FACT - North tried to take over Fitzroy.

[MightyHawks]

I'm sick of North supporters claiming that they tried to merge with Fitzroy but were overlooked by the Bears. There are many people on Big Footy who are under 20 and weren't old enough. Or barrack for (insert name of team you don't like) and can't remember what happened last week.

So to clear things up, I'm comparing the North and Bears offers to Fitzroy:

FACTS:

Bears gave Fitzroy:
1. Nickname - Lions
2. Jumper - It looks like a Fitzroy jumper (they would've made it their awaya strip had they stayed on their own)
3. Colours - Roys old colours before they were forced to wear that orange
4. Theme Song - Roys tune

Fitzroy lost:
1. Name - Brisbane
2. Location - Brisbane

What more could the Bears have given Fitzroy in the merger???
Clearly they weren't going to relocate to Mel or call themselves Fitzroy...

North Melbourne offered Fitzroy:
1. Nickname - Kangaroos
2. Jumper - Original North Melbourne jumper (Lion logo on the blue SHORTS)
3. Colours - Blue and White (No Maroon)
4. Theme Song - North tune
5. Name - North Melbourne - Fitzroy (Wonder what would've been on the scoreboard)
6. Location - Melbourne (Arden St)

What an offer...

What more could North have given Fitzroy in the merger???

Note that after the Bears looked like the preferred merger partner North made a concession to call the team North Fitzroy Kangaroos. But it was only when they realised they were missing the boat.

Don't delude yourselves you never offered Fitzroy a real merger.

[Roylion]

There are several errors in your summation of North's negotiations with Fitzroy..

It was the Fitzroy's board preference to merge with North Melbourne, instead of Brisbane.

The facts are these.

North Melbourne and Fitzroy negotiated the following conditions:
1. Nickname - Kangaroos
2. Jumper - A new jumper with the Fitzroy jumper and North Melbourne jumper represented in equal proportions.
3. Colours - Royal Blue, Red, Gold and White
4. Theme Song - A new theme song was to be written.
5. Name - "Fitzroy-North Melbourne", later changed to "North Fitzroy"
6. Location - Melbourne (Arden St).
7. Equal board numbers from both clubs with North to provide the first chairman and Fitzroy the vice-chairman.

All of the above is on public record.

However it is true that North Melbourne tried to maximise their identity in later negotiations. That in turn caused delays to signing off on the merger. North also refused to allow Nauru to be paid out, allowing an administrator to be appointed to Fitzroy and taking the power to determine Fitzroy's destination, out of the Fitzroy director's hands.

[the_big_sav]

i thought it was because all the other presidents voted against a 'super' club in victoria and they didnt want a club to have a huge supporter base and extra advantages for a few years........then brisbane won 3 flags and everyone whinged about all their advantages

[MightyHawks]

However it is true that North Melbourne tried to maximise their identity in later negotiations.

I was referring to what the final offer was. Had North genuinely stuck to the original negotiations then I believe the merger would have gone ahead. The league and the other clubs were never going to allow North to swallow Fitzroy. The 15 clubs (Fitzroy didn't vote) voted 14-1 in favour of the Bears proposal.

[Hawkk]

i thought it was because all the other presidents voted against a 'super' club in victoria and they didnt want a club to have a huge supporter base and extra advantages for a few years........then brisbane won 3 flags and everyone whinged about all their advantages

It wasn't the support that was the issue, it was the demanding concessions the Kangaroos were making of the AFL.

North demanded that the club could have both lists and pick, while Brisbane asked for the much more realistic 8 players. North played hard ball, lost and now are paying the consequences...

[MightyHawks]

i thought it was because all the other presidents voted against a 'super' club in victoria and they didnt want a club to have a huge supporter base and extra advantages for a few years........then brisbane won 3 flags and everyone whinged about all their advantages

The league were in favour of genuine mergers. People were concerned that the Premiership team was going to top up their list, and because North weren't offering a real merger that's all it was a list top up and hopefully add 5000 members.

Hawthorn was getting taken over by Melbourne and we were offered a better deal by the Dees than North offered Fitzroy (their final offer - not what they negotieted)

[Roylion]

3. Colours - Roys old colours before they were forced to wear that orange.

Incidentally it was red. The decision to change from maroon to red and the FFC logo from white to gold to match the gold lion on the breast, was made by the Fitzroy board for colour TV. A similar decision was made by the board in 1956, to change the blue FFC to white made in 1956 so that the FFC logo could be seen more easily on black and white TV.

[Roylion]

I was referring to what the final offer was.

You are still incorrect! Where are you getting your information from? Mine comes from Dyson Hore-Lacy, Fitzroy director Colin Hobbs and the fact that I attended shareholder merger meetings in 1996 as a Fitzroy member and shareholder.

The final offer was:
1. Nickname - Kangaroos
2. Jumper - A new jumper with the Fitzroy jumper and North Melbourne jumper represented in equal proportions.
3. Colours - Royal Blue, Red, Gold and White
4. Theme Song - A new theme song was to be written.
5. Name - "North Fitzroy"
6. Location - Melbourne (Arden St).
7. Equal board numbers from both clubs with North to provide the first chairman and Fitzroy the vice-chairman.

