Quarter of a century without Fitzroy: Is the AFL better or worse off?

[Rob]

I'm not in favour of Victoria losing anymore clubs. I just think Fitzroy could have been saved if the AFL wanted to save them, it's blatantly obvious that the AFL didn't want to save them though. They were desperate to kill Fitzroy off.

That's fine, I was just interested to know why. What was your criteria that Fitzroy deserved to be in the AFL? I assume it was simply because they happened to be a VFL club, given you seem to be suggesting that Fitzroy deserved to be in the AFL more than more successful and arguably larger clubs interstate that were never given the chance.

 

[Bjo187]

Just thinking about it, we could have gone the following and had a stronger competition than we do now:

Canberra kangaroos
Tasmania Lions
Melbourne Saints (merger).

Basically relocated or merged all the smaller and struggling clubs in Victoria at the time and effectively covered more areas of Australia, whilst staying at 16 teams which was the AFL's priority.

Or

North Sydney Kangaroos
Canberra Lions
Tasmania Hawks
Melbourne Bulldogs

This second one covers all important markets.

 

[peetoo]

Just thinking about it, we could have gone the following and had a stronger competition than we do now:

Canberra kangaroos
Tasmania Lions
Melbourne Saints (merger).

Basically relocated or merged all the smaller and struggling clubs in Victoria at the time and effectively covered more areas of Australia, whilst staying at 16 teams which was the AFL's priority.

Or

North Sydney Kangaroos
Canberra Lions
Tasmania Hawks
Melbourne Bulldogs

This second one covers all important markets.

So how come the competition becomes stronger? In the title we saw Fitzroy lions merged with brisbane bears. But hasn’t made the completion stronger? Port Adelaide brought in to the employees spot.

So why would those suggestions have Made the competition stronger

 

[Bjo187]

So how come the competition becomes stronger? In the title we saw Fitzroy lions merged with brisbane bears. But hasn’t made the completion stronger? Port Adelaide brought in to the employees spot.

So why would those suggestions have Made the competition stronger

As I stated, there would have been more distribution across Australia of teams, those teams would have been stronger than a fresh start up club with the backing of an already established supporter base back in Victoria and the other smaller clubs would have merged so we'd have a big 5 in Vic instead of a big 4.

You'd then have a competition with 7 Vic and 9 interstate clubs, the remaining Vic clubs stronger and the interstate clubs stronger.

 

[Pistol Night]

Worse. We might have won in 2002 and 2003 if Brisbane Lions never happened. Although losing to Fitzroy would be very Collingwood

 

[peetoo]

As I stated, there would have been more distribution across Australia of teams, those teams would have been stronger than a fresh start up club with the backing of an already established supporter base back in Victoria and the other smaller clubs would have merged so we'd have a big 5 in Vic instead of a big 4.

You'd then have a competition with 7 Vic and 9 interstate clubs, the remaining Vic clubs stronger and the interstate clubs stronger.

So you expect people you have ripped a club away from to provide support still?

The people you have said don’t support a club enough now? Yet are needed becaus the new location is worse than where they were before?

There’s reasons your proposal didn’t happen. Frankly I’m surprised people still seriously propose this

 

[Roylion]

So you expect people you have ripped a club away from to provide support still?

Some original supporters will support a relocated club, if the move is sold well. One of the major problems is moving a Melboure club interstate and playing enough games in Melbourne for their supporters. And AFL promises about a minimum number of games in Melbourne per season for a relocated / "merged" club aren't worth the paper they are written on. As we've seen.

On the basis of his interviews with hundreds of former Fitzroy players, officials, shareholders, members and supporters and he also spoke to hundreds of other Fitzroy supporters, author Adam Muyt of "Maroon and Blue" made the following conclusions about where Fitzroy supporters went after the club was ejected from the AFL competition.

• at least 40 percent of Fitzroy supporters have been lost to AFL football. Assuming that Fitzroy's support base was about 200,000 (as estimated by Roy Morgan) then we can assume that roughly 80,000 no longer actively support / have lost interest in AFL football.
• between 5-10 percent of Fitzroy supporters now follow another code or lower levels of Australian Rules football as their primary football experience. (about 10,000-20,000)
• no more than 5 percent of Fitzroy supporters now follow another AFL side, including a few hundred that went across to North Melbourne. (No more than 10,000). This does not necessarily mean taking out a AFL club membership of their new club. Maybe 800 Fitzroy members / supporters took out a membership of North Melbourne in the years following 1996.
• over 40 percent of Fitzroy people support / follow the Brisbane Lions, but may not be necessarily paid up members. (about 80,000). In 1997, Brisbane's Victorian membership was 3,200, but has been as high as 8,000. Now its about 3,500-4,000 Victorian members per year.

