Money "is no object" to A-League side Melbourne City, according to Michael Cockerill of THE AGE. Cockerill asked, "so why are we still waiting for the A-League's richest club to make an impact?" Melbourne City "remains the biggest disappointment." Leading into next weekend's Melbourne derby, City's crowds (average 7,370) "are the lowest in the league." In total, fewer than 30,000 people "have watched" its four home games so far. Woeful. Having "disenfranchised so many of those fans who once supported Melbourne Heart, the new owners have failed to add any new fans since the takeover." Indeed crowds "have dropped" around 20% since the rebranding. In isolation, maybe this "doesn't matter too much to the City Football Group," which bought the club for A$11M a little more than two years ago. CFG is on a mission "to dominate world football." But shouldn't it "dominate the A-League first?" The hope, the expectation, was that Melbourne City would become a market leader" right from the start." Sadly, it has been more like a follower instead. As it stands, on the issues which matter, Melbourne City has not yet "properly embraced the A-League," nor has the A-League embraced it. Melbourne City "may be able to afford to lose big" -- it will probably account for around A$7M of the predicted losses of A$17M across the league this season -- but not everyone else can. If the financial might of CFG "was used to help build the whole of the business, everyone wins." Including Melbourne Victory, which desperately wants its local rivals "to offer genuine competition on and off the park" (THE AGE, 12/13).
