"Live Bear bateing"

[Danni]

PS - NO-ONE here is claiming that the Brisbane Lions represents Fitzroy or the Bears!!

The simple fact is that the Brisbane Lions, Est. 1997 (in a seasonal point of view) is the product of the the Fitzroy Lions and the Brisbane Bears, and in such incorporates the football history of both clubs.

And my god, how quick some are to forget (in relation to the Bears)!!!! In 1995, when the Bears reached the finals for the first time in their short history. The well-wishes came in their 10's of thousands. The faxes, phone calls and letters of support. The media articles in Victoria print and tv. The number of ppl at the 'G' on that day. More than 20,000 more than expected - all just there to cheer them on. No matter that most probably didn't truly follow the Bears and hated Carlton. It was the fact that they were the true underdog, taking on the big guns for the first time!

And you lot reckon QLDer's are fickle!!!

Hmmmm underdog = worthy of your support - unless of course they MIGHT actually be a threat!

Oh yeah, and how about the fact that 10 years ago, and in the 2nd last year that the Bears fielded a 'reserves' team - they won the bloody Reserves premiership!

Shit, we mightn't have a premiership since. And as for Fitzroy, they had their last cup in 1944 and their last Brownlow in 1981.

BUT, for both teams, they have a new lease of life - and a better chance of doing it in the next 5 years than if they had stayed as seperate entities.

Fitzroy lost a team on their doorstep, but kept the tune to their song, the name "lions" and the emblem and club colours (maroon was the original before red).

Bears kept a team on their doorstep, lost their song, their name "bears" and their jersey.

Fitzroy Football Club is still a legal trading entity in it's own right. Brisbane Bears is not - it is now part of the new club.

Funniest thing is that up until last year, most of this criticism would have been reserved for ex-Fitzroy and ex-Bears supporters to argue amongst themselves.

The merger must be a SUCCESS for supporters of other clubs to sit up, take notice, then bitch about the Brisbane Lions. Otherwise, why bother?

 

[golions]

Well said Roylion

 

[Roylion]

Footscray did NOT sue the merged entity (ie the Brisbane Lions) for breach of contract after Fitzroy had been railroaded. Footscray sued the FITZROY FOOTBALL CLUB LTD., (as represented by adminstrator Michael Brennan) for breach of contract as Fitzroy had a contract to play at Western Oval for seven years, which they breached by not being able to play in the AFL competition. The merger which was announced on July 4th 1996, did not take effect until 1st November 1996 and the case took place largely in that time period.

 

[Red Devil]

Sorry for the late reply Lion fans, I've been out of the site for a day
Basically, I've previously stated my reasons for why I think Brisbane is a sham merger, if you don't agree with me, well, lets leave it at that & agree to disagree.

Onto other points raised, the Bronco's will always take top billing in Brisbane & rightfully deserve it. They are a truly great team, who win big matches & finals -home & away.
Thnkyou for deciding who won this debate dons are tops, you're input has been essential!
Thankyou Lion fans for taking the bait, it's been fun!

 

[Roylion]

Well, there you have it. Red Devil dosen't really have any idea at all, as to why he thinks what he does. He can't back his opinions with any reasonable, logical arguments...he certainly can't refute any of mine. Looking forward to your next well argued opinion, Red.

 

[Red Devil]

Hey Roy Lion, you believe that Fitzroy are still alive, goodluck to you, it's your opinion, but some of us may choose to disagree with you.
By the the way, today's the 25th, only 4 months until Santa Claus comes to town, I'm sure you also believe in him!!

 

[Roylion]

Red Devil, not only do you have no arguments to back up your views, you can't read properly either. When did I ever try to imply that Fitzroy had 'relocated' to Brisbane and was thus still ALIVE? What I have always stated on this forum is that the merger between the Bears and Fitzroy formed a new AFL club the Brisbane Lions that combines aspects of the Bears and aspects of Fitzroy, in other words a MERGER or MARRIAGE. In this respect some parts of Fitzroy are still alive and continue on. The Bears no longer exist either. In that respect the 'marriage' of the Bears and Fitzroy has been quite successful up to this point, and in no way can it be argued that it is a 'sham'. How about getting on here and refuting each of the arguments below (that I have raised before, so apologies to others) if you are that convinced that it is a sham?

