2016 FFA Cup Thread

[moomba]

No-one is saying a good crowd and result is a panacea, but see it as a huge positive. Something to build on.

A backward thinking club will be focussing on "fairweather supporters" and the fact that a good portion that were there tonight don't turn up regularly.

A forward thinking club will now be working out how to get some of these people back next week and the week after. Of course you will look at lessons from the past but if you think the club will be anything other than delighted with how the match went on and off the pitch I think your judgement is a bit clouded.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

No-one is saying a good crowd and result is a panacea, but see it as a huge positive. Something to build on.

A backward thinking club will be focussing on "fairweather supporters" and the fact that a good portion that were there tonight don't turn up regularly.

A forward thinking club will now be working out how to get some of these people back next week and the week after. Of course you will look at lessons from the past but if you think the club will be anything other than delighted with how the match went on and off the pitch I think your judgement is a bit clouded.

With regards to the crowds, after the initial weeks showed that Cahill alone wasn't going to instantly generate 20,000+ and we've only seen moderate improvement in the home attendance figures (it should be noted, memberships are up by over 20% on last season's final tally and we have the fourth largest membership in the league, less than 200 behind Sydney), it's become about building for next season. It's about being one of the best and most successful teams in the league and giving Melbourne-based football supporters a clear reason to join City, instead of Victory. So far, the club is doing that and if the solid early season form (something that, incidentally, has eluded City/Heart in pretty much every previous season in its history) can translate into more silverware and perhaps a home grand final, I have no doubt that attendances will skyrocket next season.

As for the mocking that comes our way when we get s**t crowds, when we get good crowds, when we have s**t teams, when we have excellent teams...some people seriously need to get a life. The club is growing, it's becoming one of the best teams in the league and I'm not going to apologise, because I've been there when Melbourne Heart was a joke. With the opportunities that playing for a club aligned with CFG provide, compared to any other A-League club, that isn't changing any time soon. So "get used to it", would be my advice.

 

[darko]

I know it's City's first trophy but Settle down with the Championi s**t!!
You've only won a glorified preseason comp.

This.

Talk to us when you've won the big one.

 

[26_Miles]

If City win the league - 'Talk to us when you win it without oil money'

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

If City win the league - 'Talk to us when you win it without oil money'

You could set your watch to it. Like the vast majority of A-League fans have any clue (or care) how most of the club owners earned their money. Casual racism is fun, isn't it?

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

This.

Talk to us when you've won the big one.

Lol...you're in the 2016 FFA Cup thread, champ. You can post in the 2014/15 season thread, if you want to relive past glories.

 

[AJ_2000]

Nothing sweeter than the saltyness of Victory supporters to validate our success.

FYI the cup final had a higher attendance than last years - which was held on a Saturday, and more than your home game last week against Newcastle.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Nothing sweeter than the saltyness of Victory supporters to validate our success.

FYI the cup final had a higher attendance than last years - which was held on a Saturday, and more than your home game last week against Newcastle.

You could also mention the noticeable absence of big Victory numbers in the Cup semi final (a Victory 'home' game, no leass), probably not a coincidence that it was coming off a 4-1 belting by City at Etihad less than a fortnight earlier.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

How many free tickets were handed out?

 

[giggler99]

Nothing sweeter than the saltyness of Victory supporters to validate our success.

FYI the cup final had a higher attendance than last years - which was held on a Saturday, and more than your home game last week against Newcastle.

Yeah but tickets this year where half the prices they where last season, giving the chance for a lot of neutrals to rock up as well.

 

[peternorth]

You could set your watch to it. Like the vast majority of A-League fans have any clue (or care) how most of the club owners earned their money. Casual racism is fun, isn't it?

please elaborate

 

[Kangapirate]

Nothing wrong with the crowds city get, AAMI park just happens to be about 10-12k too big. Obviously a massive amount of freebies last night, but having the final here was designed to try get some of those to return, it was a scrappy game so I doubt the neutral was blown away by it or anything, but the home team got the win and if that encourages even a handful to return it's a bonus.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

please elaborate

I would have thought it was pretty obvious: "Arab oil money"

How many times has that been used in a negative sense to explain City's improvement? Would people complain if our owners earned their fortune during the mining boom? Or even if they were oil barons from Texas, rather than the middle east? I'm very sure they wouldn't. Hence, racism.

