Hypothetical: If a Melb based club relocated to Brisbane back in 1987 [Archive]

fishmonger

30th October 2007, 06:56

This is something to consider for all you pro-GC people.

Remember that the Brisbane Bears,a new licence and expansion team, set up on the GC back in the days when there were only a couple hundred thousand residents. They failed, despite the "projected growth" of the area. The Bears eventually picked up after moving to Brisbane.

Now turn the clock back and consider if instead Fitzroy had avoided oblivion and anticipated the VFL's move for a new Brisbane licence. The population of Brisbane was just over a million, twice the current Gold Coast population, with a similar number of Aussie Rules participants, supporters and ex southerners to what the GC has now. But would they have been successful ? I think not.

The Broncos came out shortly afterward and won the heart of the already pro rugby league city. The Bears up against such a force is one thing, a relocated Melbourne club would have been considered even more of a joke.

Yet had the VFL set up teams in most other cities before expanding into Brisbane, they would have had a much better chance. People up there weren't even aware that there was a team from Perth or a leagues in South Australia, NT, ACT and Tasmania. Sure, the AFL has come a long way, but it needs sustainable expansion teams in its heartland before risking another massive failure.

If the Swans couldn't survive without concessions in a city of nearly 5 million, what hope would a relocated Brisbane team have had ?

This is one for you expansionists to consider.

Thoughts ?

Father Jack

30th October 2007, 07:11

relapse

30th October 2007, 07:29

It would have taken time and money, but would have worked in the long term.
The AFL has been successful with it's expansion so far. How many people used to think that the eastern states would never follow AFL ??? The AFL to their credit know that by sticking to a market and not running out at the first sign of trouble there are great long term rewards.

The AFL knows it's all about the future, not about the next couple of seasons etc. North's problem is that it will always be scraping to stay afloat as much as I give their supporters credit for fighting for their club etc. There will only be so long that they can keep the wolves at bay.

If anyone actually believes that North can survive and actually thrive in melbourne I would question how they come to that conclusion because that stuff is just blind faith. The honest answer is that remaining in Melbourne will most probably eventually kill the club IMO, there is a reason behind why the move is mooted it isnt just that people have decided for no reason for them to relocate.

The off field potential is far far higher at the Gold Coast than in melbourne, they have a far larger market to work with to attract supporters in the long term and have exclusivity of a market in which to work with.

The AFL would obviously rather spend $40 million over say 15 years establishing the side on the Coast rather than spend $30 million keeping North afloat for 15 years when they will be in exactly the same position they are in now in that time.

The problem is that there are 11 pieces of a 4.5 million market in vic and North makes up the smallest part of one of those pieces.

At the end of the day most people want the club to survive, it wont be another fitzroy because it will actually be the same club. I would much rather be the Swans than the Lions (which really is not Fitzroy, just a rebadged Bears team).

North supporters have to remember what happened to Fitzroy and not just blindly believe that everything will just magically be fine and that remaining in Melbourne is the answer to the clubs problems. At the end of the day if the long term survival in Melbourne doesnt seem possible then at least by relocating you arent losing the club and the history that would be the worst thing.

This is why I am pro Gold Coast, I dont want to see North's flags and history mean nothing. I would rather see them on the Coast than dead.

relapse

30th October 2007, 07:31

I don't think anyone expects the club to be a financial success straight away. It is more of an investment in the area. The Bears problem in the beginning was its identity crisis, if you are going to base a new team in a city, at least name it after that city. Once they got that right they started to move ahead.

Yep exactly right, the AFL knows that by pumping more money into a club on the Gold Coast will bring far more rewards long term than pumping slightly less money into North Melbourne as a Melbourne based club.

adey115

30th October 2007, 09:59

I'm an old Royboy...

Its worth noting that at the end of a successful 1986 for the Roys (a loss in the Prelim Final), the players vote to stay together by agreeing to locate to Brisbane. The club decided to fight on to survive outright in Melbourne.

