Quarter of a century without Fitzroy: Is the AFL better or worse off?

[yodellinhank]

With a 44 player list, a matching financial offer for the administrator and a recommendation from the AFL commission, there's a reasonable expectation that it would have been expected. The presidents had agreed the Commission could make the decision between North and Brisbane.



But both were matched either before or during the AFL commission meeting.




On the basis of a 54 player list. Ironically Melbourne and Hawthorn would have received 54 players if they had merged, according to Ian Ridley.

54 was the League recommendation for merged sides, but the push back from the other sides against such a proposal was evident, prompting Miller to publicly announce it was 54 or nothing.

North eventually matched but it was after they had had the best shot of getting it done, the initial vote. Had they not shat the bed trying to get one over everybody, that vote goes through and who knows what happens to the Fitzroy Lions identity...

 

[Roylion]

54 was the League recommendation for merged sides, but the push back from the other sides against such a proposal was evident, prompting Miller to publicly announce it was 54 or nothing.

Yes. I'm aware of that.

North eventually matched but it was after they had had the best shot of getting it done, the initial vote.

Yes. But they did match. And they matched before the final decision was made. It made no difference to the AFL commission who ignored completely that the Fitzroy board and the North board wanted to merge and had a deal done.

Had they not shat the bed trying to get one over everybody,

Yes. Miller must take some of the blame. This is what I posted in 2018.

that vote goes through and who knows what happens to the Fitzroy Lions identity...

The North Fitzroy Kangaroos. May or may not have been subhumed into North Melbourne. However the Fitzroy board and the North board had agreed on the terms by which the merger was going to operate.

 

[yodellinhank]

Yes. I'm aware of that.


Yes. But they did match. And they matched before the final decision was made. It made no difference to the AFL commission who ignored completely that the Fitzory board and the North board wanted to merge and had a deal done.



Yes. Miller must take some of the blame. This is what I posted in 2018.




The North Fitzroy Kangaroos. May or may not have been subhumed into North Melbourne. However the Fitzroy board and the North board had agreed on the terms by which the merger was going to operate.

It was over when they went to the other clubs with a proposal they already knew wasn't popular. You don't always get a do-over. They matched before the final decision was made. They pulled out before the final decision was made.

 

[Roylion]

They pulled out before the final decision was made.

No they did not. During the hours long AFL Commission meeting, North kept making concessions and watering down their requirements.

After the decision was made, the North Melbourne contingent was called into the AFL boardroom to hear the verdict from the AFL Commissioners. They certainly by this stage had not pulled out of the race.

Ron Casey asked why they had gone with Brisbane after the AFL commission decision had been made. John Kennedy said "For strategic reasons, Ron."

Dyson Hore-Lacy makes that quite clear on page 220 of his book.

 

[yodellinhank]

No they did not. During the hours long AFL Commission meeting, North kept making concessions and watering down their requirements.

After the decision was made, the North Melbourne contingent was called into the AFL boardroom to hear the verdict from the AFL Commissioners. They certainly by this stage had not pulled out of the race.

Ron Casey asked why they had gone with Brisbane after the AFL commission decision had been made. John Kennedy said "For strategic reasons, Ron."

Dyson Hore-Lacy makes that quite clear on page 220 of his book.

And in the quotes i posted above he makes it clear North pulled out after that meeting. Before the vote.

Had North Melbourne stayed and put its case to the AFL Commission, it is conceivable although unlikely, that the club presidents would have backed North Melbourne

The strategic reasons in the end probably proved sound for the growth of the game up north. Could just as well have been the shit-show put on by North had erroded any faith the league had that the arrangement would work.

 

[Bjo187]

Roylion , what were the agreed merger terms between North and Fitzroy. Other than the name, what were the other particulars? Was there a jumper designed etc?

 

[Roylion]

And in the quotes i posted above he makes it clear North pulled out after that meeting. Before the vote.

The AFL commission had made their decision. The AFL presidents had previously decided that the AFL commission could make the decision. They did. They informed North Melbourne. Afterwards the presidents ratified that decision as per the AFL constitution.

However both the presidents and the Commission knew that North had reduced their player demand and matched the monetary offer.

Could just as well have been the s**t-show put on by North had erroded any faith the league had that the arrangement would work.

