"The Red Bull" Demons

[Diamond_Jim 12,360]

I was listening last night to the BBC and they had a story of the Red Bull Liepzig Football team.

For those who are not aware of this team, who are currently sitting second in the Bundesliga (the German version of the EPL) was founded seven years ago when it began playing in fourth division.

With the backing of Red Bull they have moved through each division to their present status. (The club itself has not been without controversy as its meteoric rise has questioned some of the fundamental tents of club football in Germany).

Okay ... it works because of no salary cap and money being thrown at a team (not unlike Manchester City and others in the EPL).

My point for discussion is whether supporters would give up the name Melbourne in return for relatively unlimited funds and putting the sponsors name into the club name.

Given the inexorable rise of GWS and the financial strength of the usual five or six clubs do teams like the MFC need to think outside the square to guarantee its future.

We have the salary cap so you cannot put your money directly into players but there are other things that money (and lots of it ) can provide. Training facilities are obvious but what about paid media promotion and subsidised ticketing to increase the fan base. I am sure others could come up with some ideas for how to spend the money.

The idea of company sponsored teams is not limited to red Bull. The J league has a few and I am sure there are many others.

In other discussions about our future many posters have mentioned that the name "Melbourne" guarantees our future in the competition. This could be right but it does not of itself bring in any money.

Interested in people's views on this and related topics.

Edited January 27, 2017 by Diamond_Jim
Grammar

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

We are the Melbourne Football Club.

Not the Red Bull football club.

I can't honestly say who we represent other than our members and supporters. We clearly don't represent the city of Melbourne.

On the other hand. the Red Bull Demons would represent the Red Bull company and any success and all glory would be attributable to the mighty Red Bull corporation. The mighty power of the Red Bull brand has brought you this success. Please buy Red Bull products and you too can be as successful.

An increased fan base, by extension, are fans of the Red Bull corporation whether the fans intend that or not.

On a related note, it's distasteful to have advertising plastered all over the jumper. Check out the NRL jumpers. (We are headed the same way, gradually.) However you regard the USA competitions & their team owners, their leveraging of the team brands for $$$, not one of them puts ads on the jumper.

The name "Melbourne" guarantees nothing. A 16- , then 18-team competition with its extra $$$ is what has guaranteed us a place in the AFL comp to date. If the AFL thought they could jettison us and get away with it, there have been multiple opportunities in the past. None were tied to the sacred name of "Melbourne".

[daisycutter 29,341]

and the initials of red bull are.......................?   what a provident coincidence...............lol

[BAMF 4,119]

Every heart beats true for the red and the bull?

I highly doubt the AFL will get to the point where this is allowed in my life time. I would still watch the games the same way I do now. I would be just as invested in the club as I am now. That wouldn't change.

But if the AFL let us be sponsored in that way and have that much money poured into us, then other clubs would have to be allowed to do the same. Eventually all teams would have a sponsor and the short lived advantage would be taken away.So we sold out for very little.

Additional question: If it came down to the Demons folding or becoming Red Bull Demons what would you choose?

Edited January 27, 2017 by Night Crawler

[Diamond_Jim 12,360]

20 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

and the initials of red bull are.......................?   what a provident coincidence...............lol

Actually quite prescient daisy cutter

the official name of the Liepzig team is  RB Liepzig or more correctly "RassenBallsport" (which translates apparently to "Lawn Ball Sports")  because the rules of the German Federation forbade the use of a sponsors name in the team name.

The Red Bull name does appear in their other sporting teams they sponsor

[Diamond_Jim 12,360]

2 minutes ago, Night Crawler said:

Every heart beats true for the red and the bull?

I highly doubt the AFL will get to the point where this is allowed in my life time. I would still watch the games the same way I do now.

I would be just as invested in the club as I am now. That wouldn't change. But if the AFL let us be sponsored in that way and have that much money poured into us, then other clubs would have to be allowed to do the same. Eventually all teams would have a sponsor and the short lived advantage would be taken away.So we sold out for very little.

Good point NC but as Kerry Packer once said... "an Alan Bond does not come along every day" so perhaps there aren't that many "Red Bulls" out there

One of the things that Liepzig has going for it is that it is the only team in the Bundesliga based in the former east Germany

[DubDee 24,438]

I prefer the Pepsi demons. 

Go Pepsi!

Viney can change his name to Pepsi Max??

