If you'll indulge me for a minute, I think there are interesting aspects to this discussion once you spool it out past the immediate Man City/CFG context.
What does "independence" for this (or any) club look like? Is it simply an arrangement that keeps player assets at all CFG branches separate? Or, is it complete divestment from the entire CFG superstructure? Would true independence be some sort of fan-owned model?
The danger of wanting out from under the CFG umbrella is that, ok, you have a buyer -- but now you are beholden to them. You've just exchanged CFG (and all it's baggage) for Andrew Hauptman, or Jay Sugarman, (and all their baggage). Is that really what you want you're club to look like instead? Granted, it's an extreme example. But I think it's also worth noting as an inherent risk in trading out.
Talk of a fan-owned club in MLS is pretty much a complete non-starter with the current ownership model, not to mention actually getting past the Board of Governors. But maybe there is something to be said of Seattle's pesudo-soci model. I really don't know enough about the logistics of it in Seattle, or how it works for them, but what rough idea I do have of it sounds intriguing. Allowing fans some sort of voting presence in club affairs well above what exists with City Voice, with an annual council/summit/meeting/whathaveyou, might allow fans to really feel like this club is theirs. On the other hand, some might say that it would present the opportunity for the FO to corrupt supporter culture by getting into bed a select, privileged subset of fans.
And maybe that's what's at the heart of supporter culture? Taking something ubiquitous, and making it both intensely personal and yet still communal at the same time? I think this is a different conversation altogether.
In the end, most of this is just farting in the wind, because the practical realities on the ground make it highly unlikely that a change in the status quo (at a structural level) will happen. And even if it were to happen, one would have to think that, given the relative recentness of all the expenditures involved in this venture, it would not be for some considerable amount of time. Still, I think it's important (and useful) exercise to really think about what you want your club to look like at all levels, not just on the field.
What does "independence" for this (or any) club look like? Is it simply an arrangement that keeps player assets at all CFG branches separate? Or, is it complete divestment from the entire CFG superstructure? Would true independence be some sort of fan-owned model?
The danger of wanting out from under the CFG umbrella is that, ok, you have a buyer -- but now you are beholden to them. You've just exchanged CFG (and all it's baggage) for Andrew Hauptman, or Jay Sugarman, (and all their baggage). Is that really what you want you're club to look like instead? Granted, it's an extreme example. But I think it's also worth noting as an inherent risk in trading out.
Talk of a fan-owned club in MLS is pretty much a complete non-starter with the current ownership model, not to mention actually getting past the Board of Governors. But maybe there is something to be said of Seattle's pesudo-soci model. I really don't know enough about the logistics of it in Seattle, or how it works for them, but what rough idea I do have of it sounds intriguing. Allowing fans some sort of voting presence in club affairs well above what exists with City Voice, with an annual council/summit/meeting/whathaveyou, might allow fans to really feel like this club is theirs. On the other hand, some might say that it would present the opportunity for the FO to corrupt supporter culture by getting into bed a select, privileged subset of fans.
And maybe that's what's at the heart of supporter culture? Taking something ubiquitous, and making it both intensely personal and yet still communal at the same time? I think this is a different conversation altogether.
In the end, most of this is just farting in the wind, because the practical realities on the ground make it highly unlikely that a change in the status quo (at a structural level) will happen. And even if it were to happen, one would have to think that, given the relative recentness of all the expenditures involved in this venture, it would not be for some considerable amount of time. Still, I think it's important (and useful) exercise to really think about what you want your club to look like at all levels, not just on the field.
