City Football Group (CFG) [Owner of Melbourne City]

[jeffplz]

3 hours ago, Tesla said:

I really don't know why CFG just didn't buy Sydney FC instead of us.

Maybe cause Sydney City just sounds stupid?

 

[Jovan]

10 hours ago, jeffplz said:

Maybe cause Sydney City just sounds stupid?

 

Was a decent team in the 80s

[Johnny Blaze]

13 hours ago, HEARTinator said:

So an important imperative is our shirt colour FFS? CFG should be spending more time cleaning out JvS from La Trobe than troubling themselves with bullshit issues like the color of our socks, jocks and tops. Clearly marketing is their top priority not silverware

Clubs can do more than one thing at a time you muppet.

[HEARTinator]

4 hours ago, Johnny Blaze said:

Clubs can do more than one thing at a time you muppet.

Hahahaha, of course they can and should, but the question is/was whether banging on about colors and making us look like Mini-ManCity is a good use of time and resources?

[NewConvert]

23 minutes ago, HEARTinator said:

Hahahaha, of course they can and should, but the question is/was whether banging on about colors and making us look like Mini-ManCity is a good use of time and resources?

It would depend on the expected ROI. If they believe that a uniform brand across the globe would improve their sales then yes - and lets face it, they must believe that otherwise they would not be doing it. Of course whether this eventuates remains to be seen.

[HeartOfCity]

Just flicked over to find some MLS. NY City V Orlando. They where saying that NY City fans booed Frank Lampard last week and maybe one of the reasons is that for the 8 -10 weeks he was out there was no information saying he was injured or anything. CFG surely has to look after its supporters and not be so insular and somewhat arrogant. 

[Falastur]

1 hour ago, HeartOfCity said:

Just flicked over to find some MLS. NY City V Orlando. They where saying that NY City fans booed Frank Lampard last week and maybe one of the reasons is that for the 8 -10 weeks he was out there was no information saying he was injured or anything. CFG surely has to look after its supporters and not be so insular and somewhat arrogant. 

The reason they booed him is his perceived commitment to the job. First he stays in Manchester when NYCFC need him, then he spends all of his time injured uploading dozens of photos of his sightseeing trips while not mentioning any recovery training, and finally he agrees to take a job in the middle of the MLS season to commentate on Euro 2016. CFG refusing to comment on his injuries is just the icing on the cake - there are plenty of other NYCFC players who are out for goodness knows how long because of lack of communication from CFG but only Frank gets booed. 

Personally I believe there are rational explanations for it all (the BBC have announced that he won't be leaving NYC for his commentating role, for example, so there's nothing to suggest it will prevent him from playing) but many of the fans have simply had enough and never want to see him again. 

[bt50]

29 minutes ago, Falastur said:

The reason they booed him is his perceived commitment to the job. First he stays in Manchester when NYCFC need him, then he spends all of his time injured uploading dozens of photos of his sightseeing trips while not mentioning any recovery training, and finally he agrees to take a job in the middle of the MLS season to commentate on Euro 2016. CFG refusing to comment on his injuries is just the icing on the cake - there are plenty of other NYCFC players who are out for goodness knows how long because of lack of communication from CFG but only Frank gets booed. 

Personally I believe there are rational explanations for it all (the BBC have announced that he won't be leaving NYC for his commentating role, for example, so there's nothing to suggest it will prevent him from playing) but many of the fans have simply had enough and never want to see him again. 

Tbh it sounds like the NYC fans are shitty with the wrong person.

[Embee]

8 hours ago, bt50 said:

Tbh it sounds like the NYC fans are shitty with the wrong person.

They're New Yorkers mate, not known for being the most rational sporting fans around

[thisphantomfortress]

Does anyone remember when that idiot NYCFC fan came on here and told us that we shouldn't be mad about Villa and then went on a rant about Lampard?

[KSK_47]

1 hour ago, thisphantomfortress said:

Does anyone remember when that idiot NYCFC fan came on here and told us that we shouldn't be mad about Villa and then went on a rant about Lampard?