Mergers are far more problematic than relocations.

The late Ian Ridley said one of his biggest mistakes in negotiating the Melbourne-Hawks merger in 1996 is that Melbourne ignored a key price of advice in that members and supporters see the enduring symbols of their club, their colours, the tradition [things like history, club song etc.] and the club emblem and will reject a merger if there wasn't enough of that retained in the new entity.

It's also very difficult to ensure a balance of two identities when negotiating a merger

1989's proposed "Fitzroy Bulldogs" playing in Fitzroy's colours and jumpers out of Princes Park may have been far more palatable to Footscray's supporters had it been the "Footscray Lions", playing in Fitzroy's colours and a FFC jumper out at the Western Oval. Footscray would have kept keep their name and the training base (possibly the home ground) at the Western Oval instead of Princes Park, while Fitzroy would have had the mascot and the colours. The jumper might have been Fitzroy's red and blue jumper with a white Fitzroy FFC logo and possibly white horizontal stripes to evoke Fooscray's jumper but still primarily in the Fitzroy design). A gold Fitzroy Lion would have been added on the breast of the jumper.

The "Melbourne Lions" proposal in 1986 and again in 1994 playing in the red, navy blue Melbourne jumper with the gold Fitzroy lion overlaid (in the manner of the current Brisbane Lions jumper) probably would have worked too for both sets of supporters.

The only Melbourne based merger that might work would be the Kangaroos and the Dogs mainly on the basis of the similarity of colours and a name something like "North West Melbourne Bulldogs" might be accepted by both supporter bases. The name of North Melbourne would be retained. Reference to the western suburbs and Footscray's mascot would also be in the name. Western Bulldogs's colours of red, white and blue retained with North Melbourne vertical stripe guernsey design, or maybe a red yoke and royal blue and white vertical stripes. Would share the MCG, but football HQ and training base might be at the Western Oval and administrative HQ might be at Arden Street.VFL side would be the Footscray Kangaroos playing out of the Western Oval and wearing a Footscray jumper, with white North Melbourne Kangaroo replacing Bulldog.

But even then I just can't see that happening. The long term rivalry between the Melbourne based clubs makes any merger unpalatable to their supporters and there would have to be very pressing reasons for such a move to even be considered.

 

[Bjo187]

Some original supporters will support a relocated club, if the move is sold well. One of the major problems is moving a Melboure club interstate and playing enough games in Melbourne for their supporters. And AFL promises about a minimum number of games in Melbourne per season for a relocated / "merged" club aren't worth the paper they are written on. As we've seen.

On the basis of his interviews with hundreds of former Fitzroy players, officials, shareholders, members and supporters and he also spoke to hundreds of other Fitzroy supporters, author Adam Muyt of "Maroon and Blue" made the following conclusions about where Fitzroy supporters went after the club was ejected from the AFL competition.

• at least 40 percent of Fitzroy supporters have been lost to AFL football. Assuming that Fitzroy's support base was about 200,000 (as estimated by Roy Morgan) then we can assume that roughly 80,000 no longer actively support / have lost interest in AFL football.
• between 5-10 percent of Fitzroy supporters now follow another code or lower levels of Australian Rules football as their primary football experience. (about 10,000-20,000)
• no more than 5 percent of Fitzroy supporters now follow another AFL side, including a few hundred that went across to North Melbourne. (No more than 10,000). This does not necessarily mean taking out a AFL club membership of their new club. Maybe 800 Fitzroy members / supporters took out a membership of North Melbourne in the years following 1996.
• over 40 percent of Fitzroy people support / follow the Brisbane Lions, but may not be necessarily paid up members. (about 80,000). In 1997, Brisbane's Victorian membership was 3,200, but has been as high as 8,000. Now its about 3,500-4,000 Victorian members per year.

Mergers are far more problematic than relocations.

The late Ian Ridley said one of his biggest mistakes in negotiating the Melbourne-Hawks merger in 1996 is that Melbourne ignored a key price of advice in that members and supporters see the enduring symbols of their club, their colours, the tradition [things like history, club song etc.] and the club emblem and will reject a merger if there wasn't enough of that retained in the new entity.

