What jerseys colours do we favour next season irrespective of the franchise name?

[jw1739]

I have to say that, while the sky blue shorts don't look too bad in those mock-ups, I actually am not sure they'd look that great in practice. Keep the current colour combination IMO. Play around with the away colours instead, if anything.

I'd be interested in your opinion Falastur. Have City always had the same shade of sky blue? I have in my mind that it is lighter now than it used to be, but perhaps it's my memory playing tricks!

[CaNNaVo93]

Bunch of concepts from Heart and non-heart fans.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/melbourne-heart-rebrand-melbourne-city.1047213/

[schrecky]

Ive decided colours should stay as is. I Love man city , but heart is home and the red and white has always looked best, and probably one of the best in the league.

The kit wasn't our problem... We can win in Red.

 

Any ideas to change to blue will now get a thumbs down from me  

 

Our Arch enemies are Blue - we are Red.

[KD.]

Melbourne Heart name to stay as is
Logo can change
Melbourne is Red and White and so should our colours

[Heart_fan]

I am sure sky blue will come into the design somewhere.

 

They need to try and import something of their main brand (Man City), and having blue will cover that. To what extent will be interesting..

[United]

Honestly, for the life of me I can't see how anyone would immediately think that HeartFC had a connection with ManC just because we had some blue in our shorts, tops or whatever. The whole colour debate is stirred up by some local ManC fans and journos looking for an angle on the story. If you want to make the conenction obvious then you might as well call us ManchesterCity-in-MelbourneFC. Oh fcuk no please only stirring Sheikh

Its rather dumb how blown out of proportion it all is and how it makes no sense, whatsoever. Once again, City owners, who arent from manchester city incase you didnt know, have bought this club, NOT Manchester City, nor local manchester representatives. We are in no way shape or form anything like them and have absolutely no reason to have ANYTHING to do with them, other than be known for having the same owners, thats where the link starts and finishes. To see people doing mock jerseys, with sky blue in them, i sont know whether to cry or laugh at the stupidity of those that even started suggesting such things. Club colours mean something, they arent to be treated like a colouring book.

[jw1739]

 

Honestly, for the life of me I can't see how anyone would immediately think that HeartFC had a connection with ManC just because we had some blue in our shorts, tops or whatever. The whole colour debate is stirred up by some local ManC fans and journos looking for an angle on the story. If you want to make the conenction obvious then you might as well call us ManchesterCity-in-MelbourneFC. Oh fcuk no please only stirring Sheikh

Its rather dumb how blown out of proportion it all is and how it makes no sense, whatsoever. Once again, City owners, who arent from manchester city incase you didnt know, have bought this club, NOT Manchester City, nor local manchester representatives. We are in no way shape or form anything like them and have absolutely no reason to have ANYTHING to do with them, other than be known for having the same owners, thats where the link starts and finishes. To see people doing mock jerseys, with sky blue in them, i sont know whether to cry or laugh at the stupidity of those that even started suggesting such things. Club colours mean something, they arent to be treated like a colouring book.

 

I think you should read again http://www.footballaustralia.com.au/melbourneheart/news-display/A-Letter-from-the-CEO-of-Manchester-City-FC/84083

 

It is indeed Manchester City that has taken an 80% share of the ownership of Melbourne Heart.

[Heart_fan]

 

Honestly, for the life of me I can't see how anyone would immediately think that HeartFC had a connection with ManC just because we had some blue in our shorts, tops or whatever. The whole colour debate is stirred up by some local ManC fans and journos looking for an angle on the story. If you want to make the conenction obvious then you might as well call us ManchesterCity-in-MelbourneFC. Oh fcuk no please only stirring Sheikh

Its rather dumb how blown out of proportion it all is and how it makes no sense, whatsoever. Once again, City owners, who arent from manchester city incase you didnt know, have bought this club, NOT Manchester City, nor local manchester representatives. We are in no way shape or form anything like them and have absolutely no reason to have ANYTHING to do with them, other than be known for having the same owners, thats where the link starts and finishes. To see people doing mock jerseys, with sky blue in them, i sont know whether to cry or laugh at the stupidity of those that even started suggesting such things. Club colours mean something, they arent to be treated like a colouring book.