 

[peternorth]

I would have thought it was pretty obvious: "Arab oil money"

How many times has that been used in a negative sense to explain City's improvement? Would people complain if our owners earned their fortune during the mining boom? Or even if they were oil barons from Texas, rather than the middle east? I'm very sure they wouldn't. Hence, racism.

Before today I haven't heard arab oil money used to slight a club. Not to say it is not said, but I am providing my POV. I dont feel it's a race issue here. It is more of an identifier, that Melb City is associated with Man City which is linked with lots of money courtesy of a middle eastern group.

I think we are dealing with hypotheticals, or what ifs. IF a rich texan bought out a team, I am sure terms like "texan oil money" would be said. But until then it is not possible to categorically determine, or say with certainty

 

[nobbyiscool]

I would have thought it was pretty obvious: "Arab oil money"

How many times has that been used in a negative sense to explain City's improvement? Would people complain if our owners earned their fortune during the mining boom? Or even if they were oil barons from Texas, rather than the middle east? I'm very sure they wouldn't. Hence, racism.

Seems like the worst kind of strawman argument that makes people like me look ridiculous when I call out actual racism.

I've never seen anyone complain about where their money comes from.

They're ridiculed for being a minion of the CFG. We complain that FFA have changed/created at least 4 rules for them (Caceras rule, Brattan loophole, Cahill rule, changed sponsorship rules to accommodate Nissan). We justifiably whinge that someone like Diamanti is rejected under the Cahill rule cos he doesn't have a big enough twitter following (and when FFA screwed up the Essien deal by opening their stupid mouths.) We laugh at the green seat elite.

None of this has anything to do with where the money comes from. Even as engaged as I am with A-League I don't know where the money for half the teams comes from - I don't really care as long as the ownership allows the fans (if they have any) to feel ownership over it too.

 

[The City Boyz]

Seems like the worst kind of strawman argument that makes people like me look ridiculous when I call out actual racism.

I've never seen anyone complain about where their money comes from.

They're ridiculed for being a minion of the CFG. We complain that FFA have changed/created at least 4 rules for them (Caceras rule, Brattan loophole, Cahill rule, changed sponsorship rules to accommodate Nissan). We justifiably whinge that someone like Diamanti is rejected under the Cahill rule cos he doesn't have a big enough twitter following (and when FFA screwed up the Essien deal by opening their stupid mouths.) We laugh at the green seat elite.

None of this has anything to do with where the money comes from. Even as engaged as I am with A-League I don't know where the money for half the teams comes from - I don't really care as long as the ownership allows the fans (if they have any) to feel ownership over it too.

After last night, we most certainly do!

 

[moomba]

We complain that FFA have changed/created at least 4 rules for them (Caceras rule, Brattan loophole, Cahill rule, changed sponsorship rules to accommodate Nissan).

People complain because the FFA closed loopholes that were being exploited by City, allowed all clubs an extra source of income and created a rule which was agreed to by clubs as a good thing for the game in Australia and which several clubs have tried to use.

We can add those to complaints about small crowds, big crowds, and celebrating winning a trophy amongst other things.

Seems to me people just like complaining.

 

[nobbyiscool]

People complain because the FFA closed loopholes that were being exploited by City, allowed all clubs an extra source of income and created a rule which was agreed to by clubs as a good thing for the game in Australia and which several clubs have tried to use.

We can add those to complaints about small crowds, big crowds, and celebrating winning a trophy amongst other things.

Seems to me people just like complaining.

Firstly, it's a pretty weak argument when you only replied to one of the four points I made as to why people bitch about City's special treatment.

Secondly, it's even weaker when you quoted one point, and only made reference to one of the four sub-points within it. The Caceras rule was the only one of those that involved FFA closing a loophole. The "Brattan loophole" actually created another loophole for clubs (ie. Heart) to exploit, the Cahill rule was inventing a whole new rule that FFA didn't need club approval for (after they rejected the initial proposal, and before they came up with a semblance of a criteria) and the Nissan deal was removing a rule altogether that had been in place for 10 years before Heart bitched about it.

They can chant about being "champions" (*cough* cup winners *cough*) all they like - they had to use CFG's clout to get the FFA to bend over for them in order to achieve it.

 

[bungareepremiers06]

Firstly, it's a pretty weak argument when you only replied to one of the four points I made as to why people bitch about City's special treatment.