They are:

a) The merger licence states that Fitzroy's 'Lion' and colours must be used in 'perpetuity'- forever.

b) The theme song to Fitzroy's old tune has lines from the old Bears and Fitzroy's theme song, with a heavy predominance to the Fitzroy side of things.
"We are the boys from Brisbane Town
We wear maroon, blue and gold
We will always fight for victory
Like FITZROY and BEARS of old." etc etc.

c) The Lions train in Brisbane before a Brisbane match and in Melbourne for a Melbourne match. 500 supporters turned up to the training run before the Carlton-Brisbane semi-final at Fitzroy's old stomping ground the Junction Oval. They also train at Albert Park (where Fitzroy used to train) and also at the MCG...as Fitzroy used to do before it's MCG games. So your argument that they train only in Brisbane is just crap!

d) Red Devil raised that it was a sham marriage because only two-three old Lions players were in Brisbane's side. Seriously is that the best argument he could come with? So what! Players come and go from any club these days in large numbers, with at least a 15% turn-over on a senior list every year and to claim that the merger is a sham marriage, because not many Fitzroy players went to Brisbane, is frivolous and just clutching at straws for want of a better argument. How many Fitzroy players would have gone to North Melbourne, if they had been the successful merger partner? 8-10 players at most. I bet, given that Fitzroy had a VERY poor list in 96 that most of them would have gone from North Melbourne's list by now. Would Red Devil have then claimed that the North Melbourne-Fitzroy merger wasn't a real one and it was sham marriage? How many times does Red Devil have to be told that the decision about how many players from Fitzroy, Brisbane could take was made NOT by Brisbane and NOT by the AFL Commission but by the other 13 AFL clubs as a condition of the merger.

e) Red Devil claimed that the reason it was a sham marriage was because the Lions played "F@#% All!" matches in Melbourne. I don't know what his definition of "F@#% All!" matches is, but in Season 2000 they played 1 Ansett Cup match + six ' Home' matches + 1 final in Melbourne. 8 matches in all. The Gabba had twelve matches (11 home games + 1 final. It's not a huge difference, although naturally as a Victorian I would like to see as many as possible. All Victorian members by virtue of getting a Vic. membership gain FREE admittance to Lions matches in Melbourne both H&A and Ansett Cup. These are our home matches. "F@#% All!" matches!? Geez what do you expect, when it's a merger between a club (the Bears) that has it's own stadium and represents a capital city with a club (Fitzroy) that had no real home and represented just one tiny suburb of another capital city. Yet another crap argument from Red Devil.

f) Red Devil said "When Fitzroy played their last game, there was a farewell to the club at the end of the match. There was no farewell to the Bears." So to someone as credelous and ignorant as Red Devil, of course that's all the proof you need that Fitzroy ended and the Bears didn't.
The Bears no longer exist either as a legal or AFL entity. A new licence was issued by the AFL and a new company the "Brisbane Bears-Fitzroy Aust. Football Club" (trading as the Brisbane Lions) was formed. The reason that there was no farewell to the Bears was because there was no huge tradition to farewell (10 years in Queensland and 4 years actually in Brisbane) and the fact that an AFL club was not leaving the city. The Bears were replaced by a NEW club, the Lions, formed by the merger. Geez I can just imagine the Bears parade of champions at the Gabba, or should that be at Carrara. Can you work out, Red Devil, why there was no parade to farewell the Bears, or is that too difficult for you to comprehend?

g) The clubs sponsored by Brisbane Lions are those that specifically played in Fitzroy colours, or have the name or have some other connection to Fitzroy. Brisbane sponsor far more clubs in Victoria than do most other "interstate" clubs" other than the Sydney Swans. By doing this they are taken the role that the FFC would have taken if it was an AFL club still. It's not just limited to merely monetary sponsorship either. Having kids who currently play or have played for the Fitzroy Juniors at the Brunswick Oval (the heart of Fitzroy) which is one of the sponsored clubs of the Brisbane Lions, what would Red Devil know of the sponsorship levels provided by the Lions or what is done.

h) The Brisbane Lions acknowledge Fitzroy history and tradition in their Yearbook and periodic magazine "The Lions Tale", by featuring stories on great players, supporters, old matches etc etc. that can be read by former Bears supporters as well as Fitzroy people;

i)The Lions B&F medal the Merrett-Murray Medal PARTLY named after Fitzroy Brownlow Medallist Kevin Murray; Named after Roger Merrett as well because it was a MERGER or MARRIAGE!

j)The "Fitzroy-Brisbane Past Players Association" (COMBINED/MERGED) is an active part of the Brisbane Lions and headed by Norm Brown a Fitzroy great). It's membership includes most past players who are still alive;

k) The acceptance of the Brisbane Lions as a PARTIAL continuation of the Fitzroy club in the AFL by former Fitzroy players such as Mick Conlan, Laurie Serfini, Kevin Murray, Gary Pert, Paul Roos, Bill Stephen, Kevin Murray, Norm Brown, 'Titch' Edwards, Bernie Quinlan, Brad Boyd, etc; I myself have spoken on several occasions to players like Micky Conlan, who believe that the Lions have done a fantastic job in preserving and acknowledging the Fitzroy history. Gary Pert for example is a Brisbane Lions supporter and member as are his kids. Brad Boyd, Fitzroy's last captain is a firm supporter of the Brisbane Lions and beleives that if Fitzroy had to merge they could have done it little better that what actually happened.