Was he the same one that was complaining about his club feeling too much like a manchester owned franchise?

[Jovan]

1 minute ago, KSK_47 said:

Was he the same one that was complaining about his club feeling too much like a manchester owned franchise?

Yep.

And he had that argument with some other poster from another forum.

[morphine]

Speaking of our Manchester owned franchise - something that's making myself and a lot of others lose interest in the club is its lack of soul. 

If we are not simply a "mini-Manchester City", then why did our badge need to change? Why did our kit need to change? Why did our name need to change?

I've never seen an answer to these questions. The actions of the club seem to be in stark contrast to the clear statement that we "are not a mini-Man City". 

[thisphantomfortress]

3 minutes ago, morphine said:

Speaking of our Manchester owned franchise - something that's making myself and a lot of others lose interest in the club is its lack of soul. 

If we are not simply a "mini-Manchester City", then why did our badge need to change? Why did our kit need to change? Why did our name need to change?

I've never seen an answer to these questions. The actions of the club seem to be in stark contrast to the clear statement that we "are not a mini-Man City". 

Rebranding leaving the heart failure behind 

[n i k o]

7 minutes ago, morphine said:

Speaking of our Manchester owned franchise - something that's making myself and a lot of others lose interest in the club is its lack of soul. 

If we are not simply a "mini-Manchester City", then why did our badge need to change? Why did our kit need to change? Why did our name need to change?

I've never seen an answer to these questions. The actions of the club seem to be in stark contrast to the clear statement that we "are not a mini-Man City". 

I think there are 'aspects' to the takeover that can be questioned however not all them because they're self explanatory. The name change is understandable and with that the badge as well. However the colours is a sticking point for many. Probably the worst move in the rebranding was having an exact replica Manchester jersey. Nothing said Manchester more than that to me. The kit change couldn't come quicker IMO. 

[morphine]

2 hours ago, n i k o said:

I think there are 'aspects' to the takeover that can be questioned however not all them because they're self explanatory. The name change is understandable and with that the badge as well. However the colours is a sticking point for many. Probably the worst move in the rebranding was having an exact replica Manchester jersey. Nothing said Manchester more than that to me. The kit change couldn't come quicker IMO. 

This is the thing - I don't think it is self explanatory. Are you saying the "not a mini-Manchester" line is obviously bullshit?

 

when do we expect new kit to drop?

[n i k o]

28 minutes ago, morphine said:

This is the thing - I don't think it is self explanatory. Are you saying the "not a mini-Manchester" line is obviously bullshit?

 

when do we expect new kit to drop?

What I'm saying is the 'not a mini-Manchester' line is true however less so regarding the emblem and name. The biggest aspects in seperate ourselves from becoming a mini Manchester were the colours and the playing kit which in my opinion we have failed to do. 

Its expected we will have a 'new' kit this coming season, however to what degree it will be new I'm not sure. 

Edited May 31, 2016 by n i k o

[morphine]

I hear you mate, but I'm still wondering why the need to change the name and kit at all then? When Tony Xia just bought Aston Villa, he didn't change the name or badge. If the Bakries lose Brisbane, their name won't be changed by new owners. So, why did that actually need to happen?

[Tommykins]

To play devils advocate, what was to be gained by keeping the name and badge? It's difficult to say that the club had been super successful during that period.

[hedaik]

8 hours ago, n i k o said:

 

Its expected we will have a 'new' kit this coming season, however to what degree it will be new I'm not sure. 

Man City top in reverse is what Im hearing from the Bullshit Thread

[morphine]

47 minutes ago, Tommykins said:

To play devils advocate, what was to be gained by keeping the name and badge? It's difficult to say that the club had been super successful during that period.

I know you're only playing devils advocate, but it's a pretty preposterous stance. Change for no reason has no other main purpose than to put current supporters offside. 

[morphine]

I suppose the question will never be answered. 

I tried to give this whole new thing a go, but it's clear (to me) that we've become what they say we've become - a soulless corporate brand. To me, the players don't care, there is no true sense of club, and they don't represent me as a person anymore. 

