Brisbane needs help

[Demonheart]

The "whole Hore-Lacy/Oakley thing"? Like what. Give details. Exact details.

I attended meetings of the shareholders with the Fitzroy board to be informed of the progress of merger discussions. Dyson Hore-Lacy is a QC and was in 1996. He was more than capable of representing himself. I've spoken personally to Dyson Hore-Lacy on a number of occasions about the events of 1996.

What lawyers were representing Dyson Hore-Lacy and for what purpose? Fitzroy has several legal advisors which were Peter Buchanan, Bruce Curl and John McCardle, but none were "representing Dyson Hore-Lacy" in any legal proceedings. They were there to "advise" on the legal mechanics of bringing about a merger between North and Fitzroy. It was Dyson Hore-Lacy who dealt exclusively with Nauru's solicitor Graham Sherry.

There was no legal battle between Fitzroy, Brisbane, North or the AFL, until the Bondborough vs. Brisbane Bears court case, for Dyson Hore-Lacy to be represented by anyone. Dyson Hore-Lacy was one of the three Fitzroy directors authorised to conduct merger discussions with other clubs and he spoke to Jeff Browne



I'll ask again. Representing Hore-Lacy for what purpose?



You've been told all this before. On a number of occasions. But you still keep bringing up the same rubbish, and I have to refute it yet again.

You refute nothing, you've never successfully countered what I have proven. Your argument is that Brisbane was in a non-football state which completely dismisses the facts. Believe what you want to believe, it won't change what actually happened.

As for the Hore-Lacy/Oakley thing, at least you know who was involved. I know John McArdle, but he wasn't the person I was referring to, the guys at WWH (which may have been just WW back then) are the guys who did the work. The battle between the two did not take place in the courts, but for two years up until the demise of the club Oakley did everything he could to kill off Fitzroy. They hated each other and it got very nasty. I'm not surprised that it didn't make it to the shareholder meetings.

I'm not going to name people out on an open forum and I'm certainly not going to go into detail about what took place, but with the above info you're definitely on the right track.

 

[Demonheart]

..and that's exactly what we've been banging on about. THE MEMBERS TRIED TO SORT IT OUT BY THEMSELVES. WE CALLED AN EGM....

The AFL blocked our attempts......again I ask WHY??

We need help with the running of our club, its a mess......the rest will follow.

Edit: No, let me say that I'm happy for the club to receive maximum off-field support form the AFL

 

[Roylion]

You refute nothing, you've never successfully countered what I have proven. Your argument is that Brisbane was in a non-football state which completely dismisses the facts. Believe what you want to believe, it won't change what actually happened.

Melbourne was one of 14 clubs that ratified the "merger" conditions. They did so, largely because they were seeking to set a precedent for their own merger arrangements.

As I said, Brisbane are not the only club to have received zone concessions, the father son rule from different entities and salary cap bonuses. Much less monetary grants from the AFL.

As for the Hore-Lacy/Oakley thing, at least you know who was involved.

Of course I do.

I know John McArdle, but he wasn't the person I was referring to, the guys at WWH (which may have been just WW back then) are the guys who did the work.

Williams, Winter and Higgs. Yeah I know who they are and what they did. I'm still not sure of your point. I've already said that lawyers from their firm were Fitzroy's legal advisers. And there's no doubt they did a great deal of advising to Fitzroy. However they did not represent Dyson Hore-Lacy in any court proceedings regarding Fitzroy.

The battle between the two did not take place in the courts, but for two years up until the demise of the club Oakley did everything he could to kill off Fitzroy. They hated each other and it got very nasty. I'm not surprised that it didn't make it to the shareholder meetings.

Would you like a list of all the actions the AFL took to try and drum Fitzroy out of the competition? I'm well aware of what went on back then. I still don't understand what point you're trying to make. In fact the personal relationship between Ross Oakley and Dyson Hore-Lacy was reasonably cordial.

I'm not going to name people out on an open forum and I'm certainly not going to go into detail about what took place, but with the above info you're definitely on the right track.

Well gee thanks. I'm so glad you approve.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Brisbane deserve nothing, they are not even last.
Port Adelaide were under much more pressure on and off the field and those bastards running the AFL got rid of the priority pick rule just when we were about to collect.

