Expansion If the AFL expanded, where would the next team/s be?

[The_Wookie]

You are getting closer to a more accurate history here but not acknowledged the fullness of 1987 in history.
We both know football clubs have existed up in Brisbane for thirty years.
From 1987 the Brisbane Bears were set up from scratch. Which is my very simple point you are losing plot over.
In 1997 a new entity engineered from the licences of the previous two football clubs of Brisbane Bears and Fitzroy got put in place by the league to be known as the Brisbane Lions. The history of both those clubs is acknowledged by the Brisbane Lions since as a football club and has adopted into the new entity.

Trying to make it seem the equivalent as Footscray Football Club simply running their football name as Western Bulldogs is simply football story telling alchemy to rewrite history.

it was not a new entity - Ive already stated that ASIC records track the company back to at least 5 years before the merger discussions even started. Thats the whole problem. You are stating something that never happened. Show me any official documentation. Any. Simply "being around" is not a reference point.

 

[footyfan1978]

it was not a new entity - You are stating something that never happened.

You are aware the 18 football clubs in the league have their own website I assume.
They all have their entity as they sit it. To deny that is really clutching at straws and trying to tell any entity, they are not whom they identify as themselves.
Click on their football club.... The clubs very own words... This is not made up by any third party.
It is the football club themselves.

http://www.lions.com.au/Club/history/brisbane-lions-history/first-game

"The Brisbane Lions made their first official AFL appearance as a merged entity on Sunday 30 March 1997 against eventual Premiers Adelaide at Football Park.

The team was largely familiar to the Bears side that bowed out in the previous year's Preliminary Final, with Fitzroy young guns Chris Johnson and Jarrod Molloy the notable inclusions.

The entire competition watched with interest to see how a team merged from two Clubs would fare under a new banner. "

However, the only important point is what I pointed out was incorrect from start to try to re-write history and make it seem like the Brisbane Lions entity was around in 1987 starting up from scratch. If someone wants to write history of actual events in timeline then clearly is must be acknowledged the Brisbane Bears is the club started up from scratch just as the West Coast Eagles was in 1987 and recent clubs such as Gold Coast Suns and Greater Western Sydney Giants.

That is the truth mate. To say it is not is really trying to re-write history with a different version of events that is misleading.

 

[The_Wookie]

You are aware the 18 football clubs in the league have their own website I assume.
They all have their entity as they sit it. To deny that is really clutching at straws and trying to tell any entity, they are not whom they identify as themselves.
Click on their football club.... The clubs very own words... This is not made up by any third party.
It is the football club themselves.

http://www.lions.com.au/Club/history/brisbane-lions-history/first-game

"The Brisbane Lions made their first official AFL appearance as a merged entity on Sunday 30 March 1997 against eventual Premiers Adelaide at Football Park.

The team was largely familiar to the Bears side that bowed out in the previous year's Preliminary Final, with Fitzroy young guns Chris Johnson and Jarrod Molloy the notable inclusions.

The entire competition watched with interest to see how a team merged from two Clubs would fare under a new banner. "

However, the only important point is what I pointed out was incorrect from start to try to re-write history and make it seem like the Brisbane Lions entity was around in 1987 starting up from scratch. If someone wants to write history of actual events in timeline then clearly is must be acknowledged the Brisbane Bears is the club started up from scratch just as the West Coast Eagles was in 1987 and recent clubs such as Gold Coast Suns and Greater Western Sydney Giants.

That is the truth mate. To say it is not is really trying to re-write history with a different version of events that is misleading.

That is not the truth at all. and Im not your mate. The oinly thing you've got right so far is that the club did play their last game as the Bears in 1996. They then came out as the Lions in 1997 after the deal was signed.

The only thing incorrect here is your claim that Brisbane as we know it didnt start in 1987. You can release all the public media you like. Ill take ASIC records any day of the week - they arent just any "third party". Ill take the deed of arrangement and statements in the Victorian Supreme Court over your "truth" any day of the week.

Ill say it again, the company now known as the Brisbane Bears - Fitzroy Football Club limited, was first registered as the Brisbane Bears Football Club Limited with ASIC in 1991.

 

[footyfan1978]

That is not the truth at all.