Melbourne Heart had many flaws. They were the perennial underdog battlers who were going nowhere. They were, however, authentic. I don't think anyone can say the club is authentic now. Basically everything they do is a shell or vehicle for advertising. How does that represent the city of Melbourne? It certainly doesn't represent me anymore. 

I'm really starting to vehemently hate Manchester City and what they've done to my, our, club. 

Against better sensibilities, I'll try and hold optimism until the kit comes out, but I won't be signing on as a member again. 

At this point in time, I hope Manchester City get done for Fair Play. I hope the Russians take over and the sheikh loses all his fucking money. You stole my one true football love you fucking pricks. 

[bt50]

The mini Manchester thing isnt fact. It's subjective.

To me the whole idea is ridiculous - its the players, culture, history and fans that make a football club - not who owns it or what colours they wear. And in those four aspects we have essentially nothing even comparable to Manchester.
I fully appreciate that some people feel that we've become a Mini Man City and thats fine, you're entitled to feel that way. But the repeated suggestion that its a fact and that we've sold out is nothing more than subjective. I certainly don't feel that way and tbh I reckon there'd be quite a lot of others that couldnt give a shit about a perceived 'ídentity crisis' either.

Edited May 31, 2016 by bt50

[thisphantomfortress]

29 minutes ago, morphine said:

I know you're only playing devils advocate, but it's a pretty preposterous stance. Change for no reason has no other main purpose than to put current supporters offside. 

You're insane ranting and raving is getting "preposterous"

your lunacy suggests you aren't ready for anything too dense so we will ease you in

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebranding

[n i k o]

1 hour ago, bt50 said:

The mini Manchester thing isnt fact. It's subjective.

To me the whole idea is ridiculous - its the players, culture, history and fans that make a football club - not who owns it or what colours they wear. And in those four aspects we have essentially nothing even comparable to Manchester.
I fully appreciate that some people feel that we've become a Mini Man City and thats fine, you're entitled to feel that way. But the repeated suggestion that its a fact and that we've sold out is nothing more than subjective. I certainly don't feel that way and tbh I reckon there'd be quite a lot of others that couldnt give a shit about a perceived 'ídentity crisis' either.

Without doubt how one feels towards the changes is subjective. And there's no doubt that we haven't entirely become a mini Manchester. But there are certain aspects, as I pointed out, that simply can't be subjective but fact. Fact is Manchester is sky blue and this is pushed onto the club from CFG. The other fact is the home kit we play in is a replica of Manchester. I can't see how these two factors can be argued as not being Manchester-esque. Then it comes back to the question I posed months back, are we a CFG owned club based in Melbourne or a Melbourne based club owned by CFG. 

To me, and this is the subjective part, we have tried to be both. 

[belaguttman]

2 hours ago, morphine said:

I suppose the question will never be answered. 

I tried to give this whole new thing a go, but it's clear (to me) that we've become what they say we've become - a soulless corporate brand. To me, the players don't care, there is no true sense of club, and they don't represent me as a person anymore. 

Melbourne Heart had many flaws. They were the perennial underdog battlers who were going nowhere. They were, however, authentic. I don't think anyone can say the club is authentic now. Basically everything they do is a shell or vehicle for advertising. How does that represent the city of Melbourne? It certainly doesn't represent me anymore. 

I'm really starting to vehemently hate Manchester City and what they've done to my, our, club. 

Against better sensibilities, I'll try and hold optimism until the kit comes out, but I won't be signing on as a member again. 

At this point in time, I hope Manchester City get done for Fair Play. I hope the Russians take over and the sheikh loses all his fucking money. You stole my one true football love you fucking pricks. 

Both Heart and City are corporate constructs, franchises and not clubs. Our relationship to both is as customers and consumers, not as members. The difference is that Heart were trying to position themselves as the community 'club' (when they were never a club) whilst minimally capitalising the franchise so that it would never be successful, City is an international corporate branding exercise with emphasis on City rather than Melbourne. Just try and accept each for what they are, plastic creations that field football teams, hopefully this next season we'll be able to enjoy the football.

