Paul Mavroudis tuned in to Soccer Stoppage Time recently and heard some interesting things: some floated his boat while others boiled his piss. This caused him to reflect on a number of things including one issue close to my heart -- the origins and continuity of South Melbourne (association) Football Club. The following is excerpted from his excellent South of the Border blog.
Soccer Stoppage Time is some sort of Sydney radio program. First time
listener, and I was impressed. If they were a Melbourne-based show and I
was a fan of an A-League team, I'd listen in again. But neither of
those things are true, so it ain't going to happen. More's the pity.
Anyway, the magic of the internet alerted us to the impending appearance
of one Tom Kalas on this show. But first we had to wade through some
Joe Didulica stuff and how the Heart have signed three 35-year-olds or
something. "Yoof!" as Victory fans would say. Interestingly, Didulica
claimed that Heart aren't for sale. Also talk about Heart making a
profit, which seems to be news to some of the presenters, even though I
figured that everyone knew about that news. Next to no mention that I
can recall of how they made that profit - selling a truckload of players
for some decent coin.
Then Ray Gatt.
Then news or rumours or something. Patrick Kisnorbo asking for too much money apparently. Ah, here we are.
Tom Kalas 'the' director of South Melbourne? First up he starts by
disagreeing with Didulica's assertion that Heart aren't for sale,
pointing out how Scott Munn had been talking about Heart's meeting with
overseas investors. Maybe investing means not for sale? Buy in, not buy
out?
Then the questions about South's A-League ambitions. Where's the money
coming from for a South A-League bid? Kalas replies that we have
guarantees from a 'Big 4' bank, but it's all down to firstly doing your
due diligence and such. What a relief.
Are we ready? Kalas replies with talk about our now four year old
transformation program. Third largest broadcaster of football in
Australia (pretty easy when no one else outside Fox and SBS does it),
mention of our Youtube stats, with no mention of it being it watched by
Russian gamblers. But Youtube stats have always been a rubbery concept
to me.
Sustainability seems to be the main selling point. We can do the job of
being Melbourne's second team better, and more efficiently. Mention of
Heart's alleged $75k cost per home match at AAMI Park. But what about
South's facilities? Surely they're not up to scratch? Kalas and one of
the hosts make the point that the lighting and corporate facilities are
what need improving, and those can be done fairly quickly, with
government support.
The questioning moves on to what form a South team would take in the
national league. Kalas makes the very interesting assertion that 'The
South Melbourne Football Club brand will always be a state league based
club'. It's the FFA who will have the final say on what would happen in
that situation, what we could call ourselves etc. The follow up
questions are obvious - if all of that is the case, could a South
Melbourne takeover bid take over the entire Heart licence and remain as
Melbourne Heart? Well yes, that's an option.
Now, a brief break from me. Kalas is seriously having a laugh here, and
more or less repeating the same routine that our erstwhile friend Jim
Mellas performed so many years ago - a whole five of them, my how time
flies - during the Southern Cross bid era. Remember
this stuff?
Will it, won't it be South Melbourne? Is it a Trojan horse bid?
Broadbased and compelling? Kalas tried to make the point that 'a
broadbased club in the A-League' is what we hope to get, as well as a
member run (owned?) club in the top flight (who's members?) and that we
are football club, not an ethnic club.
So, under the model that Kalas was discussing, South as South would stay
in the Victorian system, and whatever this new thing is would be 'our'
national league representative. Who would support such a thing? And
without my trying to second guess what our fans would do this in
situation, Kalas seemed hopeful that enough Heart fans would come over
to make it a genuine combination of efforts. You must be kidding.
Regardless of how pitiful and inconsequential I think Heart's
raison
d'etre is, and by extension the feelings that their season ticket
holders have for that organisation, in their fantasy world that feeling
of belonging to something important is very real.
And before anyone jumps on that sentence, let it be clear that I
consider that fantastical sense of attachment as scarcely more ludicrous
than the fantasy we South fans have about our club being the biggest,
best, demanding of excellence etc. Because that fantasy is real, the
idea that they could easily switch allegiances to this supposed mulatto
entity is just absurd. Maybe some could, but most wouldn't. And to do so
would require a certain amount of magnanimity and humility from our
end, traits which South has seldom if ever possessed.
