Footscray-Fitzroy Merger

[Roylion]

I believe University merged with Melbourne.

Not according to University

http://www.uniblacks.org.au/Club-Info/History.aspx

 

[Riccardo11]

That is not correct. In 1996, Fitzroy owed Nauru $1.25 million, which was not due to be paid back until 2001. Fitzroy were making the repayments to Nauru on time. Fitzroy's total debt in 1996 was $2.7 million, of which Nauru was the only secured creditor.

Fitzroy were certainly not bankrupt in 1980.

http://www.theroar.com.au/2012/07/07/revisiting-the-fitzroy-and-brisbane-merger/

I understand it's difficult, and I'm not trying to be nasty, but the club ran out of money, something that was clearly in precious little supply for a while. The Roys were from alone, we were damn lucky ourselves to survive, but they were clearly forced to merge playing operations with Brisbane for a reason.

 

[Roylion]

http://www.theroar.com.au/2012/07/07/revisiting-the-fitzroy-and-brisbane-merger/

I understand it's difficult, and I'm not trying to be nasty, but the club ran out of money, something that was clearly in precious little supply for a while.

Yes, but you could at least get the facts right. Fitzroy were not $4.5 million in debt. Fitzroy were $2.7 million in debt. If you want to know why Nauru appointed an administrator to immediately recover their $1.25 million loan (which didn't have to be fully repaid until 2001), then I suggest you look to North Melbourne and the AFL. (Try June 26th-28th 1996)

but they were clearly forced to merge playing operations with Brisbane for a reason.

The AFL engineered the appointment of an administrator, in order to "merge" Fitzroy with Brisbane, which was their preferred option. There was no "merger". Eight players transferred to Brisbane, the Bears received $6 million and in return changed their nickname and added blue to a re-configurated jumper. Fitzroy lost its licence to compete in the AFL and went into a temporary recess after their debts were discharged, until they could build up funds to field a team in some other competition. This ended up being the VAFA.

 

[catters05]

The AFL engineered the appointment of an administrator, in order to "merge" Fitzroy with Brisbane, which was their preferred option. There was no "merger". Eight players transferred to Brisbane, the Bears received $6 million and in return changed their nickname and added blue to a re-configurated jumper. Fitzroy lost its licence to compete in the AFL and went into a temporary recess after their debts were discharged, until they could build up funds to field a team in some other competition. This ended up being the VAFA.

Shame they couldn't bring Fitzroy Lions back to VFL.

 

[Roylion]

Shame they couldn't bring Fitzroy Lions back to VFL.

Need money and members.

Fitzroy Football Club 2015 membership forms are on the website below.

 

[Riccardo11]

Yes, but you could at least get the facts right. Fitzroy were not $4.5 million in debt. Fitzroy were $2.7 million in debt. If you want to know why Nauru appointed an administrator to immediately recover their $1.25 million loan (which didn't have to be fully repaid until 2001), then I suggest you look to North Melbourne and the AFL.



The AFL engineered the appointment of an administrator, in order to "merge" Fitzroy with Brisbane, which was their preferred option. There was no "merger". Eight players transferred to Brisbane, the Bears received $6 million and in return changed their nickname and added blue to a re-configurated jumper. Fitzroy lost its licence to compete in the AFL and went into a temporary recess after their debts were discharged, until they could build up funds to field a team in some other competition. This ended up being the VAFA.

The article I quoted specifically says $4.5 million.

I appreciate your position, you must know more about it than me, but my memory of the time indicates Fitzroy would not have been able to play on in 1997 regardless of any other factors. The North Melbourne merger was incredibly poor for the Lions and there were genuine fears of a Victorian super club given Norths power at the time.

I'm glad the club has come out of administration and still has a presence in Victorian football.

 

[cammo78]

Yeah poor old Hawthorn.

Hawthorn walks away tomorrow turning massive profits regardless.

North don't.

 

[NorthernLights]

Hawthorn walks away tomorrow turning massive profits regardless.

North don't.

Ten years ago Hawthorn wouldn't have either.

 

[cammo78]

Ten years ago Hawthorn wouldn't have either.

Nor would North.

 

[NorthernLights]

Nor would North.

That's what I said didn't I?

 

[Broken]

It would've been very interesting to see what would've happened if the Lions survived until the opening of Docklands and the stability to the league the 00's brought.