The league and the other clubs were never going to allow North to swallow Fitzroy.

In other words were never going to allow them to merge, no matter what the offer from North was. Dyson Hore-Lacy made it very clear on the night of the merger that the Fitzroy's board's preference was to merge with North. That was after the final offer too.

In fact the Fitzroy board and North Melbourne concluded the final terms of their agreement on the morning of July 4th (which was the terms outlined above) after being given to the close of business on Friday July 5th to conclude their merger. On the evening of July 4th, Fitzroy was merged with Brisbane.

The 15 clubs (Fitzroy didn't vote) voted 14-1 in favour of the Bears proposal.

Yes they did, despite the fact the final North offer was in fact better financially for Fitzroy's creditors than the Bears' offer. Fitzroy's unsecured creditors received 27 cents in the dollar.

[Roylion]

It wasn't the support that was the issue, it was the demanding concessions the Kangaroos were making of the AFL.

The Kangaroos in fact asked for no more than what the AFL had agreed to give any club that merged and which was agreed to by all clubs. That included 54 players. Melbourne and Hawthorn asked and would have received far more generous concessions for merging that what the Bears and Fitzroy would have received.

North demanded that the club could have both lists and pick, while Brisbane asked for the much more realistic 8 players. North played hard ball, lost and now are paying the consequences...

North in fact reduced their player demands to match Brisbane's offer.

[jacko57]

What more could North have given Fitzroy in the merger???


A club based in Melbourne ?

[LancePicioane]

I'm sick of North supporters claiming that they tried to merge with Fitzroy but were overlooked by the Bears. There are many people on Big Footy who are under 20 and weren't old enough. Or barrack for (insert name of team you don't like) and can't remember what happened last week.

So to clear things up, I'm comparing the North and Bears offers to Fitzroy:

FACTS:

Bears gave Fitzroy:
1. Nickname - Lions
2. Jumper - It looks like a Fitzroy jumper (they would've made it their awaya strip had they stayed on their own)
3. Colours - Roys old colours before they were forced to wear that orange
4. Theme Song - Roys tune

Fitzroy lost:
1. Name - Brisbane
2. Location - Brisbane

What more could the Bears have given Fitzroy in the merger???
Clearly they weren't going to relocate to Mel or call themselves Fitzroy...

North Melbourne offered Fitzroy:
1. Nickname - Kangaroos
2. Jumper - Original North Melbourne jumper (Lion logo on the blue SHORTS)
3. Colours - Blue and White (No Maroon)
4. Theme Song - North tune
5. Name - North Melbourne - Fitzroy (Wonder what would've been on the scoreboard)
6. Location - Melbourne (Arden St)

What an offer...

What more could North have given Fitzroy in the merger???

Note that after the Bears looked like the preferred merger partner North made a concession to call the team North Fitzroy Kangaroos. But it was only when they realised they were missing the boat.

Don't delude yourselves you never offered Fitzroy a real merger.

hahahaaha...hasn't this gone all pear shaped for you??:D

[mark73]

Looks like MightyHawks attempts to pour shit on North Melbourne have severely backfired. Really, these Hawthorn slappers need to give this caper away. Even away from Bay13 they suck at it.

[MightyHawks]

hahahaaha...hasn't this gone all pear shaped for you??:D

Not at all.

North did not offer a 100% equitable merger with fitzroy. not even close. had they done so - the clubs wouldve been up for it and so wouldve been the league.

North stalled and kept trying to make the balance far more in their favour.

Brisbane came in with an offer at the last minute in which they gave Fitzroy everything they possibly could bar relocate to Melbourne which wouldve been completely stupid as the club wouldnt have survived.

[mark73]

It wasn't the support that was the issue, it was the demanding concessions the Kangaroos were making of the AFL.

North demanded that the club could have both lists and pick, while Brisbane asked for the much more realistic 8 players. North played hard ball, lost and now are paying the consequences...

Wrong wrong and wrong. And what consequences are we paying? :confused:

[mark73]

You are still incorrect! Where are you getting your information from?

I think he's getting it from the back of a cornflakes packet. Or maybe one of his failed Bay13 buddies.

[The Chad]

It wasn't the support that was the issue, it was the demanding concessions the Kangaroos were making of the AFL.

North demanded that the club could have both lists and pick, while Brisbane asked for the much more realistic 8 players. North played hard ball, lost and now are paying the consequences...

how prophetic and sadly ironic

i have no doubt we'll be saying exactly the same thing in 12 years at the 20 year anniversary of the kangaroos football club's final premiership before the team relocated/folded.

[Hawkk]

Wrong wrong and wrong. And what consequences are we paying? :confused:

The worst thing that could have happened is that North could have taken on the Fitzroy as the Junior partner for 2-3 years with no concessions but the $6,000,000 on the table and disbanded around 2000 - ala the Northern Eagles in the NRL, and went back to being the North Melbourne Kangaroos.

