Roylion

Remove this Banner Ad

Dan26

Brownlow Medallist
Jan 23, 2000
25,354
21,094
Werribee
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
post count: 38,986
Roylion,

Given that the Brisbane Lions are a "new" club that started in 1997, you might be interested to read what the AFL's official view is on statitics for the new club.

I was under the impression that the "games" record holder for the Brisbane Lions would be the person who has played the most games for the club since the start of 1997. But it looks as though the AFL have "changed" all this and made, what can only be described as a stupid decision (which I will get to in a second)

I have here in front of me a copy of "AFL 2000". It was given out before the start of the 2000 season and incorporates all statistics from VFL/AFL history. The 2001 version will come out in a few weeks. In the opening page there is a paragraph which will interest you. It says this :

"BRISBANE/FITZROY : In December 1999, the AFL made a clear position on statistics regarding the Brisbane Lions following the merger. Players and coaches involved with both the Bears and Brisbane Lions will have their records classified as one set for Brisbane. In other words, Marcus Ashcroft has played 222 premiership matches for the Brisbane (Bears and Lions), while Alistair Lynch has played 204 matches comprising 120 for Fitzroy and 84 for the Brisbane (Bears and Lions). And it means that those such as John Northey and Adrian Fletcher will be recorded as being involved at 4 clubs, not 5. This position will also apply to match records (highest scores, lowest scores, club vs club records), but because the decision was made close to printing deadlines fo AFL 2000, we were unable to publish the detailed changes to those records in this edition. However, they will be altered in AFL 2001"

That is word-for-word out of AFL 2000, Roylion. I don't like it one bit. It basically means that the Brisbane Bears records are incorporated in the Brisbane Lions records, but Fitzroy's aren't. That sucks. It means that Alistar Lynch is regarded as plaing for two clubs. As mentioned above, 120 games for Fitzroy and 84 for the Brisbane Bears and Lions. It means that if you played games for the Bears, this counts towards your games for the Lions. Yet, if you played games for Fitzroy, it doesn't count towards your games for the Lions.

The reality is, that Brisbane Lions are a different club to the Bears and Fitzroy and Alistair Lynch "should" be regarded as having played for 3 clubs. But apparently, the AFL syas NO.

It means that in 2001, when the Lions play, say Essendon, the "past records" will show 16-4 in favour of the Bombers. This takes into account Bears games and Brisbane Lions games. That logic is f*cked up. Going by that logic, why not say Essendon has played the Brisbane Lions 190 times and incorporate Fitzroy stats to add to the Brisbane Lions stats since 1997 ?

It's all f*cked up and I dont like it one bit. These stats are treating Fitzroy and the Bears differently.

If I were you, I'd write to the AFL and ask them why they are doing this. Why don't they use the common-sense approach and take all stats from Brisbane Lions games from 1997.

I'd like to contact them as well, because I think it is plain wrong, what they have done. What do you think ?
 
angryfire.gif
NOT HAPPY JAN
angryfire.gif


At least the club has maintained equal treatment of both merger parties.

A pox on the AFL!
mad.gif
 
Good post Dan,

When using head-to-head statistics of matches involving the Brisbane Lions, it only includes the recent results of the Brisbane Lions and the history of the Brisbane Bears.

It totally neglects Fitzroy's record.

I think I may have brought it up to Roylion months ago and I am not surprised that Fitzroy supporters are angry about this issue.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Sainter,

Exactly. We must remember though, that when referring to past records, it SHOULD totally negelct Fitzroy. But, it should also neglect the Bears. For some strange reason, it included the Bears. It should neglect both of them

It shouldn't take into account "either" of them. Head-to-head records vs other clubs when they paly the Brisbane Lions should only go from 1997 onwards. No Bears. No Fitzroy. Just the new, merged club.
 
MY Goodness!, Dan, a criticism of the AFL??!!

From you!?

I was starting to think you were Tony Peek.
 
