Moving along from the ridiculous accusations of a certain "Kaz" (along with the rednecked response from Homer), I have a couple of points to make.
I am not angry at the club. I just believe they are not maximising their efforts to increasing the membership base in Victoria - which IMO, could be as high as 7000.
I notice a lot of the people here who are prepared to let Fitzroy supporters 'come and go from the club as they chose', take an entirely opposite view when it comes to nurturing the support base in QLD. In fact, one could be forgiven for thinking that it is only QLD supporters who count when it comes to building a decent long term membership base.
Well, that's just the impression you get from some of the supporters. Lucky they aren't on the board eh!
KAZ - to pick up on some of your earlier points (which were factually incorrect):
Fitzroy was NOT voted out of the competition by the other 15 AFL clubs. In fact, what you are referring to is the vote by AFL club presidents as to whether or not accept the North-Fitzroy Kangaroos merger deal. In this regard, there was a resounding 'no' vote, based on the premise that the remaining AFL clubs would not support the merged entity having a list of 54 players. In this regard, when North Melbourne agreed to back down on this demand, effectively reducing the list to 44, the response from one AFL club director was "Just a moment, you (North Melbourne) have had your turn, now we'll discuss the Brisbane Fitzroy merger" (Hore-Lacy D. 2000. p.219 - Fitzroy. Warringal/Lion Publications. Melbourne).
In this regard, the vote then went to whether or not the AFL clubs would support a Brisbane-Fitzroy merger - and we all know the result of that.
Similarly, the suggestion that if Fitzroy hadn't merged that the club would have played its last game before the 4th of July (1996) is also incorrect. On the same day that the AFL club directors took the vote on the North-Fitzroy merger, they also took a vote to the effect of saying that the AFL would back the club until the end of the season.
I quote; "After Brennan spoke, Ross Oakley addressed the gathering. He went through the facts and figures, including that the AFL would lose more financially if Fitzroy did not play out the rest of the season than if it was underwritten by the AFL for the remainder of the year. He also referred to the huge loss of credibility for the AFL during this, the Centenary Year, if Fitzroy folded halfway through the year. Oakley's strong recommendation was that the AFL support Fitzroy for the remainder of the season. When a vote was taken it was unanimous to keep Fitzroy playing for the rest of the year. (Hore-Lacy D. 2000 p.218 - Fitzroy. Warringal/Lion Publications. Melbourne). So despite the fact that the creditor appointed administrator had threaten to pull the plug on Fitzroy's operations pending the failure of the club to merge, or the failure of the AFL to financially support Fitzroy's continuation during season 1996, it is clear that the AFL never had any intention but to support Fitzroy through the remainder of the 1996 season, with the team playing out every schedualed game.
(In which time, I might add, the club may have come to another suitable arrangement to merge, be it with North, or the Bears, on the negotiations of the Fitzroy club directors).
So in effect, what you have said KAZ is wrong. The AFL clubs did NOT vote Fitzroy out of the competition, but rather, voted for an alternate merger package (even though North had already agreed to table an offer which more than matched that of the Bears in regards to creditor payments, and also had the reduced list of 44 players).
In fact, it could be said that the AFL clubs voted to keep Fitzroy in the competion by accepting the Bears deal, rather than rejecting it.
Similarly KAZ, when looking at the facts, a number of things you mention just don't add up! I'll make a point of detailing them if you wish. Gee, I wonder if anything you say can be relied upon as being 'reliable'?
I mean, take for instance the reference to the 2 appointed directors who are appointed on the basis of serving the Fitzroy supporters. I notice you didn't mention, Kaz, when you bought that up that David Lucas (a life-long Fitzroy supporter, and Melbourne based director of the club) had his services terminated, and effectively the club appointed Ken Levy (a Fitzroy supporter and former board member) as the new 'appointed director' to look after the Fitzroy supporters. You also forgot to mention that Ken Levy was previously a Brisbane Lions board member, lives in QLD, and was voted into his position with a majority of QLD members!!!! Gee, a lot of Fitzroy representation there, isn't there!!!
Not to mention most of the other facts which you have either failed to mention, or interpretted in an extremely generous view, or flat out substituted with your own inventions of facts.
Similarly, the point that a person such as yourself KAZ, someone who hasn't claimed to be a Fitzroy supporter, can claim to speak as if she were a Fitzroy supporter, and have knowledge of whether or not Fitzroy was being reasonably represented in the new, merged entity, is laugable.
Really KAZ, you are out of your depth aren't you? No wonder no-one takes your "Olmy's a shit stirrer" view seriously!!!!