l) The Melbourne social club established in the heart of Fitzroy's old recruiting zone at Bulleen;

m) The Lions Den at the social club at Bulleen full of Fitzroy memorabilia. There's another large amount of Fitzroy meomorabilia at the Gabba, which Paul Roos mentioned on Channel 7 on Sunday. Roos stated than in his opinion there was plenty of Fitzroy in the new Brisbane Lions.

n) Fitzroy Life Members are automatically life members of the Brisbane Lions. Former Fitzroy life members have been officially presented with their Brisbane Lions life membership in several ceremonies held by the club.

o) The Brisbane Lions hold annual family days in Victoria, in which most of the Brisbane senior list are present and where this year 5,000 Brisbane Lions Victorian supporters turned up;

p) continued production of new Fitzroy "memorabilia" that the Brisbane Lions pay for and sell. The latest is a magnificent framed poster of every Fitzroy player to have played 100 games for Fitzroy;

q) The establishment of the "Fitzroy-Brisbane Historical Society" by the club and staffed and run by former players whose mission is to collect amd commemmorate Fitzroy history. This is done under the auspices of the Brisbane Lions.

r) 10,000-12,000 Brisbane Lions supporters at most Victorian matches depending on the opponent. 3,000 paid up Victorian members in Season 2000. Fitzroy only had 8,000 members in 1996 and crowds to match. I went to an AFL match between Sydney Swans and Fitzroy in '95 at the Western Oval that had 5,000 people turn up.

s) only Melbourne has after-match functions where Victorian (read Fitzroy) supporters can intermingle with the players. This does NOT happen in Brisbane, after a home game.

t) Co-captains. Michael Voss and Alistair Lynch. Voss for the Bears, Lynch for the Roys (and I realise Lynch was a Bears as well!)

Now Red Devil, how about refuting each and every one of these arguments and explain to everyone out there why they don't mean anything and why they indicate that the playing and financial operations of Brisbane and Fitzroy have 'MERGED' (i.e joined together) reasonably successfully.

If you can't or don't, then I suggest it's you who believes in myths such as a Santa Claus, not I. All the arguments/reasons above are undeniable facts, not some figment of imagination. Your arguments are based on some fogged unclear perception of what went on and have little basis in concrete facts, other than Brisbane have 2-3 players from old Fitzroy. Maybe if you ask nicely and are a good boy, Santa will bring you a copy of the merger agreement.

Perhaps also in your infinite 'wisdom' (and I hope you recognise the sarcasm here) you could perhaps give us all here a few pointers on what Brisbane further need to do in order to make it a true 'merger.' Go on, give me a laugh!!! I suppose you or Woof or someone else will say something totally stupid and childish like "relocate to Melbourne, get rid of the Brisbane name, go back to Brunswick Street" etc etc etc.

 

[Homer]

Where is Woof.

He started this and he ran when he was given some, can give it and can't take it, one week later,higher on the ladder and younger players who have skill.

Sounds like he can't hack that his team his crap.

At that, the Lions didn't play well last week and Carlton were very good, but, half of our best 18 were out of the team.

And I know we have been inconsistent all year but that seems to be with the coach.

LIONS FOR PREMIERS IN 2001 ( If we can beat Essendon)

 

[WCE2000]

Roylion:
That is the best and most well structered post i have seen on Big Footy yet.
The only reason woof calls it a sham marriage is because there are only 3 players on the Brisbane list from the Fitzroy team of 1996.
But as you said, that can only be expected because Fitzroy had a terrible list in 1996. However, in the whole competition there are some very good footballers that were on the Fitzroy list in 1996: Jarrod Molloy (Brisbane), Shane Clayton (Kangaroos), Martin Pyke (Kangaroos), Matthew Primus (Port Adelaide).

------------------
for all your footballing needs visit my AFL web-site at www.bigfooty.com/users/afl/eastsydney
Be sure to sign the Guestbook and Post your thoughts on my message board.

 

[Homer]

Originally posted by Homer
Where is Woof.

He started this and he ran when he was given some, can give it and can't take it, one week later,higher on the ladder and younger players who have skill.

Sounds like he can't hack that his team his crap.

At that, the Lions didn't play well last week and Carlton were very good, but, half of our best 18 were out of the team.

And I know we have been inconsistent all year but that seems to be with the coach.

LIONS FOR PREMIERS IN 2001 ( If we can beat Essendon)

Now this is from a while back, while this site was in its infancy. I was feeling nostalgic and went back through my history and lo and behold I found this...

I feel that I did a good job predicting this, and have mellowed a shade since this thread, where's my parade?

 

[pugsville]

Merger was SHAM there is NO debate

regardless of the treatment of the fitzroy history and fans post merger. The legitimicy of the merger rests on one thing and one thing only.


CONSENT.


There was no consent from the fitzroy end . The AFL, their administrator, the other clubs, and Brisbane bears all Oked the alledged merger. But none of them have any real legitimcy to validate the merger.

