VIC fans - merge, relocate or relegate?

[Carringbush2010]

No they're havent been, even though it has come close in 1986, 1989 and 1996



As a Fitzroy shareholder I've been saying that for years on these boards.



Without a doubt the fanbase doesn't want mergers, which is why member based clubs haven't merged.



Where have I said that? I'm not arguing that.

You haven't but it is the most relevant factor in this discussion

University still exists. Like Fitzroy, they are now in the VAFA. Last year Fitzroy Football Club played University Blacks for the first time in 105 years at the Brunswick Street Oval. The last time was when both clubs competed against each other in the VFL.



The Sydney Swans have the highest Melbourne based membership and supporter group of any non-Victorian club in the AFL competition. In September 2016, The Age reported that there were more than 12,000 paid up Melbourne based members out of the clubs reported total of 56,000. Tony Morwood, the Victorian manager said 'it comes back to our history. There are generations of families who have stuck to the red and white colours."

Those figures still suggest that most South Melbourne fans are not Sydney fans and most did not continue to follow Sydney

Of course it is highly likely. But it's easy to say that when your club has no chance of merging with another club.

Seems we agree again.

 

[Roylion]

Obviously its a personal thing, but whenever I see South Launceston it leaves a bitter taste of the East that used to be. And the fact that their remains were swallowed up by an opponent.

IF a merger to be successful then it needs to be seen as equal and that is largely dependent on the compatibility of the two clubs entering said merger. And by compatibility I largely mean similarity of identity (colours, emblem, name) so that the original identity continues as unchanged as possible.

For example:

 

[Roylion]

You haven't but it is the most relevant factor in this discussion

Yet you're trying to debate me over something I've never said

Those figures still suggest that most South Melbourne fans are not Sydney fans and most did not continue to follow Sydney.

How do you conclude that? Where did Sydney get 12,000 financial Victorian members from in 2016?

How many members did South Melbourne have in 1981? Certainly by 1984 South Melbourne / Sydney Swans had 2,750 members. That same year Fitzroy had 8,085 members the fourth highest in the league. As by way of contrast, Essendon had 10,231 members in 1984.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Yet you're trying to debate me over something I've never said



How do you conclude that? Where did Sydney get 12,000 Victorian members from in 2016?

How many members did South Melbourne have in 1981? Certainly by 1984 South Melbourne / Sydney Swans had 2,750 members. That same year Fitzroy had 8,085 members the fourth highest in the league. As by way of contrast, Essendon had 10,231 members in 1984.

No I'm not trying to debate you, merely pointing out the compromise of any merger.

12000 out of 56000 is not the majority, at the time, there was dissent among south fans about moving (the ones I knew at least) and they decided not to follow. It seemed at the time (I was 11) the most were not going to follow, going by media reporting at the time

We can go around and around in circles on this subject, what seems likely is that the majority of the vic market would rather a relegation and stay as their club or fold than compromise in a merge.

I don't have the figures I'll admit (if there actually any official figures) that, however it seems I have a reasonable position to suggest merging or compromising would be the least popular.

And so it should be, you might disagree, whichever way you boil it down and dissect it a compromise is a compromise.

 

[Papa G]

12000 Sydney members in Melbourne v 1 ******* Perth based Collingwood supporter. Who wins? Roy Morgan can't decide.

 

[Roylion]

No I'm not trying to debate you, merely pointing out the compromise of any merger.

I'm well aware of the compromise of any merger. I've supported Fitzroy since the 70s and been a shareholder since the 80s. We've been the subject of more merger proposals (including at least two from Collingwood) than any other VFL-AFL club. You don't think I'm aware of the details of at least a few of those proposals? I've given you a detailed example of one.

In 1996 alone, Fitzroy received merger proposals from Adelaide, the South Australian Cricket Association (on behalf of Norwood), Collingwood (want to know what Collingwood proposed?), Hawthorn (Hawthorn Lions), Footscray, St Kilda, Geelong (Geelong Lions), Richmond, North Melbourne (North Fitzroy Kangaroos) and the Brisbane Bears.

12000 out of 56000 is not the majority,

I didn't say it was. South Melbourne / Sydney Swans had 2,750 members in 1984 and 12,000 Victorian members in 2016, which is higher than any membership figure that South Melbourne had in its entire history. Where did those 2016 Victorian members come from?

at the time, there was dissent among south fans about moving (the ones I knew at least) and they decided not to follow.

Of course there was. I knew people involved at the 'Keep South at South' movement.

It seemed at the time (I was 11) the most were not going to follow, going by media reporting at the time

It seemed? Whatever it 'seemed' like, the bottom line was that four years ago the Swans had 12,000 paid up Victorian members. That number wouldn't necessarily even include that those supporters that aren't paid up members. I know many former Fitzroy supporters / members who now support the Brisbane Lions but aren't paid up Victorian members of the Lions. Yet they still go to Victorian games.

I know plenty of Swans supporters who are either former South Melbourne supporters or come from a South Melbourne family.

what seems likely is that the majority of the vic market would rather a relegation and stay as their club or fold than compromise in a merge.

And what I'm saying is that IF the merger preserved a significant part of the original identity club, many supporters would prefer that to total extinction. I haven't even considered relegation.

whichever way you boil it down and dissect it a compromise is a compromise.

Why do you keep harping on this? Of course a merger is a compromise and I've said that a number of times. The very word suggests that.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I'm well aware of the compromise of any merger. I've supported Fitzroy since the 70s and been a shareholder since the 80s. We've been the subject of more merger proposals (including at least two from Collingwood) than any other VFL-AFL club. You don't think I'm aware of the details of at least a few of those proposals? I've given you a detailed example of one.

