Manchester City Buying Aussie Football Club

If I were a WSW supporter, there is no way I would want Man City to buy the club because theoretically you would alienate all of the fans of Man City's rivals in England who also support WSW. Although, I notice that as a Liverpool fan, you are not concerned by that mr-r34?

RealGunner wrote:I am in love with it lmao. Can't stop laughing.

lmao, you've grown pretty good at using it. This was a perfect place to use it.


As for the OT, this surely must be against some sort of rules that a club could own another club.

Giampaolo Pozzo owns 3 clubs: Udinese, Granada, and recently Watford

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giampaolo_Pozzo

RealGunner wrote:

chemicalboy99 wrote:

http://www.ultraimg.com/images/c9u1X.gif

Brilliantly done RG.

Ugh...

I really was hopeful for Nycfc but now this just feels so wrong

Forza wrote:If I were a WSW supporter, there is no way I would want Man City to buy the club because theoretically you would alienate all of the fans of Man City's rivals in England who also support WSW. Although, I notice that as a Liverpool fan, you are not concerned by that mr-r34?

I couldn't give a stuff in all honesty, WSW and your chosen BPL clubs are totally irrelevant.

City buying an a-league club will not help them in 1 bit, only benefits the a-league club. The only thing that they get is first tabs on all the youngsters and that's hardly anything to worry about considering the players we produce.

I can see the conflict though, most my mates i travel with for WSW games are united fans and would hate the idea of city owning us but i highly doubt they would stop supporting the wanderers because of that.

Having millions of dollars to give to marquees would allow us to compete with the MLS in some respect to lure players who have just finished playing in Europe, rather than signing 'fringe' marquee players.

V wrote:Giampaolo Pozzo owns 3 clubs: Udinese, Granada, and recently Watford

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giampaolo_Pozzo

For the THIRD AND FINAL TIME this isn't an OWNER buying another club, this is a CLUB BUYING A CLUB. How is that so difficult for people to comprehend?

And if memory serves, haven't there been a number of issues raised about the way Pozzo's clubs have interacted with each other on top of that? Something about forced loans to help Watford's push for promotion, I think...

So they trademarked Melbourne City FC. FFS. Really if they change the name/brand of this team l dunno what to say.

Trying to coin the name City, (if that is the plan) is like when Donald trump trademarked the phrase "You're fired", or when Paris Hilton tried to take credit for "That's hot"

straya

Heart bought for 10-12mil AUD or 5.33 mil pounds sterling. They bought Scott Sinclair for 8mil pounds for some perspective

They're renaming Melbourne Heart to Melbourne City.

AHAHHAHAHA. Piss take.

Wait for the club color changes to sky blue as well

In any case the club was founded in 2009, not like they have much history to complain about.

Their direct rivals (Melbourne Victory) wear dark blue and Sydney FC (another "state rival") already have the sky blue top in the A league.

Doubt they'll change the colour.

True, it's not like United, Arsenal and Liverpool all wear red

Do Liverpool and Everton both wear red?
Do MUFC and MCFC both wear red?
Do Arsenal and Chelsea both wear red?

BarrileteCosmico wrote:True, it's not like United, Arsenal and Liverpool all wear red

Yes, and all three play in the same city...

I'm just basing this off the fact that NYC FC has sky blue colors, it seems to me that City would want to continue with this tradition. While their city rivals wear dark blue, the different shades might allow them to do it anyways.

They own New York too?

Building an empire.

How have they helped NYC?

You guys have to realise that at the moment Heart have the fewest supporters in the league, the worst squad, and the worst results. Not only that, but the club hasn't existed for very long. Their supporters would change their kit to nuclear waste green and have Al Qaeda as their new sponsor if it meant improving the club's situation.

mr-r34 wrote:

Forza wrote:If I were a WSW supporter, there is no way I would want Man City to buy the club because theoretically you would alienate all of the fans of Man City's rivals in England who also support WSW. Although, I notice that as a Liverpool fan, you are not concerned by that mr-r34?

I couldn't give a stuff in all honesty, WSW and your chosen BPL clubs are totally irrelevant.

City buying an a-league club will not help them in 1 bit, only benefits the a-league club.  The only thing that they get is first tabs on all the youngsters and that's hardly anything to worry about considering the players we produce.

I can see the conflict though, most my mates i travel with for WSW games are united fans and would hate the idea of city owning us but i highly doubt they would stop supporting the wanderers because of that.

Having millions of dollars to give to marquees would allow us to compete with the MLS in some respect to lure players who have just finished playing in Europe, rather than signing 'fringe' marquee players.

Yeah, I mean if Inter bought Adelaide United, I would be pretty annoyed. I'm not sure if I would stop supporting the club, but it would be a definite conflict for me.

So they now own a club in New York and one in Melbourne. Is it going to stop here?

Difficult to see any other motive to buying this one than using it for developing youngsters the best of which might make it to the Manchester City squad. Don't think it's going to help City that much, though, it's a bit of video game thinking.

All those rough aussie gems going to bring man city a CL trophy :proud

BarrileteCosmico wrote:Wait for the club color changes to sky blue as well

In any case the club was founded in 2009, not like they have much history to complain about.

Won't happen arch rivals are blue.


Melbourne city is better than Melbourne heart ffs, bring on the change and lose your money when you get max crowds of 10k ffs.

Forza wrote:You guys have to realise that at the moment Heart have the fewest supporters in the league, the worst squad, and the worst results. Not only that, but the club hasn't existed for very long. Their supporters would change their kit to nuclear waste green and have Al Qaeda as their new sponsor if it meant improving the club's situation.

I'm kinda happy they didn't buy us, i could see potential conflicts between us and the owners, if they ever thought about changing our names, mass boycott by all the fans.

Red Alert wrote:They own New York too?

Building an empire.

How have they helped NYC?

Well, they basically founded and financed the club, then bought it's way into MLS consideration. So they helped the club by creating it and all-but bribing it's way into relevance... as for helping NYC as a whole and/or a footy city; well, it's hard to say now but you could make a case that they've harmed rather than helped it, tbh. By creating this new club they've not only destroyed the Cosmos's (a storied and well liked club) chances of returning to MLS and they'll only end up splitting the Red Bulls' support to build their own, rather than pulling new fans into the fold. They'll undoubtedly increase the rate of inflation within the US/MLS market if they attempt anything even remotely similar to what has already been discussed with Xavi and others, and they've made the hierarchy running MLS and US footy in general look short-sighted, shallow, and greedy (or simply re-emphasised those traits, depending on your perspective).

Forza wrote:You guys have to realise that at the moment Heart have the fewest supporters in the league, the worst squad, and the worst results. Not only that, but the club hasn't existed for very long. Their supporters would change their kit to nuclear waste green and have Al Qaeda as their new sponsor if it meant improving the club's situation.

That really has NOTHING to do with the questions being raised here though.

Never ceases to amaze me how quickly/effectively/dramatically people can twist, undermine or outright ignore the actual topic at hand and simply bring up tangentially related (at best) topics, usually for the sake of a lame joke or petty comment. Surely SOMEONE cares about the potential ethical, legal, and economic ramifications this type of move could have on world club football.


Anyone?




...Anyone?






...Bueller?