The Crouch Report: The Fan Led Review of (English) Football Governance

[jw1739]

Brought across from the City v. Perth thread.

I think that you have it right there @n i k o. Heart was us, and we were Heart. It was our club (even though it wasn't!) Support for City was indeed conditional, conditional on success, being the best, being the benchmark, sharing in the resources of City Football Group (then only four clubs I might add). And I think each individual supporter would have their own interpretation of those conditions.

Three things have been nominated by the recent fan-led review of football in England as being non-negotiable and not to be changed without the supporters' consent: 1.  The club's name or identity; 2. the club's colours; and 3. the site of the club's stadium. It is worth noting that CFG have done two of those, and the third has been raised as possible with the move of club HQ to Casey Fields and perhaps a stadium in Dandenong.

Anything that's conditional is, well, conditional. Have the conditions been fulfilled? I think that comes down again to the individual.

For me, I don't mind the change in name and IMO our logo is up there with the very best anywhere, I abhor the sky blue and refuse to wear it unless the red and white is there too, and I would reluctantly go to matches in Dandenong (although I think that won't happen, at least for a long time).

Have we shared in the resources of CFG? Well, we had one pre-season in Manchester I recall, but never been back, the only CFG club we've played has been Man City and that was on the Gold Coast, and I think we can count one coach (Mombaerts) as coming from CFG. AFAIK James Poole of CFG deals with our visa recruitment so I guess we are using CFG resources there. However, AFAIK two of our best overseas recruits (McCormack and Schenkeveld) did not come via CFG. One Man City EDS player (James Horsfield) spent 6 weeks at Bundoora but didn't play for us (salary cap?) Brattan and Caceres came to us via CFG. Overall a pass mark, but not much more than that, although we must remember that FA/FFA passed "rules" such as Caceres and Lampard to stop us benefiting on the player front. Bit IMO we should be doing much better with our coaching team.

A very worthwhile discussion IMO.

Edited May 7, 2022 by jw1739

[n i k o]

11 hours ago, jw1739 said:

I think that you have it right there @n i k o. Heart was us, and we were Heart. It was our club (even though it wasn't!) Support for City was indeed conditional, conditional on success, being the best, being the benchmark, sharing in the resources of City Football Group (then only four clubs I might add). And I think each individual supporter would have their own interpretation of those conditions.

Three things have been nominated by the recent fan-led review of football in England as being non-negotiable and not to be changed without the supporters' consent: 1.  The club's name or identity; 2. the club's colours; and 3. the site of the club's stadium. It is worth noting that CFG have done two of those, and the third has been raised as possible with the move of club HQ to Casey Fields and perhaps a stadium in Dandenong.

Anything that's conditional is, well, conditional. Have the conditions been fulfilled? I think that comes down again to the individual.

For me, I don't mind the change in name and IMO our logo is up there with the very best anywhere, I abhor the sky blue and refuse to wear it unless the red and white is there too, and I would reluctantly go to matches in Dandenong (although I think that won't happen, at least for a long time).

Have we shared in the resources of CFG? Well, we had one pre-season in Manchester I recall, but never been back, the only CFG club we've played has been Man City and that was on the Gold Coast, and I think we can count one coach (Mombaerts) as coming from CFG. AFAIK James Poole of CFG deals with our visa recruitment so I guess we are using CFG resources there. However, AFAIK two of our best overseas recruits (McCormack and Schenkeveld) did not come via CFG. One Man City EDS player (James Horsfield) spent 6 weeks at Bundoora but didn't play for us (salary cap?) Brattan and Caceres came to us via CFG. Overall a pass mark, but not much more than that, although we must remember that FA/FFA passed "rules" such as Caceres and Lampard to stop us benefiting on the player front. Bit IMO we should be doing much better with our coaching team.

A very worthwhile discussion IMO.

Great post. Thats interesting about the fan led review in England. Based on that criteria in comparison to us it makes sense. 

[jw1739]

15 hours ago, n i k o said:

Great post. Thats interesting about the fan led review in England. Based on that criteria in comparison to us it makes sense. 

The Fan-Led Review is being taken very seriously in England. You can read documents pertaining to it on the U.K Government web-site at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fan-led-review-of-football-governance-securing-the-games-future

It was chaired by Tracey Crouch, a Member of Parliament (MP) and made 47 recommendations. I haven't digested it all, but if anyone is really interested we can start a thread elsewhere on it. Say in "Australian Football?"

Prima facie it is very relevant to the situation that we face here with Melbourne City since Heart was taken over.

Edit: The full report can be read and downloaded here:

https://thefsa.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Football-Fan-led-Governance-Review.pdf

The key recommendations relating to Club Heritage are on page 139.

Edited May 7, 2022 by jw1739
Additional reference

[Imtellingyou]

Football is number one sport over there  it's what AFL is here, at least in Victoria.  Fan-led review to be taken seriously requires that level of community engagement. It's not about active fans, it's about broad membership base breads and lives with the club. In those conditions the club has to very careful with the fundamental changes. 

How is all this comparable to the soccer and City. There are 3 to 7 thousands people attending the game. There are posters on this forum who don't go to the our games. This is where it starts. This is how you make the game influential in the community. 

Heart legacy is just exaggerated.  It was short with no results and followed by only the bunch of people.  I still remember the very first game. Those members are still with the club, quietly attending the games. 

Of course that the colour transition from red to blue was not dealt properly.  There was no significant discount for members to exchange the old kits. This is why you see old red jerseys,  even most people wear blue these days. 

[n i k o]

1 minute ago, Imtellingyou said:

Football is number one sport over there  it's what AFL is here, at least in Victoria.  Fan-led review to be taken seriously requires that level of community engagement. It's not about active fans, it's about broad membership base breads and lives with the club. In those conditions the club has to very careful with the fundamental changes. 

How is all this comparable to the soccer and City. There are 3 to 7 thousands people attending the game. There are posters on this forum who don't go to the our games. This is where it starts. This is how you make the game influential in the community. 

Heart legacy is just exaggerated.  It was short with no results and followed by only the bunch of people.  I still remember the very first game. Those members are still with the club, quietly attending the games. 

Of course that the colour transition from red to blue was not dealt properly.  There was no significant discount for members to exchange the old kits. This is why you see old red jerseys,  even most people wear blue these days. 

Careful like Lowy and Gallop prioritising general and non football fans whilst single handedly driving active fans away and creating the huge decline in active support and support overall? Yes care is needed for the correct people who are the heart and soul of aleague support. 

[n i k o]

2 hours ago, jw1739 said:

@n i k o Getting off-topic a bit, but for those interested (and IMO we ought to be) the Fan-Led Review is being taken very seriously in England. You can read documents pertaining to it on the U.K Government web-site at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fan-led-review-of-football-governance-securing-the-games-future

It was chaired by Tracey Crouch, a Member of Parliament (MP) and made 47 recommendations. I haven't digested it all, but if anyone is really interested we can start a thread elsewhere on it. Say in "Australian Football?"

Prima facie it is very relevant to the situation that we face here with Melbourne City since Heart was taken over.

I'll leave it to the Forum to decide whether we want to discuss it or not. 

 

Edit: The full report can be read and downloaded here:

https://thefsa.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Football-Fan-led-Governance-Review.pdf

The key recommendations relating to Club Heritage are on page 139.

Worthwhile discussion for sure 

[Mr MO]

On 6/5/2022 at 10:40 AM, n i k o said:

 

I'm trying hard to understand.

Because we are still top of the table. Will we close it out on Monday, not sure. But to not support the team given the circumstance is a bit strange. We won the league last season. We're currently top of the table. Our first outing in Asia and we didn't lose a game. We retuned back and played in Perth the following day. I just feel we're so quick to get angry at the team and the club without any consideration to the positives and difficulties. 

My personal take.

Obviously we’ve significantly improved compared to Heart in terms of success. However, I can’t help to feel the way I do, there is just something missing, an emptiness.

The above from Niko and he’s not alone sums up exactly (IMO) what is lacking with the club and needs to be worked in order to grow. The somewhat mediocre Heart like attitude among our fans and even within the club is still well and truly around. 

Passion and excitement attracts fans, and drives engagement, more importantly passion goes hand in hand with ambition. Without ambition there is no passion.

We don’t have the luxury of being a neighbourhood club with a strong fan base and family foundations like in other parts of the world. No, this club will only grow by putting actual intend behind the so called ambitions and how these ambitions come across. Continuous ruthless succes without excuses year after year is our only way forward to form the basis for the next generation of fans.

Whilst some of the below statements might be factually correct, it just lacks ambitions and ruthlessness.

- Calling the ACL campaign a success, by not having lost a game but failed to progress with a once in a lifetime opportunity. “We are just unlucky”

- A tweet from the club listing excuses during the ACL campaign. 

- Consistently referring to the last season double, “we should be happy as it worked last season”. Even though last season circumstances were complete different.

- We’ve missed the mark completely with recruitment and salary cap management, yet we managed to find acceptance in all sort of excuses. We’ve wasted hundreds of thousands AUD this season.

Despite perhaps winning the league with a last game effort, I feel that this season we are just underperforming compared to the resources at our disposal.

Again all above is my personal opinion.

Edited May 7, 2022 by Mr MO

[Imtellingyou]

We are underperforminng comparing to the last season.  This is based on the unconvincing results against the top teams.

However, if we look at the ladder and points, the whole situation is a bit controversial. We are exactly where we were last season.  We even lost less games. 

The last season competition was (hopefully) the weakest ever due to Covid. And yet we just won Premiers by 2 points. But there was that undeniable feeling that we can't lose the race.

We have weaker squad and the coach is facing better strategist. It's all very confusing. 

[jw1739]

To my mind the tweet was to say the least, unfortunate.

Moving on though, overall I think that the fan led review and its conclusions are very relevant to Australian football, because AFAIK every one of the 12 A-League clubs is privately owned, and at least several by overseas interests. Even worse is that now the league is now run by those same 12 clubs. I don't know the precise details of who decides what, but the current structure smacks somewhat of the Euro Super League that was proposed and fell through within 72 hours. Middle Eastern owners have been accused of "sportswashing" and I wonder how comfortable people are at supporting a club owned by an Emerati royal family, an American investment company and a Chinese company? AFAIK none of our four directors are Australian and none live in Australia, and I wonder how many of any of these people have actually been to AAMI Park for a City match?

IMO the concept of the "Golden Share" is one that we need here in Australia. Football may be a minority sport, but we play it at an international level, so the game cannot be dismissed as irrelevant. TBH, I think that having clubs owned by foreign interests actually stifles growth of the game rather than promotes it, because it seems "un-Australian." 

I doubt that government intervention is appropriate however, because our governments hardly distinguish themselves elsewhere. I would have preferred to see the FA act, but it might be too late for that. We may have sold our soul to the devil already.