Did Hawthorn's admission ruin Fitzroy?

[mianfei]

One question which I have been curious about is:

• Was the decline of Fitzroy as a VFL force to any extent due to the admittance of Hawthorn to the League?

In recent years, I have wondered whether Hawthorn's admission to the VFL in 1925 was to any extent a cause of Fitzroy's decline from a power club of the League to battlers and finally to a club with such limited financial resources that it could not survive.

I am in two minds about the question myself:

1. On the one hand, Fitzroy's decline coincides remarkably well with the admission of Hawthorn. They just missed the finals in 1925, but between 1926 and 1939 only won 81 (plus four draws) out of 252 games.
2. On the other hand, there is very little evidence players in the area east of the Yarra were any more significant to Fitzroy than neighbouring Collingwood - who dominated the competition between 1925 and 1939.

I am very curious as to the thoughts of historians on this question - though I know it may never have been asked, if that is so there is all the more room for discussion.

 

[Scribe]

One question which I have been curious about is:

• Was the decline of Fitzroy as a VFL force to any extent due to the admittance of Hawthorn to the League?

In recent years, I have wondered whether Hawthorn's admission to the VFL in 1925 was to any extent a cause of Fitzroy's decline from a power club of the League to battlers and finally to a club with such limited financial resources that it could not survive.

I am in two minds about the question myself:

1. On the one hand, Fitzroy's decline coincides remarkably well with the admission of Hawthorn. They just missed the finals in 1925, but between 1926 and 1939 only won 81 (plus four draws) out of 252 games.
2. On the other hand, there is very little evidence players in the area east of the Yarra were any more significant to Fitzroy than neighbouring Collingwood - who dominated the competition between 1925 and 1939.

I am very curious as to the thoughts of historians on this question - though I know it may never have been asked, if that is so there is all the more room for discussion.

A bit like asking whether the collapse of Saddam's Iraq was due to the invasion by Australia.

I'm no historian, but I'm pretty sure Footscray and North Melbourne were also admitted into the VFL in 1925 and had far greater win/loss records than the Hawks, who weren't finalists in the VFL until 1951 and won their first flag in 1961. Not many brilliant players came out of Glenferrie Rd for the first 25 years of Hawthorn's VFL existence. They were genuine battlers who were lucky to win more than 3 or 4 games most seasons!

On that basis alone, I daresay my answer is a resounding no.

 

[krisholio14]

Fitzroy's downfall had more to do with social and geographical changes that occured after WWI than any club/s that were admitted to the comp.

It was around that time that suburbs started to become far less homogenious, and with Fitzroy being the smallest suburb in Melbourne in terms of geography, as population decreased and the people moving into the area were mostly immigrants (and less interested in the native game), so too did their fan base decrease and with it revenue.

And no matter what the era of football, if you ain't got any money, you ain't winning anything.

Their next door neighbour Collingwood's success in the 20's also didn't help.

 

[Mappa]

Fitzroy's downfall had more to do with social and geographical changes that occured after WWI than any club/s that were admitted to the comp.

It was around that time that suburbs started to become far less homogenious

How do you explain the ongoing success of Collingwood and Carlton then ? Even Richmond are still alive an kicking. Their suburban boundaries are not that much greater than Fitzroy really.

 

[krisholio14]

How do you explain the ongoing success of Collingwood and Carlton then ? Even Richmond are still alive an kicking. Their suburban boundaries are not that much greater than Fitzroy really.

I think you'll find that being the smallest meant their power base was more quickly eroded.

And look at the three clubs you mentioned......all of them surround Fitzroy, and all of them were infinitely more successful after WWI.

I did a thesis on this once, unfortunately I no longer have it so all the data I had researched is gone.

But if you grab a copy of 'Up Where Cazaly' by Ian Turner from your library, it explains a fair bit of this in there.

 

[Last of the Roys]

Fitzroy's downfall had more to do with social and geographical changes that occured after WWI than any club/s that were admitted to the comp.

It was around that time that suburbs started to become far less homogenious, and with Fitzroy being the smallest suburb in Melbourne in terms of geography, as population decreased and the people moving into the area were mostly immigrants (and less interested in the native game), so too did their fan base decrease and with it revenue.

And no matter what the era of football, if you ain't got any money, you ain't winning anything.

Their next door neighbour Collingwood's success in the 20's also didn't help.

I agree that this seems to be one of the greatest reasons for Fitzroy's demise.

