BSA & Cousin Roy

[kevin sooky]

Well BSA and Cousin Roy Lion, if you want proof that this Sydney team is not the same legal entity as what was the South Melbourne Football Club, here it is.
1. I will assume only for the sake of brevity (but I do not concede) that the company Roy is talking about re his articles from the early 80s changed their name to Sydney Australian Football Club Limited.
2. This Company had an A.C.N. of 003 545 079 and was registered it appears in 1988. This would suggest that it is not the same company as Roy and BSA allege but let us assume that it is. I will call this Company A.
3. Company A shows as its directors at various stages Ron Joseph, Ken Gannon, Peter Weinert, Geoff Slade, Barry Rogers, Michael Willesee, William McCartney, Richard Colless, Basil Sellars, Maurice Koop, Max Horsell, Melcolm Spry, and Alan Schwab among others. It was the registered proprietor of the business name “Sydney Swans” from 1990 to 1994.
4. Company A changed its name to Red & White Nominees in February 1994 and from that date has no current directors or company secretaries so for all intents and purposes whilst still existing this company if it was the original South Melbourne (and that is arguable) is no longer trading.
5. Along comes a new company Company B WHICH ONLY CAME INTO EXISTENCE ON 8 FEBRUARY 1994 and was able to grab the name Sydney Australian Football Club Limited after company A released it by changing its name. This company is a different company and has a different A.C.N. of 063 349 708. Therefore there is no connection with Company A. Therefore as I said before even if Company A was South Melbourne Company B is not and so we are talking about a new legal eneitiy.
6. Company B is the new registered proprietor of the business name Sydney Swans as of 15 February 1994, and its current directors include Ron Barassi, Andrew McMaster, Richard Colless, Ricky Quade, John Yates and Graeme Pash.

This is reasoned and researched and irrefutable.
You can still argue the toss if you like BSA and Cousin Roy if you like, but facts are quite stubborn.

Please dont challenge me again, it wastes my time.

 

[Don]

Are yo some sort of dickhead.

Do you understand the difference between 'trading names' and 'registered companies'.

Piss off and learn something about what you are taliking about before you put a stupid post up like this, you senseless dickhead.

One of the dumbest efforts at being a smartares I have seen

 

[Dan26]

Kevin Sooky,

The LA Lakers have won 12 NBA championships. 6 of these have come since they moved to L.A in the 1960's. They won 6 in the 1950's and early 60's as the Minneapolis Lakers. When they moved to LA, they retained all their heritage and history. It was the same "franchise"; it just moved cities, that's all. They are still regarded as having won a total of 12 championships.

The Sydney Swans are the SAME club as South Melbourne. If they are not, why did they conveniently use the same colours, same nickname, and have the same players from 1981, when they "relocated"? Hmmmm. How convenient that this "new" club (accordng to Kevin Sooky) looked and sounded exactly like the old one. If they were a different team to South, one would presume South would still be playing somewhere, while this "different" team called Sydney started up.

Sydeny's "official" history has yielded three premierships. This is a fact. Check AFL records. It cannot be argued. Paul Kelly's locker has Bob Skiltons number on it, as a former club champion who wore that number. This is a fact. If you look at AFL records, it states Sydney's history in the AFL from 1897. Head to head records against all clubs include South Melbourne.....obviously . It's common-sense.

When they moved to Sdney in 1982, they didn't "magically" become a new team. No "new" team started up. If South ceased to exist and a whole separate club called Sydney Storm began, then you may have a point. But this didn't happen.

All that happened was the club, that played out of Sout Melbourne, began playing games out of Sydney. Obviously the "name" of the club HAD to change didn't it ? You couldn't very well keep calling it South Melbourne when they were playing home games in Sydney.

South and Sydney are one and the same. Ask the AFL. Ask Sydney's Melbourne supporter base, who wouldn't support them if they were a different team. The fact that they DO support them, shows they are the same team. Go have a look at official AFL records (yes I said OFFICIAL) and you will see Sydney's 3 premierships listed alongside the name "SYDNEY". Go have a look at Sydney's offical Bronwlow winners, and it will list Skilton, Bedford etc.