I think it should be noted that:
* the AFL were keen to expand regardless of financial losses in the short term at that time. A team was going to be in Brisbane the next year, regardless of Fitzroy's decision. And the AFL is in a stronger financial position now than then as to propping up a team in a developing market - yet they still went ahead and did it, and its worked for Brisbane in the end.

* although this isn't the purpose of this thread, many old Roy fans do view the Bris Lions as an extention to their Fitzroy allegiances and a continuation of the history. Of course also many do not. My point is - the only people who can make such a decision are the old fans, not Adelaide supporters... I mean no disrepect by that - I simply mean that old Roys are the only ones who can decide if they think its a continuation of the history of the roys or not.

I'm a Bris Lions supporter, who is an old Royboy. My points in relation to this matter are:
a) just like 1987, the AFL wants to expand into the GC market, regardless of potential short term losses (maybe even over a ten-twenty year period say). What the AFL wants, the AFL gets. It has proved that in the past.
b) the AFL itself is financially stronger than ever before. Much stronger than 1987.
c) NM continue to be financially weak and at the mercy of the revenue funds of a smaller supporter base versus the AFL - see points a & b.
d) as an old Roy boy who follows the Bris Lions, I get to see 5 live games in Melbourne next year, which sucks.

If I was a North supporter, I'd be asking myself the question now - if my team was located on the Gold Coast RIGHT NOW, would I barrack for them? You wake up tomorrow and your team is a Gold Coast team - would you barrack for them?

If its a yes, then I'd suggest agreeing to the move now, while you're still in somewhat of a position of power to negotiate the best terms possible for Melbourne based fans. Agreeing to the move now could gain you the following benefits that you may not be able to obtain in the future from the AFL:
a) naming rights - would you prefer your club to be known as the Northern or North Kangaroos, (ie. retaining the 'North' name), or the Gold coast Kangaroos (more likely in the future if the club has no choice but to go)
b) guaranteed number of games in Melbourne - over 22 rounds, there are 11 home and 11 away games... would you prefer 7 'away' games in Melbourne, 1 'home' game in Melbourne, 10 'home' games on the GC, one 'away' game in Brisbane, and 4 interstate away games - or would you like a similar fixturing to the Bris Lions which sees 5 away games in Melbourne (plus one in Geeling) and thats it.
c) a constitution that never changes the clubs colors, name etc again.

My thoughts -the AFL will get what they want. They'll prop up the GC club financially, but they won't prop up a Melb based club. Go now and be known as North. Guarantee as many Melb games as you can....

Or face the decision as to supporting a team called the Gold Coast and seeing them only 5 times a year.

In hindsight, if the Roys had gone to Brisbane in 1987, then I might have been watching them live in Melbourne more than 5 times a year. Thats what crosses my mind year in year out supporting the Brisbane Lions.

Having said that, I'm glad I'm not a North supporter, as it is tough going watching this happen to your club.

Father Jack

30th October 2007, 10:10

They have to sell the club to the Gold Coast. I reckon they would have no choice but to call them the Gold Coast Kangaroos. It will be a battle to get the locals to accept the club as it is. But the point about the bargaining position is a good one, but I think there are few North supporters who are 'all or nothing' as far as this is concerned, and fair enough too.

adey115

30th October 2007, 10:36

.....but I think there are few North supporters who are 'all or nothing' as far as this is concerned, and fair enough too.

That's a good point. That's the big decision. If its 'all', then fight all the way against the biggest 'city hall' of them all in this sports mad country, the AFL....

But if you'd be willing to still follow them on the GC, then get what you can now, while you can.

Doctor Jolly

30th October 2007, 11:15

The GC bears failed for many reasons including:
1) Playing at GC, but called "Brisbane"
2) Very poor starting list.
3) Private ownership - which has been a failure every time.
4) Poor facilities.
5) Zero support outside QLD.
6) No history/tradition.

A North Melbourne relocation to GC with associated upgrade of stadium, and financial backing from the AFL addresses all those points.

Long bombs to snake

30th October 2007, 11:41

What the AFL wants, the AFL gets. It has proved that in the past.

Not necessarily true.

