If I had a dollar for every time I've been asked whether I'm now a "Melbourne Heart fan" after last week's takeover, I'd be as rich as Sheikh Mansour himself.
The answer is no, but being a (Manchester) City fan does offer the chance to give some insight into what life may be like for Heart supporters under the new regime.
Like many, I was both excited and sceptical of the change at my boyhood club in 2008. At the time, I wrote an article entitled "City til I buy" for Fox Sports, which outlined, in a light-hearted way, both the joy and bewilderment at the Abu Dhabi United Group's takeover.
In private, I met with a representative of the new group, and wasn't much impressed. There were a lot of corporate buzzwords thrown around, and, being from a city that prides itself on a lack of bullshit, I was concerned they were going to turn my club into a football version of Starbucks.
Many still think they have, and its understandable. Money has certainly been spent at an alarming rate on players. Yet behind the scenes, there is other work going on, which has made many fans warm to the overseas paymasters.
The construction of the huge new academy will, in time, produce home grown players without the need to spend megabucks. The match-day atmosphere around the ground has also been transformed, by the construction of "City Square" replete with bars named after club greats, live bands, big screen entertainment, and ex-players dropping in to be interviewed on stage. Ticket prices remain some of the most competitive in the EPL, especially for families.
Far from "selling its soul" as many accused City of doing, they have, in many ways, regained it through their new-found financial freedom.
City's staff are open and welcoming (and I can tell you, that wasn't always the case), and while the playing roster may be stuffed full of foreigners, the "feel" of the club is more local than in years.
That feel good factor, however, wouldn't exist without the on-field success, and there are downsides.
David Conn's excellent book "Richer than God" paints a very different picture of the takeover, one in which the Arab owners took advantage of a council built facility constructed with taxpayers money, and acquired industrial land (for the academy), which will, in future, have no significant employment impact on one of the most deprived areas of Britain. I can offer no defence against those accusations.
There are also times when I miss the "old" City. The vibe of Maine Road, the Mancunian feel of the team. But football, along with society, is constantly evolving, and while history and local pride is important, every generation has its own version of it. Is Ferenc Puskas any less of a Real Madrid legend because he was born in Hungary?
So, isn't it just possible that today's kids, growing up in a globalised world, will feel as nostalgic for Yaya Toure, as I do for Joe Corrigan?
Talking of Toure, City also stand accused of skewing the transfer market, to such a degree that the much-vaunted "Financial Fair Play" has been brought in to try and curb their excesses.
In principle, Michel Platini's baby is a good idea. In practice, it's a red herring. An attempt to protect the establishment from outfits like City, who seek to close the huge financial gulf, created largely by Platini's own bloated Champions League; in itself constructed to ward off a European Super League. If Platini really wants to stop the arms race, he should redistribute the wealth more evenly.
All of which brings us to Australia. With City's financial muscle rendered all but redundant in a salary-capped A-League, what does it mean for the game here?
There will undoubtedly be benefits on the playing side if - as promised - Heart construct an academy, and play the sort of swashbuckling football that City demonstrate today. The potential downsides? City could 'cherry-pick" the best local talents, or fill the squad with off-cuts from the parent club.
The loss of the Heart name - if it happens - is a shame, and hopefully, the owners can find a way to include it in some way, even if it's only as a nickname. No-one likes seeing history destroyed, however short. The same goes for the colours.
All of a sudden, things look positive for Victory’s ‘noisy neighbours’.Source: Getty Images
But many clubs go through name and colour changes in their formative years. City themselves began life in black shirts emblazoned with a white cross as St Marks West Gorton in 1880, before becoming Ardwick (for whom my own great-grandfather played), in 1887, eventually settling on Manchester City in 1894.
For mine, the upside of the takeover is that the new owners will expand the sport as an industry, something that is often ignored in discussions here.
Football in Australia is a small business. Just nine pro clubs, many operating with fewer staff than City have overseas scouts, some using facilities begged, borrowed or stolen from the other, richer codes. Building infrastructure, as City plan to do, creates permanency and jobs - and other A-League clubs won't allow them to steal a march in isolation. Football here needs to become a bigger economy, and this should act as a stimulus.
The young A-League needs the occasional jump-start to drive it onto the next level. We saw it in the first year with Dwight Yorke - last year it was Del Piero and the arrival of the Wanderers.
Now, City and Heart can take it a step further in a different way. Their intentions may not be altogether altruistic - but that's the nature of big business, which is what world football is today. There has to be something in it for both sides, and in my opinion, this, for the most part, delivers.
No comments:
Post a Comment