BRISBANE LAGGERS

  • Thread starter WOOF
  • Start date
  • Tagged users None

Remove this Banner Ad

W

WOOF

Guest
Once again the scraggers do battle with the squeelers from Brisbane.
It's a shame they worried so much about a few scratches, and ignored their own players nocturnal goings-on in England.
Scotland yard looks like their going to trim Matthews list by two for next year anyway.
I suppose you can't expect ethics from a club that danced on Fitzroys grave and took the cash in the biggest SHAM marriage since Peter Allan married Liza Minelli.
 
Originally posted by WOOF:
Once again the scraggers do battle with the squeelers from Brisbane.
It's a shame they worried so much about a few scratches, and ignored their own players nocturnal goings-on in England.
Scotland yard looks like their going to trim Matthews list by two for next year anyway.
I suppose you can't expect ethics from a club that danced on Fitzroys grave and took the cash in the biggest SHAM marriage since Peter Allan married Liza Minelli.
 
I've spoken about this in an earlier post Woof, with reference to the Weagle Laggers as well who had a nasty off-field incident with some of their younger guys.

Also how's the form of "Super Thug" leigh Matthews. A few scratches and he goes ape. HELLO Lethal! Ask Neville Bruns what he'd prefer a few scratches or his face smashed? hmmm that's a toughey.

I remember him on Talking Footy before he went to Brisbane, commenting on Nicky Winmar going out of control against Carlton that time. Saying it was "dissgraceful", no Lethal king hitting someone is dissgraceful as you did many a time.

Hope the Bullies crunch 'em this week, bloody squeelers.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Crybabies, Squeelers who cares they are the scum of the football world.
 
"Danced on Footscray's grave?"

How much of the original Bears crest, song, etc. were kept after the "sham marriage"? Not a lot, really.

Would Fitzroy be getting 25-30,000 people to a game these days?

It sucks that a club with as much history as Fitzroy had to merge with Brisbane, but you don't do your argument any favours bringing it up while talking about Matthews' current behaviour. The two are totally seperate.
 
Whinge, whinge, whinge. LionsROCKBOTTOM Shut up Squealer.
tongue.gif



------------------
BOMBER BLITZ IN 2000!
 
Exactly how did Brisbane dance on Fitzroy's grave? As Bluey said the Bears gave up their emblem, colours, theme song all in favor of Fitzroy's. They also undertook to pay off all Fitzroy creditors and saved the 1996 board members of Fitzroy from being sued. They continued all the Fitzroy coteries that wanted to continue, they sponsor Victorian grass-roots clubs such as South Morang, Beverley and the Fitzroy Juniors who play at the old Brunswick Street Oval that have a Fitzroy connection; they acknowledge Fitzroy history and tradition in their Yearbook and magazine.. 'The Lions Tale' with articles on former Fitzroy greats. The Lions B&F medal, the Merrett/Murray Medal is partly named after Fitzroy Browlow Medallist Kevin Murray (who was chosen from a ballot of interested 1996 Fitzroy members). They have combined the past players of both the Bears and Fitzroy into the "Fitzroy-Brisbane Past Players Association (headed by Norm Brown a Fitzroy great)"; they have a social club in the heart of Fitzroy's old recruiting zone at Bulleen. They produce Fitzroy memorabilia, the latest being a huge framed poster of every 100 game player from the Fitzroy club. The names of every Fitzroy player to have played 100 games are on the Lions player's lockers at the Gabba, which I have seen for myself. I can keep going if you like?

Also the club's official name is the "Brisbane Bears-Fitzroy Australian Football Club" trading as the "Brisbane Lions". Surely even you would agree "Brisbane Bears-Fitzroy" or even "Brisbane-Fitzroy" would be a bit cumbersome for scoreboards and commentators alike. Hell the media even have trouble with getting both "Brisbane" and "Lions" on the same line!

I'd also like to point out that at the time of the merger ALL the AFL clubs, apart from North (who voted against) and Fitzroy (who abstained) voted FOR Fitzroy's merger with the Brisbane Bears. Even Fitzroy's administrator Michael Brennan stated at the time that Brisbane's offer to him as Fitzroy administrator was better than North's offer. The reason that the AFL clubs scuttled the deal with North was because North wanted the pick of Fitzroy's playing list (12 players and a list of 52) and the other clubs (especially Victoria's) feared that "North Fitzroy" would become a super-power. Brisbane was given the go-ahead by the other clubs on the condition that it took no more than 8 players from Fitzroy's list. In the end Brisbane took 9, but on-traded Matthew Primus to Port Adelaide. Meanwhile the other clubs also feasted on Fitzroy ending up selecting another 23 players from the Fitzroy 1996 player list between them, for nothing. This was AFTER 8 other clubs (7 of them Victorian) made an official offer in 1996 to Fitzroy to merge in the hope of picking up players and $6,000,000. At least the Bears made some sacrifices for their gains in terms of their identity, much to the chagrin of most of their supporters. I'll bet none of the other clubs, including North would have.