1. They wanted Fitzroy and Fottscray to merge. Fail!
2. They wanted Melbourne and Hawthorn to merge. Fail!

The AFL has shown in the past that they don't have the nerve when it comes to getting their hands dirty. Hopefully this is no different.

The Chad

30th October 2007, 11:45

Doctor Jolly

30th October 2007, 13:01

Hearts to hearts

31st October 2007, 13:40

Which will be sad when a few fans who have been around for less than a 1/5th of the life of the Kangaroos footy club will cause it to fold due to selfish pig headed reasons. Talk about the tail waging the dog.

Had enough of antagonising us and decided to start patronising us for a change? Save it.

It's sad that you don't have a club of your own to have an interest in, or apparently, any interest in any football issue at all. Your obsession with what our club does is bordering on pathological. Seriously. We have to care. You need to get a life.

SonOfReep

31st October 2007, 14:18

Had enough of antagonising us and decided to start patronising us for a change? Save it.

It's sad that you don't have a club of your own to have an interest in, or apparently, any interest in any football issue at all. Your obsession with what our club does is bordering on pathological. Seriously. We have to care. You need to get a life.

But while the Kangaroos continue accepting handouts from the AFL, it's not just a club issue. It affects all clubs who contribute to the revenues of the AFL.

Roylion

31st October 2007, 16:19

Now turn the clock back and consider if instead Fitzroy had avoided oblivion and anticipated the VFL's move for a new Brisbane licence. The population of Brisbane was just over a million, twice the current Gold Coast population, with a similar number of Aussie Rules participants, supporters and ex southerners to what the GC has now. But would they have been successful ? I think not.

A relocated Fitzroy would very likely have been more successful than the Brisbane Bears.

Why?

* they would have been a member based club and not privately owned

* they would have had a substantial Melbourne based supporter base and membership

* they would have existing history and tradition to build upon

* they would have been located in Brisbane and not the Gold Coast from the start, as per the AFL's wishes.

* they would have been more successful on the field initially, because most of Fitzroy's senior list of 1986 was prepared to re-locate. Fitzroy reached a preliminary final in 1986. Brisbane's 1987 team could have included Fitzroy players such as Doug Barwick, Matthew Armstrong, John Blakey, Scott Clayton, Mick Conlan, Michael Gale, Bernie Harris, Leon Harris, Graeme Hinchen, Darren Kappler, Grant Lawrie, Bill Lokan, Ross Lyon, Scott McIvor, Richard Osborne, Tim Pekin, Gary Pert, Matt Rendell, Paul Roos, Brett Stephens, Ross Thornton, and Jimmy Wynd. Maybe even Bernie Quinlan who retired at the end of 1986. Perhaps with the VFL's assistance, the Lions could have also paid for players who ended up at the Bears in 1987 anways including Geoff Raines, Brad Hardie, Stephen Reynoldson, Mark Mickan and Mark Williams.

Ryz

31st October 2007, 16:34

But while the Kangaroos continue accepting handouts from the AFL, it's not just a club issue. It affects all clubs who contribute to the revenues of the AFL.

You obviously have jack shizen idea on the history of your club Reep.

Oh Im sorr.....this is all you hear isnt it? "OMFG lolz youse lost Judd!!1 drug culture!!!1'

Get off your ******* high horse for a change.

SonOfReep

31st October 2007, 16:47

You obviously have jack shizen idea on the history of your club Reep.

Oh Im sorr.....this is all you hear isnt it? "OMFG lolz youse lost Judd!!1 drug culture!!!1'

Get off your ******* high horse for a change.

Look I realise it's an emotive issue and I sympathise to an extent.

West Coast was given support by the AFL for a period and this helped them stabilise and become an economic and footballing powerhouse.

The question is whether the Roos can turn it around and still stay in Melbourne.

If they can then fantastic. But it is looking increasingly likely that the only scenario whereby the AFL will continue bailing out your club is if you relocate to the Gold Coast.

It's a "you scratch my back (relocate) and I'll scratch yours (offer financial support)" situation.

Ryz

31st October 2007, 16:59

the only scenario whereby the AFL will continue bailing out your club is if you relocate to the Gold Coast.