If Brisbane get a free pick I want the AFL to give Port Jon Patton on a silver platter.

And then helped you get your licence away from the SANFL and ensure football returned to the AO, don't pretend you've been hard done by. Andy D did a shit load of work negotiating that deal.

 

[Demonheart]

Melbourne was one of 14 clubs that ratified the "merger" conditions. They did so, largely because they were seeking to set a precedent for their own merger arrangements.

As I said, Brisbane are not the only club to have received zone concessions, the father son rule from different entities and salary cap bonuses. Much less monetary grants from the AFL.



Of course I do.



Williams, Winter and Higgs. Yeah I know who they are and what they did. I'm still not sure of your point. I've already said that lawyers from their firm were Fitzroy's legal advisers. And there's no doubt they did a great deal of advising to Fitzroy. However they did not represent Dyson Hore-Lacy in any court proceedings regarding Fitzroy.



Would you like a list of all the actions the AFL took to try and drum Fitzroy out of the competition? I'm well aware of what went on back then. I still don't understand what point you're trying to make. In fact the personal relationship between Ross Oakley and Dyson Hore-Lacy was reasonably cordial.



Well gee thanks. I'm so glad you approve.

But only a couple of posts ago you said that nothing took place until the Bondborough vs. Brisbane Bears court case.

Which is it?

 

[alscotoz2]

I can't explain my dislike for the type of person Eddie is. In one sentence he comes across as the saviour of the AFL 'National' competition with his comments but only a few words later he reinforces his true thoughts on what he thinks about interstate clubs that are becoming too powerful for his team to cope with.

I don't like him one bit & the sooner he takes his grubby mitts off any AFL decision making process (equalisation), the better the competition will benefit. He is biased & is only interested in more gain for his club but at the expense of any other club. He wants us in the comp but only as cannon fodder for his team to put on a show for the adoring Collingwood members. He shoves comments down our throats such as the pulling power Collingwood have in games. He forgets & refuses to highlight any advantages that Collingwood has benefitted from (government funded state of the art training facilities) & shouts down anyone that questions him on air about any suspect Collingwood related thing that may have happened by belittling another club & talking them down. He has an unfair advantage in the media where he forces his way on programs where he can continue to run his propaganda war against anything that may be a threat to his club.

-When we recruited Nick Davis, he warned our club that he will fight tooth & nail to have the CoLA removed. (I'm glad it will be gone).
- He came out with 'kind' words for the Bulldogs saying he wanted them to survive in our comp only to come out earlier this year questioning them travelling to Arizona in the pre season saying they were spending money they haven't got.
-A few years ago he made a suggestion we try & help ourselves by recruiting more NSW players. We now have our own academy & he is attacking that.

Eddie doesn't want a national competition. He wants a 'lions versus christians' competition where his team can't lose & are the main attraction.

You are a fraud & a racist Eddie & your true colours came out with your King Kong comments.
You are not a very well respected person at the Swans behind the scenes but they will never attack you publicly because you are a vindictive natured bully that will seek revenge.

You sure you're not talking about the abbott govt?

 

[Roylion]

But only a couple of posts ago you said that nothing took place until the Bondborough vs. Brisbane Bears court case.

There were no court proceedings where Dyson Hore-Lacy had to be represented in anything until the Bondborough vs. Brisbane Bears court case. I made that clear.

What so hard to understand about that?

 

[James North]

I genuinely don't think money for better players can save the Lions from our current situation.

The solution is going to be some kind of system (that some people have mentioned here) that enables us to retain those 80-90% who are from interstate.

I think the Academy is great. It's a good system to develop young players, and we just have to match the bids of other clubs to get that player. Seriously, not a lot of superstars come from QLD so Eddie's got a few questions to answer that he doesn't get to see the palm cards for.

Better cash management, better promotion, better retention and better staff is going to see us rise to the top again. I don't want to do it with COLA. I drink enough of it already.

 

[skipper kelly]

The money was paid out of Brisbane's own coffers. And it was to redress a disadvantage.

To retain a proportion of good players and therefore be competitive, Brisbane had to pay over the odds to a greater proportion of their list than other clubs. This was because of the club's location in a developing market (a non football state). There was an inability of the local leagues to produce enough AFL standard players to maintain competitiveness with those located in football states.

