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

[Mootsy]

I mean, at least they got to salvage the jumper and the mascot, just had to change location i guess.
In the end, and i know it's hard for Fitzroy fans, but, you got to win 3 flags in a row soon after, which is no mean pickings.
imagine if you were Essington(dun goofed!), you'd take the relocation any many a day.

 

[Rob]

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




Extrapolate. Just like Roy Morgan polls do.




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.





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.




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...

No, you simply don't draw the conclusion.

Like you don't go to the USA, find out 40% of Americans are obese, and then conclude 3 billion people worldwide are obese by extrapolating that to the world's population. It's a totally different set of people, and you don't draw a conclusion on the world in that case.

 

[Roylion]

No, you simply don't draw the conclusion.

At no point has a definitive conclusion been drawn.

So in your view what proportion of Fitzroy supporters

• went onto to support the Brisbane Lions?
• went to another code or a lower level of football?
• went and supported other AFL clubs?
• walked away from football entirely?

 

[EBERT THE KING]

Not really, justifies their stance if anything. North refused to budge, despite desperate pleas from Fitzroy, on list demands that clubs believed were more generous than the Brisbane proposal.

It was because North were already on the way to a successful period, and actually won the flag the year of the merger.

Brisbane was so last minute there was next to no due diligence done. Circus of the highest order.

 

[Carringbush2010]

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

Losing GF's is very Collingwood, not just against Fitzroy.

 

[yodellinhank]

It was because North were already on the way to a successful period, and actually won the flag the year of the merger.

Brisbane was so last minute there was next to no due diligence done. Circus of the highest order.

Due diligence? The North proposal was to have a higher playing list and it was a sticking point with the other clubs. If North matched the Brisbane's terms the merger probably would've went through.

 

[Rob]

At no point has a definitive conclusion been drawn.

So in your view what proportion of Fitzroy supporters

• went onto to support the Brisbane Lions?
• went to another code or a lower level of football?
• went and supported other AFL clubs?
• walked away from football entirely?

No idea.

 

[EBERT THE KING]

Due diligence? The North proposal was to have a higher playing list and it was a sticking point with the other clubs. If North matched the Brisbane's terms the merger probably would've went through.

Not true.

As soon as the Brisbane offer was put on the table at the 11th hour the AFL pushed that as its preferred option, and there were multiple clubs at the time that weren't in a financial position to go against the league, I/E Melbourne, Hawthorn, Richmond, Footscray. All were on the bones of their arses.

Agree, North should have budged in terms of their demands Re: playing list, but it was clearly the best and most viable option from a supporter/optics point of view, but the game was run horrifically back then.

The league wanted the Brisbane move and the clubs that had to fall into line, did so.

 

[Roylion]

If North matched the Brisbane's terms the merger probably would've went through.

North did match Brisbane's terms. All North was doing originally asking for the merger terms outlined by the AFL. The AFL's clear preference was a "merger" with the Bears.

 

[Roylion]

No idea.

So in speculating where Fitzroy supporters might have gone after 1996, we use the limited data we do have as a possible indicator.

 

[yodellinhank]

Not true.

As soon as the Brisbane offer was put on the table at the 11th hour the AFL pushed that as its preferred option, and there were multiple clubs at the time that weren't in a financial position to go against the league, I/E Melbourne, Hawthorn, Richmond, Footscray. All were on the bones of their arses.

Agree, North should have budged in terms of their demands Re: playing list, but it was clearly the best and most viable option from a supporter/optics point of view, but the game was run horrifically back then.

The league wanted the Brisbane move and the clubs that had to fall i, xz nto, ,,zx 2 line, did so.

Brisbane weren't even in the picture until things began to stall with North. That's why an 11th hour bid got up.

Miller was greedy and kept trying to tip the scales further in North's favour. Things slowed when North reneged on naming arrangements. Fitzroy would have went the way of West Melbourne and Essendon Association had the merger gone through.

Hore-Lacy begged for North to budge on list sizes as clubs had indicated to him it was a sticking point.

 

[yodellinhank]

North did match Brisbane's terms. All North was doing originally asking for the merger terms outlined by the AFL. The AFL's clear preference was a "merger" with the Bears.

No, the bid for North was voted down. Then Miller scrambled to change the bid to match Brisbane's terms and was told the vote had already been taken. Next item on the agenda...

