through the bad times. To change the name would just seem to be disrespectful to the passionate supporters that have actually stuck around when things were shit. Also the fact that even though we didn't all like the name Heart at the start, it is the name that we got behind as the beginning of a new era of Australian football.

 

Bad history is still history, even short and the Heart name represents the club I support. Changing to City and sky blue to connect with the Man City brand is a bad idea, because we are already connected to the Melbourne identity that we have grown to.

 

(Not to mention the fact that Sky Blue represents everything NSW and everything Melbourne isn't.

 

The more bad history you suffer through the more sweet the good times are.

[FB.]

The way I see it, if the option back in 2010 was between following Melbourne Victory and a satellite EPL club called Melbourne City playing in sky blue (even if it was a nominal amount) I would probably have ended up following the Mongs instead or continued my uninterest in the A-League.

And knowing most people on bere who were there at the start of Melbourne Heart, I imagine most would have done the same aswell.

Most of us followed Heart because we wanted to support a club from the start that was from Melbourne and represented Melbourne. Not a club that reperesents a sporting club from overseas that's based in Melbourne.

Regardless of whether a theoretical mini Man City in Melbourne had of fulfilled a mandate of raising the game in victoria or not. The majority of us would not have gotten behind that club, either because of our own epl allegiances or because It didn't represent Melbourne.

This is the crux of the matter. If a mini man city wouldn't have interested you in 2010 as a second licence, then it shouldnt interest you now just because they've replaced our previous half arsed owners. And any change in name, colours and logo that the new owners brings takes us closer to becoming that mini man city.

Why bother with hypotheticals that did not happen?Why not?

The reasons above are why many of us chose to support the 2nd Melbourne licence over the other mob.

We didn't chose to support a satelitte arm of some English/Arabic sports group. We wouldn't have bought into it then, and we don't want too now.

It's completely relevant to the thread topic.

And if Man City ppl are actually reading this thread they need to know that the current colours, logo and name etc. Are important to us and that we don't want this to be Red Bull style takeover that turns us into a mini Man City.

We are our own club with our own legacy.

Well, you've got your point of view and that's fine with me. But you don't speak for me. I did not join up with Heart because of the name, colours or logo (the things that seem to be so precious to you) but because of the three fundamental values that I saw the club as having - community engagement, development and promotion of young talent, and possession-based Euro style football. To me those things were and are far more important than the name, colours and logo. And if - the hypothetical if - in 2010 the club had been started by overseas interests it would not have affected my adoption of the Heart. It could have been any club - even though I'm a Gooner.

Please don't interpret the above as saying that I don't care about the colours and the name of Melbourne Heart - I do (although I confess I'm not overwhelmed by the logo). And will express that view firmly if, as and when there is an opportunity or need to say so to our new owners.

But please don't assume that everyone, all 7000+ season-ticket holders, joined up with Heart for the same reasons you did.Read the post again.

I didn't say everyone supported the Heart because of the colours. Nor did I ever claim to speak for you.

I said the majority of us got behind the Heart in part because of the Melbourne identity. Being a club from Melbourne that represents Melbourne. If that didn't draw your interest in the slightest, then there's been nothing stopping you following barca or any other of the many european clubs that promote possesion football and youth ffs.

I'm being vocal on this issue, because if these forums are being read the last thing i want the owners to take away from here is the opinions of all the pre-pubescent 442 kit nerds and all their shitty logo re-designs and kit designs as what the majority of us want.

Bring us the money. Bring us the academies. Make profits off our players. Just do it as Melbourne Heart, not some Manchester City lite based in Melbourne.

Edited January 29, 2014 by FB.

[silva10]

Sorry MUTD/MLBHRT/ESSNDON I am a City fan and can't agree with your sentiments

 

The history of Hearts maybe only 4 years, but in that time it has gained a loyal following who's views must be listened to and wishes must be agreed to.

 

I have no qualms about following a team in Red & White.

 

No matter how much money City or our owners plough in, they should be taking the supporters with them on this journey.

[Murfy1]

Bit of a long post regarding the 'gratefulness' of Heart supporters.

 

Just to be clear, Heart supporters were enormously grateful when Man City acquired majority ownership of Melbourne Heart, and are still very appreciative now. The only difference is now that appreciation is maturing, and it's moving beyond the slightly embarrassing gushing praise that characterised the first 24 hours after the announcement. 

 

It's hard to put into words how disappointed Heart supporters were with the original owners, with 3 out of our 4 seasons providing false dawns where supporters believed we might enter a successful period, but instead we would finish at the bottom end of the table. People were very keen for these owners to go, so it was very gratifying for Man City to assume ownership of the club, and for CEO Ferran Soriano to say our club has 'huge potential', and can become one of the best clubs in Australia and Asia. And like myself, I believe Heart supporters found it a very pleasing statement by Man City that they paid more for Melbourne Heart than any investor group has ever paid to assume ownership of an A-League club, and they reportedly paid more than a group of investors will pay to buy the Western Sydney Wanderers, currently the favourite child of the A-League. 