Are the AFL in the process of erasing the fact that a merge ever existed? What's next? An AFL decree that Brisbane now be known as the Bears?

------------------
This is a hallucination and these faces are in a dream. A computer generated environment; a fantasy island you can do anything and not have to face the consequences.
 
It just perplexes me. Why in the hell would they incorporate Bears statistics into the Brisbane Lions ?????

They don't include Fitzroy stats, so why include the Bears ? I thought both clubs were supposed to be treated equally.

Where is the common-sense? These are grown men, making these decisions and they come up with the most un-commonsensical garbage that anyone could imagine.
 
Pess - I don't think they are in the process of erasing at all. And I am personally horrifed to read that para that says this for one and that for the other.

It does however go to show that there is a long way to go in the terms of 'education' of all the football supporters and I suppose the general public, into what a merger is all about.

As we are not fortunate enough up here in QLD to get all the football news, I will base these following comments on what we do get.

Over the last few years, it has been a total mismash of information. We have some sources that actually take all records of both clubs into account, others that take the Bears history into stats (ie number of times played each other etc) and others that even than take the bears stats but the Fitzroy priemerships into account all at once. Then we do have the occasions that produce only stats for the Brisbane Lions since 1997.

There are a number of reasons for the discrepencies I believe. One is the public perception that the Brisbane Lions is an extension of the Brisbane Bears, not a new club (which it actually is).

Some of the reasons I have heard for this perception is that they are still based in Brisbane, they still play out of the Gabba, they still wear 'maroon' in their jumper, they still have the same big name players etc etc etc. That is all surface material. And not looking at the 'big picture' as it should be looked at.


Then there is the vocal group of 'Fitzroy' supporters who also seem to educate the public in the fact that it wasn't a merger, more of a takeover. The issues of these people surface year in and year out, and certainly, it does affect public perception. Tho that doesn't necessarily mean that they are right, they are just vocal.

The biggest mistake the Brisbane Lions have made in this merger is to be too silent. They do that quite often, over many an issue, for fear of upsetting Fitzroy supporters even more (or so I think it is). Unfortunately this has done more harm than good.

If the club was vocal over many an issue, including these stats, then the situation may be very quickly rectified and at the same time be brought to the attention of the public.

The one thing that seems to come out of this merger over and over again, is what Fitzroy lost. Never what they have retained. And these things that have been retained would not have been there if they folded or merged with North.

The AFL, sees the club as a Brisbane club, and so they should, but also - it is abhorable that they see it as a 14 yo Brisbane Club instead of a 4 yo Brisbane Club.

There are many a reason that alot of Fitzroy people have not joined the Brisbane Lions, and I do have to say that this issue of stats is not amongst any of the reasons I have heard. This issue could probably be dealt with quite easily by the club and the AFL in one meeting. But the other reasons, well they will be there for the long term I think.
 
Spot on, Danni

FTR, this is what the Official Lions webpage has to say re the recording of stats and the merger:

---------------------------------------------
Please note, all statistics refer only to the Brisbane Lions. So, statistics prior to the merger for the
Brisbane Bears and Fitzroy are not included here. Only those players who have actually played for the Brisbane Lions are included. But, in the case of those players, all games for the Brisbane Bears, Fitzroy and the Brisbane Lions are included. These were conditions set down by the Brisbane Lions Board of Directors, in conjunction with the AFL, at the time of the merger.
---------------------------------------------

Someone, somewhere needs to be reminded of that condition, methinks...
 
How difficult is it to remind people that the Bears and Fitzroy ceased to exist after 1996, so any games played by the "new" merged team only count from 1997 onwards. It's not hard to understand, but the AFL seems incapable of understanding simple common-sense.

How the Brisbane Lions view their stats are irrelevant. The AFL runs the comp, and whatever they say - even if it is a crock of sh*t - are the rules.
 
Dan, it isn't a case of "ceased to exist after 1996" at all. Fitzroy have been an entity within Australian Rules Football, since then - Not in the AFL - but for this year they had the Coburg-Fitzroy alliance as well as the Fitzroy Reds.