 

I would certainly not consider changing our name for money especially as having truck loads of money isn't that great an advantage in footy. Case in point the bulldogs

[Adam The God 29,416]

The beauty of the AFL salary cap is that it prevents the ridiculous one-sided competition and teams have to act in relatively conservative terms (except for the likes of the Bulldogs with Boyd).

I love the EPL, but the money coming into that competition lessens the final results for me. I've been a Liverpool supporter since I was a young boy and there were rumours of a Chinese conglomerate making a bid to buy the club. Whatever success this may bring, it would cheapen any success IMO.

So in an alternate world, where there was no AFL salary cap, I'd still prefer to make it big on our own. The handout mentality isn't viable in business and that's what the AFL has become, so no deal, for me.

Edited January 27, 2017 by A F

[Demon trucker 1,800]

57 minutes ago, DubDee said:

I prefer the Pepsi demons. 

Go Pepsi!

Viney can change his name to Pepsi Max??

 

I would certainly not consider changing our name for money especially as having truck loads of money isn't that great an advantage in footy. Case in point the bulldogs

Jack's brother  name is Max 

[Engorged Onion 10,137]

Nice philosophical question. I'm firmly in the camp of anything for the club to survive - but I don't believe that will ever need to come to fruition from a franchised styled comp with advertising in all and sundry.  Not sure that everything affiliated with Red Bull equals exposure i.e thinking Felix is cool as fek - doesn't mean you'll subsequently go watch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FC_Red_Bull_Salzburg

 

 do

[FarNorthernD 5,861]

4 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

 

Interested in people's views on this ..

My view is that I have supported the Melbourne Football Club all my life. The Red Bull Football isn't my team. I'm tribal, I wouldn't support it no matter how many flags they won. 

[Little Goffy 14,024]

What a horrific thought. Support YOUR BRAND club! Are you a truly dedicated PRODUCT fan!? SHOW YOUR SUPPORT by BUYING!

If there is one great thing the salary cap has achieved, it is containing to some extent the need for rampaging commercialisation of a social and cultural activity.

 

Just conversationally, there's yet another extreme which is the baseball and other teams in Japan, which were once explicitly built around the corporate identity of the yakuza... erm, wait, wrong word... zaibatsu! So yep, Mitsubishi would take on Mitsui and Suzuki and Honda, and there were so many people employed by these companies, and the culture of devotion to company was so strong, that there would be some pretty fervent support. Not sure how it is looking these days, though.

 

[Deestroy All 14,262]

No way. Ridiculous. 

 

Monster Energy Drinks is the way to go. 

We could be the Monster Demons. Have MotoCross riders and monster trucks flipping around the G before every match. That's the Carrum Downs market cornered. Dancing promo girls and fireworks... sign me up!

[Ethan Tremblay 30,033]

I don't like energy drinks so I would prefer to be the Campbell's Chunky Soup Demons or if we're looking to expand into Europe perhaps the Dolce & Gabbana Demons.

Edited January 27, 2017 by Ethan Tremblay

[beelzebub 23,200]

No

[Redleg 40,219]

14 hours ago, DubDee said:

I prefer the Pepsi demons. 

Go Pepsi!

Viney can change his name to Pepsi Max??

 

 

Surely you mean Gawn not Viney.

[Satyriconhome 10,340]

13 hours ago, A F said:

The beauty of the AFL salary cap is that it prevents the ridiculous one-sided competition and teams have to act in relatively conservative terms (except for the likes of the Bulldogs with Boyd).

I love the EPL, but the money coming into that competition lessens the final results for me. I've been a Liverpool supporter since I was a young boy and there were rumours of a Chinese conglomerate making a bid to buy the club. Whatever success this may bring, it would cheapen any success IMO.

So in an alternate world, where there was no AFL salary cap, I'd still prefer to make it big on our own. The handout mentality isn't viable in business and that's what the AFL has become, so no deal, for me.

Liverpool are owned by the FSG, Fenway Sports Group which is American, they also own the Boston Red Sox

"In an April 2014 article in Forbes, senior editor Kurt Badenhausen called FSG "the most sophisticated, synergistic player in the coming age of international sports conglomerates"

AFL is usually about 20 years behind other major sports, it will happen someday

[sue 9,018]

As someone earlier pointed out, if one club gets such sponsorship, eventually so do all the others, so it just means more and more money around the sport.  But what does that really do for the spectator experience?  Not much except for improving TV coverage.  The game was just as exciting and absorbing to fans 50 years ago as it is today.  Sure the players are fitter and being full-timers are somewhat more skilled, but is that worth all the crud which more and more sponsorship brings.