It's a "you scratch my back (relocate) and I'll scratch yours (offer financial support)" situation.

Bloody Websters better get there act together and include the following comment of 'except for the growth of sport in failed markets'

But hey anything to get the press of your mob hey Reepy? Lord knows how much you hate people having a dig at your club.

SonOfReep

31st October 2007, 17:04

Bloody Websters better get there act together and include the following comment of 'except for the growth of sport in failed markets'

But hey anything to get the press of your mob hey Reepy? Lord knows how much you hate people having a dig at your club.

Yes. The Kangaroos' failure to become economically sustainable was a grand plan put in place by Trevor Nisbett to direct media attention away from the woes of the West Coast Eagles.

jacko57

31st October 2007, 17:09

Bloody Websters better get there act together and include the following comment of 'except for the growth of sport in failed markets'

But hey anything to get the press of your mob hey Reepy? Lord knows how much you hate people having a dig at your club.
Now I understand SOR's reluctance to name his club.

Ryz

31st October 2007, 17:11

Yes. The Kangaroos' failure to become economically sustainable was a grand plan put in place by Trevor Nisbett to direct media attention away from the woes of the West Coast Eagles.

2008 AFL Balance Sheet Trophy, sterling idea isn't?

SonOfReep

31st October 2007, 17:28

Now I understand SOR's reluctance to name his club.

2008 AFL Balance Sheet Trophy, sterling idea isn't?

Deflect away boys, but you should really be using your energy to try and save the club you hold so dear. Every post on BigFooty is a tin unrattled.

Ryz

31st October 2007, 17:58

Reep, football clubs exist to post profits and not win premierships, correct?

Hit And Rum

31st October 2007, 18:04

SonOfReep

31st October 2007, 18:20

Reep, football clubs exist to post profits and not win premierships, correct?

Football clubs, at AFL level in a professional competition, exist because of profits which allow them to operate and subsequently allows them to achieve their aim of winning premierships.

What he said.

Do you think the Kangaroos should have a free ride? Because of their "long history" and "connection to Melbourne"?

Ryz

31st October 2007, 18:45

What he said.

Do you think the Kangaroos should have a free ride? Because of their "long history" and "connection to Melbourne"?

So do you believe the AFL should never have given Carlton an interest free loan, and that they subsequently should have been forced to relocate or die because - in your repeated words, their administration's 'failure to become economically sustainable ' ?

Do you also believe that the same pressure should be applied to the Western Bulldogs, Melbourne and Brisbane, and that when St Kilda were in dire straits in the nineties they shouldn't have had the opportunity to get themselves right?

SonOfReep

31st October 2007, 18:58

So do you believe the AFL should never have given Carlton an interest free loan, and that they subsequently should have been forced to relocate or die because - in your repeated words, their administration's 'failure to become economically sustainable ' ?

Do you also believe that the same pressure should be applied to the Western Bulldogs, Melbourne and Brisbane, and that when St Kilda were in dire straits in the nineties they shouldn't have had the opportunity to get themselves right?

What's done is done. What's now is now. And now is when the Roos administration and supporters need to decide what is best for the club.

Relocate or die. It's sad but Demetriou's insistence that a club be on the Gold Coast by 2010 means:
(a) it's your club, as the most fiscally weak; or
(b) it's a new club, and the Kangaroos risk a quick death (University-style) as the AFL channels their bailout money to the new market.

The other, though very remote, option is
(c) your club gets it together very very quickly, membership numbers spike and a board is put in place to guide the club from the financial doldrums.

I hope for your sake it's (c).

Ryz

31st October 2007, 19:02

What's done is done. What's now is now. And now is when the Roos administration and supporters need to decide what is best for the club.

Relocate or die. It's sad but Demetriou's insistence that a club be on the Gold Coast by 2010 means:
(a) it's your club, as the most fiscally weak; or
(b) it's a new club, and the Kangaroos risk a quick death (University-style) as the AFL channels their bailout money to the new market.

The other, though very remote, option is
(c) your club gets it together very very quickly, membership numbers spike and a board is put in place to guide the club from the financial doldrums.

