Following official confirmation that the 2013/2014 A-League season is to be Melbourne Heart’s last in the competition, A-League fans can be forgiven for breathing something of a sigh of relief.
The last of the problematic expansion clubs have found new owners to take over the franchise license.
The first implication of the new incoming team is that as a “glocalised” form of EPL club Manchester City basing itself in Melbourne (to be called Melbourne City), it won’t suffer from the problems the outgoing Heart franchise suffered from in terms of defining what it stands for.
Additionally the impact of the new team is the impact it will have on redefining the Melbourne derbies from the 2014/2015 season onwards as a contest along the lines of “new football” versus “modern football”, or rather the national versus the international.
Melbourne derbies will now be the stage of the local Australian produced powerhouse versus the local Melbourne-based branch of a multi-national football conglomerate.
Despite the bizarre commentary from some quarters that contrary to every discernible KPI’s, the outgoing Heart franchise under the stewardship of Peter Sidwell and Scott Munn was “sound” it will be of some initial benefit to football in Melbourne that a team with a more discernible identity is already in place to rise out of the ashes of Melbourne Heart.
This may happen similarly to how football in New Zealand in A-League terms benefitted from the Wellington Phoenix rising quickly out of the ashes of the old New Zealand Knights.
Not least because on the pitch the Heart will go down in history as the worst performing club in history having recently equalled the old New Zealand Knights record of over 20 matches without a win, to go with their underwhelming attendances.
No empty vacuum allowing for negative discussion that surrounded to demise of the two North Queensland clubs then.
Also on the positive side the new team will have some benefits that the only successful team to have filled an A-League expansion slot did not have in its beginning– a ready-made team and coach in place from the outgoing Heart franchise which means they won’t have to be quite starting from scratch.
Additionally, the new team will also have the “anti-Victory” supporters of Heart to be able to build a fan-base upon to supplement fans of its own identity.
In this case the lack of strong identity of the Heart can act in the new teams favour, and they can expect to avoid a similar sort of communal backlash when the old Wimbledon football club was converted into a franchise format and moved to Milton Keynes to become MK Dons.
Despite the best efforts of some in the Sydney based football media to often sugarcoat the failings of the Heart franchise, it needs to be recognised that these very failings have their roots in the bidding process when the FFA opted to ignore the Southern Cross Consortium (with links to South Melbourne FC) in favour of the Sidwell-led Heart franchise.
This was despite the fact that at best it only offered vague points of difference to the pre-existing team (Melbourne Victory) and in effect it ended up being a “broad-based CBD based team” that offered nothing new.
There was the possibility of the second Melbourne based franchise to represent a distinct identity when South Melbourne made an offer for the Heart franchise within the past year.
This would have came with some risks attached given the image baggage of the old NSL, but it would nevertheless tapped into a new market of old NSL fans who were disengaged from the A-League, and articulated a narrative of healing the division between “old soccer and new football”.
Instead we have ended up with the complete opposite which is the uniting of “new football” in Australia with the “modern football” of the world.
Similar to how questions would have been raised as to whether it would be best to allow an “old soccer” club in, similar questions need to be asked as to whether allowing a “glocalised” form of an EPL brand similarly poses a risk to the image of local football.
The A-League has long suffered from the notion of inferiority projected onto it by the much maligned “Eurosnob” (an erstwhile football fan who has disdain for the A-League).
This has taken place in a context where the A-League in Australia has worked to develop a professional league as an expression of distinct national identity and distinct from overseas clubs.
There was a strong backlash to the concept of the English Premier Leagues “game 39” concept when it was mooted to play sell to the highest bidder a round of competitive EPL games on foreign soil.
This was controversial for a number of reasons, and can be seen as a greater reflection of how the nature of modern business conflicts with the traditional focus of national sovereignty.
What needs to be recognised however is that allowing local teams to become branches of larger global brands is an articulation of the same forces and prospectively undermines Australian football sovereignty?
