Is it time that M. Bowers goes? [Archive]

Lady Lawrence

28 Nov 2006, 15:21

how much more can teflon get away with? It is a JOKE that he is still there. I have worked in many major corporations etc with top level ceo's etc and not one of them would have remained in their job with the f'ups that Bowers has gotten away with.

Staff turnover is a huge indicator that things are not right at the top. When he initially took over you would expect a couple of key people to go as is the same with any top level change in any company. But..............................

We are on our 4th Chief Financial Officer, 3rd Membership Manager, 3rd head accountant, 3rd Media Manager, 3rd Marketing Manager (now called Chief of Commercial Ops), and I can think of at least 10 other positions that have had at least 2 different people in them since he arrived. Everything from Accts assistant, (hell one of those we are up to our 4th in 2 years), membership assistants, events assistants, shop staff. Currenty advertising for 3rd events manager. The list just goes on and on................

Is he just totally unable to recruit the right staff or is it just a bad place to work?

I tend to feel it is the latter knowing a fair few people that have worked there and left. The recruitment consultants they use are one of the best in Brisbane and one of the consultants is highly respected in the recruitment industry.

Add on to this the list that Danni referred to which have all been major major debacles and it is not a glowing report on his management of our great club.

Lady Lawrence

28 Nov 2006, 16:14

did a very quick search on this baord and found just a few threads!

Segregating Suppoters - Shows he has no idea!
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=87221&highlight=bowers (http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=87221&highlight=bowers)

Leaks his own memo to the press!! - no proof, just call it as I see it!
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=112911&highlight=bowers (http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=112911&highlight=bowers)

Link to news paper article gone, but gist is still there.
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=114346&highlight=bowers (http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=114346&highlight=bowers)

More about stuff ups and no explanations!
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=112741&highlight=bowers (http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=112741&highlight=bowers)

Sanctioned over breaches
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=108684&highlight=bowers (http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=108684&highlight=bowers)

campbell

28 Nov 2006, 16:55

I am afraid he appears to not be accountable for anything, its an appearance.he may be being sanctioned or whatever behind the scenes over the years, but we never hear anything.

Teflon is a good name, he appears to deflect everything elsewhere, to other staff.Never accountable for anything.

John

28 Nov 2006, 17:19

I would like to see Bowers go just so that some on here would STFU and get back to talking footy for waht would be their first time in my memory. Honestly I have no idea how you mods live with yourselves sometimes. You sh/can the likes of me and threaten "holidays" for defending the club when we a snidely attacked on this board and then get orgasmic over the CEO stuffing up. Great research LL. Love your work. You have proved to me that Bowers should go. Happy? Now where was that thread with beatniks research?
Excuse my bloody :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: but it seems subjects can only be discussed at the mods behest. I have not seen one damn comment by a couple of you about the quality of the draft. Get rid of Bowers blah blah blah. Well lets get on with it. Do something. Some of you keep implying to me how much influance you have in the club. Get to work so you can get rid of your bitterness and get back to discussing if the Berger will be king and other footy talk. Give me strength please.

Lady Lawrence

28 Nov 2006, 17:30

Excuse my bloody :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: but it seems subjects can only be discussed at the mods behest.

as I have said time and time again, discuss the post and not the poster and there will be no issues.

I have not seen one damn comment by a couple of you about the quality of the draft

I have not commented because I do not follow the youngsters until they become seniors, simply do not have the time but very much enjoy reading the posts on here by people that have knowledge from watching local grass roots footy and to them I say thank you for sharing your thoughts and insights.

Grimreepah

28 Nov 2006, 17:30

I would like to see Bowers go just so that some on here would STFU and get back to talking footy

Haha.:D

I thought that too.

Lady Lawrence

28 Nov 2006, 17:33

I would like to see Bowers go just so that some on here would STFU and get back to talking footy for waht would be their first time in my memory.

So in essence what you are saying is that you don't care about how our club is run, what is done with the money, how the players are treated etc etc. All you care about is the footy and what happens on the field.

kimp

28 Nov 2006, 17:36

notting18

28 Nov 2006, 18:07

One point that should be made is that Bowers has one of the hardest CEOs jobs going around in footy (up there with the dogs, kangas, melbourne, sydney) as we have such a fair weather supporter base (either ex-fitzroy supporters who only "recognised" the club after the premiership and are no longer around or QLD people who only go to see the club, get memberships when we are winning) I think that you can put a large amount of our $900 000 loss onto those people. Also, to counteract the negatives that have been highlighted by LL Bowers was one of the main players in getting us the Vodafone sponsership which was, at the time (i think that the wizard support of the pies has been increased in the last month or so) the biggest sponsership deal of any AFL club ever. Bowers must also be partially responsible for how high we rated on that "marketable club survey" done by one of the business magazines (I remember this clearly, i think it was BRW but can't find a link/info about it, maybe someone else can help)

I don't think his time is up, although he has made mistakes, i thought i should highlight some of the positives/mitigating circumstances

armagedon ready

28 Nov 2006, 18:14

I really believe that this is a bit of a witch hunt.
Some of the things being brought up here happened years ago. There were bad stuff ups at the time but, but I think the AFL were defintely out to bring the Lions to heel, and the Board obviously is more than happy with the way he has turned the finances of the Club around, and so have put those mistakes behind them.

I believe he is an arrogant man and sometimes his language is not empathetic, but this is common with many C.E.Os.

Much of the criticsm seems to be about staff turnover. As I have stated before, I was involved at a Corporate and organizational level with the Club in the mid to late 90s and it was obvious at that time that the Club needed to address many issues. There were some great people working there, but they were often there because of they were old footy people, or friends of friends. Departments grew like Topsy. Most effective organizations had implemented Change Management programmes at that time, and our Club certainly needed it. This often causes the type of reaction we hear from those who were close to the Club at that time. When you implement change it often creates the 30/30/30 syndrome. That is 30% rise to the challenge and go forward, 30% cant cope and leave, and another 30% struggle. Some of them will eventally go, some will learn to understand the new paradigm and progress. It is certainly not that uncommon to have high staff turnover in a five year period.
The measurement of an organization is how the people perform and the outcomes they achieve, not how many time they changed jobs.
Particularly in Financial positions, people these days are constantly looking to further their opportunities.

I do not like Bowers, I do not like his style, but I dont have to, nor do the people who work with him.

He IS accountable to the Board, they will judge him on whether he has achieved the Key Performance Indicators that they have set for him, and they will take in to account the expectations they would have of the administraion of the Club.
If the Board believes it is time for him to go then I will not be unhappy, but that will be because the decision will be made with all the facts and expectations weighed and measured and not because of some emotional reaction to what I believe was a decision made to trust a valued player. As Leigh said "When you looks someone in the eye, you tend to believe them"

Now if you dont trust the Board, that is a matter for another thread.

(And please dont ask what happens to the other 10%) :D :D

John

28 Nov 2006, 18:19

So in essence what you are saying is that you don't care about how our club is run, what is done with the money, how the players are treated etc etc.

I have always taken an interest in the club. I have doubts about the CEO but I sure as hell was not going to listen to anyone on this site who consistently contributed nothing other than snide attacks on the club. Kimp for example makes a statement about the admin and I listen. It is called gaining credibility due to measured argument. He has not continuously harped and harped and harped. You really do miss the point. During the Akermanis debate that raged, from the first minute the club was attacked when the player was demonstrably at fault as was ultimately proved correct. All I caught was snide attacks on the coach and the CEO on this board. Now the player may well have been narked by the coach but the CEO? He turns on the club because he is narked by the CEO????. Give me a break. I hate to say it LL but the same old same old are for me at it again due to past issues they themselves will not reveal.

I am more than happy for a discussion on the rights and wrongs of the CEO. I hear things myself as well. Heard a lot at the weekend in fact but I am damn well not going to big note myself on this form. The boy who cried wolf syndrome is huge in the debate for me.

All you care about is the footy and what happens on the field.
Is that a question or a statement?.

black_hart

28 Nov 2006, 18:23

I really believe that this is a bit of a witch hunt.

My thoughts too. Just trolling IMO.

Please stop attacking our CEO/club and let's get back to talking footy.

If you need to attack someone reserve it for the rat Mal Michael.

John

28 Nov 2006, 18:30

Grimreepah

28 Nov 2006, 18:56

John, deep breath. I don't want to see you go as you're a great poster and have such interesting things to contribute. However I think discussion of the administration of the club is warranted at times and perhaps now is the right time to do so.

We know that it is has been a really tough year for all and sundry at the club due to goings on that we'll never know the full story about. I know that sometimes it feels like posters are just constantly bagging everything about the club (and we know there are those that do) however we mustn't go in the opposite direction and provide undying support where really questions may need to be asked.