Secondly, it's even weaker when you quoted one point, and only made reference to one of the four sub-points within it. The Caceras rule was the only one of those that involved FFA closing a loophole. The "Brattan loophole" actually created another loophole for clubs (ie. Heart) to exploit, the Cahill rule was inventing a whole new rule that FFA didn't need club approval for (after they rejected the initial proposal, and before they came up with a semblance of a criteria) and the Nissan deal was removing a rule altogether that had been in place for 10 years before Heart bitched about it.

They can chant about being "champions" (*cough* cup winners *cough*) all they like - they had to use CFG's clout to get the FFA to bend over for them in order to achieve it.

Hang on, what is the Brattan loophole? Being loaned out? We're under the same rules as everyone else there.
I guess you have a point re Nissan, but everyone else can do that now as well so its not really special treatment. It is, however, CFG flexing their strength at board level for what is the betterment of the league, and especially us.

 

[moomba]

Here goes then.

They're ridiculed for being a minion of the CFG.

Ridiculed because the majority owner of the club has a say in the running of the club. Rightio.

We complain that FFA have changed/created at least 4 rules for them (Caceras rule, Brattan loophole, Cahill rule, changed sponsorship rules to accommodate Nissan).

Already answered, but one of your complaints is that the FFA didn't foresee a Caceres situation arising, and only closed the loophole immediately after it did happen. That this is an example of your "favouristism" is a bit laughable really, and it's not the first time I've seen it used as an example of FFA favourable treatment.

Brattan as I understand it can't happen any more under the same rule. So two of your four examples of favouritism actually involve the FFA stopping things from happening. Pretty weak argument there.

The guest marquee is a rule that both Victory and City tried to use. The fact that Essien fell over has absolutely nothing to do with City. So your "favouritism" seems to centre on the fact that City got their deal over the line and Victory didn't.

The car sponsorship favour every club that wants to get a sponsorship from a car company. I fully expect every club to be looking at this for an extra source of income. If the rules came about because City lobbied for it, then surely that's good work by City. Do Victory not lobby the FFA for things that benefit them and the game? And f their lobbying pays off do you piss and moan about favouritism, or say "well done" to the club?

We justifiably whinge that someone like Diamanti is rejected under the Cahill rule cos he doesn't have a big enough twitter following (and when FFA screwed up the Essien deal by opening their stupid mouths.)

Diamanti isnt really someone that meets the criteria of the guest marquee on any level. Surely, even with your Victory goggles on you can accept that Cahill does increase the interest in the game in Australia. I know that because a lot of Victory supporters moan about how much coverage he gets. He increases attendances, and ultimately he'll give the FFA a stronger hand in negotiating a TV deal.

So will any other player that comes into any other club via the same rule. Whether you agree with the rule or not (and I can accept that there are sporting reasons why the rule shouldn't be in place) there are pretty sound commercial reasons why it is in place. Your own club seems to agree by trying to exploit exactly the same rule that was apparently created just for City.

We laugh at the green seat elite.

And you laugh about fairweather supporters when City get a good crowd. Much better than people laughing about results and poor performances. But makes you look a bit petty and bitter.

They can chant about being "champions" (*cough* cup winners *cough*) all they like - they had to use CFG's clout to get the FFA to bend over for them in order to achieve it.

They won the cup by winning games. If CFG played a role in that by building a good squad, then good for them. But funny that you seem to have a problem about City chanting champions (like the winners of most cup competitions around the world). Goes back to that petty and bitter thing.

 

[bungareepremiers06]

Here goes then.



Ridiculed because the majority owner of the club has a say in the running of the club. Rightio.



Already answered, but one of your complaints is that the FFA didn't foresee a Caceres situation arising, and only closed the loophole immediately after it did happen. That this is an example of your "favouristism" is a bit laughable really, and it's not the first time I've seen it used as an example of FFA favourable treatment.

Brattan as I understand it can't happen any more under the same rule. So two of your four examples of favouritism actually involve the FFA stopping things from happening. Pretty weak argument there.

The guest marquee is a rule that both Victory and City tried to use. The fact that Essien fell over has absolutely nothing to do with City. So your "favouritism" seems to centre on the fact that City got their deal over the line and Victory didn't.

The car sponsorship favour every club that wants to get a sponsorship from a car company. I fully expect every club to be looking at this for an extra source of income. If the rules came about because City lobbied for it, then surely that's good work by City. Do Victory not lobby the FFA for things that benefit them and the game? And f their lobbying pays off do you piss and moan about favouritism, or say "well done" to the club?



