Dylan Posted December 2, 2016 Report Share Posted December 2, 2016 Having all our teams at the one base and one training facility makes us the first true 'club' of the Aleague IMO. Next step is having a mini stand on one pitch at the lower playing fields where we can have pre-season and the youth and womens play at. Plus also let the NPL use it for grand finals/finals and the like. Would also like them to have a greater relationship with Heidelberg too. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n i k o Posted January 27, 2017 Report Share Posted January 27, 2017 Bump. Fuck you cunts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Cloughie Posted January 27, 2017 Popular Post Report Share Posted January 27, 2017 Being bought by CFG has been like as a kid finding out you have a rich relative. You're stoked to find out the news and have dreams of mountains of Lego. And then the arsehole rocks up at birthdays and Christmases with crappy cheap gifts and doesn't listen to your hints about what you like. Each and every time. And part of you should be happy that he's giving you something, but inside you are saying "scumbag, you are dripping in money but can't be arsed getting me something decent" I have unresolved family issues 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deeming Posted January 27, 2017 Report Share Posted January 27, 2017 1 minute ago, Cloughie said: Being bought by CFG has been like as a kid finding out you have a rich relative. You're stoked to find out the news and have dreams of mountains of Lego. And then the arsehole rocks up at birthdays and Christmases with crappy cheap gifts and doesn't listen to your hints about what you like. Each and every time. And part of you should be happy that he's giving you something, but inside you are saying "scumbag, you are dripping in money but can't be arsed getting me something decent" I have unresolved family issues Best analogy yet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n i k o Posted January 27, 2017 Report Share Posted January 27, 2017 Keep pushing that corporate agenda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3 Points Posted January 27, 2017 Report Share Posted January 27, 2017 Today my 5 year old son took 1min 40sec to dribble the ball around 4 cones. (Approx 2metres). I'm going to record it and send it to CFG and see if he can get a contract. I think he suits their playing style. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cloughie Posted January 27, 2017 Report Share Posted January 27, 2017 1 hour ago, 3 Points said: Today my 5 year old son took 1min 40sec to dribble the ball around 4 cones. (Approx 2metres). I'm going to record it and send it to CFG and see if he can get a contract. I think he suits their playing style. Could depend on whether he dribbled towards or across/away from the goal direction 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n i k o Posted January 27, 2017 Report Share Posted January 27, 2017 I just did the survey. While the first question allowed me to give my opinion of our 'beautiful football' I thought the rest of the questions were a sign of CFG not willing to budge on their philosophy. Questions like do you feel the team uses the full width of the pitch to attack? Well yeh you'd give that a rating of 9 out of 10 becasue that's only way we attack. Or another one like does the team press high to regain possession of the ball. Again yeh you'd rate that highly but it's precisely this reason why we are coping goals. Problem is the club would look at these ratings as a good thing while I only see them as an ineffective way of playing football. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raw10 Posted January 27, 2017 Report Share Posted January 27, 2017 9 hours ago, 3 Points said: Today my 5 year old son took 1min 40sec to dribble the ball around 4 cones. (Approx 2metres). I'm going to record it and send it to CFG and see if he can get a contract. I think he suits their playing style. Can he defend? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jw1739 Posted January 27, 2017 Report Share Posted January 27, 2017 8 hours ago, n i k o said: I just did the survey. While the first question allowed me to give my opinion of our 'beautiful football' I thought the rest of the questions were a sign of CFG not willing to budge on their philosophy. Questions like do you feel the team uses the full width of the pitch to attack? Well yeh you'd give that a rating of 9 out of 10 becasue that's only way we attack. Or another one like does the team press high to regain possession of the ball. Again yeh you'd rate that highly but it's precisely this reason why we are coping goals. Problem is the club would look at these ratings as a good thing while I only see them as an ineffective way of playing football. I was doing that until recently. Now I just answer "no" to the "beautiful football" question, then in the comments give them the best serve I can think of though a mixture of anger and tears, and then simply give the minimum score in all the other questions. I expect to be omitted from the surveys in due course, but while I'm still included it's the only way I can see to try to get my point of view across. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Posted January 27, 2017 Report Share Posted January 27, 2017 (edited) This is fast turning into that farce a few weeks ago when everyone was complaining that the sole reason we were losing was using three at the back and switching to 4 at the back was going to immediately change things. Nothing wrong with the 'philosophy' its how we are implementing it that is the problem. This is our best formation and best XI. We should just stick with this for the rest of the season. Tongyik Malik Jackobsen Franjic Colazo Kilkenny Brattan Brandan Bruno Cahill. Edited January 27, 2017 by Dylan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