Brisbane and Sydney had to recruit a far greater proportion of interstate players to be competitive. As such retaining them was always going to be more difficult than clubs that had 60-70% of their list from their home state. Hence the allowance. At its height, Brisbane received an extra $800,000. Sydney received an extra $1.2 million (15% of the salary cap).

Currently the Swans receive a $900,000 bonus (9.8%) of the salary cap and that is being paid by the AFL, not the Sydney Swans.

Source

You have consistently compared Brisbane retention allowance to Sydney. Sydney had the same retention problems as Brisbane. Sydney also had the COL to deal with. The AFL chose not to give Sydney a retention allowance. It comes down to whether people believe that COL and retention are equalisation issues. If you do, then they are both needed to be addressed on their own. One does not have to equal the other. Brisbane had the retention allowance removed because they were successful on the field and that ultimate success was against big Victorian clubs. Sydney are having their equalisation measure removed because they were successful against a big Victorian club and had the hide to draft a couple of big name players.

It is wrong to be comparing the 2 allowances as they are for different measures. Sydney never had a retention allowance, Brisbane did. Brisbane never had a COL issue, Sydney did.

 

[JasRulz63]

It is wrong to be comparing the 2 allowances as they are for different measures. Sydney never had a retention allowance, Brisbane did. Brisbane never had a COL issue, Sydney did.

I thought both Brisbane and Sydney had a "retention" allowance (AFL called it "location" allowance) but only Sydney had a COL allowance (which was on top of the retention allowance).

Link

Next season Brisbane and Sydney are allowed to go $480,000 over the salary cap to stop players returning to their home states, with that figure dropping to $360,000 in 2006.

Mr Demetriou said the AFL Commission met at the weekend and made the decision to remove the allowances from 2007 after a comprehensive review of all player contractual arrangements at both clubs, along with their infrastructure, support staff and player welfare programs.

He added that Sydney's cost of living allowance would be retained beyond 2006, but its level would be determined by an assessment of the cost of living differences at that time.

 

[Roylion]

It is wrong to be comparing the 2 allowances as they are for different measures. Sydney never had a retention allowance, Brisbane did. Brisbane never had a COL issue, Sydney did.

When both Brisbane and Sydney had bonuses, both had a retention allowance of approximately 10% of the salary cap. Sydney had an extra 5% for a cost of living allowance. When Brisbane's was cut, Sydney's allowance was reduced to 9% and re-branded as a COLA.

 

[HayesTheChamp]

I said challenged, not removed. It was a rort. Arguably still is. Thread is not about CoLA, though.

You forgot to add an extra sentence to your spiel. When you said 'AFL system' you meant 'Sydney Swans'. The academy is about developing players and getting them to the Sydney Swans.

I don't see many arguing that investment into junior development in NSW is a bad idea. If we didn't do it then propping up NSW clubs in the AFL would be an expensive, pointless exercise. The problem is giving one club free reign over it. It's all well and good to say 'well we only have 1 or 2 players from NSW drafted each year at best so it's no advantage' but why wait until it becomes an advantage?

Look, the only reason you appear to be mad, is the fact that Sydney have had access to players like Lloyd Perris and Issac Heeney, the later who is rated one of the top mids in the draft. Do I support the idea of Cola? No, but it's been rectified to a stage where I think the Swans will be sustainable from a financial perspective. The Academy programs are so critical to sustaining footy in NSW and QLD, the AFL has ALWAYS placed the invasion of AFL into the Rugby states ahead of any other priority. The only reason why people see the academy as an issue, is related to the offended from Tippett and Franklin both going to the Swans in consecutive years (which is rather frustrating) and the fact they seem to be able to get top 10 talents for a late teens pick. It's not like it's an unfair process, it's similar to the father-son system. Perhaps we should remove that too then?

 

[skipper kelly]

I thought both Brisbane and Sydney had a "retention" allowance (AFL called it "location" allowance) but only Sydney had a COL allowance (which was on top of the retention allowance).

Link

Fair enough. Looks like Sydney lost out as well because of your success.