[bt50]

14 minutes ago, belaguttman said:

Both Heart and City are corporate constructs, franchises and not clubs. Our relationship to both is as customers and consumers, not as members. The difference is that Heart were trying to position themselves as the community 'club' (when they were never a club) whilst minimally capitalising the franchise so that it would never be successful, City is an international corporate branding exercise with emphasis on City rather than Melbourne. Just try and accept each for what they are, plastic creations that field football teams, hopefully this next season we'll be able to enjoy the football.

Yawn. 

[morphine]

2 hours ago, thisphantomfortress said:

You're insane ranting and raving is getting "preposterous"

your lunacy suggests you aren't ready for anything too dense so we will ease you in

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebranding

I've said all along that it's just my opinion, and that it's all subjective. Pretty harsh when I never called out individual fans?

Why do I make you so angry? It's kind of hurtful if I'm being honest. 

[thisphantomfortress]

9 minutes ago, morphine said:

I've said all along that it's just my opinion, and that it's all subjective. Pretty harsh when I never called out individual fans?

Why do I make you so angry? It's kind of hurtful if I'm being honest. 

You've had two years to either accept the rebrand or move on. Yes it's shit if you can't. But I'm so fucking sick of this conversation on here. The horse is dead, it's time to stop flogging it. Same applies to @Jimmy

[morphine]

2 hours ago, bt50 said:

The mini Manchester thing isnt fact. It's subjective.

To me the whole idea is ridiculous - its the players, culture, history and fans that make a football club - not who owns it or what colours they wear. And in those four aspects we have essentially nothing even comparable to Manchester.
I fully appreciate that some people feel that we've become a Mini Man City and thats fine, you're entitled to feel that way. But the repeated suggestion that its a fact and that we've sold out is nothing more than subjective. I certainly don't feel that way and tbh I reckon there'd be quite a lot of others that couldnt give a shit about a perceived 'ídentity crisis' either.

Yeah I agree it's subjective, but as Niko said, there's certain things - replica Man City kit, clear and visual ties with the club, pre-season over there etc. that show that we probably are intrinsically linked to Man City to the point where it's not unreasonable to be labelled as a mini Manchester City. If you choose to not see it that way, that's totally cool. I actually wish I could see it the same as you, I'm jealous.

You say that it's the players, culture, history and fans that make a football club. I also agree. I would like to address each point individually.

Players:- under Melbourne Heart, in my subjective opinion, the players took pride in the jumper. Aloisi, Sibon, Terra, Hoffman, Worm, Shroj, Behich, Thompson, Collosimo. For the most part they were underdogs who had a go. 
Now we see guys like Hughes, Wilkinson, Zullo, Fornaroli, Mooy, Sorensen - in my subjective opinion they are blow ins who couldn't give two shits about the club. Either they're getting the most money they can whilst they are here, or use us as a stepping stone. They don't bleed for the jumper. 
To put it another way, all of the ex-Heart players I would argue would've called themselves 'Heart supporters' once they finished up. I don't think any, at all, of our players under the City moniker will call themselves 'City supporters' when they finish up.

Culture:- To me, this includes, colours, kit, badge, name. To me, this has been ripped out of the club. Culture probably includes what the club stands for, who it represents as well. I identified with the struggling heart of Melbourne. I do not identify with a brand. 

History:- Heart was founded from scratch from our city. We were there from the beginning. 
City was bought out and rebranded as you say, in the undeniable mould of Manchester City - a club/brand that does not represent me in any way possible.

Fans:- Never had many then, nor do we have many now. In my subjective opinion, the fans were more engaged (even if there were less of us) when we were Heart. A win meant more. Everything meant more.

Now, I agree it's totally all subjective. You are as entitled to your opinion as mine. I'm not saying you are wrong for a second, I'm merely presenting and discussing my opinion. Surely this is the best place to do that. You say that this idea is ridiculous - I don't think you have the right to do that sorry. 