Reemeber, in the 1950's, the Brooklyn Dodgers left New York and started playing Baseball out of L.A. The franchise is today 100 odd years old. It changed cities 50 years ago, but that doesn't mean a brand new club was born. Far from it. All it means is that an already existing club moved to another city, for financial reasons. Jst lii South moved to Sydney.

Go look it up in the official AFL records Kevin Sooky. This is not a matter of debate, or opinion. This is a "FACT". South Melbourne and Sydney are one and the same.

 

[sandie]

Dan
Give it up, you may as well go & bang your head against a brick wall. These people don't want to know the truth, same as the AFL/VFL discussion. These heathens don't want any recognition of teams or awards pre the AFL.
Bloody hell, we let them join OUR competition & now they are trying to take it over. Lol.

------------------
mantis

[This message has been edited by sandie (edited 22 November 2000).]

 

[Same Old's]

Even if South Melbourne changed their name to say the "Sydney Stars", for example, they would still have the history of the South Melbourne Swans.

 

[Bloodstained Angel]

Give it away Dan24

I went over and over this with Kevin Sooky (with valuable contribution from Roylion) back in June.

He won't be told and no matter what arguement you may like to come up with, he won't buy it, and at the timw we more or less agreed to disagree and left it at that.

Now hes back on this stupid question again - I'm not responding because I just can't be bothered with this rubbish anymore.

For the sake of your sanity just ignore it and maybe he will go away (again).

cheers

 

[kevin sooky]

Firstly to the dickhead who made the comment re trading names and registered companies.

The trading name Sydney Swans is now owned by a different company. A different legal entity. You cant sue South Melbourne if it was company A. It disposed of the trading name and sold it to the new company so you have to sue company B A DIFFERENT LEGAL ENTITY. Its like Coles Myer selling the trading name Sydney Swans BHP. BHP now owns that trading name and runs that "club" but BHP is not South Melbourne just becasue that may have been Coles Myer's previous name.

BSA you may recall in our earlier discussion that you were unable to say if the entities which now TRADES as the Sydney Swans and the one that did before had the same ACN number. If they didnt you conceded that they were different. I have proven they are different, therfore there is not too much more to argue about or discuss. I agree with you there.

Dan24 Big S*** if the AFL wants to promote the myth. They also said ground managers cant control transmission rights of games but Carlton showed they were wrong there. The AFL is not God and they are not above the law.

So I hope Sydney can win their frist premiership soon. Bad luck South Melbourne stopped at three and Fitzroy stopped at 8.

I can see why you guys didnt take up law as a career option. Disappointed in your response BSA seeing as you work with lawyers and not withstanding our current disagreement, you usually acknowledge when a point is made even if it is against you.

If I had suported South I would have hoped what you were contending was true also but quite plainly even if it were true up to 1994 it ceased to be so at that time.
Sorry!

 

[Bloodstained Angel]

Not as disappointed as I am in you for bringing up this ridiculous topic again.

 

[monkeyman]

Kevin Sooky - name says it all!

 

[Sydneyfan]

kevin, you better tell the Sydney Swans that they are a different team to the South Melbourne Swans. At the Swans website http://www.sydneyswans.com.au , they are under the impression that South Melbourne Football Club and Sydney Football Club are the same club, relocated from South Melbourne to Sydney.

The truth is that South Melbourne Football Club and Sydney Football Club ARE the same club, relocated from South Melbourne to Sydney in 1982, and every respected source on Australian Football history acknowledges this fact.

 

[Roylion]

Well, well a reasoned, logical, reply at last..... Well done Sook.

So KS of course what you are saying therefore, that the South Melbourne Football Club moved to Sydney in 1981, changed its' company name from South Melbourne to the Sydney Swans in February 1983 as I have previously outlined, and traded as such until 1988, when their company was registered. Now I'll assume that you agree with me and believe that South Melbourne and Sydney are the same club up until roughly 8th-15th February 1994. After all if every club began its records again from the time they were registered as a trading company, it would become a little confusing wouldn't it? Some supporters wouldn't even know they began supporting a new club, on the day it became a trading company would they?