And reminding ppl that they ceased to exist - totally defeats the merger. If people require any reminding, it is of the fact that the Brisbane Lions are a product of 2 former teams, and have taken on their history, together, to remind, and educate depending on which faction the members formerly supported. Along with educating the football public, as too who we are now, is a product of where we came from.

Those 2 clubs may have ceased to exist as separate entities in the AFL comp, but they are certainly alive as the 'parents' for who the Brisbane Lions are now.

And contrary to your statement - what the Lions have to say about it IS important. Infact, more people will listent to the club than to the AFL, based on the public reaction that the AFL can't be trusted or relied upon for accurate information. The public backlash towards the AFL on any number of issues on this site is enough evidence of that.

The AFL may control the game, but we all know that they are not always right. And if that is what they are saying about the merger stats, then it is up to the club to make a public announcement to set them straight.

If the AFL are doing something that contradicts the merger agreement - then let the club know, they can't do anything about it if they are not aware it is going on!

The AFL may claim to be the righteous one on many occassion - but we also know that on many an occasion they have been proven wrong.
 
Danni,

I meant that Fitroy and the Bears ceased to exist in their own right. That's what I meant. Obviously the new club is formed from the two old clubs, but it is still a brand "new" club (formed in 1997) formed in it's own right, and statistics should show this.

Why don't you contact the AFL, because I am all for you on this. The "official" stats for the Brisbane Lions are a crock of shit and need to be rectified.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Dan - contacting the AFL - on our own, isn't worth jack shit - having enough emotion thru the supporter base over an issue like this, that brings it too the club attention, is the only way to go.

Try the media up here even!! Melbourne papers have been quoted as saying they are not intersted in the story unless it comes from their correspondant based in Brisbane. These so called correspondants are linked to the club - via names or familiarity or whatever. It isn't like having a 'Sheahan' or 'Rex Hunt' or 'Palmer' or anyone like them to report to the QLD public. Infact Sundays paper ran a story form 'Ron McDonald" who by chance is the new internet/cyber/media manager employed by the Lions as of this month, I think it is.

What chance do the majority of Lions supporters have in contesting/disagreeing with these 'ideas' presented by the AFL??

The Melbourne media has power - but they aren't interested in what happens here - it is even like the Melbourne Media may have more power than the Brissy Lions themselves.

The only thing that is going to resolve these issues is the power of the public.

Does anyone other than a Lions supporter outside of Qld (or ex Fitzroy supporter) have any clue on the reaction of drafting Pike?
What about the sense of loss yet relief over losing Lawrence?
The feeling of fear of the loss of B Voss, in relation to comments made over the years by his brother Michael?
The cheers that went around while watching the draft when QLD players picked?
And on the same, the anger that we don't pick those players ourselves?
The fact that the majority, if not 99 - 100% of the admin, marketing, and membership staff are all ex victorian within this club, they only know what they know from Victoria, not what the QLd market is about!

You cannot expect the AFL to be the leading authority on Football in QLD, when the only information they get is from ppl that don't understand the market themselves. What works in Victoria does not work in QLD.

What the AFL has to say about the merger, is not what the members have to say about it. The statistics mean jack shit - unless you are prepared to take the whole package as is. Funny that the ppl making the 'public' comments - really have no idea at all.

You want something done about it, contact the club itself - the AFL wont' do anything, and you will be lucky if the club does at all. They are not used to supporter backlash, let alone backlash from supporters of the code and other teams.!!!!!
 
Finally Danni.
Someone that understands us Queenslanders.
Just because we are not ex Victorians, doesn't mean we don't like or understand footy.
I get sick of the marketers crap non marketing of the club. In the footy season we may be lucky to see the Lions advertised on the Tv a handful of times.
In Queensland we are parocial about being Queenslanders, but our club thinks that marketing the club to be the Queensland club in Queensland, won't do any good, out of the mouth of the marketing staff.
 