 

 

I'd love to agree with you, but I do feel its more than likely the club will become Melbourne City FC and some kind of common branding will appear.

 

The well considered comments that CFG reps have made so far make mention of a common branding being something that they would look at, although would seek input from fans and stakeholders before any changes were made. With NYCFC also on their books, it will look at ways to make sure all 3 clubs can leverage off a central brand element IMHO.

 

I am sure the branding gurus are hard at work coming up with concepts for the club now.

[United]

Honestly, for the life of me I can't see how anyone would immediately think that HeartFC had a connection with ManC just because we had some blue in our shorts, tops or whatever. The whole colour debate is stirred up by some local ManC fans and journos looking for an angle on the story. If you want to make the conenction obvious then you might as well call us ManchesterCity-in-MelbourneFC. Oh fcuk no please only stirring Sheikh

Its rather dumb how blown out of proportion it all is and how it makes no sense, whatsoever. Once again, City owners, who arent from manchester city incase you didnt know, have bought this club, NOT Manchester City, nor local manchester representatives. We are in no way shape or form anything like them and have absolutely no reason to have ANYTHING to do with them, other than be known for having the same owners, thats where the link starts and finishes. To see people doing mock jerseys, with sky blue in them, i sont know whether to cry or laugh at the stupidity of those that even started suggesting such things. Club colours mean something, they arent to be treated like a colouring book.

I think you should read again http://www.footballaustralia.com.au/melbourneheart/news-display/A-Letter-from-the-CEO-of-Manchester-City-FC/84083

 

It is indeed Manchester City that has taken an 80% share of the ownership of Melbourne Heart.

Heart needs to have its own identity, colours and name is a big part of that, its forever in the history of the club. I'm Trying to point out, the fact we have same owner, doesnt justify or require us adopting anything of theirs. Using their facilities is fine, afterall the same sugar daddy is paying for it anyway as per that article. Not else sure what your post is trying to imply.

[United]

Honestly, for the life of me I can't see how anyone would immediately think that HeartFC had a connection with ManC just because we had some blue in our shorts, tops or whatever. The whole colour debate is stirred up by some local ManC fans and journos looking for an angle on the story. If you want to make the conenction obvious then you might as well call us ManchesterCity-in-MelbourneFC. Oh fcuk no please only stirring Sheikh

Its rather dumb how blown out of proportion it all is and how it makes no sense, whatsoever. Once again, City owners, who arent from manchester city incase you didnt know, have bought this club, NOT Manchester City, nor local manchester representatives. We are in no way shape or form anything like them and have absolutely no reason to have ANYTHING to do with them, other than be known for having the same owners, thats where the link starts and finishes. To see people doing mock jerseys, with sky blue in them, i sont know whether to cry or laugh at the stupidity of those that even started suggesting such things. Club colours mean something, they arent to be treated like a colouring book.

 

I'd love to agree with you, but I do feel its more than likely the club will become Melbourne City FC and some kind of common branding will appear.

 

The well considered comments that CFG reps have made so far make mention of a common branding being something that they would look at, although would seek input from fans and stakeholders before any changes were made. With NYCFC also on their books, it will look at ways to make sure all 3 clubs can leverage off a central brand element IMHO.

 

I am sure the branding gurus are hard at work coming up with concepts for the club now.

I hate the fact its a catch 22. You know the clubs better off, but if its not the club you initially started supporting, then fuck it.

[strider]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Falastur]

 

I have to say that, while the sky blue shorts don't look too bad in those mock-ups, I actually am not sure they'd look that great in practice. Keep the current colour combination IMO. Play around with the away colours instead, if anything.

I'd be interested in your opinion Falastur. Have City always had the same shade of sky blue? I have in my mind that it is lighter now than it used to be, but perhaps it's my memory playing tricks!

 

 

We've played in "sky blue" since 1894, but during the 1990s and 2000s the exact shade did change, you're right. The darker colours you are thinking of are probably from our "laser blue" era. This kind of thing:

 

 

This kit seems almost as dark a blue as Chelsea's in this picture, I will admit, though on the pitch even the darker coloured shirts often appeared much lighter in tone.