Another very significant reason was the whole 'home ground' issue. Firstly, FFC never owned Brunswick St Oval and apparently they didn't get a great deal from Fitzroy Cricket Club in relation to using the ground. Then once the local council blocked plans to expand the ground, Fitzroy was pretty much put behind the 8 ball for the rest of our existence as a wandering tribe. Too bad we weren't given any deals to be a home tenant at the MCG; even the Waverley deals St.Kilda and Hawthorn got were many times better than what Fitzroy had to put up with. The Junction oval seemed good for a while, but I think the local council there may have put a stop to any plans to improve it.

Anyway, the introduction of Hawthorn didn't help considering how successful they were, but due to the 'demographic/supporter base' issue and the 'home ground' issue Fitzroy's demise over the long term was probably always likely, particularly given the national/professional trajectory of the VFL/AFL.

 

[mianfei]

Not many brilliant players came out of Glenferrie Rd for the first 25 years of Hawthorn's VFL existence. They were genuine battlers who were lucky to win more than 3 or 4 games most seasons!

On that basis alone, I daresay my answer is a resounding no.

I can certainly agree with most points you are making there about the 1925 newcomers to the competition. (I have discussed the cultural factors that inhibited Hawthorn for so long in other posts).

However, even though Hawthorn were extraordinarily unsuccessful in their first 29 years in the VFL (winning only 111 and drawing three out of 522 games), they did have a number of genuinely high-class players, such as Bert Hyde, Stan Spinks, Bert Mills and Alec Albiston. A ver relevant points here is that when University disbanded, its remaining players joined Melbourne, and, even though University had won only one of its last seventy games, its remaining players strengthened Melbourne enough to move them from only two wins against University in 1914 to nine wins and their first finals berth since 1902 in 1915.

That fact does suggest that if Fitzroy had been able to gain hold of Hawthorn's top players of the late 1920s and 1930s, they would have fared a lot better than they actually did in that era.

The problem is that, as you point out, both Collingwood and Richmond would have had as much (or more) chance of getting hold of those Hawthorn players who were good enough for the VFL, so that Fitzroy might not have benefitted at all therefrom. Had Hawthorn not been admitted, however, Fitzroy would most likely have been given some of the metropolitan zones of Carlton, Collingwood and Richmond, and it is hard for me to think they would have failed to get some top players therefrom.

So "last of the Roys", we are left with an undecided question that seems like a matter of degrees. It seems that even without Hawthorn's admission Fitzroy would have declined somewhat, but it is still tough for me to say Hawthorn's admission caused no difference whatsoever. Moreover, this discussion has added one further question:

• Why could Fitzroy not adapt to demographic changes as Carlton and Collingwood did?

"diablo14", it is such a pity you do not have that thesis! I would have loved a copy if you could remember it and am very surprised you had done it!

 

[Last of the Roys]

From what I have read, I think Fitzroy's supporter base was always smaller than Collingwood and Carlton's, even when we were the most successful team in the League. Obviously only winning one premiership after 1922 didn't help at all. I guess Collingwood and Carlton were very successful at the right times in order to benefit from demographic change.

Combined with the stadium issues, which bought financial problems, and the horror period between 1962 and 1978, we were behind the 8-ball. The Club tried to buy its way out of trouble in the late '70's / early '80's and that led to the last golden era. But without a Premiership (bloody Hawthorn did stop us a couple of times - so maybe they are to blame after all!), and given the debts that were created, the continued stadium issue, and the changes towards an increasingly professional and national competition, I guess we were stuffed.

Fitzroy's administrations over the years could probably share some of the blame, but in my mind our demise was mostly caused by historical factors not within our control.

 

[mianfei]

"Last of the Roys",

I must say that I have become very curious about the issue of why Fitzroy declined from the middle 1920s onwards! My suspicion Hawthorn's admission might have been a major factor in this decline came from analogies with other leagues (see here), but I was always far from sure it was the chief cause of Fitzroy's later problems.

However, I have one really good question that your points has brought up:

• If Fitzroy's supporter base really was always smaller than Carlton's or Collingwood's, how were they so successful?
• Again, why could they not maintain this success beyond the middle 1920s?

I certainly agree that the period from 1962 to 1978 when Fitzroy only once won more games that it lost was very difficult for the club and caused it to make purchases that it probably knew would destroy it financially. I have argued earlier that without country zoning Fitzroy would in fact have folded before 1979: indeed it was at times thought in the 1960s that Fitzroy would not last much longer.