 

[Rob]

So in speculating where Fitzroy supporters might have gone after 1996, we use the limited data we do have as a possible indicator.

Well I guess you can do what you like. But it doesn't make it even remotely accurate.

 

[Liam Boy]

A lot of revisionism/misunderstanding of history in this thread. The AFL didn't just refuse to help Fitzroy when they were failing, it actively sabotaged them. It started with arbitrarily disallowing them from playing home games at the junction, resulting in 3 deals with other clubs' home grounds where they couldn't make any money. They were actively deprived of sponsorship opportunities, with the AFL pretty demonstrably colluding to make sure they weren't able to find new revenue streams. Same with Fitzroy's attempt to sell games to Tasmania.

No. It's worse off. You think there is/were too many clubs in Melbourne? Do you know what population density is? You think the AFL has to be run like a business where only the biggest earners are allowed to survive? The game was not created for profit and it existed as a kind of public social institution for over a century before the crisis of capitalism that lead to the creation of new markets, privatizing and corporatizing all elements of society. Maybe part of the reason so many people are so ****ing depressed these days is because things that used to be just kind of there to facilitate community are now soulless profit-making enterprises.

The AFL's not all the way to being a soulless profit-making enterprise, but there's a lot of people who can only think in dollar signs, and if they had their way it would be. Don't let it happen. Don't buy their capitalist narrative. That's not what footy has ever been and it's not what it should be.

 

[Roylion]

No, the bid for North was voted down.

Yes it was. On the basis of a 54 player list . However North then it made it clear to the assembled presidents that they were willing to go to 44 players - the same as Brisbane's offer

Andrew Plympton the St Kilda president then suggested the final decision should be made by the Commission and the Administrator, to which the Presidents agreed.

The Commission - after several hours of deliberating and negotiationg with the administrator - decided in favor of Brisbane (in the words of John Kennedy) "for strategic reasons." Michael Brennan was told by the AFL commission that they wished to make a decision that night and that Fitzroy's licence was terminable at will. In other words make a decision that night or we (the Commission) pull the licence straight away.

The Presidents then reconvened and the only deal put to them for final sanction was a Brisbane-Fitzroy deal which was unanimously passed.

That was all done on the Thursday 4th July of course. Earlier in the week North and Fitzroy had been told that the AFL Commission to agree on a merger deal by 12 noon on Friday 5th July. North and Fitzroy came to a final deal at 12 noon on the 4th - a full 24 hours before the deadline.

Then Miller scrambled to change the bid to match Brisbane's terms

See above for the exact details.

 

[Roylion]

Well I guess you can do what you like. But it doesn't make it even remotely accurate.

Where did I say it was totally accurate? I mentioned it because it one of two pieces of data we have to work out where Fitzroy supporters might have gone after 1996.

 

[Roylion]

Miller was greedy and kept trying to tip the scales further in North's favour.

Yes he did.

It is quite true that North were trying to maximise their position. But North undertook certain actions based on advice from the AFL, who behind the scenes were trying to broker a Brisbane-Fitzroy merger instead.

It did cause delays and did allow Brisbane to get a toehold in the door.

 

[yodellinhank]

Yes it was. On the basis of a 54 player list . However North then it made it clear to the assembled presidents that they were willing to go to 44 players - the same as Brisbane's offer

Andrew Plympton the St Kilda president then suggested the final decision should be made by the Commission and the Administrator, to which the Presidents agreed.

The Commission - after several hours of deliberating and negotiationg with the administrator - decided in favor of Brisbane (in the words of John Kennedy) "for strategic reasons." Michael Brennan was told by the AFL commission that they wished to make a decision that night and that Fitzroy's licence was terminable at will. In other words make a decision that night or we (the Commission) pull the licence straight away.

The Presidents then reconvened and the only deal put to them for final sanction was a Brisbane-Fitzroy deal which was unanimously passed.

That was all done on the Thursday 4th July of course. Earlier in the week North and Fitzroy had been told that the AFL Commission to agree on a merger deal by 12 noon on Friday 5th July. North and Fitzroy came to a final deal at 12 noon on the 4th - a full 24 hours before the deadline.




See above for the exact details.

My understanding is that once a vote is taken in a meeting, you move to the next agenda item. The next agenda item being the Brisbane merger bid.

You don't call in every president in the league to continue to bargain and alter a deal after a vote is held. North were warned it wouldn't get up with a 50+ list but proceeded anyway. They were then free to resubmit if the Brisbane deal didn't get passed.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Yeah I'm aware that south went to syd, as the same club.