 

However, this was more of a way of new kit manufacturers, after signing a deal to replace another manufacturer, to express themselves and give their kits a bit more personality to distinguish them from previous designs. Also, it helped to sell shirts if your kit looked different enough that someone wearing the previous shirt was clearly seen to be "out of date". It wasn't part of a conscious attempt at altering the colour scheme of City's kits.

Edited February 12, 2014 by Falastur

[M13]

You never really know if Manchester City FC means MCFC Ltd (that club in Manchester) or City Football Group Ltd (CFG) which is the London based holding company found on the top floors at 10 Brock Street Regents Place

http://manchesterhistory.net/architecture/2010/10brock.html

Edited February 12, 2014 by M13

[malloy]

My thoughts are that we were bought with financial fair play rules in mind. If this is the case we would need to be owned by the owner of MCFC not the club itself. This also makes me a bit worried in the sense that if we are to pay an image licence fee to Man City, like NYC, we will have to be using their image ie colours and name...

[Embee]

My thoughts are that we were bought with financial fair play rules in mind. If this is the case we would need to be owned by the owner of MCFC not the club itself. This also makes me a bit worried in the sense that if we are to pay an image licence fee to Man City, like NYC, we will have to be using their image ie colours and name...

 

The colour Sky Blue is not copyrighted though, and they won't just assign us their exact same badge. 

 

Maybe someone can shed a little more light on this, but I'd assume image rights would be more down to us using their insignia/pictures of their players somewhere in our facilities, on hoardings at games, in membership marketing etc. etc. Maybe one of our City friends can explain a little more about what exactly they're charging for in regards to image rights?

Edited February 13, 2014 by King Malta

[Falastur]

 

My thoughts are that we were bought with financial fair play rules in mind. If this is the case we would need to be owned by the owner of MCFC not the club itself. This also makes me a bit worried in the sense that if we are to pay an image licence fee to Man City, like NYC, we will have to be using their image ie colours and name...

 

The colour Sky Blue is not copyrighted though, and they won't just assign us their exact same badge. 

 

Maybe someone can shed a little more light on this, but I'd assume image rights would be more down to us using their insignia/pictures of their players somewhere in our facilities, on hoardings at games, in membership marketing etc. etc. Maybe one of our City friends can explain a little more about what exactly they're charging for in regards to image rights?

 

 

We don't know. City, in their financial report a few weeks back, just claimed that we'd received a few million for the sale of "intellectual property". That could be anything really - it could mean selling on our performance analysis software, or our CityTV model or anything. The press just jumped straight in and claimed it was an accounting trick using NYCFC to pay ourselves money. That might be true, or it might be false. Thing is, our board members know when to simply not say a word, so I don't think it'll ever be revealed for sure what it was. Give it a few months and everyone will simply forget about it.

[Peter]

I still say that we should retain our own club name, colours, logo and identity. What happens in four years time if MC pull the pin and we are left high and dry with the leftovers of a failed venture? Northern Spirit Rangers anyone? Build up the Heart I say. COYBIR

 

Edit: I don't object to city groups financial investment, but I have no interest in MCFC and although there are some good points to the city, one of my favourite memories of Manchester was leaving.

We are Melbourne Heart.

Edited February 13, 2014 by Peter

[HEARTinator]

I still say that we should retain our own club name, colours, logo and identity. What happens in four years time if MC pull the pin and we are left high and dry with the leftovers of a failed venture? Northern Spirit Rangers anyone? Build up the Heart I say. COYBIR

 

Edit: I don't object to city groups financial investment, but I have no interest in MCFC and although there are some good points to the city, one of my favourite memories of Manchester was leaving.

We are Melbourne Heart.

Agree in principle. Our underlying identity should continue on irrespective of ownership. Therefore the predominant, or only colours should be red&white at home. Away is a different matter. As for the name, I can accept "City" being introduced somewhere - but only because I think it better identifies us with the city of Melbourne compared with "Victory" which tends to suggest Victoria.

As for Northern Spirit (I don't think they ever added "Rangers" to their name), they changed their strip to Rangers blue FFS

http://www.aussiekits.com/northern_spirit/northern_spirit.htm

[KSK_47]

I still say that we should retain our own club name, colours, logo and identity. What happens in four years time if MC pull the pin and we are left high and dry with the leftovers of a failed venture? Northern Spirit Rangers anyone? Build up the Heart I say. COYBIR

Edit: I don't object to city groups financial investment, but I have no interest in MCFC and although there are some good points to the city, one of my favourite memories of Manchester was leaving.