Behind the scenes the AFL was pushing North to:
1. not to pay any more than $550,000 to Nauru out of the merger monies (leading to the administrator being appointed to Fitzroy)
2. encouraging North that they would get 54 players (as per the AFL's own merger terms that they had set). Melbourne and Hawthorn were going to merge on a 54 player list as well.
3. encouraging North that they could likely keep most of their identity in any Fitzroy merger.

North Melbourne was compensated by the AFL for the merger failure.

 

[Roylion]

Roylion , what were the agreed merger terms between North and Fitzroy. Other than the name, what were the other particulars? Was there a jumper designed etc?

Some of the relevant clauses of the 1996 agreement (which was signed by the designated representatives of both clubs on the morning of 4th July 1996).

2. The FFC (Fitzroy Football Club) and NMC (North Melbourne Club) will merge by whatever legally appropriate method into a new corporation (or other appropriate method)
3. The name of the new club shall be Fitzroy-North Melbourne Kangaroos. The logo of the new club was to be a kangaroo and a lion holding a football together in a shield. (changed to "North Fitzroy Kangaroos")
4. The new club will have a new jumper which substantially incorporates the present colours of FFC and NMC (in approximately equal proportions) in a style which is appropriate to the 1990's which will create an effective merchandising presence. The jumper will have a small gold Fitzroy lion on the left breast.
5. The new club will have a board of 12 directors with six persons nominated by each of the present boards of the parties. The Board of 12 shall include the Chairman.
6 The first chairman (who has been chosen by lot) shall be a former NMC director and the chairman shall have a casting vote. The vice chairman will be a Fitzroy director.
7. In the event of the inaugural chairman retires within 2 years of his appointment, the new chairman shall be appointed by those members of the board nominated by the NMC.
12. The provisions of clauses 5, 6 and 7 will operate for four years from the date hereof. Thereafter appointments to the Board will be made by the shareholders of the new club.
14. The constitution of the new club shall enshrine the provisions of Clauses 3 and 4 so that they can only be amended by approval of 90% of the shareholders.

The agreement above was to last for twenty years (in other words until the end of the 2016 season)

 

[yodellinhank]

None of the Fitzroy directors were to be appointed to the 8 Fitzroy spots in the board of the merged entity (8 spots North and 8 Fitzroy)

 

[Roylion]

None of the Fitzroy directors were to be appointed to the 8 Fitzroy spots in the board of the merged entity (8 spots North and 8 Fitzroy)

Well that's what Miller tried to get, after they tried for four Fitzroy directors. Both proposals were rejected by Fitzroy and in the end accepted by North. That had nothing to do with the administrator being appointed.

 

[yodellinhank]

The AFL commission had made their decision. The AFL presidents had previously decided that the AFL commission could make the decision. They did. They informed North Melbourne. Afterwards the presidents ratified that decision as per the AFL constitution.

However both the presidents and the Commission knew that North had reduced their player demand and match the monetary offer.


Behind the scenes the AFL was pushing North to:
1. not to pay any more than $550,000 to Nauru out of the merger monies (leading to the administrator being appointed to Fitzroy)
2. encouraging North that they would get 54 players (as per the AFL's own merger terms that they had set). Melbourne and Hawthorn were going to merge on a 54 player list as well.
3. encouraging North that they could likely keep most of their identity in any Fitzroy merger.

North Melbourne was compensated by the AFL for the merger failure.

Source?

Ross Oakley stated the Commission had made its decision and it would be a Fitzroy-North Melbourne merge. It was voted on. North stuffed it.

 

[Roylion]

Source?

Dyson Hore-Lacy

Ross Oakley stated the Commission had made its decision and it would be a Fitzroy-North Melbourne merge.

Yep. On Monday July 1st. To be finalised by Friday July 5th.

It was voted on.

Yep. Thursday July 4th. See posts above.

North stuffed it.

This is what I posted in 2018.

 

[yodellinhank]

Dyson Hore-Lacy

If he has since formed this view, I don't believe it was published when he wrote his book?

Yep. On Monday July 1st. To be finalised by Friday July 5th.



Yep. Thursday July 4th. See posts above.



This is what I posted in 2018.