My own opinion is that Danni and LL have highlighted some important errors in judgement and as a member I am left wondering how so many such things have been allowed to occur. I am concerned that there may be an old boys club in play influencing decisions.

But who knows.

Just seems a bit pointless to me. Two or three people sound like they know what they are talking about, but most people probably wouldn't have the faintest about being a CEO. Bowers doesn't have the opportunity to defend himself, so I never feel I can really learn much from these threads.

I completely agree that the admin must be held to account, but is that the role of BigFooty? What position are we in to judge, and even if we all agree Bowers is incompetent what does that achieve?

People have accused me of towing the party line, but the way I see it is that this is a supporter's forum. Following the footy should be for enjoyment, and being a fan gives people an opportunity to feel like they are part of something special. Positivity will ultimately bring in new fans, and that is how people can help the club prosper.

I sometimes wonder whether new fans (and some old ones) get scared off with some of the sinister comments made on here by our own supporters. Who wants to associate themselves with something that is subject to constant abuse? I also wonder why some people are supporters when it all seems to give them so much dissatisfaction.

Anyway, I'm not meaning to attack this thread, just the general mood around here sometimes. With regard to Bowers, so we didn't put a clause in saying Mal couldn't play for 12 months. What's the big deal? How would that have helped us? If anything, we may even (not holding my breath;)) get our due draft pick, depending on the AFL investigation. Regardless I don't really see the need for the vitriol.

TheBrownDog

28 Nov 2006, 19:54

I don't feel qualified to make such a call to be honest.

kimp

28 Nov 2006, 20:14

I guess I see this differently. The actions of the CEO directly affects the facilities that the players have and the environment they train in. Ultimately their success is reflected in the success of the team.

Ultimately the board is responsible but the implementation of the plans they put in place is the responsibility of the CEO and it seems to me that the implementation is falling down at times of late.

*Danni*

28 Nov 2006, 20:41

I don't feel qualified to make such a call to be honest.

And please note, I was not expressing my opinion on the issue either for or against - I was just clarifying what I thought the topic was about. I don't think for me personally it is approprate for me to try and voice my opinion on this one as my scope for forming it is different to others here.

The Flying Belgian

28 Nov 2006, 20:58

as I have said time and time again, discuss the post and not the poster and there will be no issues.

Unfortunately LL, sometimes they are mutually inclusive. And when you try to discuss the point, there is silence at the other end. Very frustrating and stifling healthy debate.

Anyway, back on topic...

I've long been a critic of Bowers. Having heard things from people in the legal fraternity I was concerned and they concerns have proven to be justified. Away from the Michael non-clause which although he's a lawyer, I can't criticise too much for evidently failing to include it, he's had a lot more blunders than wonders. I can't help thinking his tenure can't be too secure.

I've actually had correspondence from Michael after complaining about website content (surprise surprise, a maligned segment of the website was his idea - no prizes for guessing which). His reply was considered and respectful. Now, if only he could replicate that when it's needed, i.e. when confronted by a fiery situation and TV cameras/radio mics. He could really do with borrowing some of Leigh phlegmatism when under the pump. If our club's mouthpiece is going off half-cocked talking tough about legal action, particularly if it's not followed through, and accusing other clubs of draft tampering (a very serious slur), it's looking pretty ordinary IMO. What's that saying about speaking softly and carrying a big stick?

irel

28 Nov 2006, 21:19

What I find reprehensible is the despicable attitude and continual sniping at the club and its leaders in particular the coach and the CEO. Personal vendettas and listing of the so-called litany of errors. Name me one CEO who has led an organisation through a change management process and has not experienced the staff turnover or upheavals that is a result of the process.

Armagedon on several occasions has philosophically argued and provided the counter opinion of the corporate change management process that the club had to undergo in order to move forward. Yet those stuck in the resistance phase are still there, unwilling or incapable of accepting reality and consequences of the process.

Get over it and move on.

Those same people find reasons to defend the actions of Akermanis and Michael that are far more destabilizing and reprehensible.

Same old, same old. One has no idea or clue about anything and can not and has never given, as John puts it, a credible and reasoned argument as to why she is so obsessed with bringing the Club or its Authority to heal.

The other two claim to speak from a knowledgeable insider point of view and come out with vitriol and poison arrows inflicting considerable damage amongst the supporters at the slightest window of opportunity. I am sure many within the club and public arena view and read these boards. Silently suffering, as they can not possibly attempt to defend themselves.

Thanks to individuals like John, beatnik, Grim, armagedon and few others who I would call genuine supporters, who find the time and energy to defend the club we all love. True SUPPORTERS!! Check it out in the dictionary.

I am now like John, I wish for Bowers to just go, so that the three of you can JTFSU so that we can get on with the football and supporting our club.

How thrilled I was with our drafting results only few days ago. I was full of optimism, hope and anticipation. Only to have it snuffed in five minutes reading through this thread.

I will not say any more on this topic. I am Akered out, Bowered off and Michael-ed. No more. Enough is enough.

scott522

28 Nov 2006, 21:28

This had been an interesting read - I have an opinion but will be keeping it to myself.

BigCat2

28 Nov 2006, 21:36

How thrilled I was with our drafting results only few days ago. I was full of optimism, hope and anticipation. Only to have it snuffed in five minutes reading through this thread.

irel, keep that optimisim, hope and anticipation - I know myself, and doubtless many others around here still do. There's no need for certain things to weigh you down and lose heart - it's not worth it.

irel

28 Nov 2006, 21:42

irel, keep that optimisim, hope and anticipation - I know myself, and doubtless many others around here still do. There's no need for certain things to weigh you down and lose heart - it's not worth it.

Thanx Cat. I'll get around to commenting further on our draft result when I find some time. Just hope we rookie a SA kid named Lachlan Button. Check it out.:)

BigCat2

28 Nov 2006, 22:01

Thanx Cat. I'll get around to commenting further on our draft result when I find some time. Just hope we rookie a SA kid named Lachlan Button. Check it out.:)

Cheers irel. :thumbsu: With Lachlan Button, do you have a particular profile in mind or should I just do a quick search?

irel

28 Nov 2006, 22:10

Cheers irel. :thumbsu: With Lachlan Button, do you have a particular profile in mind or should I just do a quick search?

Don't think you'll find much about the lad.
Briefly; Glenelg, 18, 199cm 95kgs, Forward/Ruck or Ruck/Forward.
I believe the Lions had Tippet in mind for the draft but did not have the opportunity. IMO, Lachlan would be good alternative. Also, "Shorty", will need some assistance in the Sunny Coast Lions. Another 18 year old pushing him along may not be a bad policy. Also can be groomed as a FF in a few years time.
Cheers

Grimreepah

28 Nov 2006, 22:29

He IS accountable to the Board

I think this is a very important point. This is not a political election where politicians have to answer to the general public for approval. Bowers answers to the board who are qualified to assess Bower's performance.

The board then in turn answer to the members. If any members have a beef, it is with the board for not getting rid of Bowers, rather than Bowers himself.

BigCat2

28 Nov 2006, 23:50

Don't think you'll find much about the lad.
Briefly; Glenelg, 18, 199cm 95kgs, Forward/Ruck or Ruck/Forward.
I believe the Lions had Tippet in mind for the draft but did not have the opportunity. IMO, Lachlan would be good alternative. Also, "Shorty", will need some assistance in the Sunny Coast Lions. Another 18 year old pushing him along may not be a bad policy. Also can be groomed as a FF in a few years time.
Cheers

Wondering why so many near 200cm kids are being dubbed "tall forwards" these days. Mitch Clark and Tippett come to mind - they're probably both more forwards than rucks.

Roylion

29 Nov 2006, 16:30

we have such a fair weather supporter base (either ex-fitzroy supporters who only "recognised" the club after the premiership and are no longer around

Fitzroy supporters living in Melbourne don't owe the Brisbane Lions. It is up to the club to capture the 'Fitzroy market' and increase Melbourne membership. And while they have done fairly well so far, it's my view they could be doing more. There has to be a very good reason to part with $147 for a full Victorian adult membership. For many entry to five Gabba games as well as six Victorian games isn't enough.

I know the issue over the recognition of the Lions' records by the AFL rankles quite a few Fitzroy supporters. Even the club these days at times includes Brisbane Bears records in their publications to the exclusion of Fitzroy records. While this is understandable to a point seeing the Brisbane Lions are mainly a Queensland based club, it does annoy some old Fitzroy supporters who while they support the Brisbane Lions, may be wavering on whether to purchase a membership or not. For example in the 2004 Season Review and Annual Report all the Brisbane Bears and Brisbane Lions annual records from 1987 onwards were recorded, but no Fitzroy records.

As I have said previously it will be very interesting if in future years, AFL scheduling is significantly affected by relocations of Melbourne based clubs to the point where the merger agreement of a minimum 6 games in Victoria will be broken on a regular basis. If that is the case, expect the Victorian membership to nose-dive sharply, as taking out a Victorian membership may not be worth it.