I've often wondered that, how Fitzroy would fare in the current AFL. Part of me thinks that if we had survived beyond 1996 that it still would have been a struggle to remain in Victoria as a stand alone club.
I can't help but feel that a large part of the current stability and unity of Victorian clubs, especially, came about from the demise of Fitzroy. Where clubs are now banding together to "not be the next Fitzroy"

 

[Inferno]

I've often wondered that, how Fitzroy would fare in the current AFL. Part of me thinks that if we had survived beyond 1996 that it still would have been a struggle to remain in Victoria as a stand alone club.
I can't help but feel that a large part of the current stability and unity of Victorian clubs, especially, came about from the demise of Fitzroy. Where clubs are now banding together to "not be the next Fitzroy"

I get the impression they would've been put in the firing line for relocation and it quite likely would've been followed through on, whether it be the push for a GC team (instead of North circa 2007), Tassie or possibly even Western Sydney. Those options still probably would've been preferable to the Bears merger though. Still would've been interesting to see how the Roys crowds would go considering they wouldn't be nomads any longer.

You're definitely right about the not being the next Fitzroy part. Virtually all talk of mergers stopped after 1996 and any relocations would be done a la South Melbourne to Sydney because of how alienating the whole Fitzroy ordeal was for everyone but particularly due to the AFL losing so many former Fitzroy fans to the sport for good.

 

[Roylion]

The article I quoted specifically says $4.5 million.

I know what it says. It also said "reportedly". The actual debt was $2.7 million.

I appreciate your position, you must know more about it than me, but my memory of the time indicates Fitzroy would not have been able to play on in 1997 regardless of any other factors.

The Fitzroy board made a conscious decision at the start of 1996, that unless it could secure $500,000 in funds to operate the club competitively and another $500,000 to bring the player list up to a higher standard, given the exodus of players from 1994 onwards, that it would actively seek a merger. Despite several attempts, including a proposal to play four home games in Canberra (which would netted Fitzroy an extra million dollars), getting an extra million in revenue was unsuccessful. The Fitzroy board's proposal was to merge with a Melbourne based club, in order to retain a Melbourne presence.

The North Melbourne merger was incredibly poor for the Lions

On what basis? Do you know what the terms of the "North Fitzroy Kangaroos" merger deal was?

and there were genuine fears of a Victorian super club given Norths power at the time.

Yes. Who was it, (with encouragement from the AFL) that asked for 54 players to be on the combined list? Not Fitzroy.

I'm glad the club has come out of administration and still has a presence in Victorian football.

The debts were discharged, control of the club returned to the elected Fitzroy board who met with the shareholders and resolved to continue the club. A short association with VFL club Coburg took place between 1999-2000 - the "Coburg-Fitzroy Lions" - before the club sponsored the Fitzroy Reds from 2001-2008. Then the Club incorporated the Fitzroy (University) Reds (itself formed in 1955) within its club structure and re-entered the playing level at VAFA D-Grade level. In the seven years since Fitzroy has advanced to B-Grade level and looks to push into A-Grade. From there...... who knows.

 

[Roylion]

I get the impression they would've been put in the firing line for relocation and it quite likely would've been followed through on,

A Club can't be compelled to relocate, only encouraged to.

Incidentally Fitzroy offered to play up to seven home games in Canberra in 1996 and in fact had a deal done where Fitzroy would have had the income from in corporate sponsorship, and ground rights at Bruce Stadium (which would have been upgraded). Fitzroy's projections were they could have made $1 million extra per season. Fitzroy's application for the home games had the support of 'AFL for Canberra' organisation, the Canberra Raiders, the Ainslee Football Club and the ACT chief minister who had offered for the ACT government to upgrade Bruce Stadium, if Fitzroy played at least four home games per year out of the stadium.

The AFL, wishing to keep pressure on Fitzroy to merge, knocked back the application.

 

[Riccardo11]

On what basis? Do you know what the terms of the "North Fitzroy Kangaroos" merger deal was?

My recollection is that it was basically a takeover, with the proposal being the Lions nickname and logo on the socks, but otherwise all North.

Yes. Who was it, (with encouragement from the AFL) that asked for 54 players to be on the combined list? Not Fitzroy.

Absolutely, which is why most of the other Melbourne sides were worried. North did win the Flag in 1996, combined with the AFL-incentive money for merging and Fitzroys best players, there were genuine concerns.

The debts were discharged, control of the club returned to the elected Fitzroy board who met with the shareholders and resolved to continue the club. A short association with VFL club Coburg took place between 1999-2000 - the "Coburg-Fitzroy Lions" - before the club sponsored the Fitzroy Reds from 2001-2008. Then the Club incorporated the Fitzroy (University) Reds (itself formed in 1955) within its club structure and re-entered the playing level at VAFA D-Grade level. In the seven years since Fitzroy has advanced to B-Grade level and looks to push into A-Grade. From there...... who knows.

I'm genuinely glad about it, it was disappointing when Richmond took over at Coburg and pushed the FFC out of the VFL. Would love to go down to Brunswick street to watch a game, have been meaning to for ages. The yellow clash strip is also one I'd be proud to add to my collection.

 

[Inferno]

A Club can't be compelled to relocate, only encouraged to.