We are Melbourne Heart.

Agree in principle. Our underlying identity should continue on irrespective of ownership. Therefore the predominant, or only colours should be red&white at home. Away is a different matter. As for the name, I can accept "City" being introduced somewhere - but only because I think it better identifies us with the city of Melbourne compared with "Victory" which tends to suggest Victoria.

As for Northern Spirit (I don't think they ever added "Rangers" to their name), they changed their strip to Rangers blue FFShttp://www.aussiekits.com/northern_spirit/northern_spirit.htm Correct. They never changed their name. But you will notice that they had a rangers badge on their shirts as well as their own

Edited February 13, 2014 by KSK_47

[jw1739]

I still say that we should retain our own club name, colours, logo and identity. What happens in four years time if MC pull the pin and we are left high and dry with the leftovers of a failed venture? Northern Spirit Rangers anyone? Build up the Heart I say. COYBIR

 

Edit: I don't object to city groups financial investment, but I have no interest in MCFC and although there are some good points to the city, one of my favourite memories of Manchester was leaving.

We are Melbourne Heart.

Northern Spirit Rangers? Come on. That was 16 years ago. Why drag that up - has nothing to do with the present situation.

 

People have been on here bagging Melbourne Heart for the past season and a half. Incessantly. There's a thread about the name and logo - do you like it? People demanding change throughout the whole organisation - bagging the Sidwell Board at every opportunity.

 

Now there is a change in ownership. That's all that has changed. The new owners have talked about consultation - "listen and learn" I believe is the phrase they are using. It's three weeks since they took over. Give them a bloody chance.

[Peter]

JW, of course I am giving them a chance. Just stating what I see our club being and the jersey I would have us wear (so far I have bought four different ones and don't want to have $400 wasted on a club that doesn't exist anymore) - the jersey which is ours.

No, Rangers was not introduced into the Northern Spirit name, but the Rangers "branding" was prominent and took over the Northern Spirit identity, alienating supporters of the likes of Celtic and Barcelona and others who bat for that team. Which is why we should keep Melbourne Heart, Melbourne Heart as people with British allegiances will not usually support another club (eg. north, south or shire or county rivalries). How many Newcastle supporters would follow Heart if Sunderland took over? Arsenal if Tottenham? Man U if Man City. We are Melbourne Heart and 16 years doesn't make a difference if you can no longer relate to the club. That is why Man City should be in the background and Melbourne Heart be our club.

And the reason people have been bagging Heart for the past year and a half is because we have been rubbish. The same reason JVS gave for leaving (I get the feeling he new about the selling off of our quality players for the budget boys). That is why Sidwell has been copping it on here.

In my experience, when people come in and say they will "listen and learn", it usually means they will listen and do whatever they want. As nothing has happened yet, I will give the new owners the benefit of the doubt, but I have no association with Man City, nor do I want one. I support Melbourne Heart, we wear Red and White and I'll see you in the Yarra End.

And yes, I do find it hard to separate the colours from the rest of what I feel about the club. It is an all in all package as far as I am concerned.

[jw1739]

All I can say mate is that if you don't want an association with Manchester City then you might as well cut off your nose to spite your face and leave now. Because Manchester City already owns 80% of Melbourne Heart. And it's fine by me if you don't want Heart coaches and players to have access to City's world-class global resources, including scouting, coaching, human performance and performance analysis, that you don't want the increased professionalism that will be brought to Heart management, the Heart Youth Academy, coaches and players spending time at the City Football Academy, the new pathways that will emerge for coaches and players within the City stable of clubs, and the marquee players that will come to Heart, and if you don't want Heart to fulfill its immense potential both on and off the field, within Australia and beyond.

 

Well, I do want all those things. So I'll be sticking around and enjoying the ride.

[Tommykins]

Uh huh. And if the club changes name and colours and every other aspect, whose ride are you on?

Don't disagree with you, but there are people who live and breathe the red and white of Melbourne Heart!

