Sydney are a continuation of South Melbourne.

This is really concerning a debate that occured on this forum a few months ago, concerning whether Sydney and South Melbourne are the same club. I'm really just posting this for the likes of Blood-Stained Angel and Kevin Sooky, and not to re-ignite the debate. Kevin Sooky challenged those, such as myself and Blood-Stained Angel who believed that Sydney/South Melbourne were the same club to come up with some hard evidence, as he believed they were two seperate clubs like Fitzroy and the Brisbane Lions are.

Well here it is.

The Swans are launched at the Sydney Opera House on 22nd February 1982.

A report by commissioned by the South Melbourne Football Club in July 1982 stated that the "South Melbourne Football Club Ltd., currently playing out of Sydney, as the 'Sydney Swans' is on the verge of bankrutpcy, as a result of playing 11 games at the SCG." This quote is from the actual report which was sent to me by a friend who used to be involved with the old South Melbourne club and was involved with the 'Keep South at South' movement.

On the 14th May 1983, the then VFL agreed to subsidise the South Melbourne Football Club to the tune of $900,000. Because of this the VFL wanted to make sure the club was run according to their wishes and six VFL administrators were in addition to the eight man board. On that date also the legal entity that was the "South Melbourne Football Club Ltd", changed its name to the "Sydney Swans Ltd." A new company was NOT formed, the existing company merely changed it's name. It was also a year and half after they had moved to Sydney.

On 31st July 1985, the "Sydney Swans Ltd." was sold to Geoffrey Edelstein's consortium, "Powerplay"

On 7th May 1988, Powerplay sold "Sydney Swans Ltd." back to the VFL for $10.

On 12th December control of the "Sydney Swans Ltd." was given by the VFL to a new group of 16 businessmen led by a Peter Weinert.

They nearly pulled out in 1992 and as result of Carlton attempting to play some of their 'away' games, the other AFL clubs agreed to prop up the Swans by re-directing nearly 2 million dollars of their licence agreement into the club. The owners agreed to step back also and re-structure the club/company into a largely membership club as it was when the company was called the SMFC Ltd. That is the current situation.

While not wishing to re-ignite the debate, if anyone can provide extra information or hard evidence as to why South Melb/Sydney may not the same club, then please do so here.

There appears to be no doubt that both legally as well as in outwards trappings (colurs, emblem etc) the Sydney Swans are definitely a continuation of South Melbourne... and that Kevin Sooky and others who believe that is not the case, appear to be wrong.

[Drakey]

You convinced me. Not that I disagreed in the 1st place.

I always thought it was a dumb argument in the 1st place (not unusual for KS). If it looks like a duck & walks like a duck, then it's probably a duck.

If I was a Lions supported I would count the Fitzroy flags. Who cares about bits of paper & legal mumbo jumbo.

[Rooboy 96]

Roylion... agree with the statement... but Drakey what does it have to do with Brisbane and Fitzroy... that is something completely different...

[eagleskickass]

There is a huge difference, Fitzroy and Brisbane were two teams and they merged and south melbourne was one, they just relocated and playing in Sydney they changed there name as the city sydney isn't the city south melbourne, just like the AFL wants North to relocate, they would still be the same team but with a different home and wouldn't, as they aren't now, be North Melbourne Kangaroos, just North Kangaroos. But now it seems it won't happen

[Drakey]

Rooboy

You are right they are different.

From memory the original thread also talked alot about Fitzroy/Brisbane & whether they should count Fitzroy's flags.

If I was a Lions supporter I would count them.

[Bloodstained Angel]

Thanks Roylion

At firs I thought Oh God not this again but your little report is a very nice postscript to the whole saga.

As a Swans fan let me first of all say that I am not proud of what happened, we were a broke laughing stock in those days and if it wasn't for the fact that other clubs agreed to prop us up (scared of Carlton I guess) we would have been history.

Recognition and gratitude must also be extended to people such as Peter Weinert, Ross Oakley, Mike Willesee, Richard Colless and Ron Barassi who got behind this club in its darkest hour and delivered us off-field stability and on-field success.

Now if only we could get a flag ... preferably before Bob Pratt passes away.

Kevin Sooky said in the original debate, that if he was proved wrong, he would get on here and publicly admit that was the case. Well let's see if it happens. Somehow I doubt it.

I agree. Brisbane and Fitzroy's case is different to the Sydney Swans. Sydney Swans is a relocated club, while a new entity was formed by the merger of Brisbane and Fitzroy. As I have said many times before, relocation of a club is infinitely preferable to merger. In a merger a NEW club is started. Strictly speaking the Brisbane Lions started in 1997 and the eight flags of Fitzroy's can't be counted. However I think most Lions supporters do count them as part of the histroy of their club. To a certain extent they are right.

[Danni]

Roylion I agree with you there. It is interesting to see how the 2 factions of supporters of Fitzroy and Bears see the history differently - as a former Bears member, I find myself saying 'when we did this in 95...' or something or including Voss as a Lions Brownlow winner. Yet I have never found myself thinking of those 8 premierships as 'ours'. I often think of the Lions as an extension of the Bears - being that they are still on my doorstep, a number of same players etc. Almost like a relocation with out actually moving. And alot of Fitzroy ppl seem to still see them as Fitzroy and want to run things the was it was at Fitzroy.

It would seem only the new members since the new entity was born that see it truly as the 'Brisbane Lions'.

Oh how confusing - Relocation is definately the better option to merging!