That'd be like moving Richmond to Sydney and calling them Sydney Tigers.

My question was is there a South Melbourne football club like there is a Fitzroy, in another league? Something old South fans who don't follow Syd for whatever reason could follow.

In a word, no. People have mentioned South Melbourne Districts, however they're a separate club and always have been - they were formed in 1912.

I'm sure many people over the years supported both given their proximity and the fact they've always been different leagues, but SMDFC is not SMFC and never has been.

I believe South Melbourne Football Club doesn't actually exist any more. The closest is a trademark for 'SMFC', which belonged to the soccer club. I say "belonged" because funnily enough it looks to have lapsed because they haven't paid the registration fee.

Maybe somebody enterprising can register it and try to sell it back to them.

 

[Roylion]

My understanding is that once a vote is taken in a meeting, you move to the next agenda item. The next agenda item being the Brisbane merger bid.

That's what happened. The North merger was rejected on the basis fo the 54 player proposal. Which was the AFL's own merger terms that they had set. The AFL was duplictious in encouraging North

1. not to pay any more than $550,000 to Nauru out of the merger monies (leading to the admin
2. encouraging North behind the scenes that they would get 54 players (as per the AFL's own merger terms that they had set. Melbourne and Hawthorn were going to merge on a 54 player list as well.
3. encouraging North that they could likely keep most of their identity.

Richmond president Leon Daphne later tried to lead a similar revolt against the AFL player concessions that were going to be afforded to Melbourne-Hawthorn, which were better than the 44 players the Bears received.

However the Melbourne and Hawthorn boards rallied a few clubs behind them such as North and the Western Bulldogs who were set to vote in favor of them. To overturn the concessions would need a two thirds majority vote by the clubs.

Daphne didn't get the same support in this case..no doubt helped by the fact that Melbourne and Hawthorn were not genuine premiership contenders in 1996, unlike North. Had Melbourne and Hawthorn merged they would have got 54 players.

You don't call in every president in the league to continue to bargain and alter a deal after a vote is held.

The AFL commission decided who was to merge. That decision had to be ratified by the presidents. Only one deal was put to the resdeints by the Commission.

North were warned it wouldn't get up with a 50+ list but proceeded anyway.

Yes...with the encouragement of the AFL. The AFL had set the merger conditions of 54 players in the first place.

They were then free to resubmit if the Brisbane deal didn't get passed.

The AFL Commission and the administrator of Fitzroy were very aware of North's revised offer of 44 players before they met.

They preferred to ignore the wishes of both North Melbourne and the Fitzroy directors in effecting a merger between the two clubs despite giving them until 12 noon on Friday 5th July 1996 to complete a deal.

Which they did.

 

[peetoo]

We are all better off without Oakley and stonewall Collins that’s for sure. I think they invented gaslighting

Yours faithfully,

‘An emotional fan railing at the fringes’

 

[yodellinhank]

That's what happened. The North merger was rejected on the basis fo the 54 player proposal. Which was the AFL's own merger terms that they had set. The AFL was duplictious in encouraging North

1. not to pay any more than $550,000 to Nauru out of the merger monies (leading to the admin
2. encouraging North behind the scenes that they would get 54 players (as per the AFL's own merger terms that they had set. Melbourne and Hawthorn were going to merge on a 54 player list as well.
3. encouraging North that they could likely keep most of their identity.

Richmond president Leon Daphne later tried to lead a similar revolt against the AFL player concessions that were going to be afforded to Melbourne-Hawthorn, which were better than the 44 players the Bears received.

However the Melbourne and Hawthorn boards rallied a few clubs behind them such as North and the Western Bulldogs who were set to vote in favor of them. To overturn the concessions would need a two thirds majority vote by the clubs.

Daphne didn't get the same support in this case..no doubt helped by the fact that Melbourne and Hawthorn were not genuine premiership contenders in 1996, unlike North. Had Melbourne and Hawthorn merged they would have got 54 players.



The AFL commission decided who was to merge. That decision had to be ratified by the presidents. Only one deal was put to the resdeints by the Commission.



Yes...with the encouragement of the AFL. The AFL had set the merger conditions of 54 players in the first place.



The AFL Commission and the administrator of Fitzroy were very aware of North's revised offer of 44 players before they met.