So please Woof, don't get self-righteous and critical about Brisbane's efforts and eventual success in pursuing and securing the merger with Fitzroy. Chances are you support one of the 7 Victorian clubs + the Adelaide Crows who offered to merge with Fitzroy in 1996 for players and money. If there is anyone who "danced" on Fitzroy's grave blame the AFL commission (who wanted Port Adelaide in) and the other clubs for the decisions they made. Blame Brisbane if that makes you feel better and if you have trouble understanding anything beyond the simplistic. One thing's for sure.. the blame for where Fitzroy ended up rests squarely and fairly on all the clubs and the AFL, not just Brisbane. In any case Fitzroy's identity and tradition is far better preserved today as part of the Brisbane Lions, than it ever would have been as part of the "North Fitzroy Kangaroos". Brisbane's biggest fault is apparently allowing Noel Gordon ever to become Chairman!

Watch out for Dyson Hore-Lacy's book and you'll read for the first time the double-dealing and duplicity of all the clubs (especially the Victorian ones) in the sorry merger affair of 1996, not just the Brisbane Bears. The book's publication (due in July) has been delayed by about eight weeks as transcripts of the administrator's meetings (some with other clubs) have been made available and will be included. Having been involved in a small way in those events and heard all the stories for the past four years from most of the main players from Fitzroy, it will at last cast some real light on what really went on. Dyson Hore-Lacy did tell me that he even expects to be sued over some of the book's contents. He did say to me also that everything in the book is true and correct.

Perhaps Woof you could give us all some concrete details on how the 'merger' is a 'sham marriage'. I've given you some concrete details on why I think it isn't.
Frankly I don't think you will be able to, as happens with MOST non-Lions people who spout off about the merger but really know stuff-all about it, such as yourself it appears. And please... I know all about Coburg-Fitzroy (I'm a 2000 member!)..so don't start with that argument.

In any case what did you expect the Brisbane Bears to do as per the merger? Relocate to Melbourne!

To the Doggies, thanks for the apology. The Lions' complaints over the past two years are vindicated.

The Lions may struggle into 5th-8th position if they can win 5 out of their last six matches. Carlton killed us in the midfield last week, especially Ratten, Camporaele and Kouta and gave Whitnall and others too many opportunities to kick goals. Ashcroft and Voss (except for the 3rd quarter) were well beaten.

Apologies to all for the long post and talking about the merger again...but I didn't bring it up.
 
Thanks Gonzo

However I'd be interested to know which bits you don't you agree with and why.
 
get off brisbane's back! they are a great team, who are just stickin' up for themselves!

I hope they are in the finals and kick everyone's butt and take the cup up north!
 
IT'S AMAZING HOW FACTS CAN BE LOST IN THE MISTS OF TIME, EVEN SOMETHING AS RECENT AS FITZROYS' DEMISE.
I'M VERY CURIOUS AS TO HOW DYSON MANAGED TO OBSTAIN FROM VOTING ON BEHALF OF HIS CLUB WHEN IT WAS IN RECEIVERSHIP AND WAS REPRESENTED AT THE MEETING BY MICHAEL BRENNAN THE RECEIVER.
I KNOW I WILL NEVER FORGET THE SIGHT OF BRAVE DYSON HORE-LACEY WAITING IN THE FOYER FOR THE OUTCOME, FOR HIS BELOVED ROYBOYS.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

During the voting after a reciever has been appointed - the now almost 'former' headhoncho/director/ceo/manager/ Big Boss Man is not allowed under ASIC law to vote you moron - this has been the case for many many many years. The recievership conglomeration is the replacement. They are now in charge. Next arguement????
 
WHO IS THIS PRAT THOMAS, HERES A TIP SUNSHINE IF IT WILL HELP YOU COMPREHEND THE MESSAGE FEEL FREE TO LET YOUR MOUTH MOVE WHEN READING NO-ONE IS WATCHING.
ROYBOY SAID THAT HORE-LACY ABSTAINED FROM VOTING, I POINTED OUT THAT HE WAS UNABLE TO VOTE AS THE CLUB WAS IN THE HANDS OF RECEIVERS THEREFORE HE HAD NO CHOICE OF ABSTINANCE.
NOT TO QUICK FOR YOU I HOPE THOMAS, PLEASE DON'T TRY ANY SUBTITLED MOVIES ON SBS THOUGH ,I'M SURE YOU WOULD GET CHAFFED LIPS AN HOUR IN.
 
