Footscray-Fitzroy Merger

[The_Wookie]

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.

Well actually, Hawthorns first Tassie deal and their subsequent stadium arrangements their, combined with their Waverly Park deal, and some very smart work during the Kennett years all contributed.

Speaking of utter garbage.

Peter Gordon wouldnt go near Hobart..but Canberra, Darwin and now Cairns are fair game right? Theres no difference between selling two games to Hobart, and selling two games to the far reaches of the country.

Save your vitriol for someone else.

 

[cammo78]

Well actually, Hawthorns first Tassie deal and their subsequent stadium arrangements their, combined with their Waverly Park deal, and some very smart work during the Kennett years all contributed.

Speaking of utter garbage.

Peter Gordon wouldnt go near Hobart..but Canberra, Darwin and now Cairns are fair game right? Theres no difference between selling two games to Hobart, and selling two games to the far reaches of the country.

Save your vitriol for someone else.

First things first.

We sell a single game to a market with no hope of ever having their own (relocated or otherwise) side. Nice little earner - yes - certainly not the difference between financial loss or gain, however.

North are selling three (not two) games to a market that is clearly in the AFL's sights for a permanent club, with ongoing discussion about selling more (due to "commercial realities") just a few short years after dodging the very same issue on the Gold Coast and assuring all and sundry there would be no more travelling.

Vast difference, champ.

 

[Jade]

First things first.

We sell a single game to a market with no hope of ever having their own (relocated or otherwise) side. Nice little earner - yes - certainly not the difference between financial loss or gain, however.

North are selling three (not two) games to a market that is clearly in the AFL's sights for a permanent club, with ongoing discussion about selling more (due to "commercial realities") just a few short years after dodging the very same issue on the Gold Coast and assuring all and sundry there would be no more travelling.

Vast difference, champ.

Totally incorrect and an incredible amount of backpedalling.

Cairns (or more correctly Nth Qld) is more likely to receive a stand alone side in the future than Tasmania at the moment.

In fact, despite it being unpopular, Demetriou was reported to have told then Premier Paul Lennon 'not now, not ever' in response to a push for a Tasmanian AFL side.

Thats not to say it won't ever happen, Demetriou is gone and conditions change, but in the context of your statement here, it makes your point totally invalid. The Dogs DO sell games into potential homes for a new (or relocated club).

 

[Riccardo11]

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.

Well yes, but you indicated the AFL could have just paid your debts and let you continue as an independent identity, and that's probably why they didn't. The AFL wanted a 16 team competition at most, and they went to great lengths to make sure it happened.

 

[Dazb86]

How did this become about North?

 

[Royal Flush]

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.

So "rich" in your words is relative to membership numbers? There are a lot of other factors other than just membership that contribute to a clubs wealth. If that were the case the Bulldogs would cease to exist. A paltry 5000 members behind the next lowest Victorian club.
The value of playing 4 games for the Hawks is 15 million , net.

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.

No moral stance here, just saying we do better then the other 3 small Melbourne clubs without pokies.

The other myth is the Western suburbs myth, that somehow the Bulldogs own the population here, because they have Western in their name.

Thats a very flawed growth strategy, which is any wonder your membership is so low.
For example Point Cook/Werribbe is number one source of members for Western bulldogs 21,666 members, North 30,522 members and Essendon 47,560 members. So how is exploring other markets a bad thing??
Selling one game is a completely different strategy to developing a market with 3 games. No membership generated, no community development, just a fly in fly out and take the money and run.

ok in before you throw in Tassie members argument, which is only about 3000.
....
Yes Peter Gordon does nto have a an original idea, lets sell game interstate, lets get in on good friday, since North and Carlton have been lobbying for 5 plus years, lets lay a stake in in Ballarat. Yea right Mr Ideas man.
Not to mention your off season dramas.

 

[GeorgeMullins]

Carlton/Essendon would be my choice.

Would make subsequent AFL investigations so much easier.

As one who has viewed, albeit on television, some Carlton-Essendon matches, a merger of those two clubs would only arouse a large chunk of ill feeling - especially among those who believe they are getting the worst of the deal.

I speak for myself, of course, as I am one for the Dons, yet the Old Dark Navy Blues may have ben in a bad state of affair back in the sixties when the club hierarchy asked to speak to Ron Barassi over at Melbourne - and that turned out to be the coup of the era.