 

[skipper kelly]

When both Brisbane and Sydney had bonuses, both had a retention allowance of approximately 10% of the salary cap. Sydney had an extra 5% for a cost of living allowance. When Brisbane's was cut, Sydney's allowance was reduced to 9% and re-branded as a COLA.

Fair enough. Looks like Sydney lost out as well because of your success. Or as above.

 

[Roylion]

if Brisbane are still leaking players then maybe you have a point. I just don't see having an interstate playing group as an inequity that can't be overcome.

Supporter group The Lions’ Roar today has released a graphic showing that since 1996,the Lions have lost more than half of their first-round draft picks since 1996 – 10 out of 19 – to “homesickness”. The beneficiaries of the go-home factor have been mostly powerful Victorian clubs – Carlton, Collingwood and Geelong.

Source

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Supporter group The Lions’ Roar today has released a graphic showing that since 1996,the Lions have lost more than half of their first-round draft picks since 1996 – 10 out of 19 – to “homesickness”. The beneficiaries of the go-home factor have been mostly powerful Victorian clubs – Carlton, Collingwood and Geelong.

Source

Maybe they should get a rental assistance scheme too from the AFL.

 

[Toffee Lion]

If we had a retention allowance, we would still have Yeo and probably Longer.

Karnezis, Docherty and Polec were lost causes and no money was going to keep them.

 

[Lion for Life]

Supporter group The Lions’ Roar today has released a graphic showing that since 1996,the Lions have lost more than half of their first-round draft picks since 1996 – 10 out of 19 – to “homesickness”. The beneficiaries of the go-home factor have been mostly powerful Victorian clubs – Carlton, Collingwood and Geelong.

Source

If that's not a glaring truth of the unique challenges we face then i don't know what is. This club is drowning and player retention is only the start of it

 

[AFLQLD]

Leigh Matthews said exactly what any Brisbane supporter has known for years - AFL states simply don't get the extra challenges here that their clubs will never have to face.

Here

 

[RossFC]

And then helped you get your licence away from the SANFL and ensure football returned to the AO, don't pretend you've been hard done by. Andy D did a shit load of work negotiating that deal.

I was talking about help ON the field.

Every club deserves financial stability.

 

[the_interloper]

My side needs assistance as well, can we have Nat Fyfe please?

 

[ScoobySnacks]

The AFL can slowly drip feed them other struggling Melbourne clubs. One every ten years should do it. Overdue.

Your club will be first to go

 

[Skoob]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...ubs-in-queensland-and-nsw-20140622-zshy8.html

Supporter group The Lions’ Roar today has a graphic showing that since 1996,the Lions have lost more than half of their first-round draft picks since 1996 – 10 out of 19 – to “homesickness”. The beneficiaries of the go-home factor have been mostly powerful Victorian clubs – Carlton, Collingwood and Geelong.

https://thelionsroar.squarespace.com/the-lions-roar/2014/6/23/brisbane-the-afls-forgotten-frontier

 

[Crankyhawk]

I'd argue you have the short term view.

If the AFL isn't national, revenues will decrease. The other codes won't stand still, their revenues will grow. Player salaries in the AFL will decrease, while salaries in other codes will increase. The other codes will poach players from the AFL, and will establish grass roots support in AFL states. Over time, the AFL will be a local, parochial comp.

If you're not growing, you're going backwards.

50 years to build support? Until the Swans went to Sydney, you'd had 100 years, and as i said, there was zero grass roots support. You want the AFL to spend millions and millions trying to build a school age comp in the northern states over 50 years? It'll simply never work.

Not sure that other codes are growing. Both rugby forms appear to be struggling (apart from state of origin). There's talk in union of the Australian clubs leaving the super 15s because Australian money is propping up kiwi and south African teams.
Soccer is the only threat IMO and that has been built on the back of finally getting a true national competition. Even there most clubs make losses.

 

[Crankyhawk]

In order to get the allowance, you have to be not to good otherwise you will challenge the order of "Melbourne" club

in 2 of the 3 Lions premierships, the lions was outsiders in betting

Swans v Hawks in 2012, the swans was paying $3.30 rank outsiders, yet we won & "Melbourne" club chocked on their weeties!!

Still surprised at those odds. I loaded up on swans (figured would have been happy to lose the $200)