Diamanti isnt really someone that meets the criteria of the guest marquee on any level.



And you laugh about fairweather supporters when City get a good crowd. Much better than people laughing about results and poor performances. But makes you look a bit petty and bitter.



They won the cup by winning games. If CFG played a role in that by building a good squad, then good for them. But funny that you seem to have a problem about City chanting champions (like the winners of most cup competitions around the world). Goes back to that petty and bitter thing.

Game. Set. Match.

 

[The City Boyz]

Here goes then.



Ridiculed because the majority owner of the club has a say in the running of the club. Rightio.



Already answered, but one of your complaints is that the FFA didn't foresee a Caceres situation arising, and only closed the loophole immediately after it did happen. That this is an example of your "favouristism" is a bit laughable really, and it's not the first time I've seen it used as an example of FFA favourable treatment.

Brattan as I understand it can't happen any more under the same rule. So two of your four examples of favouritism actually involve the FFA stopping things from happening. Pretty weak argument there.

The guest marquee is a rule that both Victory and City tried to use. The fact that Essien fell over has absolutely nothing to do with City. So your "favouritism" seems to centre on the fact that City got their deal over the line and Victory didn't.

The car sponsorship favour every club that wants to get a sponsorship from a car company. I fully expect every club to be looking at this for an extra source of income. If the rules came about because City lobbied for it, then surely that's good work by City. Do Victory not lobby the FFA for things that benefit them and the game? And f their lobbying pays off do you piss and moan about favouritism, or say "well done" to the club?



Diamanti isnt really someone that meets the criteria of the guest marquee on any level. Surely, even with your Victory goggles on you can accept that Cahill does increase the interest in the game in Australia. I know that because a lot of Victory supporters moan about how much coverage he gets. He increases attendances, and ultimately he'll give the FFA a stronger hand in negotiating a TV deal.

So will any other player that comes into any other club via the same rule. Whether you agree with the rule or not (and I can accept that there are sporting reasons why the rule shouldn't be in place) there are pretty sound commercial reasons why it is in place. Your own club seems to agree by trying to exploit exactly the same rule that was apparently created just for City.



And you laugh about fairweather supporters when City get a good crowd. Much better than people laughing about results and poor performances. But makes you look a bit petty and bitter.



They won the cup by winning games. If CFG played a role in that by building a good squad, then good for them. But funny that you seem to have a problem about City chanting champions (like the winners of most cup competitions around the world). Goes back to that petty and bitter thing.

Oh mate that was epic...

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Seems like the worst kind of strawman argument that makes people like me look ridiculous when I call out actual racism.

I've never seen anyone complain about where their money comes from.

They're ridiculed for being a minion of the CFG. We complain that FFA have changed/created at least 4 rules for them (Caceras rule, Brattan loophole, Cahill rule, changed sponsorship rules to accommodate Nissan).

You complain that City has a sponsorship deal with Nissan? Wow, maybe the issue is that you need to get out more.

As moomba has mentioned, you'd seem to have the Caceres and Brattan signings arse-about. Cahill could have signed with anyone...do you think Gallop would have let him go if he could only go to the Mariners, or Brisbane, or Adelaide, or Victory? Of course not. City was the only club with the resources to make it happen, so yes, by complaining about City signing Cahill, you are indirectly complaining about City's ownership.

We justifiably whinge that someone like Diamanti is rejected under the Cahill rule cos he doesn't have a big enough twitter following (and when FFA screwed up the Essien deal by opening their stupid mouths.)

Yes, an A-League club signing the most famous Australian player ever to a guest spot is exactly the same thing as Victory attempting to sign a relatively anonymous former fringe Italian player that maybe 10% of A-League supporters had ever heard of.

We laugh at the green seat elite.

Good for you. How many teams in the league struggle to half fill their stadiums week-in/week-out? A lot of them. City is fourth in the league in memberships, having smashed last year's membership tally already. They also just hosted the biggest FFA Cup Final ever, in terms of attendance. They're doing just fine, compared to the rest of the league. And, as I saw with my own eyes, in the only Melbourne derby that I can remember where few people gave Victory any hope of winning prior to the kick off (the Cup SF), Victory's supporters were noticeably absent. The inference I took was that they didn't turn up because they expected their team to get flogged.

 

[peternorth]

No one cares about insert competition here

 

[peternorth]

So, are there any City fans who are also supporters of man utd?