It's about fitzroy people at the tiime. Their club was taken from them, and given to another club to dismember as it saw fit.


There was no consent at the time.


While some fitzroy people have made their peace with and embraced the brisbane lions it's after the fact and is not a consideration at all, as far as to how legitamite the merger was.

To be a merger to clubs voluntarily decide to join together.

In this case the fitzroy side of the alledged merger was denied any sort of say in what happened.

Royloin and whoever as ex -fitzroy people nmay embrace Brisbane and good luck to them , but it dont change the facts it wasnt a merger, Brisbane it not fitzroy in any way, and the hijacking of the song, the jumper, and the history
is a hollow mockery.

There is no doubt that the Brisbane and the Royloins of this world will be sucessful. Fitzroy will be reduced to a footnote in the histroy of the Brisbane football club. Those Fitzroy people or had their club ripped out of their hearts with no say it will just struggle alone with their loss. The Money and the Power of the Brisbane Lions and their collaborators like Roylion will drown out any sort of voice the dispossed have.




It was rape.

 

[Stocka]

Re: Merger was SHAM there is NO debate

Originally posted by pugsville
Those Fitzroy people or had their club ripped out of their hearts with no say it will just struggle alone with their loss. The Money and the Power of the Brisbane Lions and their collaborators like Roylion will drown out any sort of voice the dispossed have.

Whilst I don't necessarily disagree with your earlier point about 'consent', this last point of yours I must disagree with, as personally, I don't see how this is the case at all.

Personally, I don't see how the Bears/Fitzroy merger (or whatever people choose to call it), can be blamed for those Fitzroy supporters who now feel disenfranchised. As it was, the club was destined to fold at any rate, being brought to its knees by its inability to pay its debts. Had the club folded without a merger, there would be nothing left for Fitzroy supporters anyway. Blaming the Brisbane Lions for how some disenfranchised Fitzroy supporters currently feel would appear futile, in this regard. It's misdirected anger.

Personally, I think that the Lions have done a good job of offering Fitzroy supporters a club to support in the AFL, regardless of the argument about consent, etc. The club isn't 'Fitzroy', there's no doubt about that, and neither is it the 'Bears'. However, in my opinion, the Brisbane Lions do represent Fitzroy, and the Bears for that matter, for many of those supporters who once followed these clubs, by the virtue of the club incorporating various aspects of the identities of the parent clubs (ie: the jumper and colours, name and logo, song, the honour board, amongst quite a number of other things).

Whilst some people may see these aspects as merely token gestures, I'd argue that this is a call which can only be made by a Fitzroy supporter, on the basis of whether or not they make a personal connection with these aspects of the club or not. It's not a case of being able to make a general rule, as to whether or not these aspects of the club are "token gestures" for all or not. It's a personal decision as to whether or not you can relate to what is being offered or not. Similarly, I don't see why some supporters of opposition clubs seem to have a fascination with ridiculing those Fitzroy supporters who currently support the Brisbane Lions, or suggest that these people have "sold out" on Fitzroy. What business is it of theirs to make judgements about who other people support, and their reasons for doing so?

In my opinion the Brisbane Lions are better than nothing. I can still go to the football with my dad, and my friends who are Fitzroy supporters, and follow a current team in the AFL who I believe make a genuine effort to preserve aspect of Fitzroy. I have the opportunity to reminisce with like-minded Fitzroy followers about Fitzroy. If I were to support another Victorian club, I doubt I'd find too many fellow supporters who are interested in remembering the good-old-days of what it was like supporting the Roys. At least at the Lions, I personally feel as though some aspects of my club's history and heritage are being preserved, and that I myself, have an opportunity to do likewise, with like-minded supporters.

I don't expect all Fitzroy supporters to feel this way - and I'm sure the club doesn't expect everyone to feel this way either. If there are Fitzroy supporters who wish to follow other clubs, then, sincerely, good luck to them.

However, Fitzroy supporters, regardless of whether or not they support the Lions in the AFL, still have the opportunity to 'celebrate' the history and heritage of Fitzroy.

The Fitzroy FC still has a operative status, albeit small as it is, in Victoria. They sponsor a number of clubs in the Fitzroy area, who sport the Fitzroy identity. Whilst watching local football might not satisfy everyone, at least the clubs wear the Fitzroy jumper, and have the Fitzroy name (ie: identity). Personally, I go to most of the Reds' home games as well as supporting the Lions in the AFL. It's not the same as watching Fitzroy in the VFL/AFL, but I do enjoy the close historical links and "local football" feel that the Reds offer in the VAFA, whilst I also enjoy watching the Lions in the top-line competition.

Likewise, the Fitzroy Past Players Association, and Historical Society are as strong as ever, and work to promote and preserve Fitzroy's identity and its history and heritage. They also hold numerous functions throughout the year (along with the Fitzroy FC), much like what used to occur prior to the merger.