Not only would that have cleared your debt, but would have left you with plenty in the kitty going into the new millennium.

The consequences of not following through with the 'merger' is that now given you've got the lowest membership in Melbourne by some margin and are on the rocks financially, because of your low membership you are very vulnerable because the AFL has a justification for moving you.

Make no mistake about it, the NORTH-FITZROY merger was a take over that went sour because of North's greed in the closing days.

[The Chad]

North played hard ball and lost?

The worst thing that could have happened is that North could have taken on the Fitzroy as the Junior partner for 2-3 years with no concessions but the $6,000,000 on the table and disbanded around 2000 - ala the Northern Eagles in the NRL.

Not only would that have cleared your debt, but would have left you with plenty in the kitty going into the new millennium.

The consequences of not following through with the 'merger' is that now given you've got the lowest membership in Melbourne by some margin and are on the rocks financially, you are in a very vulnerable position with the AFL.

Make no mistake about it, the NORTH-FITZROY merger was a take over that went sour because of North's greed in the closing days.
add to that the lions' retention of fans in melbourne (as well as south/sydney) has shown the AFL there's enough evidence that AT LEAST 4-5k per game when GC play in melbourne will be ex-kangaroos football club fans.

[MightyHawks]

Looks like MightyHawks attempt to pour shit on North Melbourne have severely backfired. Really, these Hawthorn slappers need to give this caper away. Even away from Bay13 they suck at it.

Not pouring shit on North.

Your supporters didnt rally around Hawthorn and Melbourne when we were going through our merger issues.

We saved ourselves.

You guys need to do it yourselves.

you try and paint this picture of we were looking out for fitzroy - which isnt true.

try to get other teams supporters to help you out.

That doesn't work in the long term. Every member of every other club could give you $10 - that's $5 million. And that's not going to do anything.

Your supporters need to save your club.

Every since 1996 it's been plainly obvious that the league thinks 10 teams is too many in Victoria and that allowing your membership to slip is put yourselves in the firing line.

A disgrace that your membership fell so low this year in that climate.

[The Chad]

i recall fans of most of the other teams gleefully using the term "dorks" and talking about how we were being "dragged down the aisle to get married"

they wanted blood.

[Hawkk]

add to that the lions' retention of fans in melbourne (as well as south/sydney) has shown the AFL there's enough evidence that AT LEAST 4-5k per game when GC play in melbourne will be ex-kangaroos football club fans.

In all seriousness the AFL would probably be hoping 15,000 Melbourne based Kangaroos supporters stay on as members...ala South Melbourne/Sydney Swans.

In fact if any Victorian based Kangaroo supporters know any Melbourne based Swans...punch them in the face because they are one of the main reasons why you'll probably be going.

[Hawkk]

i recall fans of most of the other teams gleefully using the term "dorks" and talking about how we were being "dragged down the aisle to get married"

they wanted blood.

Exactly

[mark73]

North played hard ball and lost?

The worst thing that could have happened is that North could have taken on the Fitzroy as the Junior partner for 2-3 years with no concessions but the $6,000,000 on the table and disbanded around 2000 - ala the Northern Eagles in the NRL.

Not only would that have cleared your debt, but would have left you with plenty in the kitty going into the new millennium.

The consequences of not following through with the 'merger' is that now given you've got the lowest membership in Melbourne by some margin and are on the rocks financially, you are in a very vulnerable position with the AFL.

Make no mistake about it, the NORTH-FITZROY merger was a take over that went sour because of North's greed in the closing days.

1. As you've already had pointed out to you by someone who was involved, and I know this, the demands were in line with what was acceptable by any club, and were arranged so that that would be the case.

2. Any debt we're paying off now was obtained way way post 1996.

3.The merger was blocked primarily because North were clearly the best side in the comp and that didn't look like changing for some time. The other clubs didn't want them getting their hands on the $6,000,000 that was at the time on offer and their hands on the best players Fitzroy had to offer therefore making them even more powerful. These are facts.

[Roylion]

Not at all.

North did not offer a 100% equitable merger with fitzroy. not even close.

So what else should have North offered, that was supposedly "fairer" than the terms I have outlined above.

had they done so - the clubs wouldve been up for it and so wouldve been the league.

Rubbish! The other clubs couldn't give two hoots who was on the board, or what the name was or what the new jumper looked like. They were interested in the player concessions and the financial concessions that the new club was going to get and what impact it would have on their chances of winning a flag. Leon Daphne tried to lead a similar revolt against the AFL player concessions that were going to be afforded to Melbourne-Hawthorn, which were better than what the Bears and Fitzroy received. However the Melbourne and Hawthorn boards rallied a few clubs behind them such as North and the Western Bulldogs who were set to vote in favor of them. To overturn the concessions would need a two thirds majority vote by the clubs. Daphne didn't get the same support..no doubt helped by the fact that Melbourne and Hawthorn were not genuine premiership contenders in 1996, unlike North.