They took the proposal to a vote. They had every opportunity to amend the offer before that vote. A club director then said you've had your turn. The AFL wanted it wrapped up by the 5th and moved on. This is understandable. All the back room dealings and duplicity amount to nothing if that vote goes through.

 

[Roylion]

If he has since formed this view, I don't believe it was published when he wrote his book?

That is his view.

They took the proposal to a vote. They had every opportunity to amend the offer before that vote. A club director then said you've had your turn.

We've gone through all this. What are you trying to argue exactly?

Both the presidents and the AFL commission knew that North had matched Brisbane's offer before the final decision was made. That is very clear. The bottom line is the AFL commission ignored the wishes of Fitzroy and North to merge in favour of their "strategic reasons."

The AFL wanted it wrapped up by the 5th and moved on.

A North-Fitzroy merger would have been wrapped up by the 5th. It had been agreed to by the boards of North and Fitzroy about midday in the 4th - a full 24 hours before the deadline set by the AFL on Monday 1st July.

All the back room dealings and duplicity amount to nothing if that vote goes through.

The AFL was telling North that the 54 players was still on the table even if the clubs were against it.

 

[yodellinhank]

That it his view.

I'll take your word

We've gone through all this. What are you trying to argue exactly?

Well the initial argument was that the notion the other clubs didn't want to make North too strong and it came back to bite them because brisbane became strong. I disagreed because not only were North a stronger team at the time, but their proposal also was more favourable to them. For the North bid to get up they had to win that vote on 4 July.

Both the presidents and the AFL commission knew that North had matched Brisbane's offer before the final decision was made. That is very clear. The bottom line is the AFL commission ignored the wishes of Fitzroy and North to merge in favour of their "strategic reasons."



A North-Fitzor ymerger would have been wrapped up by the 5th. It had been agreed to by the boards of North and Fitzroy about midday in the 4th - a full 24 hours before the deadline set by the AFL on Monday 1st July.


The AFL was telling North that the 54 players was still on the table even if the clubs were against it.

Of course the 54 was "on the table". It was stated in the AFL merger policy. But only an idiot goes to that meeting insisting on 54 players when the very people voting in that meeting have been very vocal in the press that 54 will not get up. The North bid was dead in the water then. You've had your turn. People were fed up with it and the league wanted to move on. The time for no more games was earlier, Mr Miller.

 

[terrybull]

Some original supporters will support a relocated club, if the move is sold well. One of the major problems is moving a Melboure club interstate and playing enough games in Melbourne for their supporters. And AFL promises about a minimum number of games in Melbourne per season for a relocated / "merged" club aren't worth the paper they are written on. As we've seen.

On the basis of his interviews with hundreds of former Fitzroy players, officials, shareholders, members and supporters and he also spoke to hundreds of other Fitzroy supporters, author Adam Muyt of "Maroon and Blue" made the following conclusions about where Fitzroy supporters went after the club was ejected from the AFL competition.

• at least 40 percent of Fitzroy supporters have been lost to AFL football. Assuming that Fitzroy's support base was about 200,000 (as estimated by Roy Morgan) then we can assume that roughly 80,000 no longer actively support / have lost interest in AFL football.
• between 5-10 percent of Fitzroy supporters now follow another code or lower levels of Australian Rules football as their primary football experience. (about 10,000-20,000)
• no more than 5 percent of Fitzroy supporters now follow another AFL side, including a few hundred that went across to North Melbourne. (No more than 10,000). This does not necessarily mean taking out a AFL club membership of their new club. Maybe 800 Fitzroy members / supporters took out a membership of North Melbourne in the years following 1996.
• over 40 percent of Fitzroy people support / follow the Brisbane Lions, but may not be necessarily paid up members. (about 80,000). In 1997, Brisbane's Victorian membership was 3,200, but has been as high as 8,000. Now its about 3,500-4,000 Victorian members per year.

Mergers are far more problematic than relocations.

The late Ian Ridley said one of his biggest mistakes in negotiating the Melbourne-Hawks merger in 1996 is that Melbourne ignored a key price of advice in that members and supporters see the enduring symbols of their club, their colours, the tradition [things like history, club song etc.] and the club emblem and will reject a merger if there wasn't enough of that retained in the new entity.