 

[krisholio14]

"Last of the Roys",

I must say that I have become very curious about the issue of why Fitzroy declined from the middle 1920s onwards! My suspicion Hawthorn's admission might have been a major factor in this decline came from analogies with other leagues (see here), but I was always far from sure it was the chief cause of Fitzroy's later problems.

However, I have one really good question that your points has brought up:

• If Fitzroy's supporter base really was always smaller than Carlton's or Collingwood's, how were they so successful?
• Again, why could they not maintain this success beyond the middle 1920s?

I certainly agree that the period from 1962 to 1978 when Fitzroy only once won more games that it lost was very difficult for the club and caused it to make purchases that it probably knew would destroy it financially. I have argued earlier that without country zoning Fitzroy would in fact have folded before 1979: indeed it was at times thought in the 1960s that Fitzroy would not last much longer.

Well for starters, as you've seen with North in the 90's, size and on field success are not always relative. However size and off field success are, and that's why North has been under the pump for years despite their premierships. It's no surprise that next to Fitzroy, North Melbourne was the second smallest suburb in the comp, even taking West Melbourne into account.

Carlton makes a very interesting comparison.

They took almost a decade to really get going in the league, at which point Fitzroy already had 4 flags on the board.

By the time Fitzroy won their 7th flag in 1922, Carlton had won 5 of their own. Remember also that Fitzroy's 1916 flag was a bit of an anomaly in that they finished last, yet made the finals and won the premiership as it it was only a four team comp due to the war.

Where it gets interesting though, is that from 1922 to 1966, when Fitzroy quit Brunswick Street Oval because the council wouldn't come to the party for ground improvements, Carlton won only 3 flags to Fitzroy's 1.

So at that point, Carlton and Fitzroy had both won 8 flags. In the 45 seasons since, Carlton has doubled their flag count and Fitzroy no longer plays at the highest level.

So why did the paths diverge like that?

It comes down to two reasons.

First, the size of supporter base. It's already been mentioned, however, the thing to remember with Carlton, is that they are one inner suburb that has maintained a high level of local support despite the changing times and demographics, much of which has to do with the universities being in the area and maintaining a reasonably high level of residential area.

Secondly, they had the support of the local council and were therefore able to continue to develop their ground, unlike Fitzroy who were all but run out of theirs and thus set them on a 30 year journey around various venues before they left the AFL.

This was especially a cruncher for the Lions because apart from the years they spent at the mercy of other clubs as a co tenant, the period where they did have their own territory wasn't somewhere that could break them new ground and generate fresh support, it was right in the heart of another clubs suburb.

One thing I am curious about though, is why you think Hawthorn's admittance to the VFL had any more effect on Fitzroy than Footscray or North? It's not as though Fitzroy suffered any kind of player or resource drain at the hands of the Brown and Golds. If anything, Collingwood and Richmond were hit harder than the Maroons.

 

[mianfei]

One thing I am curious about though, is why you think Hawthorn's admittance to the VFL had any more effect on Fitzroy than Footscray or North? It's not as though Fitzroy suffered any kind of player or resource drain at the hands of the Brown and Golds. If anything, Collingwood and Richmond were hit harder than the Maroons.

"Diablo",

the main reason I suggested this was that Hawthorn is closer to Fitzroy geographically than either Footscray or North. Even when I first wrote this article, I was under no illusion that Fitzroy suffered any player drain at the hands of the Brown and Golds, but there would certainly have been some long-term, indirect effects that would never have occurred had Hawthorn not been admitted.

An example: had Hawthorn not been admitted it would undoubtedly have been easier for Fitzroy to attempt a relocation to growing outer suburbs in the 1950s or 1960s because it would have more than likely had a zone not broken by or even close to areas belonging to Collingwood. (To take a quite modern example, I imagine that without Hawthorn's admission, Peter Daicos, who came from Preston, would almost certainly have been required to play for Fitzroy rather than Collingwood.)

A relocation of Fitzroy further north was planned but never materialised. Whilst I will admit the failure of North and the difficulties of St. Kilda in such relocations, if Fitzroy had started such a move in the 1950s it would certainly have had a chance to build up a long-term support base. (In fact, it is fair to say that Fitzroy's history in modern times could easily be used as a case against member-ownership by people like the Austrian School, who would view their plans for short-term success in the late 1950s and late 1970s as doomed to long-term failure because they were neither

1. financially conservative enough to avoid short-term losses
2. forward-thinking enough to market the club effectively