Post history

History for james dean

Melbourne City FC - Just another Pissant Town?

Back to topic

Current version

Posted January 23, 2014 10:43 · last edited January 23, 2014 10:43

Fitzy wrote:
Ryan's Rovers wrote:
Fitzy wrote:
Ryan's Rovers wrote:
Nommag wrote:

Forgive my ignorance but I don't really understand the two teams in Melbourne from a Geographical stand point. I understand sydney has two teams one is the central city or 'east' city and one is the west. A fan can simply associate with the most local club. Heart and Victory seem to play in pretty much the same region and it seems like fans would just pick the club that was doing the best since they don't have a geographic preference (that I'm aware of). Can anyone offer some info on this, wiki doesn't clear it up. 

There really isn't a geographical division in Melbourne, that is why Heart has always had an identity crisis. Melbourne needed a 2nd team but there is no easy way to divide the city. The big challenge for the new owners, is how to create an identity for the club.

Just to dissect this a bit RR, was there ever a clear reason why Melbourne 'needed' a 2nd team, given the geographical/identity issues which have been mentioned? I've never quite understood why there was a strong desire by the FFA for the Heart to exist (I'm aware I'm making some assumptions here, looking to be educated). 

Melbourne is 4 million people. Way too big a market to not have a 2nd team (long term there should be 3 tbh). The original report that set up the A-League recommended 2 teams in Melbourne and Sydney to start with but the FFA went against that with exclusive 1 city 1 team deals.

So purely a population issue? That's what I guessed and it obviously makes sense on that level, but is it enough to make the team sustainable? I'm not sure if that's enough to connect people to the club long term.

2 is a bit of a difficult number in a way. It's almost as though if it were one team (i.e. just 'Melbourne') that's fine as they're an immediately identifiable group, and if there are several (like AFL in Melbourne or League in Sydney) that's fine too, as each club is from an easily identifiable community, but by having two clubs you lose out on the identity of both the city-wide option and the more locally-based 'community' option. It's a tricky one to solve.



Fact is the derby games attract crowds and rate really well on TV.


You need a hook to make people feel part of the club and local geography is part of an identity.  It's why I've always been against taking Phoenix games round the country - the whole hook of supporting the team was its "Wellington-ness", you take away that and you lose something.  This isn't a team for people in Auckland

Previous versions

1 version
james dean edited January 23, 2014 10:43
Fitzy wrote:
Ryan's Rovers wrote:
Fitzy wrote:
Ryan's Rovers wrote:
Nommag wrote:

Forgive my ignorance but I don't really understand the two teams in Melbourne from a Geographical stand point. I understand sydney has two teams one is the central city or 'east' city and one is the west. A fan can simply associate with the most local club. Heart and Victory seem to play in pretty much the same region and it seems like fans would just pick the club that was doing the best since they don't have a geographic preference (that I'm aware of). Can anyone offer some info on this, wiki doesn't clear it up. 

There really isn't a geographical division in Melbourne, that is why Heart has always had an identity crisis. Melbourne needed a 2nd team but there is no easy way to divide the city. The big challenge for the new owners, is how to create an identity for the club.

Just to dissect this a bit RR, was there ever a clear reason why Melbourne 'needed' a 2nd team, given the geographical/identity issues which have been mentioned? I've never quite understood why there was a strong desire by the FFA for the Heart to exist (I'm aware I'm making some assumptions here, looking to be educated). 

Melbourne is 4 million people. Way too big a market to not have a 2nd team (long term there should be 3 tbh). The original report that set up the A-League recommended 2 teams in Melbourne and Sydney to start with but the FFA went against that with exclusive 1 city 1 team deals.

So purely a population issue? That's what I guessed and it obviously makes sense on that level, but is it enough to make the team sustainable? I'm not sure if that's enough to connect people to the club long term.

2 is a bit of a difficult number in a way. It's almost as though if it were one team (i.e. just 'Melbourne') that's fine as they're an immediately identifiable group, and if there are several (like AFL in Melbourne or League in Sydney) that's fine too, as each club is from an easily identifiable community, but by having two clubs you lose out on the identity of both the city-wide option and the more locally-based 'community' option. It's a tricky one to solve.



You need a hook to make people feel part of the club and local geography is part of an identity.  It's why I've always been against taking Phoenix games round the country - the whole hook of supporting the team was its "Wellington-ness", you take away that and you lose something.  This isn't a team for people in Auckland