I hope for your sake it's (c).

Now who's deflecting sunshine ;)

You've had a quite a good few bites today, time to pick up your rod and call it a day :thumbsu:

Father Jack

31st October 2007, 21:04

Now who's deflecting sunshine ;)

You've had a quite a good few bites today, time to pick up your rod and call it a day :thumbsu:

How about addressing some of the points instead of doing whatever it is you are doing? Reepy made a few good points that I have yet to see refuted outside of a few 'we'll be right' comments that consist of little more than blind faith in an unnameable god who will right all your woes and smite all the evil relocation-merchants.

Ryz

31st October 2007, 21:09

How about addressing some of the points instead of doing whatever it is you are doing? Reepy made a few good points that I have yet to see refuted outside of a few 'we'll be right' comments that consist of little more than blind faith in an unnameable god who will right all your woes and smite all the evil relocation-merchants.

I don't have to address the points at all....as they have already been done to death. Check the North board, this board, it's all there.

Address my points that I raised, more than happy to stand corrected.

adey115

31st October 2007, 21:09

Not necessarily true.

1. They wanted Fitzroy and Fottscray to merge. Fail!
2. They wanted Melbourne and Hawthorn to merge. Fail!

The AFL has shown in the past that they don't have the nerve when it comes to getting their hands dirty. Hopefully this is no different.

to your point 1... that was 1989. things changed quickly. the vultures at the afl (or should i say vfl then) were hovering to develop the national league.

to your point 2.... what the AFL wanted, was to be able to grant a licence to Port Adelaide, in a 16 team competition. They would have settled for EITHER of a Roys merger with someone (preferably Bris) OR a Melb/Hawthorn merger as second option. They got option 1 and thus didn't need to coherce option 2 any further than what was occuring 'naturally'.

Father Jack

31st October 2007, 21:14

I don't have to address the points at all....as they have already been done to death. Check the North board, this board, it's all there.

Address my points that I raised, more than happy to stand corrected.

Well, why not repeat them, play the ball rather than the man? I seem to be seeing that a lot from the anti-relocation brigade of late. I have kept clear of the North board because that isn't the forum for discussion, this is, and I've yet to see anything that would indicate that North has a future in Melbourne short of opposition fans buying season tickets.

adey115

31st October 2007, 21:16

great post adey115

but personally i hope "north" fans of the kangaroos football club continue to be pig-headed and beligerant, roll the dice on all or nothing and have the club fold completely when the AFL decides to bring in a fresh, uninfected franchise on GC

I respect that view, but as a lover of the game and its history, I'd prefer a GC based Kangas team that properly recognises the history of NMFC, rather than to see it die completely with some 'new' team thrown into the mix with no history. I'm relatively satisfied with the way the Bris Lions recognises the Roys history, but I can tell you that it is gut wrenching to watch your team when you think it is dying for good.... in hindsight the merger has worked for me, as an old Royboy, better than I anticipated when I was in tears at the MCG in round 21 1996. This is why I think the Roos fans should consult Roys fans for their thoughts...

Think about 2017. You barrack for the North Kangaroos. You see them in Melbourne a guaranteed 8 times a year. There's a relatively strong base here still, the history is rightly recognised. But they play their 10 home games a year on the GC, plus one "back to North" home game a year in Melbourne.

I'd prefer that to dying.

adey115

31st October 2007, 21:19

A relocated Fitzroy would very likely have been more successful than the Brisbane Bears.
.

Totally agree.

Ryz

31st October 2007, 21:23

and I've yet to see anything that would indicate that North has a future in Melbourne short of opposition fans buying season tickets.

And I haven't seen any concrete evidence that GC is the 'promised land' that AFL and a few claim it to be.

For the AFL to move us up there and then pull the plug with the attitude of 'well at least we tried', there is no going back from a relocation.

blues4flag

31st October 2007, 22:54

Reep, football clubs exist to post profits and not win premierships, correct?