3 minutes ago, thisphantomfortress said:

You've had two years to either accept the rebrand or move on. Yes it's shit if you can't. But I'm so fucking sick of this conversation on here. The horse is dead, it's time to stop flogging it. Same applies to @Jimmy

The thread is called CFG. This is a forum to discuss the club. I'm sorry if you're sick of this discussion, but it is the place where it's going to happen. I think the ultimatum and the tone used is unwarranted. 

[thisphantomfortress]

The internet is a cruel place with a temperament as tender as yours.

You come across as one of those "musicians these days don't make real music" types. Unable to see the merits in something that is different.

Players; are you joking? The same heart players that went over half a season without wining? "If we win we win, if we lose we lose" 

culture; is built over time, both city and heart struggled to define themselves as anything but "not victory" jury is still out 

History; Is it nobler than one club was bought out by a multinational sporting group or the other was established to ensure the state government would build the city a nice new stadium to replace Olympic park?

fans; entirely subjective won't bother arguing this besides saying city numbers have increased on hearts.

Honestly I seperate the two in my mind but have accepted heart have folded and don't yearn for them like others seems to

[Embee]

21 minutes ago, morphine said:

Yeah I agree it's subjective, but as Niko said, there's certain things - replica Man City kit, clear and visual ties with the club, pre-season over there etc. that show that we probably are intrinsically linked to Man City to the point where it's not unreasonable to be labelled as a mini Manchester City. If you choose to not see it that way, that's totally cool. I actually wish I could see it the same as you, I'm jealous.

You say that it's the players, culture, history and fans that make a football club. I also agree. I would like to address each point individually.

Players:- under Melbourne Heart, in my subjective opinion, the players took pride in the jumper. Aloisi, Sibon, Terra, Hoffman, Worm, Shroj, Behich, Thompson, Collosimo. For the most part they were underdogs who had a go. 
Now we see guys like Hughes, Wilkinson, Zullo, Fornaroli, Mooy, Sorensen - in my subjective opinion they are blow ins who couldn't give two shits about the club. Either they're getting the most money they can whilst they are here, or use us as a stepping stone. They don't bleed for the jumper. 
To put it another way, all of the ex-Heart players I would argue would've called themselves 'Heart supporters' once they finished up. I don't think any, at all, of our players under the City moniker will call themselves 'City supporters' when they finish up.

Culture:- To me, this includes, colours, kit, badge, name. To me, this has been ripped out of the club. Culture probably includes what the club stands for, who it represents as well. I identified with the struggling heart of Melbourne. I do not identify with a brand. 

History:- Heart was founded from scratch from our city. We were there from the beginning. 
City was bought out and rebranded as you say, in the undeniable mould of Manchester City - a club/brand that does not represent me in any way possible.

Fans:- Never had many then, nor do we have many now. In my subjective opinion, the fans were more engaged (even if there were less of us) when we were Heart. A win meant more. Everything meant more.

Now, I agree it's totally all subjective. You are as entitled to your opinion as mine. I'm not saying you are wrong for a second, I'm merely presenting and discussing my opinion. Surely this is the best place to do that. You say that this idea is ridiculous - I don't think you have the right to do that sorry. 

The thread is called CFG. This is a forum to discuss the club. I'm sorry if you're sick of this discussion, but it is the place where it's going to happen. I think the ultimatum and the tone used is unwarranted. 

I'm not going to address every single point you've made, purely because I can't be bothered if I'm being honest, but the point I've bolded stood out to me and I feel warrants a reply.

No offense but that's ridiculous. "If we win, we win", that statement was one of the easiest ways to sum up the approach that more than a few players seemingly took during the Heart days. If you can't see the passion that guys like Mooy, Sorensen and Fornaroli have shown on the pitch this season then you must have been watching different games than me. In fact, I'm going to say that I've not seen many who've worn the heart/city jumper that showed more passion for the club than guys like Sorensen, Paddy and Fornaroli. And whilst being a generally unemotional guy, what the hell else could Mooy do for you than bust his ass for 90 minutes every time he gets on that field, you surely can't be serious.

The statement at the end of your point is merely an assumption on your part too. I've actually seen a number of old Heart players at the ground during/after City games, so those blokes still clearly feel some attachment, and we've also seen old players like Bolton and Paddy given jobs and kept around post retirement.