So what we have, in fact, in regards to the Sydney Swans is a COMPLETELY NEW CLUB that began in 1994 and in fact is the second AFL club in Sydney,

OR

if you prefer to believe that the club began in 1988, the current Sydney Swans are the THIRD AFL club in Sydney. Should we refer to the current Sydney Swans Football Club as Sydney Swans 1, Sydney Swans 2 or Sydney Swans 3, because after all they are two (or three) completely seperate, different clubs?

So obviously the AFL should re-write it's history as thus.....

- Sydney Swans #1, born 1883, three premierships POSSIBLY died 1988 when they were registered. Whatever did happen to the "club" in this case?

- The existance of a possible Sydney Swans #2. Possibly born 1988. Definitely died somewhere between 8th-15th February 1994, when the naming rights were bought by another company. Brownlow Medallists: 1 (Gerard Healy - 1988) or maybe as part of Sydney Swans #1, depending on your definition.

- "Sydney Swans #3" Born 1994. All players' records that began before 1994, belong to Sydney Swans #1 or 2, both of which definitely no longer exist. Premierships 0. Brownlow Medallists: 1 Paul Kelly (1995)

So logically we can also therefore say that John Northey, Tom Hafey, Gary Buckenara and Ron Barassi in his first year as a coach in the 90's have never coached the current Sydney Swans in the past...but have coached South Melbourne. Warwick Capper played for "Sydney Swans #1", but not the current club..which has only a 6 year history. Paul Kelly has captained two clubs in his AFL career..."Sydney Swans #1" in 1993 and "Sydney Swans #2" from 1994 onwards. Barry Round in 1981, Greg Williams in 1986 and Gerard Healy in 1988 have never won Brownlows for the current Sydney Swans.

I guess not only is the Sydney Swans website wrong, but the writers of such books on the Sydney Swans as "The Club that Refused to Die (1874-1999)" , "Flying North for the Winter", "The Sydney Swans" and "Bloodstained Angels" published in 1995 by Mark Brangahan and Mike Lefebvre on the Sydney Swans are all wrong. The last one must have been a short book with only two seasons to write about. On the other hand perhaps they wrote about the club up until 1993, when the South Melbourne Football Club/Sydney Swans died. You should contact them Kevin Sooky, tto infor tthem of the error of their ways.

Tell me Kevin Sooky.. in your opinion, which I value so highly, when exactly did South Melbourne die/end and the Sydney Swans take their place/ were born as a seperate CLUB..because that is what we are arguing here. Was it 1981, 1983, 1988, or 1994. All dates are possible, under your reasoning. You tell me/us... and give me/us your reasons why. I would assume that on your previous post you believe 1994. Can you also inform us when the VFL also was registered for the first time, because we may need to change all the records here as well, to possibly take into account VFL#1, VFL#2 and also the AFL, which changed it's name in 1990. Also if you could, when all the Melbourne clubs first registered or perhaps transferred their naming rights to another company, because we are also looking at situations like Richmond#1, Richmond#2 or Carlton #1 or Carlton #2 etc etc. Also could you check out the legal history of clubs such as West Coast, because there is a possibility we MAY have two or three West Coast Eagles clubs as well. Only a possibility of course, but I'll leave you to research this.

I'm not challenging you...oh no I wouldn't dare....I'm just asking you to clarify a few things, just for my own knowledge...

Thanks.
Cuz..(short for 'Cousin'..in case you weren't sure.)

 

[Lionel]

Roylion, you wouldn't happen to go under the initials of 'SP' would you?

 

[Dan26]

Ha ha ha

Good one Roylion. You got him bigtime. You've embarassed the livig shit out of K.Sooky and there's not much he can say.

Aside from the logical fact that they are "obviously" the same club, I just look at it from a common-sense point of view.

If they were a brabd new club, why did this "new" club conveninetly have the same clours, nickname, and players as the old club. A bit "too" convenient if you ask me.