They preferred to ignore the wishes of both North Melbourne and the Fitzroy directors in effecting a merger between the two clubs despite giving them until 12 noon on Friday 5th July 1996 to complete a deal.

Which they did.

I'm not arguing that the AFL didn't stitch up the 'roys. The argument is that the decision to go with the Brisbane bid over North didn't come back to bite the other clubs. If Brisbane became a super team in part because of the merger, then imagine what would have happened had North not got too greedy.

It was obvious to us that North Melbourne was running its own race at this stage. We could not understand why Miller insisted on an extra 10 players, bearing in mind the limitations of the salary cap, and bearing in mind it was our understanding that the list would have to be reduced to 44 in the following March, in any event. North Melbourne, it seemed to us, was playing a most dangerous game of brinkmanship.

Eventually a straw vote was taken. The vote was unanimous against the North Melbourne-Fitzroy merger except for North Melbourne's solitary vote in favour. Brennan, as Fitzroy's Nauru-appointed administrator, did not vote. Then, and only then, did Greg Miller say that he was prepared to reduce the player request from 54 to 44, the same as Brisbane. There was some general discussion as to whether this would be acceptable, at which point an AFL club director said "Just a moment, you (North Melbourne) have had your turn, now we'll discuss the Brisbane-Fitzroy merger."
This turn off events was our worst fear. Even though we had been told that only the North Melbourne-Fitzroy merge would be on the agenda, we understood how the AFL worked, and how quickly things could change in this sort of situation.

Fitzroy, HORE-LACY, 2000, Lion Publications

And, as you say, Andrew Plympton said it should be a matter for the AFL Commission and the administrator. North Melbourne withdrew from the race. The Brisbane bid was then put to the club presidents.

 

[Roylion]

Fitzroy, HORE-LACY, 2000, Lion Publications

Yes? I have the book.

North Melbourne withdrew from the race.

Only after the Commission told them they had decided on Brisbane.

The Brisbane bid was then put to the club presidents.

The decision by the AFL commission was put to the presidents for ratification. The AFL commission knew before any fonal decision was made that North had reduced its offer to 44 players. Dyson Hore-Lacy says that in his book.

The AFL decided on Brisbane for "strategic reasons". The wishes of the Fitzroy board and North Melbourne were completely ignored by the Commission even though they knew the offers were now the same and would likely be ratified by the other presidents.

North may have won the premiership in 1996 but the Bears also finished third that year.

 

[yodellinhank]

Yes? I have the book.



Only after the Commission told them they had decided on Brisbane.



The decision by the AFL commission was put to the presidents for ramification. The AFL commission knew before any fonal decision was made that North had reduced its offer to 44 players. Dyson Hore-Lacy says that in his book.

The AFL decided on Brisbane for "strategic reasons". The wishes of the Fitzroy board and North Melbourne were completely ignored by the Commission even though they knew the offers were now the same and would likely be ratified by the other presidents.

Conceivable, though unlikely according to Hore-Lacy.

With North Melbourne having withdrawn, there remained, only one offer on the table and only one offer to go before the AFL presidents. Had North Melbourne stayed put its case to the AFL Commission, it is conceivable although unlikely, that the club presidents would have backed North Melbourne.

So if the North merger was to go ahead, it would've had to have been a yes vote for a 54 player list by the other clubs. The offer put to the vote was also a million dollars short of the Brisbane bid.

North may have won the premiership in 1996 but the Bears also finished third that year.

Yes, North were seen as the stronger club. And for the North bid to have got up, it would've been on what other clubs perceived to be more favourable terms. So if Brisbane became a super team in part because of the merger, it justifies the other clubs' decision in blocking the North Melbourne bid.

 

[Roylion]

Conceivable, though unlikely according to Hore-Lacy.

With a 44 player list, a matching financial offer for the administrator and a recommendation from the AFL commission, there's a reasonable expectation that it would have been expected. The presidents had agreed the Commission could make the decision between North and Brisbane.

So if the North merger was to go ahead, it would've had to have been a yes vote for a 54 player list by the other clubs. The offer put to the vote was also a million dollars short of the Brisbane bid.

But both were matched either before or during the AFL commission meeting.

So if Brisbane became a super team in part because of the merger, it justifies the other clubs' decision in blocking the North Melbourne bid.

On the basis of a 54 player list. Ironically Melbourne and Hawthorn would have received 54 players if they had merged, according to Ian Ridley.