It's also very difficult to ensure a balance of two identities when negotiating a merger

1989's proposed "Fitzroy Bulldogs" playing in Fitzroy's colours and jumpers out of Princes Park may have been far more palatable to Footscray's supporters had it been the "Footscray Lions", playing in Fitzroy's colours and a FFC jumper out at the Western Oval. Footscray would have kept keep their name and the training base (possibly the home ground) at the Western Oval instead of Princes Park, while Fitzroy would have had the mascot and the colours. The jumper might have been Fitzroy's red and blue jumper with a white Fitzroy FFC logo and possibly white horizontal stripes to evoke Fooscray's jumper but still primarily in the Fitzroy design). A gold Fitzroy Lion would have been added on the breast of the jumper.

The "Melbourne Lions" proposal in 1986 and again in 1994 playing in the red, navy blue Melbourne jumper with the gold Fitzroy lion overlaid (in the manner of the current Brisbane Lions jumper) probably would have worked too for both sets of supporters.

The only Melbourne based merger that might work would be the Kangaroos and the Dogs mainly on the basis of the similarity of colours and a name something like "North West Melbourne Bulldogs" might be accepted by both supporter bases. The name of North Melbourne would be retained. Reference to the western suburbs and Footscray's mascot would also be in the name. Western Bulldogs's colours of red, white and blue retained with North Melbourne vertical stripe guernsey design, or maybe a red yoke and royal blue and white vertical stripes. Would share the MCG, but football HQ and training base might be at the Western Oval and administrative HQ might be at Arden Street.VFL side would be the Footscray Kangaroos playing out of the Western Oval and wearing a Footscray jumper, with white North Melbourne Kangaroo replacing Bulldog.

But even then I just can't see that happening. The long term rivalry between the Melbourne based clubs makes any merger unpalatable to their supporters and there would have to be very pressing reasons for such a move to even be considered.

Yep have to have similar colours to merge. That's why the hawks would be safe from any Melbourne based mergers but north, dogs, Melbourne and the saints to a lesser degree would all work. The dogs and north merger would work on many levels I think. Interesting that the lions shed over 50 percent of supporters, that's not a great result and would have been worse if not for the 3 flags I'm sure. Any merger/ relocation you'd want to be keeping at least 60 percent of supporters for it to be considered successful I think.

 

[Saab NLAW]

It’s not his perspective, he’s telling it how it actually is/ was, with evidence. You disagree, well done you weren’t there and are too ignorant to take in what he says. RoyLion obviously was there and is still involved so not sure why you feel the need to disagree.

I disagree with this statement, I'm very confident that he was not privy to the negotiations between the VFL and the club (in truth the VFL were after them for several years, it was open warfare). A passionate fan/shareholder, yes, definitely one that has gathered all the online info on the subject, but I've read stuff that he's shared that's completely inaccurate. He's not the all-knowing oracle that he claims to be and his opinion, whilst based on far more reading of articles than most of us here, are still just his own perspective of what took place back then.

 

[Roylion]

Yep have to have similar colours to merge. That's why the hawks would be safe from any Melbourne based mergers but north, dogs, Melbourne and the saints to a lesser degree would all work.

I can only see a North-Dogs merger having any sort of chance being accepted by the two supporter bases.

Interesting that the lions shed over 50 percent of supporters, that's not a great result and would have been worse if not for the 3 flags I'm sure.

A combination of the way it was done, the fact that it was really an existing AFL club rebranding and the fact that there were few Melbourne games for supporters to go along and watch. You'll never see a Melbourne club merging interstate with an existing AFL club for much the same reasons. I just laugh when posters on here suggest North merge with Gold Coast or Western Sydney. It's simply not going to happen.

Relocation is more palatable and even if it was done right two Melbourne based clubs merging is more palatable. Taht why Fitzroy preferred to merge with North Melbourne rather than the Brisbane Bears in 1996.

Any merger/ relocation you'd want to be keeping at least 60 percent of supporters for it to be considered successful I think.

Keeping as much of the identity of the original club / clubs as part of the relocated or merged entity is vital. Footscray supporters rallied against a merger with Fitzroy in 1989, because the Fitzroy identity was seen as being overwhelmingly dominant in the new club. Hawthorn supporters rallied in 1996 against a merger with Melbourne because the Melbourne identity was seen as being overwhelmingly dominant in the new club.