[tigerou812]

Uh huh. And if the club changes name and colours and every other aspect, whose ride are you on?

Don't disagree with you, but there are people who live and breathe the red and white of Melbourne Heart!

Never got this live and breathe stuff. Don't get me wrong I love the club and all that but just never got it. Not having a go at people. I suppose if any of my clubs that I follow had to end or merge I would just follow the new club. I would be upset but hey life goes on. I suppose I just look at it as a new chapter in the clubs history.  

[Nate]

Away kit can be sky blue, but the home kit stays red and white.

 

It's that simple.

[M13]

 

My thoughts are that we were bought with financial fair play rules in mind. If this is the case we would need to be owned by the owner of MCFC not the club itself. This also makes me a bit worried in the sense that if we are to pay an image licence fee to Man City, like NYC, we will have to be using their image ie colours and name...

 

The colour Sky Blue is not copyrighted though, and they won't just assign us their exact same badge. 

 

Maybe someone can shed a little more light on this, but I'd assume image rights would be more down to us using their insignia/pictures of their players somewhere in our facilities, on hoardings at games, in membership marketing etc. etc. Maybe one of our City friends can explain a little more about what exactly they're charging for in regards to image rights?

 

 

One of the more clued up guys on Bluemoon offered this on the IP-rights..

"This IP business has created a bit of a storm, and it seems to me that a lot of people think it's just a ruse City have plucked out of the air to cut down our losses. However, it’s quite common in the way that global holding companies run their business when they have subsidiaries in a number of different countries, and this is the set-up that City are creating.

In essence, what we’re dealing with here is a device where a company forms a subsidiary to carry out operations in another territory, and they enter into what's called a cost sharing arrangement (CSA). Under this kind of arrangement, the companies share intangible costs that will be separately exploited by each of the participants.

Thus, for example, where R&D is carried out by the head office but will benefit all group companies, they all chip in for it in proportions that are in line with the proportions of the anticipated benefits they can expect to derive. This, I think, is why Ferran specifically mentioned recently that NYCFC will have use of City's international scouting network and commercial operation. They'll pay for it too, and those areas of MCFC's activity are world leaders so the services in question probably won't come cheaply.

Secondly, when a CSA is set up, you'll quite commonly find that one company already owns intangible assets which it then makes available to the others, and those others will benefit when they carry out their operations in future. This is very frequently met in the context of intellectual property. Let’s say that company A sets up a subsidiaries B and C to manufacture and sell company A's products (whether that’s chocolates or cigarettes or cosmetics or something else) in territories D and E. If company A is a well-known global brand, subsidiaries B and C have much better prospects if they sell the goods under company A's trademark(s)than if they sell the same goods under completely unknown brand F. This will be reflected in revenues down the track.

The standard way of dealing with this is for company A along with subsidiaries B and C to create a CSA, and for subsidiaries B and C to do something that’s known as "buying in". This means that they pay a lump sum at the inception of the CSA for future use of the rights. And later, when the CSA is up and running, if company A develops and makes further intangibles available to the participants in the CSA, then a further buy-in (often called an “acquisition buy-in”) takes place.

The rationale of this is that by settling things in this way at the outset, the parties can move on knowing that they’re on an even footing with one another in terms of using intangible property belonging to one another. As they move forward, it’s therefore fair for the subsidiary companies to keep all the profit they generate rather than having to remit part of it to pay off a debt owed to the parent company.

I work for a big law firm and, trust me, we meet arrangements like this all the time for the local subsidiaries of multinationals. It’s absolutely the standard way to deal with the kind of situation City are now in where they’re trying to build up the ‘City Football Group’. I don’t see it as something we’ll have done simply to meet FFP, though of course the knowledge that we have this money coming in will no doubt have informed decisions about our levels of spending on transfer fees and the wage bill.

Obviously to the extent that sales are to related parties these must meet a fair value test under FFPR. However, this also mirrors something that our clients face when they use CSAs: these expenses are deductible for profit tax purposes but also, when with related parties (which they invariably are), only to the extent that they reflect the market value of the rights in question.