North stalled and kept trying to make the balance far more in their favour.

Well at least you got one thing right.

Brisbane came in with an offer at the last minute in which they gave Fitzroy everything they possibly could bar relocate to Melbourne

That's not correct either. Would you like the full story of the double-dealing by the Bears that went on before and after the merger? For example, two Fitzroy directors were sued by the Bears and the administrator in order to maximise the Bears' financial position. The Brisbane Lions in reality are the same club as the Brisbane Bears, except with a slight name change and identitty change.

which wouldve been completely stupid as the club wouldnt have survived.

Fitzroy didn't survive in the AFL anyway. The Brisbane Lions are not the Fitzroy Football Club. Without a doubt the preference of the legally elected Fitzroy board was to conclude a merger with the North Melbourne Kangaroos to form the new "North Fitzroy Kangaroos".

[The Chad]

In all seriousness the AFL would probably be hoping 15,000 Melbourne based Kangaroos supporters stay on as members...ala South Melbourne/Sydney Swans.

In fact if any Victorian based Kangaroo supporters know any Melbourne based Swans...punch them in the face because they are one of the main reasons why you'll probably be going.
and the other thing is success INCREASED the melbourne-based brisbane fans, relocating the team bought out more fans than there were in the dying days of fitzroy.

kangaroos football club has a "top four" list which in terms of market currency is somewhere between 6th and 10th in the competition. throw in some first round picks, a bit of extra cost-of-expense on the salary cap and you have a team that WILL win a premiership for the gold coast if it is coached and administrated by competent staff.

[Hawkk]

1. As you've already had pointed out to you by someone who was involved, and I know this, the demands were in line with what was acceptable by any club, and were arranged so that that would be the case.

2. Any debt we're paying off now was obtained way way post 1996.

3.The merger was blocked primarily because North were clearly the best side in the comp and that didn't look like changing for some time. The other clubs didn't want them getting their hands on the $6,000,000 that was at the time on offer and their hands on the best players Fitzroy had to offer therefore making them even more powerful. These are facts.

Like I said, you shouldn't have pushed to get your hands on any of the players...you should have taken the money and run.

LOL at the suggestion that it was the 'Peoples Merger'

[mark73]

Not pouring shit on North.

Your supporters didnt rally around Hawthorn and Melbourne when we were going through our merger issues.

We saved ourselves.

You guys need to do it yourselves.

you try and paint this picture of we were looking out for fitzroy - which isnt true.

try to get other teams supporters to help you out.

That doesn't work in the long term. Every member of every other club could give you $10 - that's $5 million. And that's not going to do anything.

Your supporters need to save your club.

Every since 1996 it's been plainly obvious that the league thinks 10 teams is too many in Victoria and that allowing your membership to slip is put yourselves in the firing line.

A disgrace that your membership fell so low this year in that climate.
Funny, I don't recall anyone asking you for assistance. And I'd rather die than require the help of some smartarse Hawthorn supporter, who when it comes to things like mergers, being in the shit financially etc, appears to have a very select and short memory.

[Roylion]

The worst thing that could have happened is that North could have taken on the Fitzroy as the Junior partner for 2-3 years with no concessions but the $6,000,000 on the table and disbanded around 2000 - ala the Northern Eagles in the NRL, and went back to being the North Melbourne Kangaroos.

The legally binding agreement that Fitzroy and North were to execute detailing the terms of the merger was to last for 20 years. Brisbane's and Fitzroy's merger agreement had a time frame of 10 years, with a couple of clauses that were to be in perpetuity, such as the use of the Lion logo and the six game minimum.

[Hawkk]

Not pouring shit on North.

Your supporters didnt rally around Hawthorn and Melbourne when we were going through our merger issues.

We saved ourselves.

You guys need to do it yourselves.

Exactly, getting other supporters to fight your battles is just prolonging the inevitable. Unless you can get North supporters to sign up on mass year in year out, this is all just a waste of everyone's time really.

Don't get me wrong I don't want you to die, but its really your fight not ours.

[mark73]

Like I said, you shouldn't have pushed to get your hands on any of the players...you should have taken the money and run.

LOL at the suggestion that it was the 'Peoples Merger'

You can lol all you want. You're making stupid claims based on "facts" you don't actually have. You were highlighted for this by a shareholder of Fitzroy who was there through the entire saga. Us members, of bioth clubs, were involved. You weren't. Yet you still want to go on with the debate after all that. Baffling.

[The Chad]

Funny, I don't recall anyone asking you for assistance. And I'd rather die than require the help of some smartarse Hawthorn supporter, who when it comes to things like mergers, being in the shit financially etc, appears to have a very select and short memory.
nope - nobody asked for his assistance - this is a forum to discuss a "hot topic" - not a forum to assist or "save" kangaroos football club. pretty simple really. if you want to exploit bigfooty for your club's own interests then i guess you'll have to put up with the opinions of people interested in assisting the AFL's push into the northern states.

and hawthorn doesn't have a short memory when it comes to mergers and being in the shit financially. we voted no to a merger, our supporters became members and saved a dying club. then we signed a deal with an out-of-melbourne market that COULDN'T sustain an 11-game per season AFL franchise (much like canberra) and didn't burn them (when the saints did) to go and chase the almighty dollar at a location WITH the risk of being capable of hosting an 11-game per season AFL franchise.

but yeah, enough talk about the topic - back to what YOU think bigfooty should be used for - pushing your club's agenda and NOT open and frank debate of a "hot topic".