 

[Roylion]

I disagree with this statement, I'm very confident that he was not privy to the negotiations between the VFL and the club (in truth the VFL were after them for several years, it was open warfare).

No I wasn't present at negotiations between the VFL and the club. Where did I say I was?

A passionate fan/shareholder, yes, definitely one that has gathered all the online info on the subject, but I've read stuff that he's shared that's completely inaccurate.

Feel free to provide anything I've said that is inaccurate.

He's not the all-knowing oracle that he claims to be

I've never claimed to be 'all-knowing'.

are still just his own perspective of what took place back then.

Information Ive provided has either come from my own experience or more often from people I know that were more directly involved. I've made that very clear.

 

[peetoo]

Indeed were more Victorian clubs moved interstate (and for gods sake why? Economic not trying to fix some fantasy map of australia) with each one, less games played in Melbourne therefore the melb based fans of such a club would see less and less, it’s pure mathematics of a league schedule

Already the promised 6 lions games in Melbourne is routinely diluted when they play in Tassie.

Move another club x to Tassie permanently and another club y to canberra? The 6 games is history. For all four clubs which would have been relocated it would be 4 or 5 games max

 

[peetoo]

Yep have to have similar colours to merge. That's why the hawks would be safe from any Melbourne based mergers but north, dogs, Melbourne and the saints to a lesser degree would all work. The dogs and north merger would work on many levels I think. Interesting that the lions shed over 50 percent of supporters, that's not a great result and would have been worse if not for the 3 flags I'm sure. Any merger/ relocation you'd want to be keeping at least 60 percent of supporters for it to be considered successful I think.

60% bare minimum. Let’s say the two clubs are 60-40 before the merge. 100x total. The new club is the size of the first club, which wouldn’t be that healthy if they are contemplating merger

Hawthorn itself more than doubled its membership 1996 to 1997, based on absent members being given a wake up and a positive plan

 

[Saab NLAW]

No I wasn't present at negotiations between the VFL and the club. Where did I say I was?



Feel free to provide anything I've said that is inaccurate.



I've never claimed to be 'all-knowing'.



Information Ive provided has either come from my own experience or more often from people I know that were more directly involved. I've made that very clear.

I can tell that you really enjoy these types of online 'arguments'. I, however, have more important things to spend my time on rather than responding to many (understatement of the century) online posts and pulling apart each sentence. The time and energy you must put into these posts is staggering, dude, you need a different hobby.

My post is self-explanatory, if there is any confusion read it again. I think it's a very accurate description of the situation, you're a passionate fan who has collected a lot of online articles on the subject. End of story.

 

[Roylion]

I, however, have more important things to spend my time on rather than responding to many (understatement of the century) online posts and pulling apart each sentence.

You stated that....."I've read stuff that he's shared that's completely inaccurate."

What "stuff'? Detail it here.

I think it's a very accurate description of the situation, you're a passionate fan who has collected a lot of online articles on the subject.

I've told you what I am and what I am not. I'm one of 774 shareholders of Fitzroy (and was in 1996) and all the directors of Fitzroy in 1996 are acquaintances of mine, many of whom I have personally spoken with on the matter at various times since 1996.

 

[Kapital city TIGER]

The AFL is better off.
The AFL level players are better off.
But, I was pretty happy with the VFL, and the SAFL, WAFL etc.
Wiping out the VFL for a (Vic dominant) AFL a big win for Vic Aussie rules fans
Bear in mind population has increased a lot in 25 years, from 15mil in 1982 when Sth Melb went up to Syd, to ~27mil now.
So, nearly doubled. Hard to lose with that sort of growth, everything would have done well, only a matter of time to pay the bills back to save the Roys.
Has it made the game better?
Nup. Aside from the cavalcade of appalling rule changes and uneven bias the AFL constantly applies, the elite national level is just one model. Could have bolstered State and local levels to great effect without having 4/5 states forced to have their teams playing interstate every 2 weeks.
AND had a national comp - say 1-3 teams from each state / region.
Now I think that the AFL is so dominant the SAFL WAFL etc are deprived rather than supported, whereas it woulda been great to have the VFA & VFL both grow and improve, and possible have representative teams in National comp. etc etc
Vale Fitzroy

 

[Saab NLAW]

You stated that....."I've read stuff that he's shared that's completely inaccurate."

What "stuff'? Detail it here.

Nah, I'll pass, i have no desire to get into an online debate with someone who thrives on this stuff.