Doesnt matter what you say the way the merger was done with Brisbane at the last minute was weak. North Melbourne were the front runners all along then at the last minute in came Brisbane and I will never forget the look on Ron Caseys face when that happened. Noel Gordon was such a smart a....
that night on The Footy Show but Ron sure wiped that smirk of his face with his professional stand and Noel Gordon was a dud from then till the time he resigned. But of course the rest is History North has won 2 grand finals since then and the Brisbane Lions are just pretenders
 
Rice get over the Lethal/Bruns thing,christ you would think that little bastard Bruns was a saint (sorry sainter).
I will say it again, Bruns KING HIT Tuck in the 1st Q of that game,he got what he sowed. SO did Matthews,so have lots of others,they all copped their dues in time. I seem to recall a thug by the name of Andrews who only got a game for his agile use of his elbows. Cryed like a girl when Stewie Gull landed those big rights to his head.

Or is it because Matthews always destroyed the Dons in the 70's and nearly signed with them in 79 that you cant seem to forget the Bruns incident? Best player from the century and he was a HAWK!
Go back to being another chortiling bomber and stop sticking up for Bruns, you got to have better things to do than that.
 
Settle down Grendal, stop trying to rekindle the old Hawk V Dons clashes from the past, you've missed the point son. My beef is purely with Matthews' hypocritical stance regarding on-field player behaviour since finishing his playing career. You don't ever hear Dermie and Dipper (Blokes who dished it out as well as they took it in their time) lambasting players for indiscretions. you could never accuse them of being hypocrits. But not "Choir Boy" Matthews. If you missed him on The Game a couple of weeks back they showed some of his highlights and lowlights. There were many acts of thuggery shown in the package and the Bruns one wasn't even in it.

I have to say I never had the privilege of seeing Matthews, the Undoubted out and out champion legend of the game, at the hight of his powers however. I do have trouble with him being named player of the century though. I personaly couldn't go past blokes like Whitten, Coleman, Abblett and Carey, but I'm biased toward the bigger blokes.


------------------
BOMBER BLITZ IN 2000!
 
Woof, read the message more carefully and SLOWLY! You're the one that needs the help with the comprehension, not Thomas. I did NOT say Dyson Hore-Lacy abstained from the voting, I said "Fitzroy" did. Fitzroy abstained from the voting because as Thomas correctly pointed out Michael Brennan was in charge of the Fitzroy Football Club Ltd. as its administrator, at the time, not Dyson Hore-Lacy or the FFC board. He stated that he believed Brisbane's offer was about $1 million better than North's (in terms of what they were going to do to pay out Fitzroy's creditors), but abstained because he thought it was a decision that the rest of the AFL clubs should make. By the way its 'Roylion' not 'Royboy'.

The clubs that tried to broker a deal with Fitzroy in 1996 were North (of course), Collingwood, Richmond, Geelong, Hawthorn, St Kilda and Melbourne, as well as Brisbane. Apart from Brisbane and North at least three offers were serious offers where those clubs proposed to alter their identities significantly to incorporate Fitzroy's. I haven't seen the exact details of who was serious and who wasn't, but it will be in Dyson's book. My apologies as well, it was NOT the Adelaide Crows that offered to merge with Fitzroy, it was Port Adelaide. The AFL was VERY keen for that last one to go ahead.

By the way Woof, can you explain how the merger was a "sham marriage" as you originally said? I'm still waiting for your explantion.

Ruby, Brisbane made its first official offer to merge with Fitzroy and change to it's colours, as far back as 1993. North made it's first offer in January 1996. As late as April 1996, Dyson Hore-Lacy was still talking with Brisbane because he wanted them to be the fall back position if the deal with North fell through. A merger of Fitzroy with someone HAD to take place. North was the preferred option for the Fitzroy Board certainly, but I wouldn't say they were frontrunners. It's interesting the supporters and members were never actually asked either.

The way the merger was handled by the AFL was appalling I agree, but it was the AFL clubs who made the final decision and they mde the decision that they did because they were looking after themselves first and foremost. Go back and read the media reports at the time. Go and ask the people who were involved. I have. Yes Noel Gordon was a smarta--- on the Footy Show, but I was a present at a Fitzroy Foundation Dinner in 1997 where he apologised repeatedly and profusely for his remarks.

And yes Ruby, we all know that North has won two premierships since then. Thank you for reminding us even though it has little to do with what is being discussed.
 