Also, to counteract the negatives that have been highlighted by LL Bowers was one of the main players in getting us the Vodafone sponsership which was, at the time (i think that the wizard support of the pies has been increased in the last month or so) the biggest sponsership deal of any AFL club ever. Bowers must also be partially responsible for how high we rated on that "marketable club survey" done by one of the business magazines (I remember this clearly, i think it was BRW but can't find a link/info about it, maybe someone else can help)

I don't think his time is up, although he has made mistakes, i thought i should highlight some of the positives/mitigating circumstances

Generally I have to agree. Bowers has made a couple of significant mistakes, but on the whole he has managed the club well. The $900,000+ loss wasn't wholly unexpected and the Lions made it very clear during their successful period that they were squirreling away funds in preparation for the harder times that would inevitably follow, as declining success on the field would be followed by declining success off the field.

In the end the buck stops with the directors. Any concerns about the running of the club should be raised with them.

John

29 Nov 2006, 16:47

Fitzroy supporters living in Melbourne don't owe the Brisbane Lions. It is up to the club to capture the 'Fitzroy market' and increase Melbourne membership. And while they have done fairly well so far, it's my view they could be doing more. There has to be a very good reason to part with $147 for a full Victorian adult membership. For many entry to five Gabba games as well as six Victorian games isn't enough.

I know the issue over the recognition of the Lions' records by the AFL rankles quite a few Fitzroy supporters. Even the club these days at times includes Brisbane Bears records in their publications to the exclusion of Fitzroy records. While this is understandable to a point seeing the Brisbane Lions are mainly a Queensland based club, it does annoy some old Fitzroy supporters who while they support the Brisbane Lions, may be wavering on whether to purchase a membership or not. For example in the 2004 Season Review and Annual Report all the Brisbane Bears and Brisbane Lions annual records from 1987 onwards were recorded, but no Fitzroy records.

As I have said previously it will be very interesting if in future years, AFL scheduling is significantly affected by relocations of Melbourne based clubs to the point where the merger agreement of a minimum 6 games in Victoria will be broken on a regular basis. If that is the case, expect the Victorian membership to nose-dive sharply, as taking out a Victorian membership may not be worth it.
Interesting words. I am a Lions supporter, not a Bears supporter, and expect that the admin would do all it could to support our Melbourne brethran. I have no issue with the raising of both BB and FL history etc as that is part of what we are today. From a troubled start it is now IMO a proud club and I for one enjoy the traditions that the history of the Fitzroy Lions add to the present club. Roylion some Melbourne issues pass me by as to me being in Brisbane so I am more than happy when you to raise them.

Grimreepah

29 Nov 2006, 17:37

1) The Loophole

i have spoken to moderators of other boards about the way this board is moderated and the whole 'discuss the post and not the poster' edict

I too have concerns about the practicality of this edict (my post was deleted, so I won't bother going into it again).

notting18

29 Nov 2006, 17:47

Fitzroy supporters living in Melbourne don't owe the Brisbane Lions. It is up to the club to capture the 'Fitzroy market' and increase Melbourne membership. And while they have done fairly well so far, it's my view they could be doing more. There has to be a very good reason to part with $147 for a full Victorian adult membership. For many entry to five Gabba games as well as six Victorian games isn't enough.

I know the issue over the recognition of the Lions' records by the AFL rankles quite a few Fitzroy supporters. Even the club these days at times includes Brisbane Bears records in their publications to the exclusion of Fitzroy records. While this is understandable to a point seeing the Brisbane Lions are mainly a Queensland based club, it does annoy some old Fitzroy supporters who while they support the Brisbane Lions, may be wavering on whether to purchase a membership or not. For example in the 2004 Season Review and Annual Report all the Brisbane Bears and Brisbane Lions annual records from 1987 onwards were recorded, but no Fitzroy records.

As I have said previously it will be very interesting if in future years, AFL scheduling is significantly affected by relocations of Melbourne based clubs to the point where the merger agreement of a minimum 6 games in Victoria will be broken on a regular basis. If that is the case, expect the Victorian membership to nose-dive sharply, as taking out a Victorian membership may not be worth it.

I should point out here that i am a melbourne based "lions" supporter (fitzroy/brisbane) and yes the club could arguably have done more for us with respect to a few areas BUT I am not saying that fitzroy supporters are obliged/have to be supporters of the brisbane lions, what i was mainly saying was that there was a fair percentage who 'jumped on the bandwagon' when we were winning and have now jumped off. This, for the club is a fact that it is hard to avoid (unless we are winning constantly), and those fair-weather supporters are ones for whom i have no respect as they don't have the character to support their club when the going gets tough. There is very little that the club can do here to please such supporters, and as such we will always have lower membership numbers/revenue during the downtimes of the club.

Also, you make a good point about the 6 game merger agreement, but this is not so much a club issue than an AFL issue. The brisbane lions will always fight to have those set number of games in melbourne but it is up to the AFL who set the draft...and especially seeing as the AFL administration seem to "love us";) i personally think i could be racking up the frequent flyer points in a few years

campbell

29 Nov 2006, 17:56

I think I remember reading the sticking point in the 6 game agreement is that we have the Melbourne home game here.

notting18

29 Nov 2006, 18:01

I think I remember reading the sticking point in the 6 game agreement is that we have the Melbourne home game here.
That is an issue, but it seems to be more of an AFL excuse, as the agreement didnt say that we play "melbourne based clubs" it said "in melbourne". It would be like claiming a hawthorn game in tassie as a "melbourne game."

AB09

29 Nov 2006, 18:29

As I have said previously it will be very interesting if in future years, AFL scheduling is significantly affected by relocations of Melbourne based clubs to the point where the merger agreement of a minimum 6 games in Victoria will be broken on a regular basis. If that is the case, expect the Victorian membership to nose-dive sharply, as taking out a Victorian membership may not be worth it.

I thought the merger agreement stated not less than 6 games in Melbourne (not Victoria i.e. does not include playing at Geelong).

The agreement has already been broken ... several times in fact, and it only took just 5 years for the AFL to break the agreement when only 5 Lions games were played in Melbourne in the 2001 season.

Roylion

29 Nov 2006, 18:52

I believe the merger agreement stated not less than 6 games in Melbourne (not Victoria i.e. does not include playing at Geelong).

The agreement has been altered a number of times. For example the merger agreement stipulated that the 1996 Fitzroy uniform with the monogram "BL" instead of FFC was to be worn by the new club. (Clause 7.2 b) That never happened.

Yes it did, but it also said that the six games must be played at either Waverley, Optus Oval or the MCG. The Fitzroy Football Club has accepted Geelong in lieu of Waverley, as long as there are a minimum of six games in Victoria. However they will not accept less than six home and away games in Victoria. The Fitzroy Football Club consider the agreement to have been broken once (in 2005).

The agreement has already been broken ... several times in fact, and it only took just 5 years for the AFL to break the agreement when only 5 Lions games were played in Melbourne in the 2001 season.

Fitzroy has accepted the Geelong game as one of their six. In 2005 five games were drawn for Victoria. The Fitzroy board resolved to take legal action against the Brisbane Lions unless appropriate compensation. After representatives of the Fitzroy board met with Graeme Downie and Michael Bowers Fitzroy were mollified by the wearing of the Fitzroy jumper for one extra Melbourne game in 2005, but warned that IF it occurred again that would not be sufficient. Details available at www.fitzroyfc.com.au

If the agreement is broken again, Fitzroy will initiate legal action against the Brisbane Lions and the AFL and seek suitable compensation. And that was said directly to me by the a member of the Fitzroy board. The Fitzroy board's desire is to work with the Brisbane Lions, but they are very aware of the obligations due to them as a result of the merger agreement they were forced to acquiese to.

Snuka

29 Nov 2006, 19:03

So in essence what you are saying is that you don't care about how our club is run, what is done with the money, how the players are treated etc etc. All you care about is the footy and what happens on the field.

Is that considered a bad thing?

Roylion

29 Nov 2006, 19:21

I am not saying that fitzroy supporters are obliged/have to be supporters of the brisbane lions, what i was mainly saying was that there was a fair percentage who 'jumped on the bandwagon' when we were winning and have now jumped off.

I'm suggesting that there is more that could be done to ensure these supporters find it more difficult to "jump off'. In my view the key to that lies in identifying more with the Melbourne roots of the Fitzroy Football Club. There's a number of actions I would like to see the club adopt to ensure that it is done.

There is very little that the club can do here to please such supporters, and as such we will always have lower membership numbers/revenue during the downtimes of the club.