The AFL is not a charity. The AFL shouldn't continuously bail out a club who are not self sufficient and refuse to make efforts to become so. North Melbourne is on a lifeline and will continue to be if they remain in Melbourne. The club has two choices:
a) Go the GC and make the AFL happy, propping up your club until they become self sufficient (however long that might take)
b) Stay in Melbourne and have the AFL cut the lifeline, watching your club drown into nothingness, with a new franchise being established on the GC.

And before you bring Carlton into the equation, big difference - we have the supporter base and corporate support to be hugely profitable in Melbourne.

Father Jack

31st October 2007, 22:57

And I haven't seen any concrete evidence that GC is the 'promised land' that AFL and a few claim it to be.

For the AFL to move us up there and then pull the plug with the attitude of 'well at least we tried', there is no going back from a relocation.

Well, it is unlikely that the AFL will pull the plug on a team up there. They haven't gone into this blind, they have done the research. Forget about the Bears debacle, they should have been in Brisbane from the start.

Ryz

1st November 2007, 07:19

Well, it is unlikely that the AFL will pull the plug on a team up there. They haven't gone into this blind, they have done the research. Forget about the Bears debacle, they should have been in Brisbane from the start.

Where are the concrete figures?

fishmonger

1st November 2007, 13:23

Totally agree.

I totally disagree.

One of the first games in Brisbane that I ever went to was between Brisbane Bears and Fitzroy.

These two teams sold out the first game at Carrara. Mostly Bears fans.

Yet during a trial match at the Gabba (I think it was sometime around 1992), just before their relocation to Brisbane, they managed less than 1,000 people. I know, because me and some mates went and sat in one of the empty stands. When a security guard asked us to leave because we only had general admission tickets, we asked "Who is going to care, there is no one here ?". It was the lowest crowd for a top level match that I have EVER seen and I could not see a single Lions supporter, the handful of people who turned up were all supporters of the Bears or other AFL team. I had seen some pretty good early Gabba crowds for teams like Hawthorn and even struggling teams like Richmond and St Kilda, but nothing like that Fitzroy game. So much for Fitzroy fans keen to see their team play :rolleyes:

In any case, it wasn't until the Bears looked like making the finals that all the Aussie Rules supporters started jumping on their bandwagon. most of them, like myself were already supporters of other clubs and only ever half heartedly committed to the Bears. And the thing is they were ALL expat Vics and South Australians. Nobody locally was even remotely interested in the game. That has changed to some extent, but the difference is that those that don't follow AFL - now hate it with a passion.

The Lions would have died very very quickly had they tried.

Rooney

1st November 2007, 14:00

I totally disagree.

One of the first games in Brisbane that I ever went to was between Brisbane Bears and Fitzroy.

These two teams sold out the first game at Carrara. Mostly Bears fans.

Yet during a trial match at the Gabba (I think it was sometime around 1992), just before their relocation to Brisbane, they managed less than 1,000 people. I know, because me and some mates went and sat in one of the empty stands. When a security guard asked us to leave because we only had general admission tickets, we asked "Who is going to care, there is no one here ?". It was the lowest crowd for a top level match that I have EVER seen and I could not see a single Lions supporter, the handful of people who turned up were all supporters of the Bears or other AFL team. I had seen some pretty good early Gabba crowds for teams like Hawthorn and even struggling teams like Richmond and St Kilda, but nothing like that Fitzroy game. So much for Fitzroy fans keen to see their team play :rolleyes:

In any case, it wasn't until the Bears looked like making the finals that all the Aussie Rules supporters started jumping on their bandwagon. most of them, like myself were already supporters of other clubs and only ever half heartedly committed to the Bears. And the thing is they were ALL expat Vics and South Australians. Nobody locally was even remotely interested in the game. That has changed to some extent, but the difference is that those that don't follow AFL - now hate it with a passion.

The Lions would have died very very quickly had they tried.

So if the Lions went up there as the Brisbane Lions - you don't think they could have sold out the first game at Carrara against say the Bulldogs instead? (ie. the majority of B Bears supporters you were talking about would be B Lions supporters - plus maybe some Fitzroy Lions supporters)

Basically adey was making a lot of sense to me... but hey you were there, I certainly wasn't!