You can deny it all you like.
Nothing is going to change history of Brisbane Bears starting out from scratch in 1987.
I got no need further to make it any clearer.
If you want to have a different version of history you are more than welcome to see it a different way but clearly I am not buying the re-writing history stuff.
End of story for me on that.
Time for the thread to expand out a little beyond this disagreement and just accept we are not going to see it the same.

That is history.
The thread can continue with the focus of where the next teams would be.
For me that is Tasmania clearly but probably not going to happen any time soon.

 

[The_Wookie]

You can deny it all you like.
Nothing is going to change history of Brisbane Bears starting out from scratch in 1987.
I got no need further to make it any clearer.
If you want to have a different version of history you are more than welcome to see it a different way but clearly I am not buying the re-writing history stuff.
End of story for me on that.
Time for the thread to expand out a little beyond this disagreement and just accept we are not going to see it the same.

That is history.
The thread can continue with the focus of where the next teams would be.
For me that is Tasmania clearly but probably not going to happen any time soon.

You are the only one rewriting history here.

 

[Benny78]

Dubbo and Port Augusta

 

[Roylion]

You are getting closer to a more accurate history here but not acknowledged the fullness of 1987 in history.
We both know football clubs have existed up in Brisbane for thirty years.
From 1987 the Brisbane Bears were set up from scratch. Which is my very simple point you are losing plot over.

The Brisbane Bears were set up from scratch in 1987. Now they are called the Brisbane Lions. The Brisbane Lions are thirty years old next season.

In 1997 a new entity engineered from the licences of the previous two football clubs of Brisbane Bears and Fitzroy got put in place by the league to be known as the Brisbane Lions.

That is NOT correct. No new licence was issued to the Brisbane Lions. The Brisbane Lions have the same licence to compete in the AFL as the Brisbane Bears. Fitzroy's licence was removed and a new licence was issued to Port Adelaide.

Trying to make it seem the equivalent as Footscray Football Club simply running their football name as Western Bulldogs is simply football story telling alchemy to rewrite history.

Well you'd better talk to ASIC, the Supreme Court of Victoria and the AFL, because they all disagree with you. The AFL's very own Deed of Arrangement (struck with the Brisbane Bears and the administrator of Fitzroy in 1996) says the Brisbane Bears and the Brisbane Lions are the SAME football club.

 

[Roylion]

The clubs very own words... This is not made up by any third party.
It is the football club themselves.

http://www.lions.com.au/Club/history/brisbane-lions-history/first-game

"The Brisbane Lions made their first official AFL appearance as a merged entity on Sunday 30 March 1997 against eventual Premiers Adelaide at Football Park.

The team was largely familiar to the Bears side that bowed out in the previous year's Preliminary Final, with Fitzroy young guns Chris Johnson and Jarrod Molloy the notable inclusions.

The entire competition watched with interest to see how a team merged from two Clubs would fare under a new banner. "

Once again.

The AFL's and Brisbane Bears' own words in 1996 as set out in a legal document known as the "Deed of Arrangement".

Please read carefully. Then read it again.

DEFINITIONS (page 5)
"Merged Club" means Brisbane Bears which will conduct the combined Club Operations of Fitzroy and Brisbane Bears following the Merger;"

and

2. ARRANGEMENTS (page 6)

Except as provided in this Deed, nothing in this Deed will be construed or interpreted to mean that Brisbane Bears will assume any liability for the debts or obligations of Fitzroy or that the Brisbane Bears will have any input in the ongoing management of Fitzroy after the Merger Date.

6. BRISBANE BEARS' CHANGE OF NAME (page 10)
Brisbane Bears shall arrange for a general meeting [of the Brisbane Bears] to be held at which a special resolution will be proposed to change the company name of "Brisbane Bears" to "Brisbane Bears-Fitzroy Football Club Limited" and Brisbane Bears shall use its best endeavours to obtain such approval.

(page 10)
after the end of the 1996 Season and on or before the Merger Date, Fitzroy will cease its Fitzroy Operations, terminate the membership of its Appointee of AFL (appointed pursuant to AFL's constituent documents) and surrender its AFL Licence and release AFL from all claims connected with its AFL Licence and such termination and surrender.

