The People Vs Manchester City

[Numz15]

Now there has been some tension between, the Man City fans and non City fans. I for one do not support Man city, but I recognize that New York will always be linked to our old world cousins. I will proudly wear the sky blue and sing the songs, but I will not be singing Blue Moon. I feel that is something that should stay Man City. As far as the association with New York chapter of the Man City supporters goes, if they want to come to us thats great, the more the merrier, but I dont want to be expected to go to them, just because they are our "big brother".

 

[Falastur]

l don't think anyone has suggested that NYCFC should adopt City customs. In fact I'm pretty set against it for the purposes of not alienating potential fans. The club may well pick sky blue kits to make the two teams look similar but appearances aside, I don't think even those running the club want the New York club to be an identikit version of Manchester, and it won't help the team grow off the pitch.

 

[Soccerfanatic94]

I want some of the City culture because it's storied and well established, and we aren't. For example: Would love to see Ethiad as the Kit Sponsor (simplistic logo looks great on jerseys) I would love to see us use a variation of the only team in manchester, or we're ruining football and we don't care. We are the new kids on the block. We need credibility and at least for a few years, that credibility is going to come from City whether anyone likes it or not

 

[Metropolis]

The closer NYCFC comes to MC, the further I'll go.

 

[MikeDatTiger]

I don't like Etihiad as a sponsor. I think that makes it too much like City. Moreover, I want different sponsors. This is a New York club. I want to see NYCFC put in the man hours to get a big American company to invest in MLS, whether it's another airline or a soft drink company like Pepsi or even a car manufacturer. It's important for MLS that the most lucrative advertising spaces are held by important and big companies. Let's get away from Herbalife and get to some of the big ticket companies.

 

[BToto920]

I do not want to be a City clone. We are New Yorkers and we march to our own beat. We do not need to adopt anything from the parent club. Yes of course there will be some crossover, but let that be on the corporate level, not on the supporter level. We support the team, not the ownership.

 

[MrMartinezNYC]

We do support the team but the ownership brought us this team to support.
There is tradition in both these clubs that own our team.
A SG will also have to collabo with this ownership to have SG prices like other SG's do.
I am glad we have a big sponsor so we can land the big player that wants the international endorsement deal.
The only people saying anything about it are the non MCFC fans.

 

[BlueWolf]

Sorry guys but the similarities between the two clubs will be massive. MCFC own most of NYCFC and so the kits will be similar, and the ethos will be similar - Melbourne Heart has already applied to change their name to Melbourne City, and have their colours changed.

Additionally NYCFC will play in a very similar style (if not exactly the same) because City will send over Academy lads, and they can't afford to have them playing a different style to their parent club.

 

[Falastur]

Sorry guys but the similarities between the two clubs will be massive. MCFC own most of NYCFC and so the kits will be similar, and the ethos will be similar - Melbourne Heart has already applied to change their name to Melbourne City, and have their colours changed.

Additionally NYCFC will play in a very similar style (if not exactly the same) because City will send over Academy lads, and they can't afford to have them playing a different style to their parent club.

I think you're mistaking appearance for identity. There may be player sharing, and for sure the colours and style of play will be similar, but the fans will be different, they will sing different songs, play against different teams in different competitions in a different format in a different country. Realistically, when the season starts, will NYCFC fans think about MCFC at all? Unless they are fans of both clubs, probably not, and that's really important. MLS has already seen one example of a foreign team imposing its identity on a new franchise, with disastrous consequences. If the club tries to market themselves as Manchester City USA then the result will be fans abandoning the club in droves. Thankfully, the club has made it very clear so far that they want a separate identity.

 

[MrMartinezNYC]

The club stated they want to be separate? If I recall our coach is learning the "man city way"
But you are right in We the fans are different we will chant differently and the non city fans need to not worry about the parent company and just focus on your home team NYC FC.

 

[BlueWolf]

I think you're mistaking appearance for identity. There may be player sharing, and for sure the colours and style of play will be similar, but the fans will be different, they will sing different songs, play against different teams in different competitions in a different format in a different country. Realistically, when the season starts, will NYCFC fans think about MCFC at all? Unless they are fans of both clubs, probably not, and that's really important. MLS has already seen one example of a foreign team imposing its identity on a new franchise, with disastrous consequences. If the club tries to market themselves as Manchester City USA then the result will be fans abandoning the club in droves. Thankfully, the club has made it very clear so far that they want a separate identity.

Don't get me wrong there will be unique chants and things done the New Yorker way, but the ties will never be severed, and City's shadow will be large and heavy; trust me.