I am not angry at the club. I just believe they are not maximising their efforts to increasing the membership base in Victoria - which IMO, could be as high as 7000.
I notice a lot of the people here who are prepared to let Fitzroy supporters 'come and go from the club as they chose', take an entirely opposite view when it comes to nurturing the support base in QLD. In fact, one could be forgiven for thinking that it is only QLD supporters who count when it comes to building a decent long term membership base.
Well, that's just the impression you get from some of the supporters. Lucky they aren't on the board eh!
KAZ - to pick up on some of your earlier points (which were factually incorrect):
Fitzroy was NOT voted out of the competition by the other 15 AFL clubs. In fact, what you are referring to is the vote by AFL club presidents as to whether or not accept the North-Fitzroy Kangaroos merger deal. In this regard, there was a resounding 'no' vote, based on the premise that the remaining AFL clubs would not support the merged entity having a list of 54 players. In this regard, when North Melbourne agreed to back down on this demand, effectively reducing the list to 44, the response from one AFL club director was "Just a moment, you (North Melbourne) have had your turn, now we'll discuss the Brisbane Fitzroy merger" (Hore-Lacy D. 2000. p.219 - Fitzroy. Warringal/Lion Publications. Melbourne).
In this regard, the vote then went to whether or not the AFL clubs would support a Brisbane-Fitzroy merger - and we all know the result of that.
Similarly, the suggestion that if Fitzroy hadn't merged that the club would have played its last game before the 4th of July (1996) is also incorrect. On the same day that the AFL club directors took the vote on the North-Fitzroy merger, they also took a vote to the effect of saying that the AFL would back the club until the end of the season.
I quote; "After Brennan spoke, Ross Oakley addressed the gathering. He went through the facts and figures, including that the AFL would lose more financially if Fitzroy did not play out the rest of the season than if it was underwritten by the AFL for the remainder of the year. He also referred to the huge loss of credibility for the AFL during this, the Centenary Year, if Fitzroy folded halfway through the year. Oakley's strong recommendation was that the AFL support Fitzroy for the remainder of the season. When a vote was taken it was unanimous to keep Fitzroy playing for the rest of the year. (Hore-Lacy D. 2000 p.218 - Fitzroy. Warringal/Lion Publications. Melbourne). So despite the fact that the creditor appointed administrator had threaten to pull the plug on Fitzroy's operations pending the failure of the club to merge, or the failure of the AFL to financially support Fitzroy's continuation during season 1996, it is clear that the AFL never had any intention but to support Fitzroy through the remainder of the 1996 season, with the team playing out every schedualed game.
(In which time, I might add, the club may have come to another suitable arrangement to merge, be it with North, or the Bears, on the negotiations of the Fitzroy club directors).
So in effect, what you have said KAZ is wrong. The AFL clubs did NOT vote Fitzroy out of the competition, but rather, voted for an alternate merger package (even though North had already agreed to table an offer which more than matched that of the Bears in regards to creditor payments, and also had the reduced list of 44 players).
In fact, it could be said that the AFL clubs voted to keep Fitzroy in the competion by accepting the Bears deal, rather than rejecting it.
Similarly KAZ, when looking at the facts, a number of things you mention just don't add up! I'll make a point of detailing them if you wish. Gee, I wonder if anything you say can be relied upon as being 'reliable'?
I mean, take for instance the reference to the 2 appointed directors who are appointed on the basis of serving the Fitzroy supporters. I notice you didn't mention, Kaz, when you bought that up that David Lucas (a life-long Fitzroy supporter, and Melbourne based director of the club) had his services terminated, and effectively the club appointed Ken Levy (a Fitzroy supporter and former board member) as the new 'appointed director' to look after the Fitzroy supporters. You also forgot to mention that Ken Levy was previously a Brisbane Lions board member, lives in QLD, and was voted into his position with a majority of QLD members!!!! Gee, a lot of Fitzroy representation there, isn't there!!!
Not to mention most of the other facts which you have either failed to mention, or interpretted in an extremely generous view, or flat out substituted with your own inventions of facts.
Similarly, the point that a person such as yourself KAZ, someone who hasn't claimed to be a Fitzroy supporter, can claim to speak as if she were a Fitzroy supporter, and have knowledge of whether or not Fitzroy was being reasonably represented in the new, merged entity, is laugable.
Really KAZ, you are out of your depth aren't you? No wonder no-one takes your "Olmy's a shit stirrer" view seriously!!!!
). 