(page 10-11)
a) The 'Merged Club' [see definition of 'merged club" above, which is Brisbane Bears"] will trade as Brisbane Lions Australian Football Club and subject to the passing of the special resolution referred to in clause 6, the Merged Club [see Definition of 'Merged Club' above....in other words the "Brisbane Bears"] will be re-named "Brisbane Bears-Fitzroy Football Club Limited"

[This vote to change the name was taken by Brisbane Bears members only]. In other words the Brisbane Bears members are just re-branding their existing club which continues on. (now trading as the Brisbane Lions)

 

[Fizzler]

Ugh. Can you take it to the Fitzroy Board?. This thread is called:
If the AFL expanded, where would the next team/s be?
and it's not called
The Fitzroy were stolen by Brisbane Thread.
It's not that hard to distinguish.

 

[Roylion]

Ugh. Can you take it to the Fitzroy Board?. This thread is called:
If the AFL expanded, where would the next team/s be?
and it's not called
The Fitzroy were stolen by Brisbane Thread.
It's not that hard to distinguish.

One thing that the so-called Brisbane-Fitzroy "merger" helped demonstrate is that a team established in a new area would not be the product of a merger or even a total relocation of a Melbourne club. Tasmania will not a get a team that way, nor will Darwin or Cairns or Canberra. Any team in those places would have to be started from scratch as the Brisbane Bears/Lions, West Coast, Freo, GWS, Adelaide and Gold Coast were.

 

[Gibbke]

Think you are missing the actual point mate. Whatever Roylions well meaning crusade to keep the identity of Fitzroy alive is not even an issue from my point. Have not bothered reading when I can see not addressing the clear point of what the Brisbane Lions club themselves say. Even put the clear link that club has of the last game of Brisbane Bears. Which was ignored despite make it pure and simple the Brisbane football club that was known as Brisbane Bears was started up from scratch. There is nothing else to it.

Fitzroy story is not the Bears story despite the league manipulating what become of both at end of 1996.
The point is about 1987. In 1987 there were the Brisbane Bears and Fitzroy. The are different clubs.
Brisbane Lions entity was something engineered by AFL a decade later.

Well, you need to read it, because otherwise you'll be the one who continually keeps missing the point. It's you, not us!

You're getting your info from the brochure desk...

 

[telsor]

One thing that the so-called Brisbane-Fitzroy "merger" helped demonstrate is that a team established in a new area would not be the product of a merger or even a total relocation of a Melbourne club. Tasmania will not a get a team that way, nor will Darwin or Cairns or Canberra. Any team in those places would have to be started from scratch as the Brisbane Bears/Lions, West Coast, Freo, GWS, Adelaide and Gold Coast were.

Yup.

As I've said any number of times, losing Fitzroy cost the league/games a lot of fans. (roughly a third of what they had were lost). The AFL has paid hundreds of millions on GWS/GC and would be lucky to have gained the number of fans (across 2 teams) that they lost from cutting one, and will doubtless need to pay hundreds of millions more before they become even close to stable.

So unless the 'replacement' would bring in at least that many, and quickly, then the AFL just wont do that again. After all, they can retain the current fans for less than the interest on the investment required to replace them.

 

[Fizzler]

Yup.

As I've said any number of times, losing Fitzroy cost the league/games a lot of fans. (roughly a third of what they had were lost). The AFL has paid hundreds of millions on GWS/GC and would be lucky to have gained the number of fans (across 2 teams) that they lost from cutting one, and will doubtless need to pay hundreds of millions more before they become even close to stable.

So unless the 'replacement' would bring in at least that many, and quickly, then the AFL just wont do that again. After all, they can retain the current fans for less than the interest on the investment required to replace them.

Tassie would. Imagine uniting approx. 515,950 through their state's own AFL team that they have been denied for so long.

 

[telsor]

Tassie would. Imagine uniting approx. 515,950 through their state's own AFL team that they have been denied for so long.

Trouble is, they're already fans.

How many NEW fans would a Tassie team bring in?

 

[footyfan1978]

Dubbo and Port Augusta

Interesting suggestions.
Only in a two division system of 12 teams each division for total 24 clubs would such a proposal get a look in.
Do not think we will see Dubbo Bulls and Port Augusta Sharks any time soon.