belaguttman Posted January 27, 2017 Report Share Posted January 27, 2017 9 hours ago, n i k o said: I just did the survey. While the first question allowed me to give my opinion of our 'beautiful football' I thought the rest of the questions were a sign of CFG not willing to budge on their philosophy. Questions like do you feel the team uses the full width of the pitch to attack? Well yeh you'd give that a rating of 9 out of 10 becasue that's only way we attack. Or another one like does the team press high to regain possession of the ball. Again yeh you'd rate that highly but it's precisely this reason why we are coping goals. Problem is the club would look at these ratings as a good thing while I only see them as an ineffective way of playing football. The problem with survey design is in getting the questions right but once you choose them you can't change them half way through the survey. What will become clear though is that the metrics that they are measuring aren't correlated with participant satisfaction Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jw1739 Posted January 28, 2017 Report Share Posted January 28, 2017 From another City v Newcastle thread: 14 minutes ago, haz said: I comment the same thing every week.... How the fuck do the coaches not notice our weaknesses. They are either brain dead or they are just faces for the CFG philosophy. I think the latter. No, I'm afraid that I think it's the former. Our coaches are brain dead, and TBH I'm forming the opinion that certain of our players are not much better. I don't think that I would be prepared to play a brand of football that I knew would cause me to lose matches and therefore potentially harm my career. I don't see "beautiful football" and "winning matches and trophies" as mutually exclusive objectives. IMO the CFG philosophy is to "use beautiful football to win matches and trophies." There is no point in setting up a global football empire and then following a business model that means your teams lose matches, and that is why I don't believe that CFG are demanding that we play the way we have this season. IMO the problem is fairly and squarely in Melbourne. What Melbourne City is doing is not in any way beautiful. It has two fundamental problems - everything is done at a snail's pace, with the result that it is difficult to score goals - and we press too high up the park, meaning that it is too easy for our opponents to score. Both of these are quite easy to fix. We didn't play this way last season - sure we leaked goals, but up front we were unstoppable. We don't have to play this way this season either - as we showed in the Cup - we are the only team to beat Sydney so far this season. IMO you only have to look at the starting XI selections and management of substitutes to see that our two Head Coaches this season have been incompetent. To have first Sorensen and now also Brandan sitting on the bench is ridiculous, as is having Kamau and Cahill start over Fitzy and Caceres. Not being able to effectively use the qualities of both Bruno and Cahill in the same XI is also ridiculous. And there are plenty more examples. So IMO the problem is a local one. IMO it's both on and off the field, the latter exemplified by the shambles that is "City Voice" and now "Citizens." And occurrences such as the unexplained departure of Clint Bolton. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3 Points Posted January 28, 2017 Report Share Posted January 28, 2017 4 hours ago, raw10 said: Can he defend? He doesn't have to to get a game with City. 12 hours ago, Cloughie said: Could depend on whether he dribbled towards or across/away from the goal direction He moves forward so I'm guessing a marquee contract Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjake1234 Posted January 28, 2017 Report Share Posted January 28, 2017 33 minutes ago, jw1739 said: From another City v Newcastle thread: No, I'm afraid that I think it's the former. Our coaches are brain dead, and TBH I'm forming the opinion that certain of our players are not much better. I don't think that I would be prepared to play a brand of football that I knew would cause me to lose matches and therefore potentially harm my career. I don't see "beautiful football" and "winning matches and trophies" as mutually exclusive objectives. IMO the CFG philosophy is to "use beautiful football to win matches and trophies." There is no point in setting up a global football empire and then following a business model that means your teams lose matches, and that is why I don't believe that CFG are demanding that we play the way we have this season. IMO the problem is fairly and squarely in Melbourne. What Melbourne City is doing is not in any way beautiful. It has two fundamental problems - everything is done at a snail's pace, with the result that it is difficult to score goals - and we press too high up the