Very interesting to hear you say that disinterest in AFL has changed to hatred!

Roylion

1st November 2007, 14:02

I totally disagree.One of the first games in Brisbane that I ever went to was between Brisbane Bears and Fitzroy.

These two teams sold out the first game at Carrara. Mostly Bears fans.

Well that's not surprising. The Bears were the Queeensland team and Fitzroy were a Melbourne based club. A fully relocated Fitzroy would have been a Queensland team and therefore would have had more Queensland support.

Yet during a trial match at the Gabba (I think it was sometime around 1992), just before their relocation to Brisbane, they managed less than 1,000 people.

No, they didn't. The lowest Brisbane Bears - Fitzroy game on record at the Gabba numbered 7,373 in 1991. Brisbane finished 15th from 15 teams on the ladder that year and Fitzroy finished 14th. The lowest Brisbane Bears home crowd ever was at Carrara against Footscray in 1992 with 3,059. Brisbane finished 14th out of 15 teams in 1992.

The lowest crowd at the Gabba was Brisbane Bears vs. Melbourne with 6,480.

It was the lowest crowd for a top level match that I have EVER seen and I could not see a single Lions supporter,

Well of course you couldn't. Fitzroy were one of the lowest supported Melbourne teams were close to the bottom of the ladder, playing another bottom team, in Queensland.

If Fitzroy had relocated fully to Brisbane they would have become THE Queensland team and those Bears supporters would have been Brisbane Lions supporters in 1991. As well as that the Brisbane Lions in 1991 would have been financially better off because they would have a substantial Melbourne supporter base

the handful of people who turned up were all supporters of the Bears or other AFL team. I had seen some pretty good early Gabba crowds for teams like Hawthorn and even struggling teams like Richmond and St Kilda, but nothing like that Fitzroy game. So much for Fitzroy fans keen to see their team play :rolleyes:

The Lions fans would have been those Bears fans you did see that turned up to watch their team.

In any case, it wasn't until the Bears looked like making the finals that all the Aussie Rules supporters started jumping on their bandwagon. most of them, like myself were already supporters of other clubs and only ever half heartedly committed to the Bears. And the thing is they were ALL expat Vics and South Australians. Nobody locally was even remotely interested in the game. That has changed to some extent, but the difference is that those that don't follow AFL - now hate it with a passion.

The Lions would have died very very quickly had they tried.

I doubt that very much. Those that ended up supporting the Bears woud have supported the Brisbane Lions in 1987. The relocated Fitzroy would not have had to pay a licence worth millions of dollars to the AFL, they wouldn't have been privately owned and they most certainly would NOT have ended up on the Gold Coast playing at Carrara. Moreover they wouldn't have had the cast-offs that made up much of the first Brisbane Bears squad and most of their Brisbane Lions list would have consisted of the Fitzroy players who had played in a preliminary final the season before. On-field success would have been more immediate and sustained and added to a substantial Melbourne support base and facilities such as the redevelopment of Brunswick St Oval, as well as attracting more supporters and sponsors in Queensland. As a result the Brisbane Lions probably would have had greater success playing in Melbourne as well in the late 80's.

fishmonger

2nd November 2007, 07:25

No, they didn't. The lowest Brisbane Bears - Fitzroy game on record at the Gabba numbered 7,373 in 1991.

That's the one.

And I'm telling you that this attendance figure would have had to have been fudged. These people must have all been in the pub across the road on Vulture STreet. Because my memory serves me well and I can tell you I remember this game because there was absolutely nobody there.

And that is saying something, because back then the Gabba was about the size that Manuka Oval is these days ...

Doctor Jolly

2nd November 2007, 09:02

That's the one.

And I'm telling you that this attendance figure would have had to have been fudged. These people must have all been in the pub across the road on Vulture STreet. Because my memory serves me well and I can tell you I remember this game because there was absolutely nobody there.

And that is saying something, because back then the Gabba was about the size that Manuka Oval is these days ...