It's up to the individual to judge whether or not these outlets are suitable for them - it's not a case of anyone being able to make a hard and fast judgement about them suiting "Fitzroy supporters" as a group. With that said, I don't begrudge those Fitzroy supporters who feel differently to me about these respective outlets - although, I do expect that they, as well as other football supporters will respect my choice, as opposed to ridiculing it, or suggesting that I've somehow "sold out" on Fitzroy as a result of my choice.

Personally, I enjoy football too much just to throw in the towel. Likewise, I am also too passionate about Fitzroy to merely walk away and forget what it was all about and support an entirely different club when there are clubs which at least offer some resemblence of Fitzroy. The Brisbane Lions and Fitzroy Reds aren't an "ideal" replacement for Fitzroy. In fact, I'd argue that it would be impossible to have an "ideal" replacement for Fitzroy, because, how can you argue that any replacement for Fitzroy is going to be as good as the original club? However, for my circumstances and feelings, they are ideal for the realities of the here-and-now, as opposed to the dreams of an unfortunately by-gone era.

 

[Roylion]

Re: Merger was SHAM there is NO debate

Originally posted by pugsville
regardless of the treatment of the fitzroy history and fans post merger. The legitimicy of the merger rests on one thing and one thing only.

CONSENT.

Your opinion. Legally it was legitimate. Done by the existing laws of the land.

The ordinary rank and file member had no choice and neither in the end did the board. However at the time the board weren't in legal control of the club.

Originally posted by pugsville
There was no consent from the fitzroy end.

The board preferred a merger with North Melbourne. However the power to effect that merger was taken out of their hand when the Nauru Insurance Corporation appointed an administrator.

Originally posted by pugsville
The AFL, their administrator,

No. The AFL did NOT appoint an administrator for Fitzroy. Michael Brennan was appointed by the Nauru Insurance Corporation to recoup the $1.25 million owed by Fitzroy out of total debt of $2.8 million. The administrator Michael Brennan made it clear later on that the appointment of the administrator was as much a surpose to the AFL as everyone else. However the AFL dealt directly the administrator after June 28th and the decision to merge Fitzroy with Brisbane was made a week later, with the AFL spending it's own funds to keep Fitzroy going to the end of the year.

Originally posted by pugsville
the other clubs, and Brisbane bears all Oked the alledged merger. But none of them have any real legitimcy to validate the merger.

How so? The AFL own the licence and the administrator was in control of Fitzroy. A majority of other clubs is needed to ratify the merger and did so, 14 votes for to 1 vote against. The clubs clearly opposed the North Melbourne - Fitzroy merger.

If it wasn't legitimate by law the validity of the merger would have been challenged in court. It wasn't.

Originally posted by pugsville
It's about fitzroy people at the tiime. Their club was taken from them, and given to another club to dismember as it saw fit.

Yes the club was merged against the board's wishes. Many Fitzroy supporters did however prefer a merger with Brisbane in preference to North Melbourne. The ordinary Fitzroy member, I don't believe, was ever asked.

Originally posted by pugsville
While some fitzroy people have made their peace with and embraced the brisbane lions it's after the fact and is not a consideration at all, as far as to how legitamite the merger was.

Again you're making the assumption that all Fitzroy people preferred North Melbourne in preference to Brisbane. That was definitely not the case....although on balamnce there's was probably more than supported North Melbourne as a prospective merger partner.

Originally posted by pugsville
To be a merger to clubs voluntarily decide to join together.

A merger is where the two entities join and blend together. That's what happened. There's no doubt that there is a great deal of Fitzroy in the Brisbane Lions. Read earlier in this thread for examples. Even though that was written close to 4 years ago, it all still applie and in fact I could add a few other things on top of what is already there.

Originally posted by pugsville
Royloin and whoever as ex -fitzroy people nmay embrace Brisbane and good luck to them , but it dont change the facts it wasnt a merger, Brisbane it not fitzroy in any way,

No Brisbane IS not Fitzroy. Never said it was. The Brisbane Lions are a new entity, not a continuation of the Fitzroy Football Club. However the Brisbane Lions do have part of Fitzroy embodied in their identity and that is a fact.

Originally posted by pugsville
and the hijacking of the song, the jumper, and the history is a hollow mockery.

A hollow mockery of what exactly!

It's your opinion. You can't support it with any facts, but still as not even a Fitzroy person I don't see why it even concerns you that much. Let Fitzroy people make their own decision on whether to support the Brisbane Lions or whoever in the AFL. I really don't see how it's any skin off your nose as to what they/we do. I support the Brisbane Lions because of the Fitzroy connection and because I see a great deal of Fitzroy in the Brisbane Lions. You don't...but then again I doubt you're a member or associate of the club. I'm a current coterie club member, a member of the Fitzroy-Brisbane Historical Society and am regularly at Brisbane Lions club functions where I meet and socialise with many former Fitzroy Football Club Players and Officials. In fact apart from the inability to attend trainign every Thursday night and only seeing 6-7 matches a year, in many ways it's much the same.