Here clients take advice from independent specialists who value the rights for these purposes. The valuations are subjective to some degree, of course, as these things always are. But generally if you follow the recommendations of recognised neutral experts and can provide detailed reasoning as to why the figure you’ve picked represents an arm’s length value, the tax authorities tend not to get very excited.

I find it very difficult to imagine that City aren’t doing something similar in relation to FFPR, and that should probably see us right when it comes to UEFA. And while we’re doing something that’s uncommon (maybe unprecedented) in the football industry, that’s because the notion of subsidiary clubs is new as well. However, ultimately I don’t think we’ll see a comeback from handling that in a way that’s entirely in line with standard global practice for similar undertakings"

[malloy]

My thoughts are that we were bought with financial fair play rules in mind. If this is the case we would need to be owned by the owner of MCFC not the club itself. This also makes me a bit worried in the sense that if we are to pay an image licence fee to Man City, like NYC, we will have to be using their image ie colours and name...

The colour Sky Blue is not copyrighted though, and they won't just assign us their exact same badge.

Maybe someone can shed a little more light on this, but I'd assume image rights would be more down to us using their insignia/pictures of their players somewhere in our facilities, on hoardings at games, in membership marketing etc. etc. Maybe one of our City friends can explain a little more about what exactly they're charging for in regards to image rights?

One of the more clued up guys on Bluemoon offered this on the IP-rights..

"This IP business has created a bit of a storm, and it seems to me that a lot of people think it's just a ruse City have plucked out of the air to cut down our losses. However, it’s quite common in the way that global holding companies run their business when they have subsidiaries in a number of different countries, and this is the set-up that City are creating.

In essence, what we’re dealing with here is a device where a company forms a subsidiary to carry out operations in another territory, and they enter into what's called a cost sharing arrangement (CSA). Under this kind of arrangement, the companies share intangible costs that will be separately exploited by each of the participants.

Thus, for example, where R&D is carried out by the head office but will benefit all group companies, they all chip in for it in proportions that are in line with the proportions of the anticipated benefits they can expect to derive. This, I think, is why Ferran specifically mentioned recently that NYCFC will have use of City's international scouting network and commercial operation. They'll pay for it too, and those areas of MCFC's activity are world leaders so the services in question probably won't come cheaply.

Secondly, when a CSA is set up, you'll quite commonly find that one company already owns intangible assets which it then makes available to the others, and those others will benefit when they carry out their operations in future. This is very frequently met in the context of intellectual property. Let’s say that company A sets up a subsidiaries B and C to manufacture and sell company A's products (whether that’s chocolates or cigarettes or cosmetics or something else) in territories D and E. If company A is a well-known global brand, subsidiaries B and C have much better prospects if they sell the goods under company A's trademark(s)than if they sell the same goods under completely unknown brand F. This will be reflected in revenues down the track.

The standard way of dealing with this is for company A along with subsidiaries B and C to create a CSA, and for subsidiaries B and C to do something that’s known as "buying in". This means that they pay a lump sum at the inception of the CSA for future use of the rights. And later, when the CSA is up and running, if company A develops and makes further intangibles available to the participants in the CSA, then a further buy-in (often called an “acquisition buy-in”) takes place.

The rationale of this is that by settling things in this way at the outset, the parties can move on knowing that they’re on an even footing with one another in terms of using intangible property belonging to one another. As they move forward, it’s therefore fair for the subsidiary companies to keep all the profit they generate rather than having to remit part of it to pay off a debt owed to the parent company.

I work for a big law firm and, trust me, we meet arrangements like this all the time for the local subsidiaries of multinationals. It’s absolutely the standard way to deal with the kind of situation City are now in where they’re trying to build up the ‘City Football Group’. I don’t see it as something we’ll have done simply to meet FFP, though of course the knowledge that we have this money coming in will no doubt have informed decisions about our levels of spending on transfer fees and the wage bill.

Obviously to the extent that sales are to related parties these must meet a fair value test under FFPR. However, this also mirrors something that our clients face when they use CSAs: these expenses are deductible for profit tax purposes but also, when with related parties (which they invariably are), only to the extent that they reflect the market value of the rights in question.

Here clients take advice from independent specialists who value the rights for these purposes. The valuations are subjective to some degree, of course, as these things always are. But generally if you follow the recommendations of recognised neutral experts and can provide detailed reasoning as to why the figure you’ve picked represents an arm’s length value, the tax authorities tend not to get very excited.