[Hawkk]

Funny, I don't recall anyone asking you for assistance. And I'd rather die than require the help of some smartarse Hawthorn supporter, who when it comes to things like mergers, being in the shit financially etc, appears to have a very select and short memory.

The is the time frame...

1996 - 12,300 members $4,200,000 debt Ian Dicker appointed President
1997 - 27,450 members
1999 - 32,120 members (1st Vic club to pass 30k members) Debt serviced
2002 - 33,319 members (record)

Use it as the template for North's revival...

[The Chad]

The is the time frame...

1996 - 12,300 members $4,200,000 debt Ian Dicker appointed President
1997 - 27,450 members
1999 - 32,120 members (1st Vic club to pass 30k members) Debt serviced
2002 - 33,319 members (record)

Use it as the template for North's revival...
nah mate, kangaroos football club fans of "north melbourne" don't want outside assistance. they think common-sense figures and rates of improvement like that are non-sensical rubbish. in fact they probably doubt it even happened :D

[Hawkk]

You can lol all you want. You're making stupid claims based on "facts" you don't actually have. You were highlighted for this by a shareholder of Fitzroy who was there through the entire saga. Us members, of bioth clubs, were involved. You weren't. Yet you still want to go on with the debate after all that. Baffling.

No I'm not, but I hate the suggestion - mostly made by North supporters that it was the perfect merger. No merger was perfect, make no mistake about it Fitzroy were going to get rapped in that merger and you know it. In terms of retaining their identity and traditions do you think they've done better out of QLD then they would have if they 'merged' with the Kangaroos?

[FOOOOTY]

i recall fans of most of the other teams gleefully using the term "dorks" and talking about how we were being "dragged down the aisle to get married"

they wanted blood.

arsehole richmond fans at our last game that year, when our song came on b4 the game.. We sang with gusto keep your eye on the red and the blue... arsehole richmond fans all of em go "and yellow"

[emuboy]

It's lucky that the North-Fitzroy merger didn't go ahead; the Fitzroy fans would be going through all this again.

[roorat]

Below is a letter posted to North Melbourne Members. It is listed in full and unedited.
Friday 24 May, 1996
Dear Member,
In May of 1995, your Club undertook a detailed analysis of options for the future direction of the Club. The study weighed up the costs associated with "going it alone" and staying viable in this rapidly growing National Competition, compared to the advantages/disadvantages of a merge with another AFL Club.
Overtures were made to the Club in 1995 - they were rejected by the Board as not being in our best interests. It was not until a few days prior to our West Coast game, Sunday 12 May 1996, that your Board of Directors made the decision to fully investigate an alliance with the Fitzroy Football Club.
It is vital to our ultimate decision that I present you with the facts so you may make a valued assessment.
A lot has been said through the Press but let me say from the outset; comments from Ron Casey (latest edition North News) were prior to any discussions with the Fitzroy Football Club and those initial statements by Mark Dawson were on Game Day at Subiaco Oval and not an appropriate time to advise our Members.
Your Board of Directors is responsible to its Members and Shareholders ultimately to enshrine the Club History, manage the day to day operations and plan and foresee the future.
It is for the future we must weigh up the benefits of a "possible" alliance with Fitzroy.
The Aim
To build a supporter base large enough to withstand a downturn in onfield performance. A generation of onfield success can build this base.
Onfield
The Club would not place in jeopardy its current player strength. An alliance would not be considered unless we could add to our current player list. The Fitzroy Football Club has much to offer in this regard. An increased player list would cater for a decline in our onfield strength that may occur when our topliners near retirement in the next six to eight years.THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO TRUTH IN THE SUGGESTIONS OF PLAYER UNREST OR CONTRACTS THAT ALLOW PLAYERS TO LEAVE THE CLUB IN THE EVENT OF A MERGER.
Denis Pagan, his Football staff and indeed the Board are very mindful of the wonderful opportunity we have for Premiership success in 1996. No stone will be left unturned to ensure our Players remain focussed. Our investigation is not something that could have been left until season end.
We must look beyond out current onfield personnel and understand that Player Rules that allowed us to recruit Wayne Carey, Wayne Schwass, Craig Sholl and John Longmire from other Clubs zones are no longer available to us. We are in the Draft without the advantages that lower Clubs and Northern States teams enjoy.
Off Field
The Club has kept its head above water through the efforts of Bob Ansett and then, in turn, our current Board Members who have made significant contributions.
The task is becoming harder each year. The Salary Cap and associated Player expenses are accelerating at a rapid rate. Despite the outstanding contribution our Members have made, the gap between the benchmarkers; West Coast, Adelaide, Collingwood and Essendon is growing. Their depth of supporter base is hard to compete with.
At the end of our investigation, if a substantial amount of the $6 million on offer is available to the new identity, The Club would:
a. Upgrade facilities at Arden St. The current facilities are not befitting a top National League Club. We ask so much of players, expecting a very high level of professionalism. We must match this with facilities consummate with their input.
b. Invest in the future. Process with and undertake new projects. Build our assets
CONTRARY TO MEDIA SPECULATION FUNDS AVAILABLE WILL NOT BE USED TO REPAY FUNDS CONTRIBUTED TO THE CLUB THROUGH THE SHARE ISSUE.
You would have noticed Fitzroy President, Dyson Hore-Lacy, comment that he would expose up to 6 AFL Clubs who have had merger discussions with them. Your Board has shown the foresight to fully investigate the opportunity on the table.
Please be reassured that your are represented by a Board with the same passion and love for our Club as your have displayed. The North Melbourne Football Club Board has taken the initiatives to keep the Club in the forefront of respected AFL Teams.
Any decisions will not be taken without all information gathered, player rules to give the Club an onfield advantage, and ultimately a valued judgement that the alliance will give us a substantial increased supporter base.
We invite your carefully considered comments.
Yours sincerely,
GREG MILLER
On behalf of the North Melbourne Football Club Board