Kalas tried to talk about the soccer demographics that only go to
Melbourne A-League derby games. What makes him think that those people
could be relied upon to commit to a full length season? The next
question is why aren't South attracting more people if we have so many
people on our database, and watching our TV show? A truly daft question,
but it gave Kalas a free hit. It's because we play in winter, in a
state league competition, with no marketing from the FFV and no
mainstream media attention. Could the Heart or Victory do any better?
Kalas reckons it's apples and oranges, and he's surely right on this
point. It's why even Collingwood can only get a couple of hundred to VFL
games at Victoria Park.
SMFC: A history
So how did Kalas go about talking about our history? By deliberately
goading me with references to 1884. Now I'll preface this part of the
discussion by not claiming divine authority for the accuracy of this
history, only for where my understanding currently lies of the limited
details we have at present. Any corrections, new info, send it our way.
For those not up to speed on 1884, here's the deal. The original South
Melbourne soccer club began playing way back then. That club went
through a number of changes and periods where they (and soccer in
Melbourne in general) didn't exist. At some point in the 1930s -
1936 according to this article - they amalgamated with South Melbourne Juniors (a separate club previously called Middle Park Schoolboys).
South Melbourne United would of course become one of three clubs to
merge to form the South Melbourne Hellas we know and mostly love. It is
my strong opinion however that when Kalas makes these claims about
claiming that history - and I've warned him about this - he makes
serious factual and cultural errors. Factual, because we aren't even
sure what and who the original South Melbourne were for large periods of
time. Factual, because even the article mentioned above which claims
South Melbourne United involved a merger of South Melbourne with another
entity in 1936, is clearly missing some important detail, as both the
South Melbourne and South Melbourne United clubs are listed as being in
existence after that year.
In 1937, South Melbourne was in
Division 1, South Melbourne United in
Division 2. The same goes for 1938 as you can see
here and
here. In 1939 they finished first and second in
Division 2. In 1940 both teams played in
Division 1.
South Melbourne ceases to exist after this season. South Melbourne
United struggle during the war years, but re-emerge after them.
When looking at the 1959 foundation date for South Melbourne Hellas,
this is a bit of misnomer. 1959 is when Hellenic and Yarra Park merged.
The merger of that new entity with South Melbourne United happened in
early 1960. The Greeks needed a ground, and United took a chance that
the Greeks would respect their identity and history. That lasted just a
few years, and the most visible part of United's contribution to the new
club - outside of the venue itself - the red 'V', was ditched, and
little to no pretense seems to have been made that this was in any way a
local club. Callous perhaps, but at least eventually honest. I reckon
it was an awful thing to do, but it was done and most people never gave
it a second thought.
On rare occasions the official wing of the club has dug out the
'heritage' shirt, but not often. Again, if that's the way the majority
of the club's support feels about South Melbourne United, that's OK. But
having overwhelmingly rejected the history of the clubs that preceded
South Melbourne Hellas (and this includes the complicated Greek club
history), and focusing only on what was created in 1959, I find claiming
that 1884 date is unconscionable, and a ruse designed to get away from
the real problem.
At best, we can claim that we are a living representative of the soccer
tradition that has existed in the South Melbourne/Albert Park/Middle
Park area - perhaps the original heartland of soccer in Melbourne -
since 1884. That also includes teams like Hakoah, Park Rangers, Middle
Park, Albert Park, St Kilda, and both defunct and new teams with those
names.
Some more temperate minds may try to claim the 'custodian' tag, but I
consider that an illegitimate attempt to monopolise a history and local
tradition that is not completely ours to claim, especially considering
the over 50 year rejection of that tradition and history mentioned
earlier. To even begin to be able to start claiming that history as our
own, we have to show a humility that is not in keeping with the
traditions of this club, and for better and worse I have seldom seen
here.
Which leads us to the real problem. Who are we? When we talk among
ourselves, we are pretty sure of who we are. While some still hang on to
an older style Greek nationalist or patriotic identity - as is their
right - most younger supporters I think are able to easily claim the
identity of being a club with a mostly Greek past and heritage, with an
Australian future. These two ideas do not have to be mutually exclusive.
We can be both, and I would argue that we actually exist in that manner
right now.
So why can't we take that to the outside world? Why do we have to lie
about who we were and who we are? In some deranged way, I can understand
why we tried to do it back in the Southern Cross days - because we knew
(even those who argued otherwise) the FFA and general public was
utterly against us. But these days we go out there with the claim that
the FFA is encouraging us to make a push for the A-League, a claim which
was reinforced by one of the radio show hosts.