Yet many of these same supporters you speak of were die hard Fitzroy supporters who supported the club in the last days of participation in the AFL, when their team used to lose week in and week out. And yet will not renew their Victorian membership for a variety of reasons.

Also, you make a good point about the 6 game merger agreement, but this is not so much a club issue than an AFL issue. The brisbane lions will always fight to have those set number of games in melbourne but it is up to the AFL who set the draft...and especially seeing as the AFL administration seem to "love us";) i personally think i could be racking up the frequent flyer points in a few years

Yet the merger agreement signed between the Brisbane Bears-Fitzroy Football Club Ltd. and the Fitzroy Football Club Ltd. guarantees six games in Melbourne (Victoria). The fact that the Brisbane Bears-Fitzroy Football Club Ltd. (Brisbane Lions) is a signatory to the agreement makes it a club concern. One that the board (and Michael Bowers - seeing this thread is about him) needs to concern themselves with.

Some may argue that the agreement has already been broken. I guess that depends on what your definition of 'Melbourne' is. Can Geelong be classed as part of the greater Melbourne metropolitan area?

AB09

29 Nov 2006, 19:44

Yes it did, but it also said that the six games must be played at either Waverley, Optus Oval or the MCG. The Fitzroy Football Club has accepted Geelong in lieu of Waverley, as long as there are a minimum of six games in Victoria. However they will not accept less than six home and away games in Victoria. The Fitzroy Football Club consider the agreement to have been broken once (in 2005).

Fitzroy has accepted the Geelong game as one of their six. In 2005 five games were drawn for Victoria. The Fitzroy board resolved to take legal action against the Brisbane Lions unless appropriate compensation. After representatives of the Fitzroy board met with Graeme Downie and Michael Bowers Fitzroy were mollified by the wearing of the Fitzroy jumper for one extra Melbourne game in 2005, but warned that IF it occurred again that would not be sufficient. Details available at www.fitzroyfc.com.au (http://www.fitzroyfc.com.au)

Thanks for the link and the info Royal.

Found this (http://www.fitzroyfc.com.au/article_FFC_jumper_one-off.htm) link to the 1996 merger agreement regarding the no. of Melbourne games.

Although a bit outdated, here is Clause 7.2(h)

Clause 7.2 (h) The Merged Club will play one half of the total number of home and away games per season at the Gabba and as many Melbourne based away premiership games as possible will be played at Optus Oval or the Melbourne Cricket Ground (but not less than 6) with any other away premiership games at any of Waverley, Optus Oval or the Melbourne Cricket Ground at which Melbourne based members of the Merged Club will have home ground status (in respect of which Brisbane Bears will make a contribution to gate receipts of an amount determined by AFL);

AB09

29 Nov 2006, 19:53

If the agreement is broken again, Fitzroy will initiate legal action against the Brisbane Lions and the AFL and seek suitable compensation. And that was said directly to me by the a member of the Fitzroy board. The Fitzroy board's desire is to work with the Brisbane Lions, but they are very aware of the obligations due to them as a result of the merger agreement they were forced to acquiese to.

Isn't the problem with the number (lack) of games in Melbourne an AFL issue and not a Lions issue. Aren't the AFL the ones that are ultimately responsible for the schedule? I would think the Lions would request and would be keen to play as many games in Melbourne (especially the MCG) each year as possible.

I understand legally that Fitzroy would have grounds for compensation from both the Lions and the AFL, but I would have though that surely the issue is with the AFL and their scheduling and that the Lions, to an extent, have their hands tied.

POBT

29 Nov 2006, 20:26

I'll be blunt and say that I actually don't give a stuff about Fitzroy Lions supporters. What they do under the Fitzroy Football Club banner is of absolutely no interest to me. I admire their passion and loyalty but they mean as much to me as Kangaroos or Bulldogs supporters.

I do care about the interests of Brisbane Lions supporters though, regardless of their former allegiances. The Vic games issue either has, or at least has the potential to, disenfranchise (I hate that word!) Brisbane Lions supporters in Melbourne. Regardless of the FFC connection or heritage, this has to be a bad thing. I don't believe the Club or the Board has done anything wrong per se. I just don't think they've been proactive (another crappy word) enough in ensuring the interests of Vic members are met. The existence of a merger agreement should only further motivate the Club to agitate more for the interests of the Vic members. But clearly that hasn't happened.

One of two things seem likely to have occurred when Brisbane negotiated the Demon home game deal. (1) The club overlooked the requirements of the merger agreement or simply assumed the AFL would honour the spirit of it without actually confirming that in writing. (2) Brisbane were aware of the repercussions of the Demons Deal on the merger requirements and chose to proceed anyway. I prefer to believe the former - which backs up my argument that the Club hasn't wronged the Vic fans but they haven't exactly done them any favours either. I'm not a Vic fan but I reckon they have an argument that they have been hard done by - to what extent the Club is to blame is anyone's guess.

I do question the role of the Vic directors in all of this. We, as fans, really only hear about these issues either when the club bitches to the AFL about the draw or when Fitzroy people raise it. If this is a genuine concern amongst Victorian based supporters, I question whether the Vic directors have been doing enough. I know that they are outnumbered but I wonder how hard they have agitated for a better deal for the Vic fans. Right now, there is a vacancy on the Board - it is not like TR's seat it has been filled by a Brisbane person. Is it vacant because being the Vic based director is a lost cause because the Club is so Brisbane-centric? Is it vacant because it is a tough gig representing a constituency who, at best, only get to see their club play 6 times a year? Is it resentment from the Fitzroy fraternity? Is it apathy? Is it because, as has been pointed out, there is a degree of fair weather friendship amongst an element of former Fitzroy people?

I don't know the answers to those questions. However, I would like to hear more "good news" stories about the Club looking after its Victorian based fans. I think the AFL has taken the piss with the Vic games issue but I don't think we've taken enough interest in ensuring that our rights (it is as much as Brisbane Lions issue as it is a Fitzroy issue IMO) are recognised by the AFL. If Bowers and co can be criticised for anything, it is choosing not to fight this particular battle very hard.

notting18

29 Nov 2006, 20:31

I think it is sumwhat of a lost cause to do a lot to get this fitzroy supporters back to the club 10 years after the merger... as even we have to accept the brisbane lions is a new club and not the brisbane bears or fitzroy and most of those who would join the new lions, have

Roylion

29 Nov 2006, 21:53

I'll be blunt and say that I actually don't give a stuff about Fitzroy Lions supporters.

You may not give a stuff about Fitzroy supporters, but you should give a stuff about the Fitzroy Football Club (of which I am a member). Fitzroy is a signatory to the merger agreement with the Brisbane Lions and the Brisbane Lions has certain obligations to the Fitzroy Football Club Ltd. (approximately 1,200 members in 2006). Many Fitzroy members and supporters also support the Brisbane Lions. As you probably realise they are not necesaarily mutually exclusive.

What they do under the Fitzroy Football Club banner is of absolutely no interest to me.

That's probably the attitude of many Brisbane Lions supporters, especially those who live in Queensland.

I do care about the interests of Brisbane Lions supporters though, regardless of their former allegiances. The Vic games issue either has, or at least has the potential to, disenfranchise (I hate that word!) Brisbane Lions supporters in Melbourne. Regardless of the FFC connection or heritage, this has to be a bad thing. I don't believe the Club or the Board has done anything wrong per se. I just don't think they've been proactive (another crappy word) enough in ensuring the interests of Vic members are met. The existence of a merger agreement should only further motivate the Club to agitate more for the interests of the Vic members. But clearly that hasn't happened.

No it hasn't. On occasion it has been the Fitzroy Football Club that has agitated for the rights of the Victorian membership of the Brisbane Lions, such as the protest over less than six games in Victoria, or the Fitzroy Past Players and son on. Fitzroy's mission statement is to "endeavour to represent the interests of Fitzroy members who support the Brisbane Lions in the AFL Merger." Yet Fitzroy Football Club have no represenataion on the board of the brisbane Lions, despite the existance of an agreement between the two entities. Lions Victorian directors Laurie Serafini and formerly Tom Reynolds are not members of the Fitzroy Football Club board, they are/were handpicked appointees of the elected board members of the Brisbane Lions.

One of two things seem likely to have occurred when Brisbane negotiated the Demon home game deal. (1) The club overlooked the requirements of the merger agreement or simply assumed the AFL would honour the spirit of it without actually confirming that in writing. (2) Brisbane were aware of the repercussions of the Demons Deal on the merger requirements and chose to proceed anyway.

The AFL have argued that in fact the Lions were told at the time they negotiated the Melbourne home game at the Gabba that it could be counted as one of their minimum allotted six Victorian games. According to the AFL, the Lions chose to proceed anyway..

I do question the role of the Vic directors in all of this. We, as fans, really only hear about these issues either when the club bitches to the AFL about the draw or when Fitzroy people raise it.