This is an article about the merger
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/07/12/1057979655688.html

[Roylion]

No merger was perfect, make no mistake about it Fitzroy were going to get rapped in that merger and you know it.

How do you know 'it'?

In terms of retaining their identity and traditions do you think they've done better out of QLD then they would have if they 'merged' with the Kangaroos?

What do you think? I've outlined the terms of the merger with the Kangaroos.

[Hawkk]

How do you know 'it'?

Because no 'merger' is perfect. I've never seen a perfect merger before, but I have seen a few 'perfect takeovers'

What do you think? I've outlined the terms of the merger with the Kangaroos.

I think you have done very well out of Brisbane

[Harry29]

The North-Fitzroy merger would have been better for the members of both clubs as the Kangaroos would not be in the position they are now & the Fitzroy members would still have a local club to follow.

Realistically Fitzroy was taken over by the then Brisbane Bears. It doesn't matter how it was done or what was involved, but North-Fitzroy would sound a lot better than Brisbane.

The entity that would have been North-Fitzroy could have had a good future with a strong list and increased supporter/membership base with the ability to attract long term sponsors.

This was a missed opportunity for both clubs. But it was over 10 years ago and the Kangaroos are still going alone and will continue to do so for the next 2 years at least. These years will be the most telling in North/Kangaroos Football Club history. With some hard work from dedicated shareholders, board members, members/supporters we will move forward and continue to surprise all who predict our demise. Long Live NMFC/Kangaroos.:)

[Roylion]

Because no 'merger' is perfect. I've never seen a perfect merger before, but I have seen a few 'perfect takeovers'

Could you answer the question?

I'm asking you how you know that....." make no mistake about it Fitzroy were going to get rapped (sic) in that merger and you know it."

How were Fitzroy going to get "raped"? Could you provide the details?

I think you have done very well out of Brisbane

How do you know that the North Melboune merger wouldn't have been equally satisfying for Fitzroy supporters, albiet in slightly different ways? For example more games in Melbourne, more Fitzroy players, the name "Fitzroy", more Fitzroy representation on the board, the Fitzroy colours of red, gold and blue and so on.

[Hearts to hearts]

It's lucky that the North-Fitzroy merger didn't go ahead; the Fitzroy fans would be going through all this again.

Plenty of them are. Didn't like the Bears deal being forced through by the AFL, wanted to support a traditional, inner city, working class Melbourne club, may have respected that North at least dealt with their Board instead of with the AFL behind their backs. For whatever reasons, they came over to North - and a number of them are leading this fight so they don't get done over again.

On the OP, as usual on Bigfooty there's a deliberate confusion between a club's board and admin and it supporters. Our club tried to merge with Fitzroy - a saga which Roylion is the best person to talk about.

As a member, then a supporter, I can say that I was firmly against it. Being from Sydney I had no idea about being why you'd be a member of a footy club - but when I heard this merger plan on the news I rang the club to join, and have stayed a member ever since to try to help keep North's future in its own hands. I was sorry for Fitzroy things turned out as they did, but selfishly I was delighted to keep the club - and at no time since have I wished, for North's sake, that the merger had gone ahead. I still don;t want a merged club, and there's no point being a revisionist either.

[jacko57]

i recall fans of most of the other teams gleefully using the term "dorks" and talking about how we were being "dragged down the aisle to get married"

they wanted blood.
So that's why you were so keen to dance on the Roos' grave before it had even been dug ?

Truly pathetic.

[meltiger]

The worst thing that could have happened is that North could have taken on the Fitzroy as the Junior partner for 2-3 years with no concessions but the $6,000,000 on the table and disbanded around 2000 - ala the Northern Eagles in the NRL, and went back to being the North Melbourne Kangaroos.