Incidentally Fitzroy offered to play up to seven home games in Canberra in 1996 and in fact had a deal done where Fitzroy would have had the income from in corporate sponsorship, and ground rights at Bruce Stadium (which would have been upgraded). Fitzroy's projections were they could have made $1 million extra per season. Fitzroy's application for the home games had the support of 'AFL for Canberra' organisation, the Canberra Raiders, the Ainslee Football Club and the ACT chief minister who had offered for the ACT government to upgrade Bruce Stadium, if Fitzroy played at least four home games per year out of the stadium.

The AFL, wishing to keep pressure on Fitzroy to merge, knocked back the application.

The AFL could certainly put pressure on them just like they did to North though, and Fitzroy very likely would've been in a financial situation where they weren't able to resist like North did.

And yeah the AFL had decided by that point Fitzroy wouldn't be a stand alone club in the competition by the next season, whether they be merged or killed off. With the benefit of hindsight the Canberra deal could've worked, Port could've been introduced and a Tassie or GC team could've been brought in with AFL funding to make an 18 team league in 1997.

 

[Roylion]

My recollection is that it was basically a takeover, with the proposal being the Lions nickname and logo on the socks, but otherwise all North.

That's not correct either.

Name: North Fitzroy Kangaroos
Jumper: New club jumper which substantially incorporated the present colours of Fitzroy and North in a style appropriate to the 1990s and in roughly equal proportions. In other words the new jumper was to be red, gold, blue and white in equal proportions. A gold Fitzroy Lion was to appear on the breast of the club jumper.
Home Ground: MCG
Board: 12 directors. 6 Fitzroy, 6 North. Chairman to be from North. Vice chairman from Fitzroy. This was to be for the first four years with board members to be elected after by the combined body of Fitzroy and North shareholders.
The logo for merchandising was to be a lion and a kangaroo holding a football together in a shield.

These and other terms were to exist for at least 20 years and could not be changed in the interim except by vote of 90% of the combined Fitzroy and North Melbourne shareholders.

Absolutely, which is why most of the other Melbourne sides were worried. North did win the Flag in 1996, combined with the AFL-incentive money for merging and Fitzroys best players, there were genuine concerns.

Yet in the end North only asked for 44 players, the same as the Brisbane Bears. The Bears finished third that year. The AFL engineered the failure of the North Fitzroy Kangaroos in favour of the Brisbane Lions for, in the words of John Kennedy, "strategic reasons".

 

[The_Wookie]

Yes, but you could at least get the facts right. Fitzroy were not $4.5 million in debt. Fitzroy were $2.7 million in debt. If you want to know why Nauru appointed an administrator to immediately recover their $1.25 million loan (which didn't have to be fully repaid until 2001), then I suggest you look to North Melbourne and the AFL. (Try June 26th-28th 1996)

I wrote that article, which is mirrored on Bigfooty and my own website (which lists the source material). The source for that "reportedly" is this article -
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/07/12/1057979655688.html

Fitzroy was massively in debt (about $4.5 million, including $1.2 million owing to the Nauru Insurance Corporation), reportedly wasn’t paying its group tax, and had required a $400,000 cheque from the AFL to cover its player payments in that final year.

 

[Riccardo11]

That's not correct either.

Name: North Fitzroy Kangaroos
Jumper: New club jumper which substantially incorporates the present colours of Fitzroy and North in a style appropriate to the 1990s. In other words the new jumper was to be red, gold, blue and white in equal proportions. A gold Fitzroy Lion was to appear on the breast of the club jumper.
Home Ground: MCG
Board: 12 directors. 6 Fitzroy, 6 North. Chairman to be from North. Vice chairman from Fitzroy. This was to be for the first four years with board members to be elected after by the combined body of Fitzroy and North shareholders.
The logo for merchandising was to be a lion and a kangaroos holding a football together in a shield.

These and other terms were to exist for at least 20 years and could not be changed in the interim except by vote of 90% of the combined Fitzroy and North Melbourne shareholders.



Yet in the end North only asked for 44 players, the same as the Brisbane Bears. The Bears finished third that year. The AFL engineered the failure of the North Fitzroy Kangaroos in favour of the Brisbane Lions for, in the words of John Kennedy, "strategic reasons".

That sounds much fairer than I initially remembered it, I'm now realizing that the logo on the socks deal was another proposed merger with Fitzroy and a strong Melbourne club (Collingwood, maybe).

No doubt a Melbourne based merger would have been better for Lions fans, and it does seem fairly reasonable to both parties, but the other club presidents still almost unanimously voted it down. Whether that was the AFLs involvement (as Greg Miller intimated) or not, I can't say.