It's also very difficult to ensure a balance of two identities when negotiating a merger

1989's proposed "Fitzroy Bulldogs" playing in Fitzroy's colours and jumpers out of Princes Park may have been far more palatable to Footscray's supporters had it been the "Footscray Lions", playing in Fitzroy's colours and a FFC jumper out at the Western Oval. Footscray would have kept keep their name and the training base (possibly the home ground) at the Western Oval instead of Princes Park, while Fitzroy would have had the mascot and the colours. The jumper might have been Fitzroy's red and blue jumper with a white Fitzroy FFC logo and possibly white horizontal stripes to evoke Fooscray's jumper but still primarily in the Fitzroy design). A gold Fitzroy Lion would have been added on the breast of the jumper.

The "Melbourne Lions" proposal in 1986 and again in 1994 playing in the red, navy blue Melbourne jumper with the gold Fitzroy lion overlaid (in the manner of the current Brisbane Lions jumper) probably would have worked too for both sets of supporters.

The only Melbourne based merger that might work would be the Kangaroos and the Dogs mainly on the basis of the similarity of colours and a name something like "North West Melbourne Bulldogs" might be accepted by both supporter bases. The name of North Melbourne would be retained. Reference to the western suburbs and Footscray's mascot would also be in the name. Western Bulldogs's colours of red, white and blue retained with North Melbourne vertical stripe guernsey design, or maybe a red yoke and royal blue and white vertical stripes. Would share the MCG, but football HQ and training base might be at the Western Oval and administrative HQ might be at Arden Street.VFL side would be the Footscray Kangaroos playing out of the Western Oval and wearing a Footscray jumper, with white North Melbourne Kangaroo replacing Bulldog.

But even then I just can't see that happening. The long term rivalry between the Melbourne based clubs makes any merger unpalatable to their supporters and there would have to be very pressing reasons for such a move to even be considered.

About the Fitzroy-Footscray suggested merger would have probably gone through with what you suggested. But the club ahoukd have been called Fitzroy-Footscray. Just like Woodville-West Torrens.

 

[terrybull]

Some original supporters will support a relocated club, if the move is sold well. One of the major problems is moving a Melboure club interstate and playing enough games in Melbourne for their supporters. And AFL promises about a minimum number of games in Melbourne per season for a relocated / "merged" club aren't worth the paper they are written on. As we've seen.

On the basis of his interviews with hundreds of former Fitzroy players, officials, shareholders, members and supporters and he also spoke to hundreds of other Fitzroy supporters, author Adam Muyt of "Maroon and Blue" made the following conclusions about where Fitzroy supporters went after the club was ejected from the AFL competition.

• at least 40 percent of Fitzroy supporters have been lost to AFL football. Assuming that Fitzroy's support base was about 200,000 (as estimated by Roy Morgan) then we can assume that roughly 80,000 no longer actively support / have lost interest in AFL football.
• between 5-10 percent of Fitzroy supporters now follow another code or lower levels of Australian Rules football as their primary football experience. (about 10,000-20,000)
• no more than 5 percent of Fitzroy supporters now follow another AFL side, including a few hundred that went across to North Melbourne. (No more than 10,000). This does not necessarily mean taking out a AFL club membership of their new club. Maybe 800 Fitzroy members / supporters took out a membership of North Melbourne in the years following 1996.
• over 40 percent of Fitzroy people support / follow the Brisbane Lions, but may not be necessarily paid up members. (about 80,000). In 1997, Brisbane's Victorian membership was 3,200, but has been as high as 8,000. Now its about 3,500-4,000 Victorian members per year.

Mergers are far more problematic than relocations.

The late Ian Ridley said one of his biggest mistakes in negotiating the Melbourne-Hawks merger in 1996 is that Melbourne ignored a key price of advice in that members and supporters see the enduring symbols of their club, their colours, the tradition [things like history, club song etc.] and the club emblem and will reject a merger if there wasn't enough of that retained in the new entity.

It's also very difficult to ensure a balance of two identities when negotiating a merger

1989's proposed "Fitzroy Bulldogs" playing in Fitzroy's colours and jumpers out of Princes Park may have been far more palatable to Footscray's supporters had it been the "Footscray Lions", playing in Fitzroy's colours and a FFC jumper out at the Western Oval. Footscray would have kept keep their name and the training base (possibly the home ground) at the Western Oval instead of Princes Park, while Fitzroy would have had the mascot and the colours. The jumper might have been Fitzroy's red and blue jumper with a white Fitzroy FFC logo and possibly white horizontal stripes to evoke Fooscray's jumper but still primarily in the Fitzroy design). A gold Fitzroy Lion would have been added on the breast of the jumper.