Danni, I do think that the incorrect reporting of stats IS an issue that has caused an number of Fitzroy people not to join the Brisbane Lions.

I have spoken to quite a number of people who have an interest in the club, but are infuriated (like me), by the fact that the stats are reported as the Brisbane Lions being merely a continuation of the Bears (ie: the club existing in the same form since 1987).

I do believe it is a real issue as to why some Fitzroy people dislike the Lions. I know it for a fact.
 
Danni, I do think that the incorrect reporting of stats IS an issue that has caused an number of Fitzroy people not to join the Brisbane Lions.

I have spoken to quite a number of people who have an interest in the club, but are infuriated (like me), by the fact that the stats are reported as the Brisbane Lions being merely a continuation of the Bears (ie: the club existing in the same form since 1987).

I do believe it is a real issue as to why some Fitzroy people dislike the Lions. I know it for a fact.
 
I think the main thing I personally dislike about the AFL using the Bears stats in with the Brisbane Lions stats is that it's unfair not only to the Roy fans, but also to the Bears fans and ALSO the people who never followed either team but follow the Brisbane Lions now. I don't see why any old stats are used, Roys OR Bears. Both clubs have ceased to exist. The Brisbane Lions didn't play a game before 1997, so why use ANY old stats??? Oh well, I am not an AFL official (and I thank god every day that I'm not!!!!! lol) but yeah, that's just the way I see it, coz I don't think the way it is now is fair to any of us.
 
As an ex-Fitzroy fan, I've been noticing for a while that the Fitzroy has gone out of the Lions. I think they started counting club head to heads as being Brisbane, and not the Brisbane Lions, last year, at least in Inside Football and possible The Age.

Now, the only player left over from the merger is Chris Johnson, though Alistair Lynch and Martin Pike are there. The fact is that we've been well and truly sucked in, and now that we're hooked, they can go back to being Brisbane.

I still love the club, but each time I go to a Brisbane game I feel less and less a Fitzroy fan.
 
Totally agree with you Tom. It does appear that the Fitzroy has gone out of the Lions. In the space of 4 years, they only have one of the gun 8 left. It is a shame..
 
Interesting to see how many of those Roy players on the list in 1996, are actually playing on 2001 lists.
Anyone any ideas.
 
Let's see...
Brad Boyd (ret.)
Chris Johnson (BL)
Anthony Mellington (?)
Steve Paxman (PA)
John Barker (Ha)
Brian McInness (??)
Jarrod Molloy (Coll)
frown.gif

Martin Pike (BL)
Jason Ramsey (?)
Jeff Hogg (ret??)
Anthony McGregor (DVFL?)
Matthew Primus (PA)
Brent Frewen (??)
Frank Bizzotto (??)
Robert McMahon (??)
Mark Zanotti (Himalayas?)
Simon Hawking (delisted by Coll)
Nick Mitchell (VAFA)
Darren Holmes (?)
Mark Dwyer (VFL?)
Andrew Cavedon (?)
Scott Bamford (SANFL?)
Simon Atkins (VFL)
Trent Cummings (?)
John McCarthy (?)
Matthew Manfield (?)
Brett Chandler (delisted by NM)
Peter Doyle (VFL?)
Brad Cassidy (?)
Nick Carter (VFL)
Matthew Dent (delisted by WB)
Jason Baldwin (ret.)
Rowan Warfe (Syd)
Danny Morton (delisted by PA)
Brett Cook (?)
Wayne Lamb (?)
John Rombotis (delisted by Rich)
Adam McCarthy (?)
Marty Warry (?)
Shane Clayton (NM)
Peter Bird (Westar?)
Nigel Credlin (VFL?)

And one of the supp-listers was Melbourne GF player, Daniel Ward

Which I think makes the grand total of 9.
 
I thought at the time of the merger is that they were incorparating fitzroys history .
Bottom line I didnt here fitzroy complaining when they and ross oakley tried to take over the bulldogs .
they wanted everything for then , its amazing how things come around full circle.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Roylion

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top