Originally posted by pugsville
There is no doubt that the Brisbane and the Royloins of this world will be sucessful. Fitzroy will be reduced to a footnote in the histroy of the Brisbane football club.

Well that statement only shows your ignorance of what actually goes on around the Brisbane Lions club, both in Victoria and Queensland. Go and have a look for yourself one day and perhaps you might be in a position to make an informed comment. Frankly as not even a Fitzroy member or supporter your opinions about what the Brisbane Lions supposedly do in relation to Fitzroy don't hold much weight with me.

Originally posted by pugsville
Those Fitzroy people or had their club ripped out of their hearts with no say it will just struggle alone with their loss. The Money and the Power of the Brisbane Lions and their collaborators like Roylion will drown out any sort of voice the dispossed have.

Well there's close to 6,000 paid up collaborators in Victoria at the moment and many more that collaborate by attending Brisbane Lions matches in Victoria.

And as Stocka made the point quite rightly, Fitzroy was going to merge in any case. Are you claiming there would have been no disenfranchised Fitzroy supporters had Fitzroy merged with North Melbourne? What if the Fitzroy identity had become just a small part of the North Melbourne club with North Melbourne the dominant partner? It was certainly looking that way. From the original agreement of the "Fitzroy-North Melbourne Kangaroos", North wanted and pushed for their name first. They also had the logo, the captain, the coach, most of the players, the home ground and all the other things that were important to them.

As Stocka said, with Brisbane we still have many of the trappings of Fitzroy...the colours, logo etc. We also have many opportunities to celebrate and commemmorate the history and traditions of Fitzroy. It's not Fitzroy, but it certainly better than nothing and definitely better than being a diluted presence in another Melbourne based club, that has it's own long and rpoud history.

Originally posted by pugsville
It was rape.

If you want to talk rape, perhaps you better talk 'betrayal' as well. Who do you support again? Collingwood was it? Which way did your club vote in 1996?

 

[campbell]

Roylion you can't talk facts around here.The sheep don't understand logic and facts.

Collingwood and all the AFL clubs voted for the extensions of the Salary Cap.That doesn't stop their supporters and Presidents fron continually saying Brisbane are cheats and that in real football terms their premierships mean squat.

Sour grapes.Just like a child who doesn't like to be told no.Chuck a tantrum, continually, and someone will listen.

When will these people realise Eddie voted for the Cap extensions.He know says oops,it doesn't matter that valid contracts are signed.Tear them up.

 

[understudy]

rubbish. ed took over as president in 1999. wasnt even around. whats your source that clubs voted for the salary cap concession? got a link to it? i dont recall this - 1996 was it you say?

 

[pugsville]

consent

consent is the only issue. Without consent you cannot have a merger. I do not blame fitzroy fans whatever choices they have made after. I find the one supporting brisbane somewhat strange and agianst my sense of jusice. But I do see that fitzroy people had a bunch of pretty ****ty choices. I know some real die hard fitzroy fans, I have felt their loss to some extent.

You can talk about repect from brisbane but they did not respect fitzroy to accept that fitzroy had any say in proceedings. Brisbane acquired fitzroy for it's own selfish reasons, it was a shotgun marriage.

I think the other AFL clubs acted poorly and selfishly as well. But Brisbane was the beneficitary of the execution of FItzroy.


Consent is required for a Merger. There was no consent. To call wahtever happened a Merger is to lie and decieve and about what happened and I feel dishounors the memory of the fitzroy football club.


YOu can talk it up any way you like. Brisbane is a great football club, but fitzroy was brutaully pillaged for whatever gains it could get.

The sucking up to Fitzroy fans is just good marketing. You can forget fitzroy and accpet reprogramming by the forces of capitalism, thats your choice.

But I really think to call it a Merger is The BIG LIE and a misrepresentation of history.


NO Conset, NO Merger.

 

[Stocka]

Re: consent

Originally posted by pugsville
The sucking up to Fitzroy fans is just good marketing. You can forget fitzroy and accpet reprogramming by the forces of capitalism, thats your choice.

Who is forgetting Fitzroy?

 

[Bobby Beecroft]

Pugsville,

I don't give you the CONSENT to tell me what occurred to my old club & how you believe that I should think in a particular manner about the way my new club preserves my old clubs heritage.

So therefore,

No CONSENT = F*CK OFF you ignorant fool (perhaps even troll).

 

[MarkT]

Re: Re: Merger was SHAM there is NO debate

Originally posted by Roylion
How so? The AFL own the licence and the administrator was in control of Fitzroy.