 

[Riccardo11]

How did this become about North?

They were heavily involved in merger talks with the Lions for the majority of 1996.

 

[Slax]

They were heavily involved in merger talks with the Lions for the majority of 1996.

The North merger was the preferred option for the members and board at Fitzroy. It actually got a lot closer to happening than many realise as well, because of the financial side that was put before the administrator at the time.

The other clubs in the competition didn't want a North-Fitzroy merger, giving what was already one of the strongest team in the competition access to some great young talent would've only strengthened North to a position where they were likely to be ragging hot favourites to win the rest of the premierships in the 1990s.

The AFL then had to up the ante because a financial plan was laid out that would see creditors paid out in full over a 3 year period. the original AFL plan for the Brisbane-Fitzroy merger say them get 60 cents in the dollar, so if the AFL didn't make the offer of paying out creditors in full inside the timeframe given by the North Melbourne & Fitzroy boards the administrator would've gone with the North-Fitzroy merger and the AFL and other clubs would've been forced to accept it regardless of any protests by the clubs about. Issues about player contracts and where Fitzroy players ended up was never part of the administrators brief and something he didn't care about, only making sure all contracts were honoured up until the merger. The AFL then offered immediate payout to Nauru and payment in full within 6 months for other creditors, which meant the administrator was always going to recommend that merger to creditors which is what happened.

 

[100action]

just saying we do better then the other 3 small Melbourne clubs without pokies.

How do you know that? have you guys even released your annual report?

 

[Jade]

How do you know that? have you guys even released your annual report?

Yes they have, and yes they do.

 

[fargy]

Was enjoying this thread, not so much now. Informative to start and interesting to read now it's just people supporting different teams taking pot shots.

 

[NorthernLights]

How did this become about North?

Because your mate Cammo just can't help but talk s**t about North in every thread he posts in.

 

[The_Flying_Egg]

Yes Peter Gordon does nto have a an original idea, lets sell game interstate, lets get in on good friday, since North and Carlton have been lobbying for 5 plus years, lets lay a stake in in Ballarat. Yea right Mr Ideas man.
Not to mention your off season dramas.

I love this crap from North fans about the Dogs not having their own ideas, or copying North.

Did North have 10,000 watch them play at Arden Street 2 weeks ago???

Do North have their own extremely popular VFL side playing at Arden Street??? Whats that?? They are splitting amongst 2 clubs, including Weribee. Didn't the Dogs do that years ago??

We redeveloped before North, we are building Edgewater, and are running a fantastic mens health initiative. Heck even our off season, people have their own ideas on Boyd, but it was a pretty original, ballsy move.

Its ill informed sour grapes about Ballarat. Don't blame the Dogs for what happened, blame your admin. North have great ideas too, be happy with that

 

[hotham]

So if the WB played games in Canberra ( came in after NM of course) , which is now the designated area belonging to GWS, does that mean; the WB will at some stage be merged with GWS. Maybe the AFL have that as a back up plan, Greater Western Bulldogs. Nice name synergy. Oh hang on the WB's are holding up the presence of AFL in the western suburbs of Melbourne. From what I observe there are so many more cars going around western suburbs, with Geelong, Carlton, Essendon and North Melbourne stickers on than the WB's.

 

[TheHoneyBadger]

That notion is predicated on Footscray playing games in Canberra, which we are not.

From what I observe there are so many more cars going around western suburbs, with Geelong, Carlton, Essendon and North Melbourne stickers on than the WB's.

This thread is tiresome. Let's play a game.

Spot the odd one out.

 

[western dog]

I too was enjoying this thread until it became a Norf/ Dogs circle jerk. Take it to your own boards and let the grown ups talk. Now back to the thread. What about the merger?

 

[fargy]

So if the WB played games in Canberra ( came in after NM of course) , which is now the designated area belonging to GWS, does that mean; the WB will at some stage be merged with GWS. Maybe the AFL have that as a back up plan, Greater Western Bulldogs. Nice name symmetry. Oh hang on the WB's are holding up the presence of AFL in the western suburbs of Melbourne. From what I observe there are so many more cars going around western suburbs, with Geelong, Carlton, Essendon and North Melbourne stickers on than the WB's.

What does any of this crap have to do with the Fitzroy/Footscray merger? Start another thread if you want to discuss which clubs play where.