And as you said, all clubs may have had a few trading names, especially, over the course of 100 years. People have really got to put all this trading names nonsense behind and look at it in a pure common-sense way. South Melboure and Sydey are, by common-sense and logic, OBVIOULSY the same club. Anyone that can't see this is an idiot. AFL history dcitates this, and backs up that common-sense and logic.

It all makes K.Sooky look like a bit of a fool, really.

 

[Roylion]

Sorry Lionel, the initials of my real name are 'JR'. Who is SP?

Well Kevin Sooky, could you enlighten us as to when you think the Sydney Swans actually began?

 

[kevin sooky]

What people perceive to be and what really is does not necessarily coincide. For instance Dan24 thinks he is an enlightened clear thinking football observer and BB commentator whose verbosity makes up for his bias and otherwise boring posts...actually it doesnt and he isnt.

I am sure many Brisbane supporters think their club has been going for 13 years. I mean Marcus Ashcroft has only played for one team. But he hasnt he has played for two.

In relation to ressurecting this topic, if you look back at the Roylion thread, it was raised again by someone else and I was challenged to respond by Cuz and Urinestained angel. So please direct any criticism at these individuals you phallic heads. I was quite willing to let sleeping idiots lie.

Finally, your logic would be laughed out of court. The law overides what is daintily perceived by sad South Melborne supporters. The argument was if you look back to the Juen thread, whether the club was a different legal entity, not what the AFL believes, or the supporters believed or whatever anyone else would have you believe.AFL edicts do not override the truth or the law. If the AFL says the sky is green as Cuz and BSA seem to insist, that does not make it so. Pretty simple concept really. Also I can understand why you idiots cant grasp it.

As for Cuz's post, I stopped reading it half way through b/c it was pretty boring and not relevant to the point in discussion.

 

[Roylion]

This debate was resurrected because KS, you stated that South Melbourne and Sydney Swans were different clubs in the "Roylion thread" and also started up a new topic to argue the point. We didn't raise it....again. BSA, Dan24, myself and others assert and have always asserted that the South Melbourne CLUB and the Sydney Swans CLUB is one and the same. Just on the legal aspect, if you want to confine the meaning of the word 'club' to just that.....there is no doubt whatsoever that the 'South Melbourne Football Club Ltd.' changed their name to 'Sydney Swans Ltd.' in February 1983 and that the South Melbourne football club was trading as the Sydney Swans and operating out of Sydney before that date.

On your logic, the South Melbourne entity (or Sydney Swans #1) must have left the AFL at some point, to be replaced by a new club the "Sydney Swans #2". WHEN? 1981, 1983, 1988 or 1994. 1994, I believe you are arguing. It must therefore logically mean there have been two Sydney Swans clubs and Paul Kelly for example has played for two clubs. What happened to the players, the members, the coteries, the monetary and building assets of the original club?

How about answering the question, which was quite reasonably asked? Don't go on with furphies about how how if the AFL said the sky was green, we would beleive it. That is irrelevant, not what I said earlier. Give us an answer.

What should happen to the records of the current Sydney Swans if this is when the new club started? Obviously you believe they should start from 1994? 1981 or 1983 is not a valid starting point because it is clear that South Melbourne and Sydney Swans Ltd. were the same club!

 

[kevin sooky]

Roy Boy

YOU in fact raised it again by quoting that article which you then repeated after I responded to your challenge.

You know what people do is one thing re lockers numbers coteries etc. That is irrelavant. It doesnt matter what the assume. The fact is it is a different legal entity which was being denied in June by you and that other lamebrain BSA. You then quoted your 80s report and said something like "Lets see if Sooky responds to this" . SO who resurrected it fool?

I did the research which BSA refused to do even though he had the facilities available where he worked to do a number of company and business name searches. I prove quite conclusicely you are both wrong and now to justify your argument you use the ..well if everyone else doesn't agree with you that makes you wrong ..so there!!!!. Weel done....except logic doesnt work like that. It is not a concensus thing. Try studying Socrates and Plato and get back to me.