Just on this issue, do you know the mechanism(s) by which this happened and the basis on which the AFL claim ownership of club licenses, logos etc? I have never really looked deeply into it but I presume it is simply a matter of the AFL issuing licenses to clubs under certain conditions but I would think firstly the clubs would have had to sign away whatever rights they had in the first place. Pretty silly of the clubs if you ask me. At a point in time though there was no license and at some point a license was created. Out of all that I understand the AFL claim to own the club logos, names and nicknames (magpies, hawks etc). Do you have any idea how that works? I have always though it to be a bit dodgy myself. Where it could be a very big issue would be if there was another Fitzroy situation.

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by Bobby Beecroft
Pugsville,

I don't give you the CONSENT to tell me what occurred to my old club & how you believe that I should think in a particular manner about the way my new club preserves my old clubs heritage.

FWIW a director of Fitzroy who I know well certainly thought then and still does that it was no merger and it was not in the best interests of Fitzroy. Also FWIW this life long multi generational Roy fan and mate of many of the players of the era has nothing to do with football at all now.

Not that this has much to do with how you feel about it all but I always value his educated adn first hand opinion of Fitzroy/Brisbane issues. He could tell you a few things that would make your blood boil but of you are of the BOBBBYYYY vintage I suspect you wouldn't be surprised about much of it.

PS I reckon somewhere in a dusty old draw I haven't opened for 20+ years I still have an old scanlons card of Bob Beecroft with that fringe.

 

[adey115]

I'd imagine that the AFL "own" all club trademarks, names and logos, and that the club licences allow the clubs to use those trademarks under guidelines.

I'd think that the concept of creating club trademarks/logos etc was first raised when the new licences for the Bears and the Eagles were granted in 1987. I'd imagine that it was at that time, or at the time of the "inception" of the AFL (1990) that the concept of AFL ownership of all trademarks/logos/club names was cemented.

And off the friendly topic....

Pugsville is a dumb *ucker. Its his decision as to how he views the merger I guess. His importance in the scheme of things is tiny, given that he didn't barrack for Fitzroy or the Bears by the look of it. Those who used to barrack for Fitzroy, or used to barrack for the Bears, or currently barrack for the Lions are the important views. And ironically theres a lot of respect between those who used to barrack for either entity, and those who chose to or chose not to follow the Lions now. The only one not showing respect to those people is Pugsville.

 

[pedrothelioness]

why is it always non fitzroy and bears fans who have the most to say on this topic?. I dislike the way they feel like they can legitimize a team or feeling that supporters have towards a team. If you notice on the boards, its the supporters who the merger actually affected who have gotten on with life and footy, and if they have'nt dont spend all there time on here brown nosing and being trolls. Give up. woof, is its the doggies, that you support, I'd say you should be more interested in saving yr team from becoming a merged identity, cause the way its heading, you may be living in a sham marriage yrself.
Grow up.

 

[adey115]

Originally posted by MarkT
FWIW a director of Fitzroy who I know well certainly thought then and still does that it was no merger and it was not in the best interests of Fitzroy. Also FWIW this life long multi generational Roy fan and mate of many of the players of the era has nothing to do with football at all now.

There are certainly key Fitzroy people who feel this way. And their views are certainly respected by those Roys who have chosen to follow the Lions. There are also key Fitzroy people who follow the Lions. Personally I've spoken to Kevin Murray about it (lucky enough to meet him once) and his views were that the Roys were on the verge of full death, but that the resultant merger has at worst saved aspects of the club. His views, and the views of those like the director you've mentioned are both respected by former Roys people.

And then, there are people like Pugsville....

 

[Roylion]

Re: consent

Originally posted by pugsville
consent is the only issue. Without consent you cannot have a merger.

The administrator of Fitzroy consented. The Fitzroy Football Club Ltd. signed the merger agreement.

Originally posted by pugsville
I do not blame fitzroy fans whatever choices they have made after. I find the one supporting brisbane somewhat strange and agianst my sense of jusice.

Well that's your opinion. It doesn't really count, seeing that you're not a Fitzroy supporter. The only opinions that do count are those who support Fitzroy and as far as I am concerned they are free to do as they please. We certainly don't need supporters of other clubs telling us what's right or wrong. Quite frankly who are they to do so.

Originally posted by pugsville
But I do see that fitzroy people had a bunch of pretty ****ty choices. I know some real die hard fitzroy fans, I have felt their loss to some extent.

I know quite a few die-hard Fitzroy fans too. They have experienced a hard loss, but have now Not to mention the large amount of former Fitzroy players and officials that now support the Brisbane Lions. They too obviously see a great deal of Fitzroy in the Brisbane Lions and basically that's the bottom line.

Originally posted by pugsville
You can talk about repect from brisbane but they did not respect fitzroy to accept that fitzroy had any say in proceedings.

I've already explained about the administrator and the administrator made the final decision. The Fitzroy Board, (even though the administrator was in control) were talking to the Brisbane Bears, as late as July 3rd (the day before the actual merger). In fact Dyson Hore-Lacy instructed one his directors to tell Brisbane to make their best offer to Fitzroy, when North were on the verge of pulling out. The administrator of Fitzroy was also talking to Brisbane and also North.