EDIT: Just a comment on your 'fans' point too, just because a win doesn't mean as much to you as before, or everything means less to you, doesn't mean it feels that way for everyone else.

Edited June 1, 2016 by Embee

[GreenSeater]

5 minutes ago, morphine said:

Players:- under Melbourne Heart, in my subjective opinion, the players took pride in the jumper. Aloisi, Sibon, Terra, Hoffman, Worm, Shroj, Behich, Thompson, Collosimo. For the most part they were underdogs who had a go. 
Now we see guys like Hughes, Wilkinson, Zullo, Fornaroli, Mooy, Sorensen - in my subjective opinion they are blow ins who couldn't give two shits about the club. Either they're getting the most money they can whilst they are here, or use us as a stepping stone. They don't bleed for the jumper. 
To put it another way, all of the ex-Heart players I would argue would've called themselves 'Heart supporters' once they finished up. I don't think any, at all, of our players under the City moniker will call themselves 'City supporters' when they finish up.
 

You can't honestly tell me that you would rather have Aloisi and Worm than Fornaroli and Mooy... Fwiw Fornaroli and Sorenson I would argue are the two players along with Kisnorbo that have actually had the most passion for the club out of any players we've ever had. And I think you're romantacising how much Heart players loved the club. Whilst many did I would argue that we had just as many people who came through and took their cheque without caring. What about players like Richard Garcia, Harry Kewell, Michael Mifsud, and probably quite a few more.

Culture:- To me, this includes, colours, kit, badge, name. To me, this has been ripped out of the club. Culture probably includes what the club stands for, who it represents as well. I identified with the struggling heart of Melbourne. I do not identify with a brand. 

Personally I think that they've done a good job of identifying with Melbourne. The badge signifies Melbourne more than the Heart one did. All of the clubs media and membership drives focus on the fans and the city a lot more than Hearts ever did. I'm not a fan of the kits but I think they'll eventually move away from the Man City style and we'll have something more unique. 

History:- Heart was founded from scratch from our city. We were there from the beginning. 
City was bought out and rebranded as you say, in the undeniable mould of Manchester City - a club/brand that does not represent me in any way possible.

History? I loved Heart as much as anyone, and I was there from day one, but Heart's history was 5 years of failure and slightly above amaetur standard of running the club. Since City took over we have established roots in Melbourne with the CFA, we have played our two most successful seasons, we've had the two best players to have played in the league play for us in their prime, and we've become more than just Melbourne Victory's little rival. Our club is less than 10 years old. Our history is only just beginning to be written. In 20 years time I'll look back and think about how much I loved Mooy and Fornaroli, not how much I enjoyed Michael Mifsud sitting in a wheelie bin at Latrobe Uni.

Fans:- Never had many then, nor do we have many now. In my subjective opinion, the fans were more engaged (even if there were less of us) when we were Heart. A win meant more. Everything meant more. 

This is definitely the most subjective. Wins meant more as Heart I think because they were less common. Under Aloisi a win was like a drought breaking rain! I think a good sign of who we are now is that losses mean more than they did when we were Heart. It isn't a matter of making up the numbers, it's a matter of challenging for finals and titles. Sure we've lost a lot of supporters and many more don't identify as strongly, but plenty more have come along and plenty of us do still care. I was one of many who hated the changes at first. I was OUT in the in or out thread. I said I'd never support City. I was wrong. I love this club just as much now as I did in the Heart games. The key is to remember the Heart times as great memories, but focus on how things are going now and how bright the future of this club is. I know it isn't easy, but just try to enjoy the ride as best you can!

[JC22]

morphine being overly dramatic. Club is fine.

I loved Heart and I love City.

[Dylan]

All of these same  discussions were had when we were heart, go back and look through the old threads. Only difference is now some use it as an  excuse that since we have an owner like CFG, who has changed ONE colour and the name (which is alot better anyway), we are suddenly a 'corporate brand' when in reality Heart was just the same (in fact all clubs are these days, but thats another argument). Oh and that comment by @morphine saying that the players had more passion for the heart shirt is a serious airbrushing of history. 

