- Moderator
- #151
I believe University merged with Melbourne.
Not according to University
http://www.uniblacks.org.au/Club-Info/History.aspx
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Round 13
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
EUFA EURO 2024 - Group Stage ⚽ EPL 24/25 starts Aug 17
I believe University merged with Melbourne.
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.
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.
Shame they couldn't bring Fitzroy Lions back to VFL.
The article I quoted specifically says $4.5 million.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.
Yeah poor old Hawthorn.
Ten years ago Hawthorn wouldn't have either.Hawthorn walks away tomorrow turning massive profits regardless.
North don't.
Ten years ago Hawthorn wouldn't have either.
That's what I said didn't I?Nor would North.
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.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"
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.
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,
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.On what basis? Do you know what the terms of the "North Fitzroy Kangaroos" merger deal was?
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.Yes. Who was it, (with encouragement from the AFL) that asked for 54 players to be on the combined list? Not Fitzroy.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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).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".
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
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.
My opinion can be summed up in two words: Port Adelaide.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.
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?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 shit 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