Arto
Guest
@ NUFCMVFC: I'd just like to comment firstly on your article contra your comments in the aftermath - you are decidely more balanced in your approach in your comments than the article as the article drips of your your support of MV (especially the part about the Melb derby now being about "the local Australian produced powerhouse versus the local Melbourne-based branch of a multi-national football conglomerate"). That may be one way of marketing the Melb derby, but it's extremely skewed towards a 'patriots vs non-patriots' scenario which really only serves the MV cause... As an SFC supporter, I can't comment upon Australian Rules questions regarding how fans might feel about whether it's their club anymore, but my own opinion is that Man City's investment into Heart is a a good thing for the HAL in general as well as for Heart specifically. They'll bring overseas knowledge, obviously improve the off-field resources at the club, and probably benefit the on-field performance too. This would be a good thing for the HAL as a whole as it raises the bar in much the same way as SFC did in Season 1 (to a small degree), then MV did in the following seasons, and then Roar did during Postecoglu's time in charge. This was then further carried on by Mulvey & the addition of WSW and ADP & Ono has also improved the league as a whole... As a neutral I don't see Heart now as a Man City team in the HAL, but rather I see this as a new opportunity to try again to differentiate themselves from MV (let's face it, unless Heart was successful from Day 1, they were always likely to be seen in relation to MV and that is terminally flawed marketing position). Heart can be the team for Melbourne as opposed to all of Victoria, and I wouldn't be surprised if they keep their colours (red is about as big a contrast as possible from navy blue!). People will always try to link the team with petrol dollars and Man City, but the real point of differentiation will come about over time through success - if Heart (Melb City) win the comp, then obviously MV can't. The way they (Heart/Melb City) do that is by being a better football club than MV and all the other HAL teams... MV are currently the dominant club in Melb and deservedly one of the top clubs in the country, so the involvement of Man City will need to be serious to challenge that. It's understandable that some MV supporters are intimidated by this move (are you one of those?), but it can also be used to spur MV on to bigger & better things. If MV concentrate on continuing what they have done right over the past decade, I'm sure they'll maintain their position as one of the premier clubs in the country and an organisation other clubs can learn from...
Unknown
Guest
Exactly my opinion
NUFCMVFC
Roar Guru
And that's without going into the fact that far from "hating hard", we aren't the ones whose team who had had it's franchise license bought out and is being killed off Just a relief now that there is a second team in Melbourne that will be half proper from next season onwards, regardless of what one might think of the implications Before I would have said the Sydney derby edged the Melbourne derby because it stood for something definable, from next season onwards I would say it's the other way round as the Melbourne derby isn't defined by intra-city issues but rather local vs global
Zac
Guest
This is a good thing. Melbourne heart are rubbish anyway. With a new owner they can just make a clean slate with melbourne city. Melbourne heart was a bad name anyway and have barely any fans showing up to their games. With the new owner they have a good chance and will gain more fans. How is this a bad thing
NUFCMVFC
Roar Guru
That was an organic development of that communal identity Interesting to see that despite becoming a global monolith, this has led to tension between the Glazers perspective who perceive matters in terms the global fans of the Man Utd brand on the one hand and local Mancunian fans who see the club as an extension of their community on the other, Fascinating to see a significant section of anti-glazer fans adopting the green and yellow scarves to articulate their point then....
NUFCMVFC
Roar Guru
lol Fwiw desperation to be envied is not a virtue Re the quote, have to say they are making good noises PR wise, but the characteristics of the ownership are what they are, and that is that this new team will be a local subsidiary of a greater "Manchester City" brand and an extension of their network This reminds me of some SFC fellow who made some spurious claim about MVFC being "obsessed" with Sydney FC for some vague reason I am happy at the development for reasons mentioned, but as Craig Foster has articulated well on TWG there is a need for some caution, as someone who is dual English and take a keen interest in the game in England there are certain issues which come with modern football Lol, the more things change the more they stay the same, and in this case "Heart" "fans" have a rich history of distorting the facts to conjure up some fantastical narrative that belies reality. To put things in perspective, it should be clarified that Melbourne Heart is not one of the richest clubs in the world, it is only as rich as the amount of revenue it generates and assets it owns, instead it is a small part - indeed probably the smallest subsidiary and even the weak link - in a global football conglomerate
fadida
Guest
Manchester United were once called Newton Heath and played in green and yellow halves. They decided to change their name, badge and their colours. How have they gone since the change?
fadida
Guest
agree Patrick. MH have at no team been anything close to a "basket case". Any suggestion of such takes an articles credibility
Uncle Junior
Guest
Australian Rules, your comments are not unusual (especially will be prevalent this week-end) but I still don't get it. Do you also think Australian companies should not take ownership of foreign assets? All our mining companies have no problem going to foreign countries and either buying local mining companies, or buying their foreign prized assets - do you also get upset about that? Do you think your superannuation fund should not take ownership of foreign stocks? Why should Australian assets, brands and companies be protected against foreign ownership, but foreign companies are fair game for Australian raiders? PS: Whilst the day is meaningless for me, I'm sure it means a lot to you and I wish you "Happy Australia Day"!