Thank god for the salary cap and may it long be rigouously enforced.

[beelzebub 23,200]

Understand the op but for mine has an error in premise. Infinite funds cant work for us. There is the salary cap as well as total payments etc in fd being ceilinged ! The German example is a pear...the AFL ...apples.

Some more and lasting sponsorship would provide one very real thing i grant, the ability to remove their unwarranted infuence and tell them (Gills dills ) to go @#$!   themselves !!  and take the white jumpers to wipe their....

Garnering more money is a true goal but abdication of name ? No.

 

Edited January 27, 2017 by beelzebub

[Deestroy All 14,262]

1 hour ago, Satyriconhome said:

Liverpool are owned by the FSG, Fenway Sports Group which is American, they also own the Boston Red Sox

"In an April 2014 article in Forbes, senior editor Kurt Badenhausen called FSG "the most sophisticated, synergistic player in the coming age of international sports conglomerates"

AFL is usually about 20 years behind other major sports, it will happen someday

They don't give us an open cheque book.

[Sir Why You Little 36,668]

Have you read the ingredients on the side of a can of Red Bull?

WADA would have a field day

[Adam The God 29,416]

7 hours ago, Satyriconhome said:

Liverpool are owned by the FSG, Fenway Sports Group which is American, they also own the Boston Red Sox

"In an April 2014 article in Forbes, senior editor Kurt Badenhausen called FSG "the most sophisticated, synergistic player in the coming age of international sports conglomerates"

AFL is usually about 20 years behind other major sports, it will happen someday

Yeah, I know who owns Liverpool and FSG are the biggest tightarses in the premier league and their transfer policies have turned Liverpool into a feeder club.

The Chinese have shown their willingness to spend in world football. If a deal went through, the Liverpool transfer policies would alter dramatically.

[Diamond_Jim 12,360]

19 minutes ago, A F said:

Yeah, I know who owns Liverpool and FSG are the biggest tightarses in the premier league and their transfer policies have turned Liverpool into a feeder club.

The Chinese have shown their willingness to spend in world football. If a deal went through, the Liverpool transfer policies would alter dramatically.

You are probably right AF. For them it is a return on investment issue. Begs the question however whether the brand can continue to return on the investment without the necessary capital injection required to give it success. I sense they may have recognised this recently but they are coming from a reasonable way back.

Those oligarchs who own Chelsea and Manchester City must have some considerable money to throw at their teams.

Getting back to the Red Bull Dees there was a time of course in the VFL/AFL where clubs were almost the playthings of the wealthy. Richard Pratt and Carlton, Sydney and the piano playing doctor and of course our own Diamond Joe to mention a few.

[biggestred 4,820]

This makes me want to vomit

We are melbourne

[Adam The God 29,416]

23 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

You are probably right AF. For them it is a return on investment issue. Begs the question however whether the brand can continue to return on the investment without the necessary capital injection required to give it success. I sense they may have recognised this recently but they are coming from a reasonable way back.

Those oligarchs who own Chelsea and Manchester City must have some considerable money to throw at their teams.

Getting back to the Red Bull Dees there was a time of course in the VFL/AFL where clubs were almost the playthings of the wealthy. Richard Pratt and Carlton, Sydney and the piano playing doctor and of course our own Diamond Joe to mention a few.

In many of these situations, I find that money actually just covers for the lack of a viable business model or solid culture and club spirit and soul. 

Chelsea and City may have won a couple of titles between them, but they are transient 'franchises' nowadays. You could understand their supporters going along with it though, being able to rub titles in the faces of the previous top clubs like Liverpool and the scummy red part of Manchester. Ultimately though, the clubs haven't had to work hard for their successes, they've just spent heavily from another person's hard-earned. 

The AFL examples certainly demonstrate a gulf between corporate acumen and sporting acumen. Joe kept putting money into the club like an IV drip, when what was really need were solid foundations and to continue the metaphor, different meds.

Money doesn't work long term, because it itself is transient. You need solid foundations right across the board that set a culture of success, as PJ has shown at Melbourne. And even then, that won't all last forever if people within a club let themselves slip into self-satisfied arrogance.

Edited January 28, 2017 by A F