Nice try Cousin Roy but you should have stuck with Zig and Zag and the kids shows.

 

[Bloodstained Angel]

I did those searches KS (and paid for them too) so stick your baseless stupid accusations up your f*ucking arse.

 

[kevin sooky]

If so then I can understand why you didnt want to share your new found knowledge with the rest of us oh yeah of little grey matter.

Tsk Tsk Tsk. Such profanity. From a little librarian too.

Did you put down the cost to some non-existent client? I would expect so.

R.I.P. South Melbourne. Poor old Jim taylor would be rolling in his grave with old Jim Cleary.

 

[James2]

1) Assuming KS's information regarding ACN's is correct, then the current Sydney Football Club, is a different legal entity to previous ones. This is quite simple. A company comes into existence when it receives an ACN (Corporations Law s119 (I think)). Therefore, if the current Sydney FC has a different ACN to a previous SFC, then they are different.

2) A company can change its name, but still be the same legal entity. Using Roy's example of the VFL changing its name to the AFL. The Australian Football League has an ACN of 004 155 211. It was registered on 18/06/1929- when it was known as the VFL. As to whether the VFL before 1929 was a different legal entity to the VFL after 1929, perhaps Kevin could enlighten us.

3) KS, perhaps you may also be able to answer this question.
The Brisbane Lions AFC Pty Ltd (Brisbane Lions) was registered on 11/07/96 as a result of the merger of Brisbane and Fitzroy. However, the Brisbane Bears (now BB-Fitzroy)FC Ltd and, the Fitzroy Football Club Ltd are still trading as different companies. Why? My understanding of a merger is that a new companie is created and those merged "cease" to trade. How exactly does this work??

 

[Roylion]

So then Sook, answer the question/s. You believe the Sydney Swans and South Melbourne are different clubs.

When should the records of the current Sydney Swans start?
Has Paul Kelly played for two clubs? Has Ron Barassi coached two clubs in Sydney?
Should we distinguish between Sydney Swans #1 and Sydney Swans #2?
Do you believe that Sydney Swans #1 was the same as South Melbourne Football Club?

 

[Roylion]

Also do you (KS) concede that the company "South Melbourne Football Club Ltd" changed their name to "Sydney Swans Ltd." in February 1983?

 

[kevin sooky]

Roy I cant concede that yet, b/c ASIC company records do not go back that far. In 1981/82 companies were registered by their local state corporate affairs offices and those records are not amenable to easy searching. I have spent enough researching this point.
Your answer to Paul Kelly etc is ...yes.

James2 my information regarding ACN's is correct as I have conducted company and business name searches to verify the facts.

And it is correct that a company can change its name, but still be the same legal entity. As long as its ACN stays the same.

Strictly speaking, the VFL before 1929 was in fact a different legal entity to the VFL after 1929. There were no ACN numbers in those days. I do not know if the VFL was a corporate entitity prior to 1929 but it would make no difference.

On the point of the merger, I would agree with you but I suppose we would have to look at the merger agreement to understand what was envisaged would happen with the old companies. If both were actively trading it would appear to be a joint venture and not a merger except for the fact that Fitzroy do not share in the spoils.

Both companies should have been wound down and deregistered.

 

[Dan26]

Kevin Sooky,

All this crap about business numbers and ACN numbers and so forth, completely misses the point.

As was stated above, the AFL changed it's busines number, yet they still celebtated their centenary in 1996, because it was "obviously" the same competiton. Logic and common-sense dictated this.

I'll give you an example of common-sense and logic rgarding the law. In the AFL rules, there is a law for time-keepers. Part of that law reads as follows :

"10.5.2 Re-Commencing Time

The Timekeepers shall recommence the clock used for the timing of a Match when:-

a.)directed to do so by the field Umpire in accordance with Law 10.5.3;

b.)the football is bounced (or thrown up) in the Centre Square after a Goal has been scored;

c.)the football is brought back into play after a Behind has been scored;

d.)the football is thrown back into play by the boundary Umpire or brought back into play by a Player, (as the case may be), after it had gone Out of Bounds or Out of Bounds on the Full; or

e.)THE FOOTBALL IS OBVIOUSLY IN PLAY

Now you may think, what HAS this got to do with South melbourne. The last point (point e) sates that the time keeper can blow time off, when the ball is "OBVIOUSLY" in play. It comes down to common-sense.

