Melbourne City survey

[Deeming]

53 minutes ago, Dylan said:

I know the answer. Red on our home kit because red = identity . Which is ironic, because these same discussions were taking place in the Heart days.

While I wouldn't go so far as to say having red creates identity it does create distinction and appeal. It actually doesn't even have to be red, pick any popular colour.

I had an older AFL-mad friend mention that she'd like to go to the soccer with my family, maybe the derby to experience it. She was trying to decide who to support and in the end was leaning to Victory because 'they are the blue team' and she supports Geelong in the AFL.  When there are no obvious distinctions because of geography then something like colour can be a deciding factor whether that's because its their favourite colour or another team they support wears that colour. The problem with sky blue is its not associated with other teams other than Sydney/NSW teams and other than mums choosing onesies for their new born baby boys, its no one's favourite colour. White also falls into this, its bland and no ones favourite colour. My 3 year old boy was watching us play the other day on the TV and wanted us to 'go for the other team' because we were playing in white and they were in colour.

Edited January 7, 2016 by Deeming

[jw1739]

5 minutes ago, JediCapitalist said:

Identity is pretty important because it's a big reason why fans might both choose Melbourne City, and stay with Melbourne City long term.  

I think our main area of differentiation from the other blokes used to be pretty unclear, but nowadays it's a bit philosophical.   If you like, we're in a similar boat to Inter, because we're the internationally minded club, and there's nothing wrong with that at all.   We just have to be better at demonstrating that.   

I reckon the identity question was the club trying to get a good idea of what we see the club as, and to compare it to how they want the club to be seen.   Hopefully a first step to solving this identity crisis thing once and for all.   

Agreed, and it's much more than just the colours of the playing kit. Memberships and attendances clearly demonstrate that the club as it is at the moment simply does not resonate with the Melbourne public to the extent that statistics would suggest it should. It bends over backwards to engage with the public - videos, the FRG, City Voice, Cityzens, the annual Family Day etc. etc., each one of these things seemingly welcomed by the fans and yet collectively they just don't catch on to produce the expected response.

One view I have is that despite everything that CFG has brought to Melbourne Heart - now City - it has still not brought what was IMO overwhelmingly expected, both by fans and the media, and that is quality players coming to us via the CFG connection. Without going over it all again, yes there is a salary cap and yes there are huge differences in CFG's investments in its various clubs and yes we have Aaron Mooy (for now), but both Villa and Koren have been stuff-ups and we've seen nothing else. And I think a lot more was expected in this area.

Just my view on it.

[n i k o]

@Dylan

Keyboard warriors?

Based on the question I posed to the club and the responses I can't see the word 'red' being mentioned once. And it was never the intention of my question to get caught up in that debate either. However I do get why you've brought it up and some of what you've said doesn't make sense to me.

 

"...and my argument is that red issnt a point of differentiation we should use, it should be bringing the stripes backs"

I don't understand. Seems a matter of perspective but how is you wanting the stripes to 'come back' different to people wanting some red to comeback? Aren't they both a part of Melbourne Heart history? 

That is unless you feel that the colours of a club holds a greater weight towards a clubs identity than having stripes on the jersey and it's simply easier to appease CFG this way....

I will say this regarding the red, you only need to look around the stadium on game day to see what colours our members are identifying with Melbourne City. Blue,White (as a majority) and Red. So to me it does make sense to allow our home kit to represent this, as you have done with your jersey. I'd remove the 'Melbourne Heart' symbol in the middle though as it may cause identity issues. 

In the end the club I feel is still trying to juggling the Manchester and Melbourne side of things and it's showing. That's why I amongst many others couldn't answer the question about what the club stands for. I do hope the club will sort this out soon. 

 

 

Edited January 7, 2016 by n i k o

[Red or Dead]

This could have easily been avoided if the dark blue stripe next to the sky blue stripe was a shade of red instead of dark blue.

I can't bring myself to call it navy...that colour should be nowhere near our club!
Our colours - since the CFG buyout - are white, red and sky blue so why the hell do we have the other shade of blue on our top?

[Torn Asunder]

I think Melbourne City FC is in the perfect position to continue to grow into being an all-round success and a club that plays entertaining exiting football, is internationally identifiable, and value-adds to Football in Australia.  

Yes, eventually we will transition to 'City Blue', but I am past that as an issue ... Our playing strips will be ever changing however I think the crest is the thing that people need to identify with most, and it should be set in stone.

Support for Football in Australia is a slow burner and its ultimate mainstream success will run in parallel with things like future TV deals, the ever changing dynamic of the A-League and even the success of the Socceroos and the Matildas.  If relegation kicks in, I could never see a situation with our current owners that we would be relegated ... with Heart, we would be gone.

One thing for sure, as things change, Melbourne City FC (with the current owners) will always be in a position to lead the pack and have significant influence.

Case in point, look at our facilities, staffing levels, the W-League team, and also to a degree our youth team, as well as Simon Pearce getting himself at the head of the A-League committee.

And things are changing in the stands ... attendance is growing, we are being talked about as an exciting and entertaining team to watch, a team that wants to win and be successful, but at the same time play good football with good players ... plus the Melburnians are not a bunch of spuds like MV and WSW active.  The current level of interaction with the fans / members no doubt surpasses other clubs and it has been stated that our non-football related resources are the envy of all the other a-league teams.

There is a huge amount of passive support out there for City and when you stumble upon someone from Melbourne who knows the league, but doesn't attend games, there is greater than 50/50 chance in my experience that they either follow or lean towards Melbourne City FC.

.

Edited January 7, 2016 by Torn Asunder