 

[hotham]

That notion is predicated on Footscray playing games in Canberra, which we are not.

This thread is tiresome. Let's play a game.

Spot the odd one out.

Once the NM posters retort, it becomes tiresome.

 

[hotham]

What does any of this crap have to do with the Fitzroy/Footscray merger? Start another thread if you want to discuss which clubs play where.

So what did James Brayshaw or NM and Ballarat have to do with the OP.

 

[fargy]

So what did James Brayshaw or NM and Ballarat have to do with the OP.

He didn't. What's your point? Do you have anything to say about the Fitzroy/Footscray merger?

 

[hotham]

He didn't. What's your point? Do you have anything to say about the Fitzroy/Footscray merger?

In relation to the Fitzroy & Footscray merger, I'm glad it did not happen because my mother and god father spent many hours on their feet collecting money to save the bulldogs.

Some of the posts have been promoting the WB (fair enough) but also criticising NM and JB. So some NM posters have responded.

 

[Royal Flush]

I love this crap from North fans about the Dogs not having their own ideas, or copying North.

Did North have 10,000 watch them play at Arden Street 2 weeks ago???

Do North have their own extremely popular VFL side playing at Arden Street??? Whats that?? They are splitting amongst 2 clubs, including Weribee. Didn't the Dogs do that years ago??

We redeveloped before North, we are building Edgewater, and are running a fantastic mens health initiative. Heck even our off season, people have their own ideas on Boyd, but it was a pretty original, ballsy move.

Its ill informed sour grapes about Ballarat. Don't blame the Dogs for what happened, blame your admin. North have great ideas too, be happy with that

Sorry Bud, but Stand alone VFL sides have been around long before the Footscray..Again another original idea
Redveloped before North..Opps again half a dozen other clubs redeveloped before you. Original idea 2
Edgewater..hmmmm, Im sure you werent the first to build a pokies venue..Original idea 3
Ballarat...original idea 4..
Do you see a pattern here?

 

[Roylion]

The North merger was the preferred option for the members and board at Fitzroy. It actually got a lot closer to happening than many realise as well, because of the financial side that was put before the administrator at the time.

It was very close. It was a done deal between the two clubs at any rate. All agreed and signed off about three hours before the AFL clubs President's meeting that needed to ratify any merger.

Incidentally Footscray made a merger offer to Fitzroy in 1996. However given their terms, I think it was was less than serious.

The AFL then had to up the ante because a financial plan was laid out that would see creditors paid out in full over a 3 year period. the original AFL plan for the Brisbane-Fitzroy merger say them get 60 cents in the dollar, so if the AFL didn't make the offer of paying out creditors in full inside the timeframe given by the North Melbourne & Fitzroy boards the administrator would've gone with the North-Fitzroy merger and the AFL and other clubs would've been forced to accept it regardless of any protests by the clubs about.

Dyson Hore-Lacy has told me a couple of times that in the end the North-Fitzroy merger offer was a better deal for creditors than the Bears deal.

 

[Our Game]

Bit of a step back into history...

Whilst I was only a young tacker, I do actually recall the tin rattlers out and about for the Dogs back during 1989 and, as a young fella that had grown up in the western suburbs, had a soft spot for the Dogs.

The league was far less stable than it is today. Within a relatively short period of time we had serious merger/fold discussions surrounding no less than five clubs - death was a VERY real possibility for the clubs involved.

I know that all the clubs involved in those discussions have a sense of pride in getting themselves out of the mire, but for mine the Save The Dogs campaign was the most impressive grass roots intervention I've seen. Quite literally within a matter of weeks The Dogs went from certainties to merge to ready for the 1990 season with a fully funded license, sponsorship and direction for the future.

Nowadays I am highly critical of Peter Gordon for a multitude of reasons, and believe he should leave the Dogs, but there is no doubt that without his action some 25 years ago the Dogs as we know them today would not be here.

What are your recollections of this failed merger? In hindsight would you have liked to see it occur? How do you feel about the possibility of mergers going forward after the Brisbane-Fitzroy merge? And of course if you have any thoughts on the other suggested mergers of the time please feel free to share them.

A very interesting time in the games history.

You should read Ross Oakleys book “The Phoenix Rises” as it tells the Footscray/Fitzroy merger story in detail especially how bad the League finances were and at that time how CH 7 screwed football by paying way under for the TV rights for a very long time.