Completely irrelevant comparison.


Manly-Warringah and North Sydney agreed to merge after the 1999 criteria was handed down and North Sydney having finished last on the list, were cut from the competition.


Manly having been one of the higher ranked clubs, had been granted a licence into the 14 team comp of 2000.


When the merger fell apart, Manly as the rightful holders of the licence were entitled to move the club back to Brookvale and revert back to their original club name.


The licence for any North Melbourne Fitzroy club would have been held by the merged club and would have required a vote by the board.


A better comparison would be Balmain who finished 14th on the criteria and therefore would have qualified for a licence had they not already agreed to merge with Western Suburbs. The Tigers licence is owned by the Joint Venture, not either of the two traditional clubs. Therefore, any reverting to either Balmain or Magpies would require agreement by both boards.

[Tas]

It wasn't the support that was the issue, it was the demanding concessions the Kangaroos were making of the AFL.

North demanded that the club could have both lists and pick, while Brisbane asked for the much more realistic 8 players. North played hard ball, lost and now are paying the consequences...

It wasn't the concessions that was the issue, it was widely known that the very best of the Lion's long list of star younger players had already been pilfered by clubs before the merger, evident by very few of the original Fitzroy players making much of an impact for the Bears.

The club realised there would be a period of supporter backlash as there would have been many on both sides that wouldn't accept a merged team and the merged entity really needed to have the security of support to survive through the early period.

AFL wasn't interested in supporting merged clubs, other than offering a lump sum payment and some list merging opportunities they really wanted to wash their hands of the new entity.

In reality, we were all through the process still the preferred choice by the Fitzroy people because their heritage would have remained here and they would have had real access to the club.

Merge is a complicated issue and it is a process that takes time to get an end result that both parties are comfortable with, as much as we tried to hurry the process it is not something you can as easily pull off with a franchise club.

We got a lot of additional red tape ONLY because we were the premiers, if we were on the bottom of the ladder like the Bears were then fat cat clubs wouldn't have stuck their noses into the process.

A lot of Fitzroy supporters still recognise North as their adopted team post Fitzroy merger, it was the club they wanted to merge with and we have a few of old Roys supporters as faithful members to date.

It is just a shame we never got the opportunity to retain their history and heritage here in Victoria and didn't have the chance to consolidate the two supporter bases which would have created a strong Melbourne supporter base.

As to the Naruu loan details, not sure of the exact details, but the clubs had to consider how much of the money offered by the AFL would have got to the club and would it have allowed them to survive the destabilized period post merger. It would have been pointless to merge just to see both clubs die a few years later.

[1jasonoz]

I guess the original heading is laughable by now!

[Hawkk]

How do you know that the North Melboune merger wouldn't have been equally satisfying for Fitzroy supporters, albiet in slightly different ways? For example more games in Melbourne, more Fitzroy players, the name "Fitzroy", more Fitzroy representation on the board, the Fitzroy colours of red, gold and blue and so on.

North had 130 years of history behind them, Brisbane had 10 embarrassing years.

In terms of embracing history the Lions have practically embraced the entire Fitzroy history - at least within the club, just as if the Brisbane Lions were a relocated Fitzroy Football Club.

Had the merger through - North as the dominant partner, would have embraced a significant amount more North history then Fitzroy - in a similar fashion to the Melbourne Hawks 'merger.'

In the long run would the North Fitzroy club be anymore stronger then the current North Melbourne - given the potential drop off of disenfranchised supporters from both clubs when the merger is going through?

[Tas]

North had 130 years of history behind them, Brisbane had 10 embarrassing years.

In terms of embracing history the Lions have practically embraced the entire Fitzroy history - at least within the club, just as if the Brisbane Lions were a relocated Fitzroy Football Club.

Had the merger with North gone through - North as the dominant partner, would have embraced a significant amount more North history then Fitzroy - similar to the Melbourne Hawks 'merger.'

You can't be serious. Fitzroy had a larger supporter base than us, they would have had equal board representation, this was not like us absorbing the old VFA teams in our ancient days. We were going to adopt merged colours, have a new song and the only advantage we would have had was being called North-Fitzroy instead of Fitzroy-North.

What you would have seen is Fitzroy greats recognised in the merged team, something the current Fitroy team does not. They would have had the same rights and the same access to games, facilities and the like. How can you be serious that Fitzroy get tossed scrap away games in Melbourne as being comparable to having your club close to you.

This is not a dig at the current Fitzroy but they have not really stood up for their Melbourne supporters and the AFL is screwing them again next year, Lions could have fought for the rights of their members to have maximum access to their team, as little as they are granted.

I see Richmond play more than Melbourne Lions fans get to see their own beloved team, that is just a very sad state of affairs and it is insulting to both the old Fitzroy supporters and our club that you suggest we would have just screwed them for some short-term gains.