Having said that...the Board members preferred North Melbourne to the Bears. There's no doubt of that. I've spoken to Dyson Hore-Lacy, Elaine Findlay and Colin Hobbs on the issue quite a few times and while they don't follow Brisbane, they recognise that many Fitzroy fans do. David McMahon is the most fiercely opposed, both to Brisbane and the AFL.

Originally posted by pugsville
Brisbane acquired fitzroy for it's own selfish reasons, it was a shotgun marriage.

And other clubs wouldn't have? Come on! You're not that naive to believe that North Melbourne had totally honorable reasons for seeking a merger did you?

Perhaps you could tell us what North Melbourne's reasons for seeking a merger with Fitzroy were. Want me to tell you how North Melbourne went back on parts of their original agreement to Fitzroy.

What about the other merger offers put to Fitzroy in 1996? I suppose they had honorable intentions too. Let see...we had offers from Collingwood (the "Collingwood-Fitzroy Magpies"), St Kilda, Geelong (Geelong Lions), Hawthorn (Hawthorn Lions)Footscray proposed that Fitzroy and Footscray merge and become known as the Western Bulldogs. Richmond proposed that Richmond and Fitzroy merge and play as 'Richmond' in the AFL and 'Fitzroy' in the VFA/VFL. Then there was the Adelaide Crows, the South Australian Cricket Association, who wanted us to merge with Norwood and Graeme Samuel cam up with a proposal to merge with Port Adelaide.

That was all in 1996! I won't even go into the previous years.

Originally posted by pugsville
I think the other AFL clubs acted poorly and selfishly as well. But Brisbane was the beneficitary of the execution of FItzroy.

And so? Would it have been any different with any other club. In fact I'd argue strongly that with any other Melbourne club with it's own history and traditions, the Fitzroy representation would have been worse than what it is with the Brisbane Lions.

Originally posted by pugsville
Consent is required for a Merger. There was no consent.

See above.

Originally posted by pugsville
To call wahtever happened a Merger is to lie and decieve and about what happened and I feel dishounors the memory of the fitzroy football club.

The club operations of both clubs were merged. Fact. End of story. As such it's a merger.

The legal companies were not merged. Fitzroy Football Club Ltd. still exists. I'm also a member and shareholder of that entity.

I don't see that as a huge difference either. The existing North Melbourne legal structure was going to be used if the North-Fitzroy Kangaroos go ahead. All that was going to be changed was the company structure, and articles of association to incoroprate Fitzroy. In fact what was going to happen legally with the North Melbourne-Fitzroy merger, was what happened with the Brisbane-Fitzroy merger

Originally posted by pugsville
YOu can talk it up any way you like. Brisbane is a great football club, but fitzroy was brutaully pillaged for whatever gains it could get.

Yes it was. Right through the late 80's and early to mid 90's. By a whole host of Victorian clubs, except probably Essendon.

Originally posted by pugsville
The sucking up to Fitzroy fans is just good marketing.

Oh yes. God forbid the new Brisbane Lions to actually try and make the merger work.

Originally posted by pugsville
You can forget fitzroy and accpet reprogramming by the forces of capitalism, thats your choice.

As Stocka said....who is forgetting Fitzroy? I'll never forget Fitzroy and neither will my kids. That's why I and many others are members of the 'Brisbane-Fitzroy Historical Society'. Occurences like the Fitzroy Team of the Century, the wearing of the Fitzroy jumper in AFL matches, the BBFFC on the back of the jumper, the inclusion of the name 'Fitzroy' in the official name of the club...the reference to Fitzroy in the club song and a host of other events and occurences will ensure that Fitzroy is not forgotten.

Originally posted by pugsville
But I really think to call it a Merger is The BIG LIE and a misrepresentation of history.

That's your opinion.

I don't share it and I think I have excellent reasons for holding the opinion that I do. Your one sole reason is 'consent'. Fitzroy Football Club (under administration) is a signatory to the merger agreement. Of that there is no doubt. I've seen it.

Originally posted by pugsville
NO Conset, NO Merger.

See above.

I'm not going to change your mind, you're not going to change mine.

Just accept that many fanatical Fitzroy supporters see enough of Fitzroy in the Brisbane Lions to follow and support them. They've made the decision as have the folk who don't follow Brisbane.

 

[Stocka]

Re: Re: consent

Originally posted by Roylion
I've spoken to Dyson Hore-Lacy, Elaine Findlay and Colin Hobbs on the issue quite a few times and while they don't follow Brisbane, they recognise that many Fitzroy fans do.

I've even heard that Elaine Findlay is a Lions member, Roylion. I'm pretty sure the club secretary, Bill Atherton, is as well.

In fact, I know for a fact, that the head of the "Fitzroy Supporters Group", who were once vehemently anti-Brisbane Lions, became a member last year as well.