The "Melbourne Lions" proposal in 1986 and again in 1994 playing in the red, navy blue Melbourne jumper with the gold Fitzroy lion overlaid (in the manner of the current Brisbane Lions jumper) probably would have worked too for both sets of supporters.

The only Melbourne based merger that might work would be the Kangaroos and the Dogs mainly on the basis of the similarity of colours and a name something like "North West Melbourne Bulldogs" might be accepted by both supporter bases. The name of North Melbourne would be retained. Reference to the western suburbs and Footscray's mascot would also be in the name. Western Bulldogs's colours of red, white and blue retained with North Melbourne vertical stripe guernsey design, or maybe a red yoke and royal blue and white vertical stripes. Would share the MCG, but football HQ and training base might be at the Western Oval and administrative HQ might be at Arden Street.VFL side would be the Footscray Kangaroos playing out of the Western Oval and wearing a Footscray jumper, with white North Melbourne Kangaroo replacing Bulldog.

But even then I just can't see that happening. The long term rivalry between the Melbourne based clubs makes any merger unpalatable to their supporters and there would have to be very pressing reasons for such a move to even be considered.

One question that I don’t think has been answered or asked. If North Fitzroy Kangaroos deal had gone through. Would it been a true merger or the same deal as Brisbane?

 

[terrybull]

It’s very hard to find the truth about the merger on the net.

Most fans don’t go too hard digging searching for the truth. It’s hard to find.
Example if you look at Wikipedia on Brisbane Lions you get the club was formed 1996 between a merger between Bears and Fitzroy.
Brisbane Lions - Wikipedia

Then if you don’t trust Wiki then check it out on the official Brisbane Lions homepage and it says the same thing!!!! Founded 1996.
Official AFL Website of the Brisbane Lions Football Club

AFL homepage - not much information but saying in 1996 Brisbane and Fitzroy merged.
AFL stats has the Bears, Fitzroy and Brisbane Lions as separate entities. Not sure if this is officially supported by the AFL though.
AFL Tables

Searching Brisbane Bears says much the same thing. They dissolved in 1996. And merged with Fitzroy.
Brisbane Bears - Wikipedia

Searching Fitzroy on the net…

On Wikipedia it said the two clubs merged but in 1998 the admin got out of the merger. Reformed Fitzroy and commenced playing again in the VAFA in 2009. Before this they had sponsored the University Reds to play as Fitzroy Reds in Fitzroy jumpers, Fitzroy theme song.

Before the 2009 season the president of former University Reds gave all the clubs assets to Fitzroy including their license to play in the VAFA. In other words University Reds were dead.

Fitzroy Football Club - Wikipedia

Yet if you look at the VAFA homepage about Fitzroy it says the club joined the VAFA in 1955. Thus continuing the University/Fitzroy Reds history. It also says that Brisbane and Fitzroy merged 1996 and play in the AFL. But the name Fitzroy lives on in the VAFA as a re-brand of University Reds.
Fitzroy Football Club | VAFA

On Fitzroy official homepage it says about the Reds that they moved to Brunswick Oval in 1991 and re-named themselves Fitzroy Reds in 1997 breaking ties with University. This move was supported by Fitzroy., thus wearing Fitzroy jumpers.

2008 Fitzroy Reds merged with Fitzroy.

Then they’re a fan sites that are great reading history about clubs. Such as Full Points Footy.

Full points footy says:

Fitzroy disbanded 1996 - Australian Football - Fitzroy Football Club - Stats

Brisbane Bears/Lions formed 1986 (merged with Fitzroy 1996) - Australian Football - Brisbane Football Club - Stats

VAFA Fitzroy founded 1955 (formerly University Reds, Fitzroy Reds)

Australian Football - Fitzroy Football Club - Stats

It’s bloody confusing. And hard to find the truth about it all.

In the end my argument is always supporting official opinion. Such as when the discussion asking the question when the AFL was founded? In 1897 or 1990? To me it is what the AFL officially says. So it’s hard for me to argue against what the Brisbane Lions official home page says.