park, meaning that it is too easy for our opponents to score. Both of these are quite easy to fix. We didn't play this way last season - sure we leaked goals, but up front we were unstoppable. We don't have to play this way this season either - as we showed in the Cup - we are the only team to beat Sydney so far this season. IMO you only have to look at the starting XI selections and management of substitutes to see that our two Head Coaches this season have been incompetent. To have first Sorensen and now also Brandan sitting on the bench is ridiculous, as is having Kamau and Cahill start over Fitzy and Caceres. Not being able to effectively use the qualities of both Bruno and Cahill in the same XI is also ridiculous. And there are plenty more examples. So IMO the problem is a local one. IMO it's both on and off the field, the latter exemplified by the shambles that is "City Voice" and now "Citizens." And occurrences such as the unexplained departure of Clint Bolton. Oh that you would be our coach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
playmaker Posted January 28, 2017 Report Share Posted January 28, 2017 6 minutes ago, mjake1234 said: Oh that you would be our coach. That would be a start. The amount of football knowledge displayed on this forum would run rings around the current crop of morons running our squad atm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shahanga Posted January 28, 2017 Report Share Posted January 28, 2017 3 hours ago, Dylan said: This is fast turning into that farce a few weeks ago when everyone was complaining that the sole reason we were losing was using three at the back and switching to 4 at the back was going to immediately etc Worth remembering football is a game of opinions. Right now everyone agrees we have a problem but if pressed there would be a wide variety of solutions (& that's from the experienced football observers). you are on the right track with your post though, it's not about the formation or even the line up to me, it's the detail of the playing style that's dooming us. So a different formation is just moving the deck chairs in afraid. Now starting with our best XI, yes this would help, but for me, that doesn't include "Salim" Malik, who looks for all the world like a midfielder playing in defence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Posted January 28, 2017 Report Share Posted January 28, 2017 17 minutes ago, Shahanga said: Worth remembering football is a game of opinions. Right now everyone agrees we have a problem but if pressed there would be a wide variety of solutions (& that's from the experienced football observers). you are on the right track with your post though, it's not about the formation or even the line up to me, it's the detail of the playing style that's dooming us. So a different formation is just moving the deck chairs in afraid. Now starting with our best XI, yes this would help, but for me, that doesn't include "Salim" Malik, who looks for all the world like a midfielder playing in defence. If you want an example of Malik in a back three look at David Luiz at chelsea. Obviosuly no where near as good but a similar player and a back three suits them to a tee imo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shahanga Posted January 28, 2017 Report Share Posted January 28, 2017 4 minutes ago, Dylan said: If you want an example of Malik in a back three look at David Luiz at chelsea. Obviosuly no where near as good but a similar player and a back three suits them to a tee imo My big problem with a back 3 is you need 3 central defenders good enough to start. In my opinion we've got just 1. My problem with old mate Salim is not his skills, it's that he doesn't understand the thinking part of defending. Neither does Tongyik, but Malik has been around long enough that he should. Anyway like I said, it's a game of opinions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
belaguttman Posted January 28, 2017 Report Share Posted January 28, 2017 4 hours ago, 3 Points said: He doesn't have to to get a game with City. He moves forward so I'm guessing a marquee contract We need to know if he can defend, if he can't then he'll make a good Full Back Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fensaddler Posted January 28, 2017 Report Share Posted January 28, 2017 On 28/01/2017 at 10:21 AM, belaguttman said: The problem with survey design is in getting the questions right but once you choose them you can't change them half way through the survey. What will become clear though is that the metrics that they are measuring aren't correlated with participant satisfaction You sound like you work in my industry... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
belaguttman Posted January 30, 2017 Report Share Posted January 30, 2017 On 29/01/2017 at 10:24 AM, fensaddler said: You sound like you work in my industry... I've worked in the health industry where the KPIs that determine funding are usually inversely related to patient care! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n i k o Posted January 30, 2017 Report Share Posted January 30, 2017 Watching Bill and Boz right now I could only dream of Bozza asking one of our coaches the same up front to the point questions he is asking Popa right now. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haz Posted January 30, 2017 Report Share Posted January 30, 2017 1 minute ago, n i k o said: Watching Bill and Boz right now I could only dream of Bozza asking one of our coaches the same up front to the point questions he is asking Popa right now. "It's a work in progress" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n i k o Posted January 30, 2017 Report Share Posted January 30, 2017 (edited) Fantastic interview. Would love someone from our club to get an open and honest grilling like this. Edited January 30, 2017 by n i k o 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