Edited June 1, 2016 by Dylan

[n i k o]

Disagree with you @morphine regarding the players. As a collective group the current batch of City players have shown more passion and blood on the pitch than any Heart squad. 

Personally for me it's two aspects of the club that need to be sorted, which I've ready mentioned above. I guess you'd call them identity issues. Other than that what CFG has done on the pitch and off regarding playing standards, recruitment, fascilities etc shits on anything Heart did. This also needs to be taken into account. 

Edited June 1, 2016 by n i k o

[morphine]

Maybe most of you are correct, and I am being overly dramatic/exaggerating. Fair play, maybe I am. 

I do find it interesting the 'bullying' or 'beat down' nature that most of those who have differing opinions to the ones I presented harbour though. It's as if any dissenting viewpoint has to be stamped out. I'm not sure what brings this on? Dare I say it's almost cult-like.
Honestly, the only reason I brought all of this up again is because I am a foundation member who will not be renewing for the first time, and fairly assumed that I couldn't be the only one, so surely worth a chat. 

I didn't mean to offend anyone or rev anybody up. I was openly expressing about how I feel, right now, for a long time member and devotee. I very much doubt I am the only one going through the same thing right now, the odds of that are slim.

@n i k o you may well be right, and it is an identity crisis issue still. Personally, if that indeed is the case, it's gone on too long for me. In a way I feel like they've spent all their credits now. You feel like you've put up with 'pretending' in a way for this long, it's time to engage you again.
I suppose the kit will be something, but I cannot imagine it being enough, even if it is reverting back to the red and white stripes (by the way it's not, at the FRG Munn told us it's 80% white as a league mandated rule). 

[possiblygeorge]

5 hours ago, hedaik said:

Man City top in reverse is what Im hearing from the Bullshit Thread

What, you mean this piece of shit? Hello navy blue. 

 

 

[GreenSeater]

10 minutes ago, morphine said:

Maybe most of you are correct, and I am being overly dramatic/exaggerating. Fair play, maybe I am. 

I do find it interesting the 'bullying' or 'beat down' nature that most of those who have differing opinions to the ones I presented harbour though. It's as if any dissenting viewpoint has to be stamped out. I'm not sure what brings this on? Dare I say it's almost cult-like.
Honestly, the only reason I brought all of this up again is because I am a foundation member who will not be renewing for the first time, and fairly assumed that I couldn't be the only one, so surely worth a chat. 

I didn't mean to offend anyone or rev anybody up. I was openly expressing about how I feel, right now, for a long time member and devotee. I very much doubt I am the only one going through the same thing right now, the odds of that are slim.

@n i k o you may well be right, and it is an identity crisis issue still. Personally, if that indeed is the case, it's gone on too long for me. In a way I feel like they've spent all their credits now. You feel like you've put up with 'pretending' in a way for this long, it's time to engage you again.
I suppose the kit will be something, but I cannot imagine it being enough, even if it is reverting back to the red and white stripes (by the way it's not, at the FRG Munn told us it's 80% white as a league mandated rule). 

People disagreeing with your opinion is not bullying or beating you down. You raised a point and several of us countered that point. No offence was intended.

[morphine]

Just now, GreenSeater said:

People disagreeing with your opinion is not bullying or beating you down. You raised a point and several of us countered that point. No offence was intended.

You didn't offend me at all mate, all good. What I'm more referring to is this type of stuff:

34 minutes ago, thisphantomfortress said:

The internet is a cruel place with a temperament as tender as yours.

You come across as one of those "musicians these days don't make real music" types. Unable to see the merits in something that is different.

 

^ after gently trying to steer the discussion off being personal, a couple of times. Like, what's the point of saying this?

My point about 'bullying' (maybe not the best word by the way, but I'm not particularly eloquent) refers a lot to outside of this forum. All of my City supporting mates try and beat you down when you even mention a sniff about having issues with the club's identity now. I just find it interesting.