 

[Roylion]

Nah, I'll pass, i have no desire to get into an online debate with someone who thrives on this stuff.

I'm sure you don't when you know your original statement was garbage and you can't back it up with any evidence.

Feel free anytime to provide any inaccurate "stuff" I've posted, here. I won't hold my breath in the meantime.

 

[Rob]

Some original supporters will support a relocated club, if the move is sold well. One of the major problems is moving a Melboure club interstate and playing enough games in Melbourne for their supporters. And AFL promises about a minimum number of games in Melbourne per season for a relocated / "merged" club aren't worth the paper they are written on. As we've seen.

On the basis of his interviews with hundreds of former Fitzroy players, officials, shareholders, members and supporters and he also spoke to hundreds of other Fitzroy supporters, author Adam Muyt of "Maroon and Blue" made the following conclusions about where Fitzroy supporters went after the club was ejected from the AFL competition.

• at least 40 percent of Fitzroy supporters have been lost to AFL football. Assuming that Fitzroy's support base was about 200,000 (as estimated by Roy Morgan) then we can assume that roughly 80,000 no longer actively support / have lost interest in AFL football.

I'm not sure you can take results from interviews with what was likely the more serious Fitzroy fans and extrapolate that over the number of people who claimed to follow Fitzroy, most of which were at best casual fans, or more likely people that would read the results in the paper only and take a vague interest.

 

[Doashuey]

Worse off.
And none of that is to do with the Roys being merged with Brisbane. I hate that the game itself is a shadow of what it was with the raft of rule changes and the comercialisation which has turned it from a sport/game into a product.

 

[Roylion]

I'm not sure you can take results from interviews with what was likely the more serious Fitzroy fans

I'm quoting author Adam Muyt's calculations on the basis of the people he interviewed and unfortunately that is the closest we have to any sort of numbers about where Fitzroy supporters went after Fitzroy exited the competition.

The Fitzroy Football Club commissioned a survey in 1998 that suggested only 27% of Fitzroy supporters were following the Brisbane Lions.

and extrapolate that over the number of people who claimed to follow Fitzroy,

That number was from a Roy Morgan poll. That's what they estimated was the support base of Fitzroy. If you have other figures, I'm very happy to see them.

 

[Rob]

I'm quoting author Adam Muyt's calculations on the basis of the people he interviewed and unfortunately that is the closest we have to any sort of numbers about where Fitzroy supporters went after Fitzroy exited the competition.

The Fitzroy Football Club commissioned a survey in 1998 that suggested only 27% of Fitzroy supporters were following the Brisbane Lions.



That number was from a Roy Morgan poll. That's what they estimated was the support base of Fitzroy. If you have other figures, I'm very happy to see them.

Yes, and as you should well know it includes everyone from the diehard, never miss a game fan to the bloke that catches up with the scores at the water cooler on Monday. Especially 30 years ago when a lot of games weren't even on TV.

If you're being interviewed about being a Fitzroy fan by a writer it's safe to say that you probably fall into the diehard category rather than the casual fan that doesn't care that much. And would be much more likely to be affected by what happened to Fitzroy back then. Of those 200,000, how many are in that group? Maybe 20,000? The exact number is guesswork of course, but i'm sure you'd agree it's a small minority. And that it's ridiculous to take the outcomes of a survey of those diehards and apply it across the wider number, most of which are nowhere near as passionate about the club.

Don't get me wrong, I can understand why a passionate Fitzroy fan would leave the game completely, i'd probably consider it if it happened to my club. But I certainly don't think the same feeling would apply to the dude that's got a soft spot for the club but rarely, if ever, actually watches a game.

 

[Roylion]

Yes, and as you should well know it includes everyone from the diehard, never miss a game fan to the bloke that catches up with the scores at the water cooler on Monday. Especially 30 years ago when a lot of games weren't even on TV.

Yes? Of course it does. I've never implied otherwise.

It's similar to how Roy Morgan polls suggests there are a million Sydney Swans supporters

If you're being interviewed about being a Fitzroy fan by a writer it's safe to say that you probably fall into the diehard category rather than the casual fan that doesn't care that much. And would be much more likely to be affected by what happened to Fitzroy back then.

Well...yes. However it's like any survey. A range of supporters is interviewed / surveyed and extrapolations are made from that.

As I said a 1998 Fitzroy Football Club survey suggested that no more than 27% of Fitzroy people went across and became members / supporters of the Brisbane Lions.