As previously said the Victorian directors are hand-picked appointees of the Brisbane Lions board. The constitution provides for a minimum of one Victorian director to be appointed in the event that one Victorian director is not elected by the members (highly unlikely given that the majority of membership is in Queensland).

Right now, there is a vacancy on the Board - it is not like TR's seat it has been filled by a Brisbane person. Is it vacant because being the Vic based director is a lost cause because the Club is so Brisbane-centric?

Will another Victorian director be appointed at all? There is a minimum of one required under the terms of the amended Constitution and Laurie Searfini (appointed each year by the rest of the board since 1997) is it. Full Victorian members can vote for the board of course, but they can't vote for any of the Victorian directors who are appointees.

Is it vacant because it is a tough gig representing a constituency who, at best, only get to see their club play 6 times a year? Is it resentment from the Fitzroy fraternity? Is it apathy? Is it because, as has been pointed out, there is a degree of fair weather friendship amongst an element of former Fitzroy people?

It may well be a combination of a number of the above factors. However it is interesting that the success on the field from 2001-04 was combined with a number of Brisbane Lions 'Fitzroy intiatives' off the field. The Fitzroy team of the Century function brought back many Fitzroy people to the club. That was followed by other commemorations of Fitzroy including the wearing of the Fitzroy jumper in Melbourne, the Fitzroy Reds playing a curtain raiser in Melbourne, the Fitzroy 1944 flag being ceremonially raised beside the 2001 flag by Fitzroy greats, the unveiling of the Haydn Bunton statue, the 1944 premiership cup being struck and a whole host of other Fitzroy initiatives. Combined with success on the field it's not surprising that Victorian membership rose significantly. At the same time club success waned so did the some of the club emphasis on Fitzroy in Melbourne. Combined with the furore of the broken merger agreement, the continuing confusion over the records, the reduction to one appointed director, I don't find it surprising that Victorian membership has tailed off somewhat and thus reduced revenue has resulted. For some, the reason or need to continue with membership has declined. This would be fairly consistent with what would happen if Brisbane Lions games in Victoria dropped to three or four per season. Victorian membership would drop sharply. It may well be cheaper to pay at the gate.

I think the AFL has taken the piss with the Vic games issue but I don't think we've taken enough interest in ensuring that our rights (it is as much as Brisbane Lions issue as it is a Fitzroy issue IMO) are recognised by the AFL. If Bowers and co can be criticised for anything, it is choosing not to fight this particular battle very hard.

I certainly believe there are various intitiatives that the club could be undertaking in Melbourne to ensure the numbers of Victorian members in the successful years are maintained or at least kept up, especially while on-field success is proving elusive. I agree that Bowers (and the board) could be fighting this battle a little harder than they have been.

maroon and blue

29 Nov 2006, 22:50

Yes please.

POBT

30 Nov 2006, 10:23

You may not give a stuff about Fitzroy supporters, but you should give a stuff about the Fitzroy Football Club (of which I am a member). Fitzroy is a signatory to the merger agreement with the Brisbane Lions and the Brisbane Lions has certain obligations to the Fitzroy Football Club Ltd. (approximately 1,200 members in 2006). Many Fitzroy members and supporters also support the Brisbane Lions. As you probably realise they are not necesaarily mutually exclusive.

That's probably the attitude of many Brisbane Lions supporters, especially those who live in Queensland.

Roylion, I might not have explained myself properly. I don't care about Fitzroy supporters who are not Brisbane Lions supporters. Certainly, there is overlap between the two. I care about those who are supporters of my club.

And to answer your other point, as blunt as it sounds, I really don't care about the Fitzroy Football Club. The Brisbane Lions have obligations to your club under an agreement and I want my club to honour that agreement. But that doesn't mean I actually care about FFC. To me, the Lions owe obligations to another entity - like it does with its commercial partners, the AFL, suppliers etc. I care that the Brisbane Lions uphold their side of an agreement and I care that the Brisbane Lions needs to do more to look after its supporters. Fitzroy Football Club is incidental to that. (Also, please understand that I'm not trying to be controversial or to provoke you. I'm trying to be honest.)

You say that the merger agreement doesn't require FFC representation on the Board - well, that seems to be a pretty big factor in the way things have progressed. I'd suggest it is probably representative of the lack of bargaining power the FFC had in 96 - that is unfortunate because having an FFC rep on the Board makes sense to me.

I'll take your word on the Melbourne home games issue. If it is truly the fault of the Brisbane Lions, then I couldn't blame the FFC for taking action. If I were in your shoes, then I'd do exactly the same thing. I will say that the AFL has a vested interest in shifting the blame onto the Lions though - I would like to hear all sides of the story.

It is an unfortunate situation but not entirely unexpected given the way things went down in 1996. When you call something a merger when it is not, problems are likely to arise. In a way, the success of the 99-04 years probably delayed a lot of difficult discussions.

Roylion

1 Dec 2006, 14:38

Roylion, I might not have explained myself properly. I don't care about Fitzroy supporters who are not Brisbane Lions supporters. Certainly, there is overlap between the two.

I don't expect you or anyone else to care about Fitzroy supporters who are not Brisbane Lions supporters. That wasn't really my point. My point is that IF the club was interested in maintaining or increasing their Victorian membership, then the market to do so is largely in that area. As I have said the reasons for Fitzroy supporters not joining the club are many and varied. Many I know cite a number of reasons from.... the Brisbane Lions are not Fitzroy (you're never going to convert those ones) to those being annoyed about the Lions records, or not enough matches in Victoria, or the poor seating arrangements at Telstra Dome or a general feeling of disenfranchisement from the club for a variety of reasons. Some of these reasons are clearly out of the control of the club, others however could be worked on by Bowers and company.

"maroon and blue" made a good point in another thread which I tend to agree with. "Victorian membership is important in underpinning the fluctuations in Qld. The admin has greatly underestimated the potential in growth in the Vic market to the clubs detriment. All AFL teams want to expand their supporter base on a national level and unfortunately the Lions have (due to their success) only focused on Qld and not realized that they have a tremendous opportunity in Vic to also increase membership significantly."

And to answer your other point, as blunt as it sounds, I really don't care about the Fitzroy Football Club. The Brisbane Lions have obligations to your club under an agreement and I want my club to honour that agreement. But that doesn't mean I actually care about FFC."

As I have said the Fitzroy Football Club and the Brisbane Lions are closely linked via the Deed of Arrangement. The Brisbane Lions claim Fitzroy Football Club's name, colours, history and so on. In turn there are the odd one or two who care nothing for the Brisbane Lions and would like nothing better than to see the merger agreement ended, all intellectual property returned to the club and Fitzroy left to forge a new independent future. However that's a pipe dream in my view and in my view would not be of long term benefit to the club.

To me, the Lions owe obligations to another entity - like it does with its commercial partners, the AFL, suppliers etc.

The relationship between Fitzroy and the Brisbane Lions, as opposed to a another commercial entity is different though. Fitzroy has obligations under the Deed and are restricted in what they can and can't do in their own right.

I care that the Brisbane Lions uphold their side of an agreement and I care that the Brisbane Lions needs to do more to look after its supporters. Fitzroy Football Club is incidental to that.

I don't think Fitzroy Football Club is incidental to that. The Fitzroy Football Club is an intrinsic part of the Brisbane Lions identity. Fitzroy's life members are Brisbane's life members. Fitzroy club records are Brisbane's club records. Brisbane claim the right to manage and commemorate Fitzroy's 100 year old VFL-AFL history, as well as claiming ownership of other aspects of what many would consider is Fitzroy Football Club's intellectual property. In fact, what other entity might be in a position to defend the interests of the Victorian supporters of the Brisbane Lions, such as insisting on adherence to the terms of merger agreement such as the minimum of six Brisbane Lions games on Victoria.

You say that the merger agreement doesn't require FFC representation on the Board - well, that seems to be a pretty big factor in the way things have progressed.

Yes, correct. Hence some Fitzroy supporters, (that market which the Brisbane Lions could well appeal to and perhaps expand into) feel that the Brisbane Lions lacks some legitimacy in representing the Fitzroy Football Club in the AFL.

I'd suggest it is probably representative of the lack of bargaining power the FFC had in 96 - that is unfortunate because having an FFC rep on the Board makes sense to me.

As it does to me, particularly as we're now down to one Victorian director. It's my view that the Brisbane Lions board could be working much more closely with the Fitzroy Football Club board on a number of issues.

I'll take your word on the Melbourne home games issue. If it is truly the fault of the Brisbane Lions, then I couldn't blame the FFC for taking action. If I were in your shoes, then I'd do exactly the same thing.