 

[Roylion]

I wrote that article, which is mirrored on Bigfooty and my own website (which lists the source material). The source for that "reportedly" is this article -
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/07/12/1057979655688.html

The article is incorrect. That figure was a quote from Michael Brennan, who on the day he was appointed as administrator was projecting what Fitzroy's debt would be at the end of 1996. This of course was ignoring any future income including the annual AFL distribution, home ground income, corporate and signage income from the Western Oval and so on.

In July 1996, Fitzroy's debt was $2.7 million of which $1.25 million was owed to Nauru (and under the terms of the loan deal) had to be re-paid in full, including interest, by October 2001.

 

[Roylion]

No doubt a Melbourne based merger would have been better for Lions fans, and it does seem fairly reasonable to both parties, but the other club presidents still almost unanimously voted it down. Whether that was the AFLs involvement (as Greg Miller intimated) or not, I can't say.

It was the AFL encouraging North to ask for 54 players on their 1997 list, as per their own merger guidelines. They knew it would get voted down. Why do you think Brisbane only asked for 44?

Answer: To make it more palatable for the club presidents who would be asked to vote on the two proposals. Of course they're going to endorse the Brisbane proposal.

Given that the AFL was prepared to stump up $12 million to effect two mergers (Melbourne - Hawthorn being the other one), why didn't they just pay out Nauru's $1.25 million or grant Fitzroy's $1 million to keep them going in the AFL competition. Would have been cheaper.

 

[Riccardo11]

It was the AFL encouraging North to ask for 54 players on their 1997 list, as per their own merger guidelines. They knew it would get voted down. Why do you think Brisbane only asked for 44?

Answer: To make it more palatable for the club presidents who would be asked to vote on the two proposals. Of course they're going to endorse the Brisbane proposal.

Given that the AFL was prepared to stump up $12 million to effect two mergers (Melbourne - Hawthorn being the other one), why didn't they just pay out Nauru's $1.25 million or grant Fitzroy's $1 million to keep them going in the AFL competition. Would have been cheaper.

My opinion can be summed up in two words: Port Adelaide.

The Power were ready to go, but 17 teams was too many and nobody wanted a bye, so at least 1 had to go in some form.

 

[Roylion]

My opinion can be summed up in two words: Port Adelaide.

The Power were ready to go, but 17 teams was too many and nobody wanted a bye, so at least 1 had to go in some form.

Could have kept it to 16 teams either way. Fitzroy and North wanted to merge. North was Fitzroy's merger preference. Final deal was signed by both clubs at 2 pm, Thursday 4th July 1996.

 

[Royal Flush]

One game, once a season. And certainly not in a market next in line for relocation. That would be suicidal.

Not a quarter of our home games every year, only turning a profit due to this.

As I said to the other North poster. Don't be upset with us for seizing an opportunity you had every chance of owning. Your "president" couldn't help himself, someone came knocking with a better offer and, true to form, Ballarat was dropped like a hot potato. Then you expected them to sit tight until YOU were good and ready (I.e. bled every last dollar out of Hobart). It's like the girl youre only interested in once she's had enough of your s**t and starts swinging arms with a new fella.

Any wonder they told you to GAGF.

Oh so it's the quantity of games now is it ? If only people accepted their stupid contradictions we probably wouldn't have Isis converts right?

Um so your next statement, only turning a profit because of Tassie, like that's a criticism or compliment or statement made out of envy?
Tell it too the Hawks board, who's profitability and financial dominance can be attributed to their Tassie experience.
I bet Peter Gordon is all over this idea, trying to get some action too.

As for profitability without pokies revenue, that is somehow worse then making a loss with pokies revenue?
Please spare me


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[cammo78]

Oh so it's the quantity of games now is it ? If only people accepted their stupid contradictions we probably wouldn't have Isis converts right?

Um so your next statement, only turning a profit because of Tassie, like that's a criticism or compliment or statement made out of envy?
Tell it too the Hawks board, who's profitability and financial dominance can be attributed to their Tassie experience.
I bet Peter Gordon is all over this idea, trying to get some action too.

As for profitability without pokies revenue, that is somehow worse then making a loss with pokies revenue?
Please spare me


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Really?

Hawthorn are rich because of Tassie?

What utter garbage.

Hawthorn are rich because they are the most successful club of the modern era, with a membership base now rivalling that of Collingwood's. Not Hobart residents artificially inflating their numbers to access AFL games in their city, either.

Peter Gordon wouldn't go anywhere near Hobart mate. He is not stupid enough to put us in the firing line of relocation. There is also a vast difference between the sale of a solitary game a year into a market with zero chance of ever having an AFL team, and actively seeking to increase the number of games (while refusing to make it against the club constitution to do so) sold into the market that is clearly next in line for expansion, all in the name of "commercial reality".

Save your moral stance for someone else. Everyone knows exactly why North don't have pokies, and it has zero to do with being good upstanding, citizens.