Fitzroy on 7Two

[Roys]

Yep had to work this morning but made it home to see the last 6 minutes.
Was there with dad in the grandstand. I nearly teared up this morning. We havn't been to a game since.
And it has NEVER been the same.

Great to hear the Fitzroy anthem sung with such gusto and passion - aahhh memories

You are right it has NEVER been the same

 

[mianfei]

As much as Channel 7 annoys the crap out of me I'm really happy that they respect Fitzroy and still show their matches despite the Lions not having the pulling power of a powerhouse team like Essendon or Collingwood.

It is only fair that they show some of Fitzroy's famous matches, and it is a pity their amazing win over North Melbourne in Round 13 of 1983 is not held by the Visual Entertainment Group. (If it were, it would have been the first thing I ever bought in Name A Game)!

People have talked about Fitzroy's narrow loss in the 1981 First Semi-Final as a game worthy of being available, but less footage exists than of the North game in 1983. The 1983 Qualifying Final, which footy historians have said effectively decided the 1983 flag, is also not held by the Visual Entertainment Group.

Even Fitzroy's amazing 1991 win over North in the highest-scoring one-point result on record is not available, but their equally astonishing last round win over West Coast that year is - and is the game that I would recommend you pressure 7TWO to show if you want them to show further Fitzroy games.

Who killed Fitzroy, Oakley or Bowers?

Neither. What killed Fitzroy, to be brutally frank, was demographic changes from the 1920s to the 1960s eroding their supporter base, and the concern (which I imagine Hans Hoppe can show inherent in a member-owned sporting club) for extremely short-term success at the expense of long-term viability (in economic jargon extremely high time preference or present-orientation).

This was seen in the way Fitzroy

• rather than as Hoppe and his ilk would recommend
• try to
  • clear all debts and
  • build up long-term market viability without regard for short-term on-field failures
• bought many top players in the late 1970s to gain immediate on-field success

This, however, brought Fitzroy debts, which they never could pay off from any extra revenue garnered by their on-field success from 1979 to 1986.

 

[Roy Fitzlion]

Neither. What killed Fitzroy, to be brutally frank, was demographic changes from the 1920s to the 1960s eroding their supporter base, and the concern (which I imagine Hans Hoppe can show inherent in a member-owned sporting club) for extremely short-term success at the expense of long-term viability (in economic jargon extremely high time preference or present-orientation).

With respect to you and Hoppe, there were a number of factors that put Fitzroy away and saw clubs in simillar positions like North, Footscray & Melbourne survive. Unlike the clubs mentioned Fitzroy did not receive any "Preferential" monies or treatment from the AFL, in fact if the truth be known, it was an AFL Commission led by Oakley that conciously targetted the Roys. The facts are in print and have been published to prove this.

Fitzroy in the 70s and 80s did not do themselves any favours but if they had received the same treatment and equalisation enjoyed by some other clubs in the 80s & 90s, there would be a greater chance they would still be in the AFL, regardless of Hoppe's theories.

 

[JorgePosada]

With respect to you and Hoppe, there were a number of factors that put Fitzroy away and saw clubs in simillar positions like North, Footscray & Melbourne survive. Unlike the clubs mentioned Fitzroy did not receive any "Preferential" monies or treatment from the AFL, in fact if the truth be known, it was an AFL Commission led by Oakley that conciously targetted the Roys. The facts are in print and have been published to prove

To be fair to the Dogs, 89's fightback was a supporter initiative and 96's was because passionate cashed up Dogs decided it was now or death. Neither were results of hand outs. That came later.

I think had the Roys got through to the 00's they'd still be around. Letting happen what happened was the mother of all **** up's by the AFL.

 

[mianfei]

With respect to you and Hoppe, there were a number of factors that put Fitzroy away and saw clubs in similar positions like North, Footscray & Melbourne survive. Unlike the clubs mentioned Fitzroy did not receive any "Preferential" monies or treatment from the AFL, in fact if the truth be known, it was an AFL Commission led by Oakley that conciously targetted the Roys. The facts are in print and have been published to prove this.

Fitzroy in the 70s and 80s did not do themselves any favours but if they had received the same treatment and equalisation enjoyed by some other clubs in the 80s & 90s, there would be a greater chance they would still be in the AFL, regardless of Hoppe's theories.

That is very true, and unfair to Fitzroy.

In the middle 1990s, the AFL, confronted with the failure of its (seemingly desperate) effort to expand into the traditional rugby league stronghold of the east coast, allowed Sydney and Brisbane to take such top players as Roos and Lynch from the Lions. If the AFL had not done this, and the ARL had been less eager to recklessly admit new clubs and encourage the Super League breakaway which was a major factor in Sydney's rise, the expansion onto the east coast might have faded away.

To be fair to the Dogs, 89's fightback was a supporter initiative and 96's was because passionate cashed up Dogs decided it was now or death. Neither were results of handouts. That came later.

I think had the Roys got through to the 00's they'd still be around. Letting happen what happened was the mother of all **** up's by the AFL.

However, I will make one point where I feel Hoppe is certainly vindicated.

If we look at the various Melbourne clubs that have had financial problems, I think it is fair to say that it is those which have the worst administration, especially:

1. Richmond
   1. why did you not note them and 1990's "Save Our Skins" or the club's terrible management during the 1980s, Roy Fitzlion?
2. before the 1990s, St. Kilda
   1. there was an intention to privatise the Saints in the 1980s,
   2. privatisation would have meant certain relocation to WA since the proposed owner was from Perth

that are most fanatically supported by their members when under threat. This suggests that, as Hoppe would certainly believe, member ownership does not encourage good management. If the AFL had shown no favours to clubs in debt, as Hoppe would absolutely insist, Fitzroy might well have been the most likely club to fail anyway, and I do not know what fate would have befallen North or Melbourne except a takeover.