The Fitzroy board is reluctant to take legal action against the Brisbane Lions, but is also determined to protect the rights of the club in a merger agreement they were forced to agree to in 1996. They are also very keen to protect the rights of those Victorian Fitzroy supporters who now are members of the Brisbane Lions (of which I am one). I see no other entity which can do that. I really don't have that much faith in Laurie Serafini to stand up for the rights of the Victorian Brisbane Lions members, or to be able to sway the Queensland dominated board and CEO into assisting these supporters.

I will say that the AFL has a vested interest in shifting the blame onto the Lions though

I have no doubt that would be the case. However I can only go on what has been reported both in the media and also to me personally.

When you call something a merger when it is not, problems are likely to arise. In a way, the success of the 99-04 years probably delayed a lot of difficult discussions.

It will be extremely interesting over the next few years, especially if Melbourne based teams begin to play more and more games interstate and it becomes more difficult for the AFL to meet the terms of the agreement.

*Danni*

1 Dec 2006, 14:44

It will be extremely interesting over the next few years, especially if Melbourne based teams begin to play more and more games interstate and it becomes more difficult for the AFL to meet the terms of the agreement.

A question Roylion - In reading the agreement I found a contradiction,or maybe better a lack of clarification, on the timeline issues. Now I'm drawing from memory here not going back to read it before I ask, but isn't there a timeline specified for certain things in it? Like the wearing of a hybrid jumper for x number of years post merger? Do you know if this time line applied to all issues or just the things like the jumper? From vague memory that time is up, and there is nothing in the agreement stopping the club from (goodness only knows why they would want to - but for arguements sake) ditching the colours and logo and start wearing puple, yellow and pink jumpers with sky blue stripes and burnt orange polka dots instead. I'm wondering if the agreement for number of games isn't subject to similar time constraints?

Roylion

1 Dec 2006, 16:55

A question Roylion - In reading the agreement I found a contradiction,or maybe better a lack of clarification, on the timeline issues. Now I'm drawing from memory here not going back to read it before I ask, but isn't there a timeline specified for certain things in it?

Yes there is, but only where a time frame is specifically mentioned. Otherwise the terms are in perpetuity.

For example:

Clause 7.2b The Playing Uniform of the Club will, for a period of 7 years after the merger Date for away games, comprise the existing Fitzroy playing Uniform (or the existing pre-season playing uniform) (save that the emblem shall be BL not FFC) and for all home games and all games after 7 years will predominately comprise all Fitzroy colours in a design approved by AFL;

Clause 7.2c The logo of the Merged Club will be the Fitzroy Lions logo in perpetuity

Clause 7.2d Brisbane Bears will procure the continued appointment of two directors nominated by the body or entity to be establioshed persuant to clause 8 for a period of 10 years from the Merger Date.

Clause 7.2h The Merged Club will play one half of the total number of home and away games per season at the Gabba and as many Melbourne based away premiership games as possible will be played at Optus Oval or the Melbourne Cricket Ground (but not less than 6) with any other away premiership games at any of Waverley, Optus Oval or the Melbourne Cricket Ground at which Melbourne based members of the Merged Club will have home ground status (in respect of which Brisbane Bears will make a contribution to gate receipts of an amount determined by AFL);

Clauses 7.2c and 7.2h are in perpetuity. Parts of 7.2b are in perpetuity. For example the Brisbane Lions jumper MUST "predominately comprise all Fitzroy colours". In other words maroon, blue and gold.

From vague memory that time is up, and there is nothing in the agreement stopping the club from (goodness only knows why they would want to - but for arguements sake) ditching the colours and logo and start wearing puple, yellow and pink jumpers with sky blue stripes and burnt orange polka dots instead.

As said above, there is no time restraint. The Brisbane Lions jumper MUST "predominately comprise all Fitzroy colours" in perpetuity.

I'm wondering if the agreement for number of games isn't subject to similar time constraints?

It appears not. A minimum six Brisbane Lions home and away games must be played in Victoria in perpetuity. Depending on the future make-up of the AFL, this may prove to be a problem for both the AFL and the Lions.

*Danni*

1 Dec 2006, 17:03

So the 'in perpetuity' is assumed? I suppose that is my question as I don't recall seing it actually written. Every chance my memory is faulty though which is why I am asking. And because I don't know about this legal stuff I'm sort of wondering too if at any stage the 'merger' becomes redundant and the club becomes an entity in it's own right as opposed to an entity formed from that agreement. Though I suppose (in answering my own question here) that stuff might be tied in with the license from the AFL.

Roylion

1 Dec 2006, 17:31

So the 'in perpetuity' is assumed? I suppose that is my question as I don't recall seing it actually written. .

There's no time-frame written for the Deed either and I have the Deed in its entirety in front of me at the moment. For example the Deed specifies that Fitzroy releases the AFL from all claims connected with its' AFL licence and such termination and surrender. If the Deed has a time frame that could mean that Fitzroy could make a claim on the AFL in respect to it being forced to surrender it's AFL licence.

The Deed also provides that all of Fitzroy's tangible and intangible assets associated with it's Club Operations (including all memorabilia) be transferred to Brisbane. Should the Deed be broken, then Fitzroy MAY have a legal claim to reclaim all such assets.

According to a paper published by Allens Arthur Robinson,a Deed of Arrangement can only be set aside by a court order. Otherwise unless set aside by the Deed of Arrangement's own terms (e.g. Clauses 7.2 b and d) or my a meeting of the Creditors, the Deeds of Arrangement is in perpetuity.

And because I don't know about this legal stuff I'm sort of wondering too if at any stage the 'merger' becomes redundant and the club becomes an entity in it's own right as opposed to an entity formed from that agreement.

Strictly speaking the club is already a legal entity in its own right (beginning in 1987). Legally all that has changed is the company name from "Brisbane Bears Football Club Ltd". to "Brisbane Bears-Fitzroy Football Club Ltd." The Fitzroy Football Club had no say or input into that decision, that was a decision made by the Brisbane Bears members. The merger as such refers to the merger of the Club Operations of the two clubs. The legal entities were not merged.

Though I suppose (in answering my own question here) that stuff might be tied in with the license from the AFL.

As far as I am aware the licence is the same as the one held by the Brisbane Bears. I have been told by officials of the Brisbane Lions that a new AFL licence was issued to the Brisbane Lions, but have since been told by Fitzroy official (and one Brisbane Lions official) that was not the case. Fitzroy's licence to compete in the AFL is now held by Port Adelaide.

POBT

1 Dec 2006, 22:23

Roylion,

Firstly, I'd like to take the time to thank you for the information you have provided and the manner in which in you have engaged with this topic. As a Fitzroy man, no-one would have blinked an eye had you gone off half-cocked at my views on the Fitzroy Football Club. You clearly have a lot more information about all of this and I appreciate the time you have taken to point out some of the intricacies of the relationship.

However, (and there is always a "however"!) I genuinely don't have the interests of the FFC at the forefront of my mind. To me, the very best the Brisbane Lions obtained from Fitzroy is a supporter base - and I don't say that lightly. Making that supporter base happy requires us to do certain things that would otherwise not occur if the club were a Brisbane only entity - and I am fine with that. But that is the difference - it is something that makes our Melbourne supporter base happy. That is why the FFC is incident to me. I concur with "maroon and blue's" statement beginning with "Victorian membership is important in underpinning the fluctuations in Qld. "(that is certainly evident from my previous posts). If recognising the heritage and contribution of the FFC makes an important part of our membership happy, then I won't argue with it. But, to me, that makes Fitzroy incidental to the main goal - keeping and growing the Vic based membership.

For what it is worth, I do see the Brisbane Lions as a club commencing in late 1996. You might argue that it is easier for me because so much of my old club resides in the "new" entity and I will wear that. But the club I support played its first match in 1997. The club I used to support finished up in 96. The BB heritage is one that I look back on with fondness and a lot of good memories but it is gone now. There is so little left of the BBs. Very few players, coaches or administrators are the same. I don't believe the Board members were formally involved in the BBs. The colours changed, the song changed, the logo changed, the name changed. This club is pretty much unrecognisable as the former entity - except the location. That is sad in a lot of respects but the joy the new club has given me totally overrides all of that.

But I do support the interests of the Vic based members, whether or not they transferred from Fitzroy. It is great for my club to have a strong Melbourne fan base. If a strong and vibrant FFC helps achieve that, then I am not going to stand in their way.

Roylion

2 Dec 2006, 05:50

As a Fitzroy man, no-one would have blinked an eye had you gone off half-cocked at my views on the Fitzroy Football Club.

I'm also a Brisbane Lions supporter and member and have been so for 10 years (since 1997). I and others in a smilar position can see the issues from both sides.

However, (and there is always a "however"!) I genuinely don't have the interests of the FFC at the forefront of my mind.

As someone living in Queensland I don't expect you to. However to a major part of the Victorian membership, how they see the relationship with Fitzroy, is a major part of the reasons why they do or do not support Brisbane or join as a member.