Similarly, there is no doubt that if Mark Browning (who played for South and Sydney) went to a court of law, to prove that he only played for one club, he would be succesfull in proving this. Not that it would need to be proved. Everyone except K.Sooky knows they are the same, but this is a hypothetical example, of course.

The law would find that despite the club having different business numbers, this is irrelevant since businesses change their numbers all the time. In fact the AFL "technically" became a different business when they changed their name in 1990, but OBVIOUSLY they are the same competition as the VFL. Everyone can see this.

The public treats it as the same comp. The players, and indeed the AFL themsleves treat it as the same comp.

Same situation with the Sydeny Swans. EVERY SINGLE f*cking person (except you, Sooky) knows that they are the same club. They are treated the same, are regarded as the same, and historicaly are statisticaly regarded as the same. If Mark Browning was trying to prove in a court that he has just played for one club, he would be successful. The law wouldn't say : "I'm sory, Mr Browning, you've played for two clubs". There is no way this would happen.

Similar to the AFL's rule on timekeeping, we are all obviously aware that Sydney and South Melbournhe are the same. Common-sense and obviousness would dictate this. I'm not an expert on law but I do know that in certain cases, the word "obviously" is used in law. It's used for a reason. It is used to prevent farcical situations like the one Sooky is trying to prove from becoming reality. The word "obviously" is used to add some common-sense to situations which rely on common-sense. Sometimes, if you take everything literally, it will lead to no justice being done. Criminals could get off and people wouldn't get punished. The word "obviously" is used all the f*cking time to allow justice to be done, instead of some stupid "technical" meaning that is irrelevant to the public at large.

I mean, OF COURSE Sydney and South Melbourne are the same. If you can't see that, you are a dickhead. You are unintelligent, un-common-sensical, and ignorant of the facts if you can't see the obvious and common-sense answer the Sydney and South are one and the same.

I supppose you think that the Brooklyn Dodgers and LA Dodgers are differnt. And the famous NBA "Lakers" franchise, which has spent time in LA and Minneapolis, must be different according to you too. Never mind that every single person in the world treats them as having won 12 NBA championships (total in both cities). Never mind that their history id recorded since the "franchises" inception. No, that's wrong according to you. Apparently, you know more than everyone else, because of one f*cking business number.

Use a bit of logic and f*cking common-sese you loser. F*ck, you're stupid. How many times do you have to be told ? I think you do agree with us, after reading all this. You must; how could you not ???

But you will still argue your point out of "pride", and "spite". You can't possibly be wrong, so you will argue your "obviously" wrong point, just because of your own pride. Well give up. Give in to your pride for once and use some f*cking common-sense. Bloody Hell.

 

[Danni]

That is a very good question James2, I have been wondering about that myself.

Now you would think that if it was a new 'company' as such, it would get a new ACN, and thus a new set of Articles of Association. Now the Brisbane Lions operate off the same Articles as did the Brisbane Bears, with noted Amendments.

Could it be that (now please don't jump down my throat for using the word 'sold' for want of a better one), that FFC 'sold' their football operations areas to the BB's? yet that still allowed them to be a legal entity on their own, with a board of directors etc, but without a football structure?

Now that would mean that the BB's 'bought' the 'Fitzroy Football Structure' more as a product rather than buying the 'company' as a whole? The BB's then made an ammendment to their Articles of Association to include the name change to the BBFFC Ltd t/a Brisbane Lions, to incorporate the newly gained FFC football structure into their current identity?

That would probably make the merger agreement similar to a 'bill or sale' or such, outlining the terms and conditions the 'sale' of the football operations structure, and how it would go ahead and be operated by the BB's. Such as name change, board structure, retaining of history etc.

[This message has been edited by Danni (edited 24 November 2000).]