Yes, the Western Bulldogs are dirty players and out to play the man. Yes, Romero, Dimattina and Liberatore earn their living on playing the man. Yes, the have earned their tag as dirty and rough. But do other teams comment on this? No they do not. The only reason Brisbane make a fuss is because they are weak. Every bloody round Leigh Matthews has a go at umpires, or turf, or oppositions cheating. He cannot accept the fact thathis team might have lost the game because they weren't good enough and are WEAK.
 
Well in fact that's incorrect. Both West Coast and Hawthorn have both made public complaints against the Bulldogs' tactics and specifically against Liberatore and Romero. The media has chosen to highlight the Lions vs. Bulldogs clashes, because I guess Black's and Lawrence's scratches on their faces and necks were so obvious. The Bulldogs tribunal evidence given against McRae last year causing him to miss the preliminary final and Lynch's choking gesture in that final up at the Gabba, also contributed to the media frenzy over the perceived rivalry and gave them something to write about. Anyway the Doggies have admitted that they were at fault and have apologised.
 
Like all good teams, the Doggies have a mix of the hard players as well as the skilled. Personally, I don't mind a player like Libba....the other week when North played the Doggies, Libba sucked in the North midfield with his constant yapping. Our players forgot about the footy allowing Dimma and his mates a field day and we ended up losing a game that we should have won. Libba 1 Bell/Simpson/Grant/Harvey 0 as it were. But really, how can you label the Doggies as just a dirty team when they have the likes of Chris Grant, Scott West, Scott Wynd, Paul Hudson etc. etc? I hope to be seeing many more North vs Doggies clashes in the years to come.
 
The Matthews thing , first of you brought it up. For the record I saw Leigh do some bloody low acts on the field. He also copped at least that back to him, and then some again. He is still the best damn footballer ive seen. Not the most gifted but easy the best. So bloody good for so long, you missed seeing an out and out brilliant player if you never saw his best years.
Now that thats of my chest,


Why then cant I say how bloody hypocritical it was of Sheedy to talk and act the way he did the other week in the WC farago? Whos a bigger hypocrite in the game than Sheedy, after his shall we say "colourful" playing career to come out and slag and threaten a player without any knowledge of what really happened cause he didnt actually SEE the incedent! Christ the man is pathetic.

Yet for you to come out and bring up the same thing about that little mongrel Bruns again as you have done in other posts, then your showing your myopia. Dont go looking to others for thugs, your coach was one of the best going for it. So next time you feel self rightous remember that and how about some other clean skins at the Dons like Roger (drop the knees into whoever is under me) Merrett or Terry {Shucks Im just a boy from Ungarie,I didnt think id get 12 weeks) Daniher. Who was the coach then? More hypocrisy.

I have no problem with you saying that Matthews on his playing record is making statements that he has no right to make. Yet neither does your sacred god of the (windy) mount. Nor do 75% of the other coaches in the league.
At least aknowledge the fact that Matthew aint alone in Hypocrisy, the whole damn league runs on it.
Try just the once to look in your own backyard before judging (pun intended) others.
 
Grendel mate I'll spell it out:

1. This aint a Hawks v Essendon thing. NEWSFLASH: any dickhead could've starred against the Dons in the 70's, we were shithouse in case you'd forgotten. Why would I have a grudge against Matthews, he wasn't alone in taking us apart.

2. When has Essendon ever lodged an official complaint about any on-field incident. Never, neither have the Hawks. Clubs may get pissed off with incidents but "what happens on the field stays on the field".

3. As far as I'm aware it has only been the Lions and the Weagles who have done so. They are the squealers. Not Hawthorn.

4. Sheedy may have gone off at White, but you can bet your bottom doller he advised Johnson to tell the investigator. Just like Wallis did with the Roos this year. Unlike the Lions who get their Doctor to say Black could've been killed by Romero's scratches.

Happy now?
 
Rice.
So you reckon that the Lions " got their doctor to say Black was more injured by Romero, than he actually was. "
Let me advise you. No medical professional would lie in a court situation, as a tribunal is.
Also if I was you I would stop immediately slandering the Brisbane doctor.Unless of course you wish to be sued.
Personally I think good on the Lions.This old school thing of what stays on the field is ok in most circumstances. It is not okay when your players are being targeted, consistently.The injuries sustained by Black and co were not normal match day injuries.
I was at the Gabbaa when Libba eye gouged Mc Rae. It happened on the wing right in front of us. This action was totally inappropriate and dangerous.
Leave the Lions alone.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

BRISBANE LAGGERS

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top