To me, the very best the Brisbane Lions obtained from Fitzroy is a supporter base - and I don't say that lightly.

Some might also suggest that the use of Fitzroy's colours, emblem and history has also been an asset to the club. Isn't the Brisbane Lions brand the recognisable sporting brand in the country?

But that is the difference - it is something that makes our Melbourne supporter base happy. That is why the FFC is incident to me. I concur with "maroon and blue's" statement beginning with "Victorian membership is important in underpinning the fluctuations in Qld. "(that is certainly evident from my previous posts). If recognising the heritage and contribution of the FFC makes an important part of our membership happy, then I won't argue with it. But, to me, that makes Fitzroy incidental to the main goal - keeping and growing the Vic based membership.

But from where are the Lions going to grow the Victorian membership? How are they going to keep it, if the number of matches in Victoria declines? If there are no tangible benefits or reasons for joining what is essentially a Queensland based club, then obviously Victorians won't join. There aren't the weekly/fortnightly matches to go to. There aren't the opportunities to go along and watch weekly training. No doubt on-field success will make a difference to the membership numbers, but as I have already pointed out, so will an acknowledgment of Fitzroy and of course I've given a few examples of where that was done in the successful years. Another example? In the Heritage Round in Melbourne in 2003 where the Lions wore the Fitzroy jumper, there were many old supporters that on that day attended their first AFL match in seven years. Some became members of the Brisbane Lions on the basis of that day alone.

For what it is worth, I do see the Brisbane Lions as a club commencing in late 1996. You might argue that it is easier for me because so much of my old club resides in the "new" entity and I will wear that. But the club I support played its first match in 1997. The club I used to support finished up in 96.

I guess for many Fitzroy supporters they don't see it that way. Many regard the Brisbane bears and the Brisbane Lions as the same entity (just with Fitzroy's clothes on). This impression is reinforced by three major factors:
1) Legally the Brisbane bears and the Brisbane Lions are the same entity.
2) There is no Fitzroy Football Club representation on the Brisbane Lions board, despite the merger of the Club Operations. The one director that is supposed to represent the Victorian members is appointed by the Queensland based board.
3) The Lions records regarded as starting from 1987 by the AFL and the media outlets, to the exclusion of Fitzroy records. This situation did not exist from 1997-1999 when all AFL records were started from 1997.
Now 1) is going to be difficult to change, but 2) and 3) can be rectified.

But I do support the interests of the Vic based members, whether or not they transferred from Fitzroy. It is great for my club to have a strong Melbourne fan base. If a strong and vibrant FFC helps achieve that, then I am not going to stand in their way.

So how do we increase or at least maintain the Victorian membership, especially in years where there is limited on-field success?

campbell

2 Dec 2006, 10:00

I agree Roylion, that developing the Melbourne supporter base is crucial.I was a bear, but the Lions are our history, we are all apart of this family, not just the QLD part.

Bobby Beecroft

2 Dec 2006, 11:22

I agree Roylion, that developing the Melbourne supporter base is crucial.I was a bear, but the Lions are our history, we are all apart of this family, not just the QLD part.

:thumbsu:
Finally get to give you a thumbs up Campbell.

Edit- noticed the Swans had ANOTHER Melbourne fans day.
They have really surpassed us in the treatment of their Southern base!!!

BrisGirl

7 Dec 2006, 11:57

Getting back to the discussion of Bowers: -

http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2006/12/05/1165080945147.html

Michael saga disappoints Voss
Emma Quayle
December 6, 2006

MICHAEL Voss will side with neither former club nor former teammate, believing Mal Michael handled his pending move to Essendon with insufficient grace but that the Brisbane Lions should never have allowed it to happen.

Voss said the Lions had lost a first-round draft choice in missing the chance to trade its full-back, and that the saga would not have begun had the club written a "no comeback" clause in Michael's retirement contract.

But he was also disappointed that Michael, a triple-premiership teammate whose retirement he believes was legitimate, had not stepped away more quietly.

"It's just the way Mal's conducted himself that's disappointed me. He looked as though he was really struggling towards the end of the year with his enthusiasm and commitment, so I think he was genuine enough in retiring, but it's what he's done since that's disappointing," Voss said.

"Sometimes you've just got to say, 'I thank the Brisbane Lions for the time I've had, they've been brilliant for me, they've got this from me and I've given them as much as I could'.

"Sometimes you say, 'This has come up, I didn't expect it, I've moved on and now I'm at Essendon'. Bang. Rather than taking the non-graceful way of doing it."

Voss, in Canberra yesterday as the AIS-AFL Academy's new assistant coach, was disappointed the Lions had not protected themselves, and thought Michael would have been worth a first-round pick.

"That's the disappointing thing," he said. "At the end of the day, what Essendon's done is within the rules. They haven't done anything wrong because if a player says he's available, you're going to go down that line.

"I'm disappointed with the club, because there should have been a clause to say this couldn't happen, and I'm disappointed because the club misses out on a draft pick and a really good kid, perhaps in the first round.

"Mal's a first-round draft pick every day of the week, I believe. That's what any club would have had to give up to get him. I believe he was genuine in retiring, but it's disappointing that's what the club has missed out on."

Grimreepah

7 Dec 2006, 12:11

Missing out on a draft pick doesn't have anything to do with Bowers. The only thing a clause would have done is stop Mal from playing for somebody else.

Citizen Erased

7 Dec 2006, 12:14

Grimreepah

7 Dec 2006, 12:19

It clearly shows that the Essendon F.C. didn't do a thing wrong

I am happy to give Essendon the presumption of innocence, but there is no way to prove that Essendon didn't do a thing wrong (ie speaking to Mal before he retired).

John

7 Dec 2006, 12:25

Hi Guys! If Bowers is root of all evil at Brisbane as everyone writes then why did everyone comes down so hard on us? It clearly shows that the Essendon F.C. didn't do a thing wrong and that the issue was a Brisbane F.C. and a Mal Michael one.Essendon HAVE done the wrong thing in the past with salary cap breaches and paid for it dearly with a bloody heavy fine and minus a few Draft picks.We,the members also voted that Board OUT as well! The club would not do anything like that again!.....:D Good Luck guys in 2007,you like us need to rebuild our clubs AND QUICKLY!

I will repeat what I said on another thead. You received a caning from very few Lions supporters. I have read these Mal threads through and was pleasently surprised at the mature response by Lions supporters in general. This is defensive post on your part. Take it up with supporters from others clubs not us. I get the impression by the muted response by my fellow Lions supporters that we are over the Mal issue. Bowers is another question. Thanks for the Good Luck.

POBT

7 Dec 2006, 12:27

Hi Guys! If Bowers is root of all evil at Brisbane as everyone writes then why did everyone comes down so hard on us? It clearly shows that the Essendon F.C. didn't do a thing wrong and that the issue was a Brisbane F.C. and a Mal Michael one.

So if we can prove that Bowers did the right thing, does that mean Essendon did the wrong thing?

Sorry, I just assumed this was the "drawing an incredibly long bow" thread.

Agree with you Grim - presumption of innocence but that is all.

Lady Lawrence

7 Dec 2006, 12:35

Getting back to the discussion of Bowers: -

Hi Brisgirl,

I don't think Mal Michael is the key issue when it comes to Bowers. It is, from my point of view, yet another in a long list of errors and mismanagement.

You brought this thread up at the time when we first heard that Mal was going to play for Essendon, do you feel it is this issue alone or is it a case of straw camel back etc?

John

7 Dec 2006, 12:42

danielcanberra

7 Dec 2006, 13:01

As I said in a previous post on this thread what do you propose to do?

Yeah. Canvassing views from Brisbane Lions members and non-member supporters is one thing.

The $64 is what to do with this information.

There is no point in in this exercise unless a particular outcome is envisaged.

What are the club constitutional steps required to remove the CEO?

Lady Lawrence

7 Dec 2006, 13:24

As I said in a previous post on this thread what do you propose to do?

The only avenue open as a member is to voice concerns to the club and the board which I have done through the proper channels. As well as using my vote. I will be attending the AGM and will attempt to ask questions there as well. Although as in previous years the hard questions do not get answered or the are deflected with non answers etc. Summary of a previous year can be found here (http://http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=59770&highlight=bowers) .

The only aim of voicing my concerns on this board is that if people agree that action needs to be taken they are encouraged to do so. Plus with nore input from other people better opinions can be formed. As I have stated in other threads, whilst some are content and happy to simply care about what goes on on the field (and this is not a bad thing) there are others that look at other elements of the club. I learn about the young players and rookies etc from reading here as I take no other interest in it from outside of here. ie I don't search the web for reports, go to training sessions, watch the ressies play etc. but I will read the annual report and other things pertaining to the running of the club.