Is North Melbourne the same club that was founded as Hotham then re-named as North Melbourne but to merge then fold only to rise again? Probably not, but now it’s officially so.

A real merger between Bears and Fitzroy may not be the truth But it probably will be, if not already seen as the truth.

Better that Fitzroy lives in Brisbane then a VAFA club re-branded itself as Fitzroy (which may not be true).

I can hear in the back of my mind RoyLion roaring

“You want the TRUTH?! You can’t handle the TRUTH!!!!!

He’s probably right…



‘carn the Lions!

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Random comment but I never got the proposed "North Fitzroy Kangaroos" name. It seemed a bit naff. Fitzroy and North Mlbourne were merging. North Fitzroy (or Fitzroy North) is a different suburb. Never understood why they wanted to call it that.

Fitzroy Kangaroos... North Melbourne Lions... Fitzroy-North Melbourne or vice versa... but North Fitzroy? Weird.

 

[peetoo]

One reason for the demise of Fitzroy is Fitzroy the suburb became too ‘cool’ for VFL and they never settled in to another base

Now, partly due to womens Footy it’s ‘cool’ again. There’s a nice vibe going on at the old oval these days in VAFA

 

[Roylion]

Random comment but I never got the proposed "North Fitzroy Kangaroos" name. It seemed a bit naff. Fitzroy and North Mlbourne were merging. North Fitzroy (or Fitzroy North) is a different suburb. Never understood why they wanted to call it that.

Fitzroy Kangaroos... North Melbourne Lions... Fitzroy-North Melbourne or vice versa... but North Fitzroy? Weird.

It was a compromise after North Melbourne first agreed to the name "Fitzroy-North Melbourne Kangaroos" then tried to change it to "North Melbourne-Fitzroy Kangaroos".

The two boards had originally agreed that whoever had the emblem, the other club would have their name first.

In my view the name should have been "North Melbourne-Fitzroy Lions"

 

[Roylion]

One reason for the demise of Fitzroy is Fitzroy the suburb became too ‘cool’ for VFL and they never settled in to another base

Is that the reason they moved from the Brunswick Street Oval in the 1960's? The suburb was too 'cool'?

Fitzroy settled into the Junction Oval very well.

 

[Roylion]

Better that Fitzroy lives in Brisbane then a VAFA club re-branded itself as Fitzroy (which may not be true).

In December 2008, at the instigation of the then Fitzroy (University) Reds president Craig Little, the University Reds Football Club (known as the 'Fitzroy' Reds from 1997) transferred all its assets to the Fitzroy Football Club (formed 1883).

The University (Fitzroy) Reds terminated its membership of the VAFA and was wound up as a incorporated company and football club.

By special dispensation from the VAFA, the Fitzroy Football Club (formed 1883) then replaced the Fitzroy [University] Reds in D-Grade [Premier D] VAFA for the 2009 season.

Dyson Hore-Lacy, chairman of Fitzroy in the AFL in 1996, automatically became chairman of the Club in the VAFA.

I am a shareholder of the Fitzroy Football Club. I was in 1996 and I am in 2023. The club that used to hold an AFL licence now exists in the VAFA. The Fitzroy website - quite rightly - acknowledges the history of the University / Fitzroy Reds formed in 1955, including it history. This is easy to do as the Fitzroy Football Club and the University / Fitzroy Reds never played each other on the field.

 

[Papa G]

Not forcing North to Gold Coast was stratgeically the worst decision the AFL has made from creating a more even, more national non corrupted competition. Now you can argue the corrupted Victorian Government run shit show we have now is what was desired all along, but I'm not sure this was the case in the early 2000s. Gold Coast would have had a far more stable start, the eternal of North Melbourne/too many teams in Vic would have been slightly remedied, GWS wouldn't have been so poorly rushed, Tasmania would have probably had a shot earlier. Wasted opportunity.

 

[Roylion]

Not forcing North to Gold Coast was stratgeically the worst decision the AFL has made from creating a more even, more national non corrupted competition.

Was never going to happen. AFL didn't have the power. All the AFL could do is remove North's licence. It's tedious and tiresome having to explain this to you over and over again when you keep coming out with more of this boring and tedious tripe.