Cocacolajojo wrote:Halnone, you're fucking joking right?
So 'fans' of a club which hasn't even kicked it's first ball in anger, have already started giving up their season tickets, in anger at news reports (as that's currently all this is) that a player CITY FOOTBALL GROUP are funding, is likely to play for the parent club a while longer.
NYCFC are a fucking subsidiary of CFG, and in all likelihood the entire premise of the club is to facilitate loans and transfers between it and other clubs in the group.
Eg, as per any corporation, CFG will direct it's assets in the direction in which the return will be greatest, and that, in the case of Lampard, is clearly withing the premier league at this present time.
Nothing rag like about Ted's point, it's the reality of the situation, and until such time that the financial returns in Australia and USA become comparable to the premier league, the supporters (and I use that term very loosely in the case of NYC) clubs had better fucking get used to that situation.
I have a little more sympathy were this situation to happen in Australia, as their fans didn't sign up for this arrangement, but the NYC 'fans' can go and get fucked
I agree with about the economic argument but supporting a football club isn't really something you do for the sake of a club's financial status or subordination to another club. Say that City had not been bought by the sheik and a Spanish club had come to us (I don't think that's legal but just for the sake of the argument, bear with me) and supported us financially on the condition that they can first give us players and then take them back if they want to, I wouldn't have liked it. From a rational standpoint we're not worse off than before, probably better, but it still doesn't sit right you know? I guess you could argue that NYFC is a new club, doesn't have any history and so forth, but I wouldn't want to support a club that's so obviously treated as a subsidiary even if it DOES make sense both from a sports perspective AND economic perspective. To me, the emotional aspect of supporting a club would be lost.
On the other hand, in the US they'd be used to this kind of thing as there's a ton of farmer teams in all major sports where players move back and forth depending on injuries, transfers and form. I however would not have liked to support a team like that. It's like supporting a mid-table club in the PL and knowing that you're best players are going to get poached but you'll get nothing for it (not exactly, as again NYFC are benefitting financially and sportswise from their affiliation with City but it doesn't sit right).
I think your point reinforces what I said In my last paragraph, that I'd have considerably more sympathy in this situation for the Melbourne fans who didn't have a choice in who owned their football club. I reckon there is every chance that this has a bearing on why we are not interested in Villa during our current striker crisis.
But the NYC fans signed up knowing that their new club were part of CFG, and it really just shows their naivity about 'soccer' that like Ted says, they think this is all a one way street and that they were going to get all this handed to them on a plate for free without anything flowing back across the Atlantic in our direction.
I get their point, I just feel it's totally naive of them to think that NYCFC are a stand alone entity, and that when it all comes down to priorities, unless they accept that Mcfc will always be the first priority for the group, they are destined to be disappointed.
Alternatively they can look at the positive things having mcfc on their side can do for them, and begin to see that both sides can benefit from sharing resources, and that in all likelihood in the long run when it comes to loans and player swaps, mcfc need this particular one, but NYC will get a choice of several top young talents each year, for ever....something no other club in the MLS has