Of those 200,000, how many are in that group? Maybe 20,000? The exact number is guesswork of course, but i'm sure you'd agree it's a small minority.

And that it's ridiculous to take the outcomes of a survey of those diehards and apply it across the wider number, most of which are nowhere near as passionate about the club.

It's the closest we're going to get to any sort of rough estimate as to what might have happened to Fitzroy supporters. No more, no less. It's rough...it's inexact, but its the closest we have in having any sort of idea of what happened and what might happen in the future, if another club or clubs go down the same path.

Certainly we do know Fitzroy had many more supporters than members in their final years. Indeed had many supporters joined as members, then Fitzroy might have had the funds to remain in the competition.

I can understand why a passionate Fitzroy fan would leave the game completely, i'd probably consider it if it happened to my club. But I certainly don't think the same feeling would apply to the dude that's got a soft spot for the club but rarely, if ever, actually watches a game.

We don't know what they did or didn't do. Many supporters were not members. I knew Fitzroy supporters that hadn't gone to a game in their last two years because they were certain what the result would be. Yet they turn up to Brisbane Lions games or go the games of their new club. I know people that didn't attend games of any type for two - six years after 1996 and others that jumped on board straight away.

Attitudes change over time.

 

[Rob]

Yes? Of course it does. I've never implied otherwise.

It's similar to how Roy Morgan polls suggests there are a million Sydney Swans supporters




Well...yes. However it's like any survey. A range of supporters is interviewed / surveyed and extrapolations are made from that.

As I said a 1998 Fitzroy Football Club survey suggested that no more than 27% of Fitzroy people went across and became members / supporters of the Brisbane Lions.

Great, but i'd have to look at the methodology used before i'd pass any comment. I suspect they probably just contacted old Fitzroy members, to which they had their details available.
Which, once again is problematic if you apply that across the wider "200,000" Fitzroy fans at the time.

It's the closest we're going to get to any sort of rough estimate as to what might have happened to Fitzroy supporters. No more, no less. It's rough...it's inexact, but its the closest we have in having any sort of idea of what happened and what might happen in the future, if another club or clubs go down the same path.

That's beyond rough to the point of complete bullshit though. If 40% of hardcore Fitzroy fans were lost to the game, there is no way you can apply that to a group any wider than hardcore Fitzroy fans.

A conclusion doesn't become any more valid because there's no better measure.

Certainly we do know Fitzroy had many more supporters than members in their final years. Indeed had many supporters joined as members, then Fitzroy might have had the funds to remain in the competition.

We don't know what they did or didn't do. Many supporters were not members. I knew Fitzroy supporters that hadn't gone to a game in their last two years because they were certain what the result would be. Yet they turn up to Brisbane Lions games or go the games of their new club. I know people that didn't attend games of any type for two - six years after 1996 and others that jumped on board straight away.

Attitudes change over time.

I wouldn't dispute any of that, it's pretty well known that support for any club (in pretty much any sport) goes up and down with the on field fortunes of the team.

 

[Roylion]

Great, but i'd have to look at the methodology used before i'd pass any comment. I suspect they probably just contacted old Fitzroy members, to which they had their details available.

Well...yes. Of course they would have. How else would they do it?

Which, once again is problematic if you apply that across the wider "200,000" Fitzroy fans at the time.

Extrapolate. Just like Roy Morgan polls do.

That's beyond rough to the point of complete bullshit though.

Unfortunately it's the closest we have. When we're talking about how many supporters / membership base might be retained in the event of a merger or relocation, the figures we do have might be illustrative.

A cross section of Fitzroy people were interviewed and the results of that - if they were extrapolated to the wider Fitzroy base - which was estimated by Roy Morgan to number 200,000, then the figures would have been as I described.

And that's all that I was saying. No other estimates (apart from the 1998 Fitzroy FC survey) have ever been made. No allowance was made for casual or diehard. That is impossible to know.

If you have anything more concrete, then please...present it here.

If 40% of hardcore Fitzroy fans were lost to the game, there is no way you can apply that to a group any wider than hardcore Fitzroy fans.

Not all those interviewed were 'hardcore' Fitzroy fans. There was a mixture of supporters, members, former players and officials, who had varying levels of involvement with Fitzroy.

A conclusion doesn't become any more valid because there's no better measure.

No. But in the absence of any better measure you work with what you do have. If there's anything better out there...then please...