The gabba wasnt even an AFL ground in 1991. It had a dog track between the stands and the field, and the field was some bizare rectangular/rombus shape. Totally unsuited for playing footy or watching footy. The stands were almost falling down around it.

Its hard to imagine a ground is worse condition that the pre-94 gabba.

fishmonger

2nd November 2007, 10:44

The gabba wasnt even an AFL ground in 1991. It had a dog track between the stands and the field, and the field was some bizare rectangular/rombus shape. Totally unsuited for playing footy or watching footy. The stands were almost falling down around it.

Its hard to imagine a ground is worse condition that the pre-94 gabba.

Had you been there or are you just guessing ?

And what is your point. Are one of those people who argues that you can get crowds is if it is a 5-star venue ?

The stands were fine. I tried to get a seat, they looked fine.

Doctor Jolly

2nd November 2007, 12:00

Had you been there or are you just guessing ?
.

Of course I was there. How could I "guess" to that accuracy :rolleyes:

Jascave

2nd November 2007, 19:21

The thing about all this is who'll be the Kangaroos next door neighbour should it move to the Gold Coast? None other than the club who pinched Fitzroy away from the Kangaroos back in 1996, with a little help from then CEO Ross Oakley and the AFL Commission-Brisbane.

Roylion

2nd November 2007, 23:01

None other than the club who pinched Fitzroy away from the Kangaroos back in 1996, with a little help from then CEO Ross Oakley and the AFL Commission-Brisbane.

Leon Daphne of Richmond led the charge to scuttle the North-Fitzroy merger. Let's not forget that the CLUBS voted 14-1 against the North Fitzroy merger and then voted 14-0 in favor of the Brisbane-Fitzroy merger.

DarwinRoo

3rd November 2007, 03:56

I respect that view, but as a lover of the game and its history, I'd prefer a GC based Kangas team that properly recognises the history of NMFC, rather than to see it die completely with some 'new' team thrown into the mix with no history. I'm relatively satisfied with the way the Bris Lions recognises the Roys history, but I can tell you that it is gut wrenching to watch your team when you think it is dying for good.... in hindsight the merger has worked for me, as an old Royboy, better than I anticipated when I was in tears at the MCG in round 21 1996. This is why I think the Roos fans should consult Roys fans for their thoughts...

Think about 2017. You barrack for the North Kangaroos. You see them in Melbourne a guaranteed 8 times a year. There's a relatively strong base here still, the history is rightly recognised. But they play their 10 home games a year on the GC, plus one "back to North" home game a year in Melbourne.

I'd prefer that to dying.

How many Melbourne games were Fitzroy supporters promised in 1996?
How many times do the Lions play in Melbourne now?

Roylion

3rd November 2007, 06:55

How many Melbourne games were Fitzroy supporters promised in 1996?

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);

How many times do the Lions play in Melbourne now?

1997: 7 Victorian games (7 Melbourne) + 1 Final
1998: 9 Victorian games (8 Melbourne, 1 Geelong)
1999: 6 Victorian games (6 Melbourne) + 1 Final
2000: 7 Victorian games (6 Melbourne, 1 Geelong) + 1 Final
2001: 6 Victorian games (5 Melbourne, 1 Geelong) + 1 Final incl GF
2002: 6 Victorian games (5 Melbourne, 1 Geelong) + 1 Final incl GF
2003: 7 Victorian games (6 Melbourne, 1 Geelong) + 2 Finals incl GF
2004: 6 Victorian games (5 Melbourne, 1 Geelong) + 2 Finals incl GF
2005: 5 Victorian games (4 Melbourne, 1 Geelong)
2006: 6 Victorian games (5 Melbourne, 1 Geelong)
2007: 6 Victorian games (5 Melbourne, 1 Geelong)
2008: 6 Victorian games (5 Melbourne, 1 Geelong)

Total by the end of 2008:
77 home and away games (67 in Melbourne, 10 in Geelong) + 9 Melbourne finals = 86 Victorian games in 12 years.

The Lions have or will have played 282 games in that time. 30% of all Lions games have been in Victoria. 27% of all games have been played in Melbourne.