 

[einwindir]

Don't get me wrong there will be unique chants and things done the New Yorker way, but the ties will never be severed, and City's shadow will be large and heavy; trust me.

You make it sound so daunting '...shadows will be large and heavy'

I think it's inescapable. City, is a brand. NYCFC are a packaged merchandise to be sold as that brand. It's a hard truth to swallow, but let's face it - professional sports are about ONE thing...making money. City has proven to know how to sell soccer, so they are going to try it out in the one of the most prestigious markets in the world using their formula.

I'm fine with that. I'm not an MCFC fan (SWANSEA CITY!) but I am not so shallow to completely shun my hometown team because of City ties.

 

[NYCFC_Dan]

You'd have to be blind to deny there are heavy ties. I think MCFC understand that even when the season starts that the club has to be marketed independently and I believe they will do that.
I can see where it would anger Melbourne, due to history. With us it will be different. We're starting fresh and all we know is Blue right now. That Blue tells us NYCFC, not MCFC because it's all we know. Hence why they started their campaign with NY Is Blue.
There's members on this forum that are fans of Chelsea, United, Liverpool and other clubs and they accept NYCFC because they see and respect the fact that the club IS creating its own identity.

As far as the play style is concerned, bring it. I'd love nothing more than to watch a MLS team play like City or any top tier club.
But what's happening here on our forums, for example, is a clear indicator that we WILL have our own identity.
Fans are okay with a City influence but understand that chants and songs will be our own making.
This would and should be the case whether the owner was united, city, barca, etc.

 

[BlueWolf]

You'd have to be blind to deny there are heavy ties. I think MCFC understand that even when the season starts that the club has to be marketed independently and I believe they will do that.
I can see where it would anger Melbourne, due to history. With us it will be different. We're starting fresh and all we know is Blue right now. That Blue tells us NYCFC, not MCFC because it's all we know. Hence why they started their campaign with NY Is Blue.
There's members on this forum that are fans of Chelsea, United, Liverpool and other clubs and they accept NYCFC because they see and respect the fact that the club IS creating its own identity.

As far as the play style is concerned, bring it. I'd love nothing more than to watch a MLS team play like City or any top tier club.
But what's happening here on our forums, for example, is a clear indicator that we WILL have our own identity.
Fans are okay with a City influence but understand that chants and songs will be our own making.
This would and should be the case whether the owner was united, city, barca, etc.

Melbourne Heart is only five years old. There is no history.

That may sound harsh, but it's the reality. A Melbourne fan wrote an open letter to Mansour/Khaldoon and he pulled no punches about his feelings and that the heart (no pun intended) of the club was being ripped out. But again, the club is only FIVE YEARS OLD. That fan needs to get a grip.

As for NYCFC, the club will pick up fans of other PL teams, and that's a good thing as it will help to create its own identity. Yes, City will always be there on the horizon effecting things from afar, but I believe that they will have a hands-off approach to things; allow the club to work in its own way with the occasional nudge in a certain direction.

 

[Vinjay]

If you look back at the foundations of football countless clubs changed their kits and even names (some multiple times) early in their history. Leeds United changed their kits long after that having barely done a damn thing until Revie managed them. Why should there be a difference in modern day equivalents? Maybe Melbourne H fans need to learn some gratitude and thank the heavens that Manchester City became even remotely associated with their football club. Their so called "history" has been nothing but absolute mediocrity even by that leagues standards what history is that? They haven't even done one notable thing in Australian football. Its ironic that the smallest club of the three by far (not that Melbourne is a bad city by many accounts) is the one complaining the most. NYCFC is huge on location alone. Still I barely know what's going on in Melbourne maybe that one fan is an extreme example.

First thing they need to change is that logo. Looks like something the British Heart Foundation would use.

Just saw an amusingly sarcastic article (http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2014/apr/17/sydney-fc-melbourne-heart-kit-change) that Sydney are moaning because MH might use SKY BLUE kits. Apparently they must be the only club in Australia allowed to wear that colour. Maybe its their own fault for not selling to MCFC when by many accounts they had the chance.

At least with Melbourne H its probably being changed to a name that sounds like a football club. Not like they are renaming it Lucozade FC or something. Imagine if they changed a great name to that of an energy drink wouldn't that sound silly? Oh wait a minute...

 

[Falastur]

If you look back at the foundations of football countless clubs changed their kits and even names (some multiple times) early in their history. Leeds United changed their kits long after that having barely done a damn thing until Revie managed them. Why should there be a difference in modern day equivalents? Maybe Melbourne H fans need to learn some gratitude and thank the heavens that Manchester City became even remotely associated with their football club. Their so called "history" has been nothing but absolute mediocrity even by that leagues standards what history is that? They haven't even done one notable thing in Australian football. Its ironic that the smallest club of the three by far (not that Melbourne is a bad city by many accounts) is the one complaining the most. NYCFC is huge on location alone. Still I barely know what's going on in Melbourne maybe that one fan is an extreme example.

First thing they need to change is that logo. Looks like something the British Heart Foundation would use.

Just saw an amusingly sarcastic article (http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2014/apr/17/sydney-fc-melbourne-heart-kit-change) that Sydney are moaning because MH might use SKY BLUE kits. Apparently they must be the only club in Australia allowed to wear that colour. Maybe its their own fault for not selling to MCFC when by many accounts they had the chance.

At least with Melbourne H its probably being changed to a name that sounds like a football club. Not like they are renaming it Lucozade FC or something. Imagine if they changed a great name to that of an energy drink wouldn't that sound silly? Oh wait a minute...

With respect, that's a pretty insulting post, and it reminds me of the scousers/united fans claiming that City have no history because they confuse it with success.

I could launch into a point by point refutation but I'm on my mobile right now and don't want to have to type it all out at length. Sufficed to say that the fact that the vast majority of Heart fans feel differently, and City's own board member Simon Pearce has also said that their colours need to be respected, suggests that you might be looking at it wrong.

 

[MikeDatTiger]

We do support the team but the ownership brought us this team to support.
There is tradition in both these clubs that own our team.
A SG will also have to collabo with this ownership to have SG prices like other SG's do.
I am glad we have a big sponsor so we can land the big player that wants the international endorsement deal.
The only people saying anything about it are the non MCFC fans.

Yeah, but having NYCFC needs non MCFC to survive. We need people to feel comfortable liking NYCFC and not liking, or even despising, MCFC. So yeah, they should speak up because while most NY MCFC fans are going to be part of the club regardless, it's going to be those fans that we need to listen to to understand the kind of experience they want in order to be attracted to the club.

 

[einwindir]

Yeah, but having NYCFC needs non MCFC to survive. We need people to feel comfortable liking NYCFC and not liking, or even despising, MCFC. So yeah, they should speak up because while most NY MCFC fans are going to be part of the club regardless, it's going to be those fans that we need to listen to to understand the kind of experience they want in order to be attracted to the club.

Some people seem to have forgotten the Chivas USA debacle.

 

[Vinjay]

With respect, that's a pretty insulting post, and it reminds me of the scousers/united fans claiming that City have no history because they confuse it with success.

I could launch into a point by point refutation but I'm on my mobile right now and don't want to have to type it all out at length. Sufficed to say that the fact that the vast majority of Heart fans feel differently, and City's own board member Simon Pearce has also said that their colours need to be respected, suggests that you might be looking at it wrong.

Well their claims are complete nonsense and you can't even begin to remotely compare Manchester City history of prestige to Melbourne Heart. Its a fact they don't have any history of note as far as even slight success on the field. Looking back at that post saying they should "thank the heavens" sounds dreadfully arrogant and cold. Still I stand by most of my points especially the historical notes of most clubs.

 

[Falastur]

Well their claims are complete nonsense and you can't even begin to remotely compare Manchester City history of prestige to Melbourne Heart. Its a fact they don't have any history of note as far as even slight success on the field. Looking back at that post saying they should "thank the heavens" sounds dreadfully arrogant and cold. Still I stand by most of my points especially the historical notes of most clubs.

Yes, of course you can't compare their history with MCFC's, but no-one ever said that the definition of a club having "history" is "history to equal that of Manchester City".

Put it this way: say I have in my hand a huge bunch of grapes. Nom nom nom. You, however, only have a single grape. Along comes person C, and they ask the question "does Vinjay have grapes?" Can we conclude that, because you don't have as many grapes as me, that you therefore do not possess any grapes? No, because you clearly do, just not as much.

At what point does a team qualify for having history? Some people would say when they first win a trophy, but I will have nothing to do with that argument. It's stupid. Others would say that as soon as the team is created, it has history, though again I find that perhaps short-sighted. So how can we define when a club genuinely does have history? It's virtually impossible to answer because you'll never be able to get everyone to agree where the line should be drawn. In this circumstance, I believe that the fairest answer is to conclude that a team has history when the majority of its own fans believe it has history, and we outsiders are not qualified to tell them that they have none. In this case, the Heart fans feel passionately about their history, and therefore I must conclude that they have history.