Does this answer your question John? and I apologise for missing it previously, must have gotten caught up in all the other stuff that was going on at the time.

roostersgal4eva

7 Dec 2006, 13:26

LL may I digress slightly and ask if there is a way for armchair members/interstate members to voice those conserns at the AGM

Lady Lawrence

7 Dec 2006, 13:29

I guess your best avenue is to send it to the club and ask to have it read out in the Q&A session. Alternatively ask someone who is going to do so on your behalf.

Grimreepah

7 Dec 2006, 13:35

The only aim of voicing my concerns on this board is that if people agree that action needs to be taken they are encouraged to do so. Plus with nore input from other people better opinions can be formed.

"Democracy means government by the uneducated, while aristocracy means government by the badly educated."

Gilbert Keith Chesterton:)

Sorry for the obscure reference, but your comment reminded me of that quote.

Lady Lawrence

7 Dec 2006, 13:43

and in the words of one famous Qlder "please explain"?

Grimreepah

7 Dec 2006, 14:25

and in the words of one famous Qlder "please explain"?

The reference refers to the fact that we live in a democracy but most voters don't know much about politics. Not enough to be making such an important decision anyway. Likewise, when you voice your concerns here on BigFooty, you are talking to people, who for the most part don't know much about running an organisation.

But it's not a criticism, because the alternative (= giving the board, or indeed Bowers (= the aristocrat) all the control instead of the members) has it's own set of problems. It's just a general comment on the inherent flaw of the elective process.

*clear as mud?*:o

Anyway, getting back on topic, how has this hurt the club? What was there to be gained by putting a clause into Mal's contract?

John

7 Dec 2006, 14:29

The reference refers to the fact that we live in a democracy but most voters don't know much about politics. Not enough to be making such an important decision anyway. Likewise, when you voice your concerns here on BigFooty, you are talking to people, who for the most part don't know much about running an organisation.

But it's not a criticism, because the alternative (= giving the board, or indeed Bowers (= the aristocrat) all the control instead of the members) has it's own set of problems. It's just a general comment on the inherent flaw of the elective process.

*clear as mud?*:o

Anyway, getting back on topic, how has this hurt the club? What was there to be gained by putting a clause into Mal's contract?

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
Winston Churchill

John

7 Dec 2006, 14:37

The only avenue open as a member is to voice concerns to the club and the board which I have done through the proper channels. As well as using my vote. I will be attending the AGM and will attempt to ask questions there as well. Although as in previous years the hard questions do not get answered or the are deflected with non answers etc. Summary of a previous year can be found here (http://http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=59770&highlight=bowers) .

The only aim of voicing my concerns on this board is that if people agree that action needs to be taken they are encouraged to do so. Plus with nore input from other people better opinions can be formed. As I have stated in other threads, whilst some are content and happy to simply care about what goes on on the field (and this is not a bad thing) there are others that look at other elements of the club. I learn about the young players and rookies etc from reading here as I take no other interest in it from outside of here. ie I don't search the web for reports, go to training sessions, watch the ressies play etc. but I will read the annual report and other things pertaining to the running of the club.

Does this answer your question John? and I apologise for missing it previously, must have gotten caught up in all the other stuff that was going on at the time.

All fine LL. Trust me if individuals have an issue with the CEO or the board I have no problems with them being aired on this board. I guess I have taken offence from the first day of the Akermanis affair when everyone from the Board/CEO to the coach was being blamed by some posters for the public comments of Akermanis and to me that was not the issue. This diversion made it hard not to merge the two issues together when maybe some should have kicked back and separated the two issues.

I am not trying to open old wounds so no one needs to comment. I have no particular gripe with the board as we speak. But if others do they are more than wlecome to air them. Plus a logical arguement can always win me over.

Lady Lawrence

7 Dec 2006, 14:49

Anyway, getting back on topic, how has this hurt the club? What was there to be gained by putting a clause into Mal's contract?

off the top of my head the top 3 reasons in my mind

1. Protection from other players making such a move not just from Brisbane but from the AFL as a whole.
2. Believing that "the rock" (as described in the annual report) truly had our best intentions at heart when choosing to retire to pursue his PNG Foundation
3. Having "the rock" promote our game and our club overseas as an ambassador

Grimreepah

7 Dec 2006, 17:12

off the top of my head the top 3 reasons in my mind

1. Protection from other players making such a move not just from Brisbane but from the AFL as a whole.
2. Believing that "the rock" (as described in the annual report) truly had our best intentions at heart when choosing to retire to pursue his PNG Foundation
3. Having "the rock" promote our game and our club overseas as an ambassador

Can you explain to me how those 3 points relate to the club's welfare?

Re:

1. Are you saying that because Mal got away with this, we are going to see more and more people try and do the same thing?

2. That is a cause, not and effect, so I'm not sure how that applies.

3. Are you saying that if Mal couldn't play football, he would have fulfilled his ambassadorial commitments?

BrisGirl

7 Dec 2006, 17:13

Hi Brisgirl,

I don't think Mal Michael is the key issue when it comes to Bowers. It is, from my point of view, yet another in a long list of errors and mismanagement.

You brought this thread up at the time when we first heard that Mal was going to play for Essendon, do you feel it is this issue alone or is it a case of straw camel back etc?

I think Brisgirl is saying is this the latest issue with Bowers a sign that it should be the last one (reprimand for talking contracts in papers, cadbury scheweppes fine, failure to lodge contracts fine, high staff turnover, now this - at least that I was I thought her post was about).

Danni covered what my post was about........just adding the 'Mal' saga to the bundle and wondering what the Board is going to do about it. I did believe Bowers was on his last warning, after the very public slap on the wrist from the AFL regarding the scheweppes deal, and the failure to lodge contracts. etc.

Does this major miss in the 'Mal' retirement contract constitute as his 3rd strike and is his time up?

Lady Lawrence

8 Dec 2006, 08:56

Can you explain to me how those 3 points relate to the club's welfare?

Re:

1. Are you saying that because Mal got away with this, we are going to see more and more people try and do the same thing?

Who says he "got away" with anything. There is no evidence either way as whether this was a premeditated move. Either way though I believe it is setting a rather dangerous precedent. I do not have a crystal ball to see into the future so cannot say if anyone else will do the same.

2. That is a cause, not and effect, so I'm not sure how that applies.

regardless of Mal's intention, we as supporters were lead to and liked to believe that if he couldn't play for Brisbane then he wouldn't play anywhere. It was all about his reasons for leaving etc etc. From a bsuiness point of view, allowing a contract to be terminated as it was there should have been a clause in the agreement preventing this from happening. Again refer to the above. Setting precedents etc.

3. Are you saying that if Mal couldn't play football, he would have fulfilled his ambassadorial commitments?

What does ambassadorial commitments have to do with playing? He would have been an ex player, who chose to help his country over continuing to play.

So at the end of the day yes I do believe this impacts on the clubs welfare be it real or preceived. Perception of our club and how it is run and the reasons why players leave etc etc all have an impact on those that may be starting to take an interest on the game and our club etc. And growing and maitaining our numbers is what will make us successful.

Snuka

8 Dec 2006, 18:45

Anyway, getting back on topic, how has this hurt the club? What was there to be gained by putting a clause into Mal's contract?

Yep, the complaints about the draft pick stuff is assuming that Mal had a cunning plan hatched with E'don (or any club) to retire and get picked up in the PSD without the new club having to give up anything. Despite what we may think of Mal now, IMO this is simply not true. We've heard the guy in the media and he seems pretty confused about what is actually happening.

This has not hurt the club in any way apart from maybe make us look a little foolish.

beatnik

13 Dec 2006, 10:43

Yep, the complaints about the draft pick stuff is assuming that Mal had a cunning plan hatched with E'don (or any club) to retire and get picked up in the PSD without the new club having to give up anything. Despite what we may think of Mal now, IMO this is simply not true. We've heard the guy in the media and he seems pretty confused about what is actually happening.

This has not hurt the club in any way apart from maybe make us look a little foolish.

just because Bowers was a lawyer, it doesn't mean he is solely responsible - if we had any other CEO and the legal team missed such a vital clause, we would be angry that it happened but not calling for the top boss' blood

that said, I am absolutely flithy that it happened to us and i would expect Bowers to now tear our legal advisors a new one - sure the horse has bolted but it still must be done

i understand that with each ********-up, then questions surrounding Bowers will increase but I dont think we are at 'lynching' stage yet

as for Mal...

whether Mal conspired or not (i believe he did) the end result was the same - the Lions were denied the opportunity to 'sell' him at the market rate which would have been a reasonably high draft pick

didn't Mal admit that he had a change of heart watching the GF? and wasn't that before the contract release was signed? (please correct me if that's wrong)

in any case he's a dog and I hope he never steps foot in Brisbane again :mad: