5 Victorian games in 2005?

[Shaz]

It was reported at the bottom of an article in the Herald Sun that the AFL may be only scheduling five Lions games in Victoria next season.

The merger agreement states that there should be no less than six games - technically it is six games in Melbourne but has been taken as being Victoria. Personally I think that this is a slap in the face of the Lions supporters based in Victoria. The club has worked hard to get to the record level of memberships in both states and this has the potential to undo some of the work done in Victoria. Some already question the price they pay for six games where one is in Geelong and the one against Essendon you have to reserve a seat, so paying more.

Was wondering what others think about this?

 

[gocats]

The AFL is stupid. They should do more for old Lions and Swan supporters.

 

[adey115]

I can't see the club standing for this. The Melbourne based membership makes up around 20-25% of the club membership and any reduction in games in likely to directly effect these numbers, and no club can afford to have a large % of their membership endangered. There would surely be a genuine submission from the club protesting this. So far its only a potential slap from the AFL, not from the club.

 

[tapestry]

I'm not defending this rumour in anyway because I think it would be so wrong to cut the number of games in Melbourne.

But I do have a question that someone here might be able to answer about the merger agreement and this stuff.

I remember reading the agreement a while ago when someone posted a link to it. Now didn't it say in that agreement that they must wear the current jumper for the next 7 years, which of course are now up. Did that 7 year time frame also apply to things like the number of games in Victoria? If so maybe the AFL are jumping in feet first thinking they can now do this.

 

[MSB ROYS]

Just another attempt by the AFL to penalise the Lions. Since the start of 2004 they seem to be doing everything in their power to make life difficult for us. Anyway we will see what really transpires when the draw is out.

 

[Shaz]

The clause re the number of games is in the same area as the jumper clause but is not time restricted. In the same area is the number of appointed directors to the board which is a 10 year period. There is no over-riding time frame for the clause re the games, nor specified in the particular clause.

Thought I should add the clause from the agreement:
7.2 (h) The Merged Club will play one half of the total number of home and away games per season at the Gabba and as many Melbourne based away premiership games as possible will be played at Optus Oval or the Melbourne Cricket Ground (but not less than 6) with any other away premiership games at any of Waverley, Optus Oval or the Melbourne Cricket Ground at which Melbourne based members of the Merged Club will have home ground status (in respect of which Brisbane Bears will make a contribution to gate receipts of an amount determined by AFL);

 

[adey115]

We should keep in mind that for the away games, the club would far prefer to play in Melbourne (decent support) than in Adelaide, Perth, Tassie, Darwin or Sydney.

We should also keep in mind that usually the media try to beat up stories this time of year. Most of them turn out to be bull.

 

[Shaz]

The Herald Sun article was on 16/9. Yesterday Peter Blucher (ex Lions staff member) had an article in The Age stating the same. According the Blucher's article the draw is to be released this Thursday. Blucher also wrote, "But after the heated early-season confrontation between the club and the AFL administration over conflicting sponsorship, the Lions are loath to be too aggressive in their objection."

According to Blucher's article the draw is believed to have 12 Gabba games, 2 in Perth, 5 in Melbourne and then 3 interstate (2 Adelaide and 1 Sydney?). It also stated that an early draft had the Lions playing the Bulldogs in Darwin but the Lions protested and it was scrapped. Blucher does make mention that the possible draw does contravene the merger agreement.

 

[scarlett]

well this just sucks. stupid afl. so now i only get to see my team play 5 times a year! what crap. 2 games each in perth & adelaide! you gotta be kidding.

 

[Lady Lawrence]

Well this just gives me the biggest sh....irits. Bloody Victorians are getting to me big time at the moment.

It is their fault Fitzroy went down and now we are being punished for it. They let us into the competition but didn't expect us to win it! Christ I even bought a membership to the Bulldogs to do my part of keeping 'em in the comp.

What is the point of having the merger agreement if they aren't going to honour it anyway. Then again I guess we shouldn't be surprised.

 

[adey115]

Bloody Victorians are getting to me big time at the moment.

Just making sure everyone knows you mean bloody Victorian AFL Heads and bloody Victorian based Clubs - not us bloody Victorian based Lions members!!

 

[NoelMugavin]

if it does get cut from 6 down to 5 that is an absolute bloody disgrace!!

 

[campbell]

I think we should fight the AFL.This has got to stop, they are targeting our club our players.

We have a signed legal document that says we play 6 games in Vic each season.The same type of legal agreement they signed with the MCC. They refused to break the MCC agreement this year, so why are they breaking our agreement.

There has to be something we can do, legally I mean.....

 

[Lady Lawrence]

Just making sure everyone knows you mean bloody Victorian AFL Heads and bloody Victorian based Clubs - not us bloody Victorian based Lions members!!

Yeah sorry Adey - precisely what I meant, I find most Victorians really good people. It's just those with their heads up their a@#$s that are driving me totally nuts. Everything they say is a contradicted in the very next breath.

 

[Lensen]

I'm not sure what right a team has to dictate where they're playing away games.

 

[Shaz]

Each club puts in their "wish list" of games they would like to see for the next season. This is why some Victorian based clubs are able to get 18 games in Victoria in a season where as other Vic based clubs have to travel more.

I'm not sure if you're referring to the "away" games as being those not played in Victoria or not. If you are then the Lions like all other clubs will have put their "wish list" in. If you're referring to the Victorian games as well as the others, well the merger agreement is suppose to take care of the Vic games which is something the AFL and the other clubs supported when agreeing to the Bears-Fitzroy merger and turning down the North-Fitzroy merger.

 

[Feral Lion]

The Herald Sun article was on 16/9. Yesterday Peter Blucher (ex Lions staff member) had an article in The Age stating the same. According the Blucher's article the draw is to be released this Thursday. Blucher also wrote, "But after the heated early-season confrontation between the club and the AFL administration over conflicting sponsorship, the Lions are loath to be too aggressive in their objection."

According to Blucher's article the draw is believed to have 12 Gabba games, 2 in Perth, 5 in Melbourne and then 3 interstate (2 Adelaide and 1 Sydney?). It also stated that an early draft had the Lions playing the Bulldogs in Darwin but the Lions protested and it was scrapped. Blucher does make mention that the possible draw does contravene the merger agreement.

Does Bill Atherton, Secretary of the Fitzroy Football Club have a role to play here ? Surely he & Dyson would be interested if the AFL contravene the merger agreement.

 

[timbo]

If Thursday reveals that the Lions will play only five games in Victoria next
year then both the AFL and the Brisbane Lions should be held responsible
for this staggering setback to interclub progression. The continuing contract with the Melbourne Football Club has, it would seem, backfired on the Lions with the other clubs finally kicking up a big enough stink to provoke a AFL
reaction. eg Lions must play minimum of 6 games a year in Vic, the afl roster 5 and then say that it is actually 6 but the Lions sold one to Melbourne, or vice-versa, so we have fullfilled our duty-AFL in the clear. It is now up to the
Lions to make the next move. We never should have allowed the AFL to paint us into a corner.
Personally, nothing less than the automatic inclusion of Fitzroys records in the
compitition it helped create such as Premierships, Brownlow Medallists etc in
the official playing history of the Brisbane Lions, as should have been done in
the begining anyway, would compensate me as a Victorian Lion for only having access to five games. This is a huge bummer, if true.
Timbo.

 

[Lensen]

Each club puts in their "wish list" of games they would like to see for the next season. This is why some Victorian based clubs are able to get 18 games in Victoria in a season where as other Vic based clubs have to travel more.

I'm not sure if you're referring to the "away" games as being those not played in Victoria or not. If you are then the Lions like all other clubs will have put their "wish list" in. If you're referring to the Victorian games as well as the others, well the merger agreement is suppose to take care of the Vic games which is something the AFL and the other clubs supported when agreeing to the Bears-Fitzroy merger and turning down the North-Fitzroy merger.

Other teams put in their wishlists too. Not all can be fulfilled. Whilst I'm aware of the importance of playing games in Melbourne for the Fitzroy fans, they shouldn't be automatically guaranteed to play a set amount of away games in Melbourne, when it can't be automatically guaranteed that it will be "fair" to play in Adelaide/Perth/Sydney/Tassie/Canberra/Darwin/etc four times a year maximum.

I'm well aware that the Essendons, and the Collingwoods and others have only gone interstate four times in some seasons recently, but it's not every year.

And the 'we travel ten times a year' isn't an argument either. Twelve home games (as opposed to the Vic clubs four or five, with 10-14 neutral games) is compensation enough.

 

[campbell]

A signed legal merger agreement between the Lions and the AFL, is a legally binding agreement.

How hard can it be, 12 games in Brisbane,6 games in melbourne and 4 interstate, there are only 5 other interstate clubs.


God the Pies and Dons only get on a plane 4 times a season.They get exactly what they want, and the Lions get their legally binding agreement thrown in their face.


Onya AFL.

They are a joke of an organisation.

 

[v042]

And the 'we travel ten times a year' isn't an argument either. Twelve home games (as opposed to the Vic clubs four or five, with 10-14 neutral games) is compensation enough.

Fact is West Coast and Freo only travel 10 times, Port and Adelaide only travel 10 times. Sydney only travel 10 times - seems reasonable that Brisbane would only travel 10 times also. The Vic clubs travel 4-6 times - its the travelling that kills players not the intra-city venues. Using that logic, all the Vic clubs would be happy to travel to Brisbane to play at Coorparoo rather than at the Gabba on a "neutral" venue then, I suppose ??

 

[Homer]

I'm not sure what right a team has to dictate where they're playing away games.

If they even have to travel

 

[Tim the Toolman]

Scary thing is that we will have to travel 5 times elsewhere which means:
Adelaide & Port = 1 loss definitely
WC & Dockers = 2 losses as we never win there
Sydney = 1 loss as we always struggle there

Betcha Collingwood = 3 trips interstate tops

 

[Lensen]

Fact is West Coast and Freo only travel 10 times, Port and Adelaide only travel 10 times. Sydney only travel 10 times - seems reasonable that Brisbane would only travel 10 times also. The Vic clubs travel 4-6 times - its the travelling that kills players not the intra-city venues. Using that logic, all the Vic clubs would be happy to travel to Brisbane to play at Coorparoo rather than at the Gabba on a "neutral" venue then, I suppose ??

Incorrect, as it would still be in Brisbane, therefore advantageous to the Lions. A more accurate comparison would be playing in Sydney.

To spell it out:

Carlton v Collingwood at MCG is neutral because both teams are from Melbourne and the game is in Melbourne.

Brisbane v Collingwood at Cooraproo is not neutral because one team is from Brisbane, the other isn't, and the game is in Brisbane.

 

[Lensen]

A signed legal merger agreement between the Lions and the AFL, is a legally binding agreement.

They are a joke of an organisation.

Oh, I agree. I was just saying that I have a problem with teams dictating where they play away games - but if the AFL are stupid enough to sign the deal, then they have to honour it. Haven't got a problem there (with the Lions, that is).