[mick]

Tas wrote:Fitzroy had a larger supporter base than us, they would have had equal board representation, this was not like us absorbing the old VFA teams in our ancient days. We were going to adopt merged colours, have a new song and the only advantage we would have had was being called North-Fitzroy instead of Fitzroy-North.

What was the status with the privatisation of NMFC at that stage? If the shareholders voted for board representation then it would it matter how many Fitzroy members there were?

FWIW I reckon it would have been a far better option for the Fitzroy supporters to join North, but North had a seriously good team in 96, not one other team in its right mind would have wanted to bolster their list any further.

[Roylion]

North had 130 years of history behind them, Brisbane had 10 embarrassing years.

10 embarrassing years? You do know that the Bears reached the finals in 1995 and 1996 and when they became a membership based club in 1992 made profits in three of those five years...

1992 - profit of $524,147
1993 - loss of ($252,788)
1994 - profit of $90,141
1995 - loss of ($108,964)
1996 - profit of $1,273,360

Had the merger through - North as the dominant partner, would have embraced a significant amount more North history then Fitzroy - in a similar fashion to the Melbourne Hawks 'merger.'

This is just speculation on your part. There is little indication that the "North Fitzroy Kangaroos" with a new red, gold, blue and white guernsey (with a little Lion logo on the breast of the jumper), a new theme song, 6 Fitzroy directors on a 12 man "North Fitzroy" board would not have equally embraced Fitzroy's history along with North's history. After all a new history would have been started and all records would have been started anew, with Fitzroy and North recognised fairly equally in a number of areas. For example, there were plans for a jointly-named Best and Fairest medal, perhaps called the "Murray-Barker Medal".

In the long run would the North Fitzroy club be anymore stronger then the current North Melbourne - given the potential drop off of disenfranchised supporters from both clubs when the merger is going through?

That's beside the point. Your point was that Fitzroy were going to be "raped". You don't know that.

The only evidence you have presented in support of that contention is:
a) North have a longer history than the Bears have.

[Roylion]

What you would have seen is Fitzroy greats recognised in the merged team, something the current Fitroy team does not.

Sorry? I don't really understand this comment.

The Brisbane Lions are quite good in recognising former Fitzroy greats in a variety of ways. To give a very brief example, Kevin Murray is recognised in the naming of the Lions'medal the Merrett-Murray medal.

This is not a dig at the current Fitzroy but they have not really stood up for their Melbourne supporters and the AFL is screwing them again next year,

The current Fitzroy? The Brisbane Lions are not the Fitzroy Football Club. Legally they are the Brisbane Bears Football Club and the AFL recognises that.

The Fitzroy Football Club are bound by the terms of the merger agreement and can really only protest when the merger agreement is broken.

[Hawkk]

10 embarrassing years? You do know that the Bears reached the finals in 1995 and 1996 and when they became a membership based club in 1992 made profits in three of those five years...

1992 - profit of $524,147
1993 - loss of ($252,788)
1994 - profit of $90,141
1995 - loss of ($108,964)
1996 - profit of $1,273,360

I’m talking more about identity, the Bears didn’t have an identity, the Brisbane Lions history is mostly dominated by 2001-2004 celebrated moments and Fitzroy’s history…go to the club, the Fitzroy Lions history rightfully dwarfs the Beras, you wouldn’t have got that with a North merger.

[Roylion]

I’m talking more about identity, the Bears didn’t have an identity, the Brisbane Lions history is mostly dominated by 2001-2004 celebrated moments

The Bears did have an identity. Sure it was not as long established as other clubs, but they wwere forging aa recongisable idenity as a Queensland based team, particuarly after they moved to Brisbane and became a Brisbane based club with a new jumper and logo.

and Fitzroy’s history…go to the club,

I'm a Brisbane Lions member. I've been to the club in Brisbane. I know what the Lions do.

you wouldn’t have got that with a North merger.

Fitzroy's history dwarfing North's history? No we wouldn't.

However that's a long way from your claim that North were going to 'rape' Fitzroy in any merger and that any such merger was nothing more than a takeover. I've seen little evidence that your claim has any weight at all.

I can provide the entire merger agreement between North Melbourne and Fitzroy, if you like. It'll take me a while to type out, but if you still don't believe me, I'm happy to do so. If anything it'll hopefully dispel the myth, perpetuated by some such as Mighty Hawks (who doesn't know what he is talking about) that the North - Fitzroy merger was nothing more than a North Melbourne takeover.

Having said that, North Melbourne did try and maximise their position in the merger after the initial agreement had been struck and in the end it must be said that cost North's and Fitzroy's desire to merge dearly. However those North-Fitzroy differences were resolved before the merger date of July 4th 1996.

And just on your last comment above, I'll ask again... how do you know that the North Melboune merger wouldn't have been equally satisfying for Fitzroy supporters, even with a slightly diluted Fitzroy identity (as compared to the Brisbane Lions) with more games in Melbourne for the North Fitzroy Kangaroos, more than eight Fitzroy players, the name "Fitzroy", equal Fitzroy representation on the 12 man board, the Fitzroy colours of red, gold and blue and so on.