However Wagga Wagga Warriors as a regional centre team could model itself on Geelong and possibly get some backing. Still a serious long shot though.

Tassie would. Imagine uniting approx. 515,950 through their state's own AFL team that they have been denied for so long.

Think Tasmanian Devils and Wagga Wagga Warriors would round out a nice 20 teams league going into the 2030s.
Then the league need to decide if two equal divisions of 10 teams is the model to go with going forward or simply 20 on the one ladder.

 

[SgtSchulz]

Sutherland, Sydney?

 

[madmug]

Trouble is, they're already fans.

How many NEW fans would a Tassie team bring in?

Fans that would become members.
Saying they cant have a team because they already like the AFL is about as sick as it gets.

 

[madmug]

Trouble is, they're already fans.

How many NEW fans would a Tassie team bring in?

Fans are worth nothing. Memberships, sponsorships are important. Clearly the most important thing is being from Victoria.

 

[telsor]

Fans that would become members.
Saying they cant have a team because they already like the AFL is about as sick as it gets.

Note how I started with 'trouble is'.

I'm not saying it SHOULD be that way, I'm that's the way it is.

The AFL isn't going to lose ~15,000 paying members, and roughly 100K other supporters (TV watchers, occasional merch) for a net gain of maybe 10K members and 0 other supporters.

Remember net gain would be Tas team members less removed teams members lost to the game AND lost members from existing teams in Tas that would switch.

 

[telsor]

Fans are worth nothing. Memberships, sponsorships are important. Clearly the most important thing is being from Victoria.

fans drive TV ratings & thus sponsorships.

There is also tiny details that fans lost to the game turn to other sports, as do their kids, and in a competitive market like Melbourne, that's a significant concern.

As I believe you have mentioned yourself, if a soccer or rugby team started down there, and Tasmanian's hearts started to shift over, the AFL would start a team there ASAP.

 

[madmug]

fans drive TV ratings & thus sponsorships.

There is also tiny details that fans lost to the game turn to other sports, as do their kids, and in a competitive market like Melbourne, that's a significant concern.

As I believe you have mentioned yourself, if a soccer or rugby team started down there, and Tasmanian's hearts started to shift over, the AFL would start a team there ASAP.

Incorrect as usual. I have never espoused to that Idea as mentioned by some.
If thats the only reason the AFL would put a team here, the phurk the AFL. The game wouldn't be worth supporting.
You either support peoples passion, commitment & heart, or you dont.

 

[telsor]

Incorrect as usual. I have never espoused to that Idea as mentioned by some.
If thats the only reason the AFL would put a team here, the phurk the AFL. The game wouldn't be worth supporting.
You either support peoples passion, commitment & heart, or you dont.

Apologies on the error.

No, the competition supports what makes them stronger, and while you're happy to say how it would benefit Tas, you never seem to be able to explain how the AFL would have a net gain from replacing a Vic club with a Tas club.

 

[madmug]

Apologies on the error.

No, the competition supports what makes them stronger, and while you're happy to say how it would benefit Tas, you never seem to be able to explain how the AFL would have a net gain from replacing a Vic club with a Tas club.

So if the game would benefit Tasmania, that doesnt also benefit the game?
Oh dear!
Ive never said replace a Vic team with Tasmania. That all has become confused
The fact that the AFL is over supplied in one place is a different argument.
Ive said IF 18 is the magic number, then Tasmania should have a club.
Ive said IF they rationalise the number teams in Melbourne, then one or 2 could go back to the VFL.
These are all different arguments. I think most people can see the difference. Its easy to conflate them, its not necessary to do so. It has happened here at times in the heat of discussion, but it really shouldn't.

 

[BringBackTheAnchor]

Tassie has to be the next location for a team there already in the Nab league

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Could Ballarat ever get its own team? Although many will argue Victoria has enough teams, Ballarat is becoming a major population centre in its own right, has a big catchment area and is growing at a similar pace to Melbourne and Sydney (3.8% per year population growth for the past 8 years). If Tasmania ends up transitioning from AFL cash cow to getting a full team, I wonder if Ballarat could do the same.