I find it very difficult to imagine that City aren’t doing something similar in relation to FFPR, and that should probably see us right when it comes to UEFA. And while we’re doing something that’s uncommon (maybe unprecedented) in the football industry, that’s because the notion of subsidiary clubs is new as well. However, ultimately I don’t think we’ll see a comeback from handling that in a way that’s entirely in line with standard global practice for similar undertakings"

Is New York City owned by Manchester City or the owners of Man City. If it is the latter it may make all that irrelevant as NYC is not a subsidiary of Manchester City.

[jw1739]

According to Wikipedia it is a similar deal to Heart. 80% Manchester City and 20% New York Yankees.

[M13]

No one really knows for sure, CFG Ltd and MCFC Ltd are both Manchester City FC.. It´s a world of corporate lawyers and international accounting principles in sports nowadays

[jw1739]

No one really knows for sure, CFG Ltd and MCFC Ltd are both Manchester City FC.. It´s a world of corporate lawyers and international accounting principles in sports nowadays

...and setting things up to avoid restrictions/prohibitions or exploit loopholes in rules and regulations. Whoever the front men are, we all know that it is City who are calling the football and administrative shots. And we all know where the money is ultimately coming from - the consumption of petroleum products. Every time I fill up these days I'm comforted to know that a few molecules are funding my Melbourne Heart...

[M13]

I´ll just add that both CFG Ltd and MCFC Ltd got their own daughter companies that they might own outright, part own or have as joint venturesn with multiple partners..and that´s where your average sports writer gets lost trying to get a grip on the financial picture..and I don´t blame them.

But anyway, what really concerns fans of HEART is to what extent City might want to streamline the clubs under its umbrella as a "brand" and we don´t have many clues, unless choosing New York City FC as the name for their team in New York City is a clue in itself because Khaldoon (The City chairman and a top guy) stated in his yearly TV-interview that it was a happy coincidence so yeah, CITY might well be the brand itself.
Given the badge competitions and stuff in New York I guess we can safely say that badges are expected to offer local flavours only I think.
Which takes us to the crux of the matters..The colours
Myself I belong to the "don´t want any teams outside Manchester in sky blue" fraction..because to me it´s a local thing. Unfortunately New York offers few clues there and given that they will start from scratch any colour might do..except red because of the other New York team (NY REDBULLS) and the current site for NYCFC are heavily into black, blue and white I might add.
Red and white being the Melbourne colours speaks heavily in its favour though, as the fact that blue seems to be favoured by several established bigger clubs already..but we don´t know anything for sure yet.




 

[imonyarraside]

[FB.]

[M13]

I´d just like to say that this latest run of games and todays 4-0 trashing of Victory (in white and blue as well) will do Heart no harm at all in regards to trying to stay red&white..
The marketing guys, in particular Tom Glick that works directly as the CFG Chief Commercial and Operating Officer will definitely keep an eye on how Heart stakeholders (fans, sponsors, partners etc) regard the colours..

Just one thing, how come Australian media are almost encouraging a change while Heart fans are (in general) against?.. Wise decision by CFG to make no hasty changes I feel

[theresonlyonebzamora]

Because the Australian media are generally muppets paid to write whatever they can without doing any kind of research.

[belaguttman]

M13 you should have enough experience of the Murdoch media (and he owns 80% of the print media here) go understand that they never let the facts get in the way of the story, and when there is no story they'll create the story.

[Rellum]

You should stop referring to the Murdoch media as press. They are salesmen. They are pushing their own agenda as always.

[M13]

I´m just confused as to why they sound so pro-change.. One could imagine that a headline like "Nasty oil Sheikh to rebrand local heroes" would suit them as well.

[belaguttman]

You should stop referring to the Murdoch media as press. They are salesmen. They are pushing their own agenda as always.

Yes, my mistake, News Corp is a political lobby group

[belaguttman]

I´m just confused as to why they sound so pro-change.. One could imagine that a headline like "Nasty oil Sheikh to rebrand local heroes" would suit them as well.

The sub-editors are starting to run out of stupid Heart puns fir their headlines