 

But at the same time, the Man City group bought Melbourne Heart because it has strong self interests to do so. Buying Heart, like the purchase of New York City FC, will allow Man City to project its brand/affiliate brand through an entire region, in this case Australia and Asia, to a much greater extent. 

Also, whilst regions like Latin America and Africa already produce many star footballers with no need for further investment, it is pretty clear that North America and Australia & Asia were always going to need more investment to regularly produce quality footballers that can play in some of the best leagues in the world. And Australia in particular, a country described as a 'sports nation' that regularly wins many medals at the Olympics and Commonwealth games, could very imaginably produce many more quality footballers. We've qualified for the last 3 World Cups in the last decade, despite the fact that football in this country has been run on the smell of an oily rag. So whilst the Man City brand and the next self interest I'l mention are probably more important, Soriano did say on multiple occasions that the newly run Melbourne Heart will probably help more Australian footballers get bought by European clubs as well.

 

The final and deeper self interest that should be mentioned, which the 'Typical City blog' says Melbourne Heart and NYC FC supporters will have to think about, is the far from perfect human rights situation in the UAE. Sheikh Mansour is one of the richest and most powerful rulers of the UAE, being the deputy prime minister and minister of presidential affairs of the UAE, and as the Typical City blog describes the UAE 'cracks down on freedom of expression and association', 'arbitrarily [detains] scores of individuals', has unjust courts, depressing views regarding women and homosexuality and poorly treats migrant workers. To quote the Typical City blog: 'The claim that the Sheikh is using City (and now other clubs) in order to, “effectively launder the reputation of a country perpetrating serial human rights abuses,” is not a baseless one and should be thought on by all fans.' (http://typicalcity.org/2014/01/27/feature-the-city-way-from-manchester-to-new-york-to-melbourne/)

 

I've tried to get a full understanding of this takeover, it's positives and it's negatives, and it's clear it's a pretty complex situation. I believe the good significantly outweighs the bad, and am still very grateful that Man City decided to back Melbourne Heart and pay around $10 million to buy it (with Melbourne Storm paying the rest). 

But let's not act like supporters of Melbourne Heart should be eternally and uncritically grateful, as there were around 6 other consortiums that could have bought Heart (who might also have poured ample money into Heart without changing its identity). Also, Man City will likely fundamentally change the identity that many supporters (myself included) love (also, our short history makes our unique markers and identity more important, not less, as we don't have a long history to reflect on). And lastly Man City didn't buy Heart for purely altruistic reasons. Self interests made this takeover happen, such as Man City increasing its brand awareness in Asia-Pacific, making a larger pool of talented footballers in Australia (whilst having a direct link to that market of Australian footballers) and improving the UAE's soft power to influence opinion of that country (by the way, other countries, be they the USA or China, employ soft power as well, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't think about the ethical questions of the UAE's efforts).

 

Overall I think it's a real win-win relationship. And I believe the majority of Heart supporters will arrive at the same conclusion, and this mature appreciation, rather than a naive one, will ensure that supporters' appreciation will be durable and strong over the long term. A bit of a long post, but I wanted to stress that debate is healthy, as it will allow people to arrive at a mature appreciation of Man City's ownership of Heart, which will be more enduring and less volatile appreciation than a naive gushing thankfulness towards Man City. And once most supporters arrive at this appreciation (and as long as they don't completely change the identity, most, like myself, will IMO), there will be 7,000 incredibly passionate and evangelical supporters in Melbourne and Victoria, and that could end up being one Man City's biggest assets for growing this club going into next season and beyond.

[Melburnian]

Love the passion and debate here.

FB totally understand what your saying, again if they stray away from their words of "This is not a little Manchester, this is a Melbourne club" then I will be against it all. All we have is this guy's word and the word of Manchester City fans who state they are honest and will listen to us.

So I think right now, we as fans who adore our club have to stand firm on our beliefs. Our belief is the Red and White has to stay and the Heart is who we are.

My personal opinion is I prefer Melbourne City FC who are known as "Heart" same way Manchester United is known as the Red Devils. I think that's the compromise I'd be willing to make.

I agree with you though about posters doing new logos and strips with different colours etc because these people ARE reading this forum and we wouldn't want them to get ideas that it's ok for this to occur.

I strongly believe we will keep our colours but they will want the name to change. If we can include Heart into the name somehow I'm willing to compromise with it.

Just my opinion.