 

[Roy Fitzlion]

1. Richmond
   1. why did you not note them and 1990's "Save Our Skins" or the club's terrible management during the 1980s, Roy Fitzlion?

Just an oversight I can assure you. Richmond has been lucky/able to get itself out of the mire several times, with AFL help and a fickle mass of supporters and backers.

Richmond and its "terrible management" played a significant part in the pillaging of Fitzroy players in the early 90s and managed again to have a hand on the gun that put Fitzroy away via Leon Daphne in 96.

At this point I will also give Carlton a mention, who only a few years ago were being compared to Fitzroy on and off the field. I will qualify that by saying that Carlton cheated their way to their problems (unlike Fitzroy who were a clean skin) and got themselves up with the help of a very very generous benefactor and the AFL of course. Carlton also played a significant AFL/Collins assisted hand in "getting" Fitzroy via a sham deal for the use of Princes Park before the Bulldogs helped Fitzroy out.

No love lost for Richmond or Carlton and can only hope things square up with them both over the ensuing years!!

 

[Dylan12]

At 3.30am on Saturday morning (10 April) there is a replay of the 1995 Round 3 Fitzroy v Fremantle game.

 

[mianfei]

Just an oversight I can assure you. Richmond has been lucky/able to get itself out of the mire several times, with AFL help and a fickle mass of supporters and backers.

Richmond and its “terrible management” played a significant part in the pillaging of Fitzroy players in the early 1990s and managed again to have a hand on the gun that put Fitzroy away via Leon Daphne in 1996.

I had not heard Richmond played any role in the pillaging of Fitzroy before, assuming it was exclusively the work of Brisbane and Sydney.

Still, if the AFL had realised that Richmond really were managed much worse than, say, Footscray or North Melbourne, they should have been less willing to support them when they got into trouble: they had more chance of avoiding financial difficulties (Richmond when they won the flag in 1980 with the best attack in V/AFL history were thought of as the “team of the eighties”)!

Getting back to the topic of Fitzroy games on 7TWO, one can look here for possibilities.

 

[Roy Fitzlion]

I had not heard Richmond played any role in the pillaging of Fitzroy before, assuming it was exclusively the work of Brisbane and Sydney.

You had to be there!!!

See examples of underhanded behaviour:

1. Jamie Elliott poach
2. Broderick, Gale & Dundas supposed "trade"

Whilst Brisbane and Sydney were the benefactors of preferential treatment, it was the AFL who were in charge.

There is much detail but I cannot be stuffed repeating again. Read Dyson Hore Lacey's book......it's all there.

 

[mianfei]

1. Jamie Elliott poach
2. Broderick, Michael Gale & Dundas supposed "trade"

Whilst Brisbane and Sydney were the benefactors of preferential treatment, it was the AFL who were in charge.

I actually do remember Richmond obtaining those three players, but the question is to what extent they helped Richmond's rise from only four wins in 1993 to third place on the ladder in 1995?

The fact that Richmond have not been able to build on that success and currently seem as firmly attached to the bottom of the ladder as ever makes me think that AFL did not know what it was doing trying to help them. Would Richmond have disappeared but for this kind of treatment being given to them by the AFL - or was it the fact that, as Football Year '91 said, that they had a much larger supporter base than Fitzroy and would have been thus much more likely to survive given equal treatment by the AFL.

 

[Fat Pizza]

It was because Richmond had a much larger supporter base than Fitzroy that they were given preferential treatment, while we were targeted.

 

[Roy Fitzlion]

I actually do remember Richmond obtaining those three players, but the question is to what extent they helped Richmond's rise from only four wins in 1993 to third place on the ladder in 1995?

It really is not a matter of whether the players obtained from Fitzroy helped Richmond but the method and intent in which they were obtained by Richmond. It was underhanded and typical of the treatment Fitzroy was subjected to for a few years up to 96......and the AFL did not want to know!

Make no bones about it, the AFL (read Oakley) targetted Fitzroy after the 89 failed merger with Footscray. Good on Footscray for surviving but it sealed our fate.........Fitzroy could do NOTHING to avoid what the AFL did!

 

[The J Dog]

The first outing for Fitzroy on 7Two will be:

1996 Round 21: Richmond vs Fitzroy @ 1:30am-3:45am 18/12/2009
Other games:
1986 AFL ELIMINATION FINAL: ESSENDON V FITZROY @ 3:45AM-6:00AM 21/12/2009

(This Friday night) Saturday 1.30am 1 May
86 FS Fitzroy vs Swans

 

[mianfei]

(This Friday night) Saturday 1.30am 1 May
86 FS Fitzroy vs Swans

I recently bought a DVD of some classic Fitzroy games, and it included the last quarter of the draw (their 25th and last) with Carlton in the opening round of 1982. That excites me because there are no full home-and-away games from 1986 or earlier in Name A Game’s archive.

Why might it be that the Visual entertainment Group only has footage of the last quarter. Rex Hunt said the footage was taken from ABC’s The Winners, so would they have deliberately not taped the first three quarters? If they have them, somebody should try to make that game available more widely - and no doubt many others could be treated the same way.