Australian Rules
Guest
It was in response to your statement: "I’m always bemused when Aussies express distaste for (or is it fear of) foreign ownership of Aussie companies or brands." You may feel bemused, but there is a legitimate reason for the "distaste for (or is it fear of)" Australian companies or brands becoming foreign-owned (Vegemite; RM Williams; Ugg Boots; Billabong; Speedo etc etc etc - all foreign owned). There's an obvious value, both economic and intrinsic, in keeping Australian brands Australian-owned. Your post almost implied that all foreign ownership, and especially the recent purchase, is a good thing. I don't think it necessarily is.
Uncle Junior
Guest
What's the relevance of bringing up Manchester United fans, when we are discussing the owner of ManCity, who is also the 80% owner of Melbourne Heart? Some private owners of sporting clubs are good, some are average, some are awful. The same can be said for any enterprise. If we listed all the US owners of NBA, MLB, NFL teams - I'm sure some are liked by fans; some are not liked by fans. But, let's stick to the case we are currently discussing - Sheikh Mansour has bought Melbourne Heart; and Sheikh Mansour has also bought ManCity. If he didn't own ManCity, we would have no reason to embrace (or reject) him. But, we know that ManCity fans are very happy with Sheikh Mansour so, in my opinion, it is ridiculous to reject him with the blanket (xenophobic?) statement: "I don't want foreign owners of Australian clubs". Perhaps, if Manchester United's owners had asked to buy Melbourne Heart, the FFA would have said "thanks, but no thanks" - just as they did when an NRL club wanted to buy WSW.
Australian Rules
Guest
"If you listen to Manchester City fans, they only have positive things to say about the club’s owner." Do Man Utd fans say the same thing?
Uncle Junior
Guest
I'm always bemused when Aussies express distaste for (or is it fear of) foreign ownership of Aussie companies or brands. What's been so fantastic about having Aussies like Peter Sidwell and others owning Melbourne Heart? What magnificent work have they done - other than keep the Heart operating on the smell of an oily rag? Forget about the new owner's passport, or is it his religion that bothers you? Sheikh Mansour is a rich guy, who loves football and has done marvellous things at Eastlands. If you listen to Manchester City fans, they only have positive things to say about the club's owner.
Australian Rules
Guest
I *would* be devastated if my club was bought by a foreign multi-national.
Uncle Junior
Guest
Fair enough. It's just that on another discussion you were adamant that "if it was my club, I’d personally be devastated if making plans to change name, brand, colours etc. I’d be wondering if it was still my club…or now someone else’s?" Maybe, while we're waiting for the Heart fans to answer your questions, you can simply type the few letters to identify the AFL team that you follow that has remained their purity since the 4th year after they were formed, without any changes to name, brand, colour, home ground, etc.
Mike Tuckerman
Expert
Interesting insight, NUFCMVFC. I definitely feel that the Heart were going nowhere in their current guise. I'm not so sure that becoming a "glocalised" outpost of City is necessarily a good thing in the long run, but then I don't necessarily know what a viable alternative would look like either.
Australian Rules
Guest
Again, my questions were directed to Heart fans. Major changes are forecast for their club and, in line with the thrust of this article, I asked how they felt about it. They may think it's all beer and skittles. They may feel somewhat uneasy. My question was for them.
Australian Rules
Guest
No, it's member-owned. The only AFL club that is privately owned is WCE, but the 60k odd members still have voting rights.
ciudadmarron
Guest
Despicable. The characterisation of the sheikh is particularly abhorrent if you know your history.
Marchisio
Guest
This is offensive, and it would be for any sport, not just football.