belaguttman Posted January 30, 2017 Report Share Posted January 30, 2017 7 minutes ago, n i k o said: Fantastic interview. Would love someone from our club to get an open and honest grilling like this. They'd refuse the interview, probably why it hasn't already happened Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n i k o Posted January 30, 2017 Report Share Posted January 30, 2017 Just now, belaguttman said: They'd refuse the interview, probably why it hasn't already happened Of course they would Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
belaguttman Posted January 30, 2017 Report Share Posted January 30, 2017 (edited) Popa has been senior coach for a number of years and its reasonable to ask him the hard questions. Valkanis is a temporary coach, an assistant acting up and probably should be protected from the media at this stage anyway. There'll be plenty of time to ask those questions when we miss the finals though Edited January 30, 2017 by belaguttman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jw1739 Posted January 31, 2017 Report Share Posted January 31, 2017 14 hours ago, belaguttman said: Popa has been senior coach for a number of years and its reasonable to ask him the hard questions. Valkanis is a temporary coach, an assistant acting up and probably should be protected from the media at this stage anyway. There'll be plenty of time to ask those questions when we miss the finals though Yes. Won the Asian Champions League. One A-League Premiership and twice runners-up. Three times runners-up in the A-League Championship. A-League Coach of the Year and Asian Coach of the Year (one each). Valkanis has never won anything. And so far doesn't give any indication that he will. Totally different animal. If anyone from Melbourne City should get a grilling it's probably Simon Pearce or Brian Marwood. JvS should have done, of course, but was a protected species. IMO the media is scared of the City Football Group. Michael Lynch's article in the Sunday Age 29/01/17 is a good example - absolutely piss-weak when blind Freddy can see what's wrong with our play this season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haz Posted March 21, 2017 Report Share Posted March 21, 2017 (edited) Thescore.com Report: Manchester City owners seeking partnership with Uruguayan club by Armen Bedakin http://www.thescore.com/news/1259708 Manchester City's global reach is set to expand into South America, as the club is reportedly closing in on a deal to make a team in Uruguay the latest addition to City Football Group, according to The Independent. The organization owns a few teams around the world. Manchester City serves as the main brand and is supported by the likes of New York City FC in Major League Soccer, Melbourne City in Australia, and Yokohama Marinos in Japan. While the group is looking into acquiring a team in Uruguay, no specific club was mentioned. The deal is reportedly the result of problems in acquiring Gabriel Jesus from Brazil, with City Football Group looking to make the process of purchasing players out of South America easier by way of operating in Uruguay. Afterward, the group reportedly plans on expanding into China. Further Reading: http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/manchester-city-news-club-close-to-new-deal-latest-a7639121.html ------------------------------------------------------ Interesting read, should make it also easier for us to sign South Americans if this happens. I am concerned about a possible Chinese team, I'm sure they would try take Bruno there. Does the AFC have a similar rule to UEFA where no two teams in the champions league can be owned by the same company/person? Edited March 21, 2017 by haz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jw1739 Posted March 21, 2017 Report Share Posted March 21, 2017 1 hour ago, haz said: Afterward, the group reportedly plans on expanding into China. Further Reading: http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/manchester-city-news-club-close-to-new-deal-latest-a7639121.html ------------------------------------------------------ Interesting read, should make it also easier for us to sign South Americans if this happens. I am concerned about a possible Chinese team, I'm sure they would try take Bruno there. Does the AFC have a similar rule to UEFA where no two teams in the champions league can be owned by the same company/person? IMO the Group has already expanded into China by virtue of the 13% holding in CFG that Chinese interests have. I'm trying to turn up the reference, but IIRC the rule within the ACL is that no two teams may be majority owned by an owner. This gets (or will get, if both make the ACL simultaneously) CFG off the hook in terms of Melbourne City and Yokohama. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haz Posted March 21, 2017 Report Share Posted March 21, 2017 10 minutes ago, jw1739 said: IMO the Group has already expanded into China by virtue of the 13% holding in CFG that Chinese interests have. I'm trying to turn up the reference, but IIRC the rule within the ACL is that no two teams may be majority owned by an owner. This gets (or will get, if both make the ACL simultaneously) CFG off the hook in terms of Melbourne City and Yokohama. Thanks for the clear up JW, it does say in the original Independent.co.uk article that the Chinese club could be completely under their name which would be a concern for us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bt50 Posted March 21, 2017 Report Share Posted March 21, 2017 I honestly dont think CFG will be shifting their players between clubs to the detriment of one another unless its to Manchester. There's way too much to lose from a fan satisfaction point of view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jw1739 Posted March 21, 2017 Report Share Posted March 21, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, jw1739 said: IMO the Group has already expanded into China by virtue of the 13% holding in CFG that Chinese interests have. I'm trying to turn up the reference, but IIRC the rule within the ACL is that no two teams may be majority owned by an owner. This gets (or will get, if both make the ACL simultaneously) CFG off the hook in terms of Melbourne City and Yokohama. Here's the reference I was looking for. Article 15.3 of the AFC Statutes states: “The Member Association shall ensure that no natural or legal person (including holding companies and subsidiaries) exercise third-party control over more than one club or group whenever the integrity of any match or competition could be jeopardised.” On top of that the AFC Club Licensing Regulations, which every club participating in an AFC competition must adhere to, clearly states: No natural or legal person involved in the management, administration and/or sporting performance of the club, either directly or indirectly: holds or deals in the securities or shares that allows such person to exercise decisive influence in the activities of any other club participating in the same competition. Read more at http://www.fourfourtwo.com/sg/news/chinese-corporate-giants-could-jeopardise-acl-participation#pUZgEHA00mTObxvo.99 Not quite what I thought. I think the argument put forward by owners where there is an interest in more than one club is that they exercise no significant role in the running of the clubs concerned. This might be a bit difficult in terms of CFG (e.g. the scouting network) but I'm sure that the argument would be that each club uses "City Football Services" as it sees fit and there is no conflict of interest. It's going to be interesting to watch though. Edited March 21, 2017 by jw1739 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Falastur Posted March 21, 2017 Report Share Posted March 21, 2017 (edited) Yokohama there's really no issue with - CFG genuinely does exert next to no influence there. The club was always Nissan's private "thing" and from what I've seen Nissan don't have much interest in giving it up. The 20% is a token, nothing more. As for a CSL club, I have no idea, although I get the feeling that A ) it's probably still at least two years away and B ) CFG would rather start their own club or buy from the second division than take over one of China's primary teams, which means that probably it would take at least five years if not more for the said team to be looking like a serious challenger for continental qualification. In that time, I expect something to have been sorted out to head off this kind of issue. I sincerely doubt that CFG would be interested in a second Asian team (not counting Yokohama for the reasons above) if they didn't think they knew a way to cope with this situation. Edit: oh, and for the record, according to a Uruguayan newspaper (make of that what you will) the club CFG are looking at are this team, which is partly why I reckon it's so likely that they will work from the bottom up in China: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_Atlético_Torque Edited March 21, 2017 by Falastur 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffplz Posted March 21, 2017 Report Share Posted March 21, 2017 The club is around 9 years old, is fucking shit and was named "Torque" after their co-owner who used to be a mechanical engineer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haz Posted March 22, 2017 Report Share Posted March 22, 2017 30 minutes ago, jeffplz said: The club is around 9 years old, is fucking shit and was named "Torque" after their co-owner who used to be a mechanical engineer. Love that, imagine if by law clubs had to be named after owner professions... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffplz Posted March 22, 2017 Report Share Posted March 22, 2017 7 minutes ago, haz said: Love that, imagine if by law clubs had to be named after owner professions... Melbourne Oil-field FC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Posted March 22, 2017 Report Share Posted March 22, 2017 Melbourne Victory Vegatables Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thisphantomfortress Posted March 22, 2017 Report Share Posted March 22, 2017 Sydney Roman Abramovich-Lite Dodgy Russian Bloke Who Knows What He Really Does? FC 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.