In 1996 alone, Fitzroy received merger proposals from Adelaide, the South Australian Cricket Association (on behalf of Norwood), Collingwood (want to know what Collingwood proposed?), Hawthorn (Hawthorn Lions), Footscray, St Kilda, Geelong (Geelong Lions), Richmond, North Melbourne (North Fitzroy Kangaroos) and the Brisbane Bears.



I didn't say it was. South Melbourne / Sydney Swans had 2,750 members in 1984 and 12,000 Victorian members in 2016, which is higher than any membership figure that South Melbourne had in its entire history. Where did those 2016 Victorian members come from?



Of course there was. I knew people involved at the 'Keep South at South' movement.



It seemed? Whatever it 'seemed' like, the bottom line was that four years ago the Swans had 12,000 paid up Victorian members. That number wouldn't necessarily even include that those supporters that aren't paid up members. I know many former Fitzroy supporters / members who now support the Brisbane Lions but aren't paid up Victorian members of the Lions. Yet they still go to Victorian games.

I know plenty of Swans supporters who are either former South Melbourne supporters or come from a South Melbourne family.



And what I'm saying is that IF the merger preserved a significant part of the original identity club, many supporters would prefer that to total extinction. I haven't even considered relegation.



Why do you keep harping on this? Of course a merger is a compromise and I've said that a number of times. The very word suggests that.

Seems we agree on many points here, IF Collingwood did merge then I wouldn't have followed the club anymore because it's not Collingwood.

Others would, again, I don't have any official evidence, I don't know if anyone does. Not the point, if we only have what 'seems' then that is all we can speculate on, but it seems likely. If you 'read the room' for want of a better term what do you think the majority would think?

 

[Roylion]

Seems we agree on many points here, IF Collingwood did merge then I wouldn't have followed the club anymore because it's not Collingwood.

So you wouldn't have supported the Collingwood-Fitzroy Magpies playing in black and white (home strip) and red, blue and gold (away strip) out of Victoria Park? Because that's what Collingwood proposed to Fitzroy in writing in 1996. They even offered $500,000 insurance / compensation to Fitzroy if Fitzroy went down the path of a merger with Collingwood only for the proposal to be rejected by the Collingwood members.

If you 'read the room' for want of a better term what do you think the majority would think?

As I have repeatedly said it would totally depend on the circumstances / terms of the proposed merger.

 

[Carringbush2010]

This is where we disagree, I maybe wrong, you maybe wrong, but I doubt any compromise would be accepted by the majority. That is purely my opinion on what 'seems'

I doubt any terms or caveats would change the minds of many because it's an already less than and ideal position.

Until you or I can get any official numbers on how the market would prefer - then I'm going on the sentiment that I can see.

 

[telsor]

Your imagination versus those who have been there .... & still follow the game they love. You want to chuck your toys out of the cot.

The only people who have been there are Fitzroy & Sth Melbourne supporters.

 

[Roylion]

This is where we disagree, I maybe wrong, you maybe wrong, but I doubt any compromise would be accepted by the majority.

We're just going around in circles.

If the choice is between that, where the merger is more or less equal and the identity of both clubs is largely preserved, (e.g. Melbourne Lions as described above), and total extinction, then many will choose (and have) choose to follow the merged club.

I doubt any terms or caveats would change the minds of many because it's an already less than and ideal position.

Of course it would. The Fitzroy Bulldogs is a very good example. As I have said, most Fitzroy supporters and members (and certainly shareholders) accepted a merger with Footscray in 1989. For obvious reasons.

In 1996 52.5% of Melbourne members eligible to vote voted in favour of a merger with Hawthorn.

 

[Carringbush2010]

We're just going around in circles.

If the choice is between that, where the merger is more or less equal and the identity of both clubs is largely preserved, (e.g. Melbourne Lions as described above), and total extinction, then many will choose (and have) choose to follow the merged club.



Of course it would. The Fitzroy Bulldogs is a very good example. As I have said, most Fitzroy supporters and members (and certainly shareholders) accepted a merger with Footscray in 1989. For obvious reasons.

If it were me I'd rather Fitzroy as they are now, much better than merging with Melbourne. Even though it's VAFA.

I'm guessing most would.

As far as total extinction vs compromised entity? You know my view, I'm guessing most would be the same. Until we have solid numbers we don't really know, but that'd be my guess.

 

[Roylion]

If it were me I'd rather Fitzroy as they are now, much better than merging with Melbourne. Even though it's VAFA.

I'm guessing most would.

The crowds at Fitzroy matches (and I go to most Fitzroy matches in the VAFA) doesn't suggest that. Have you been to any Fitzroy matches at the Brunswick Street Oval?

As far as total extinction vs compromised entity? You know my view, I'm guessing most would be the same.

As I said it depends on whether the club is totally extinguished or whether at least a part of it continues via a merger.

In 1996 52.5% of Melbourne members eligible to vote voted in favour of a merger with Hawthorn.

 

[Carringbush2010]

The crowds at Fitzroy matches (and I go to most Fitzroy matches in the VAFA) doesn't suggest that. Have you been to any Fitzroy matches at the Brunswick Street Oval?

Bit hard being in Perth, at least your club (one of) has its original identity

In 1996 52.5% of Melbourne members eligible to vote voted in favour of a merger with Hawthorn.

Bet they're glad that merger didn't happen, and I do find that surprising, at least hawk fans stuck firm, or did they vote for it too?

 

[telsor]

In 1996 52.5% of Melbourne members eligible to vote voted in favour of a merger with Hawthorn.

Although the 'eligible to vote' criteria was a bit iffy.

Large numbers of people locked out of the meeting, while the board pulled out an extraordinary number of proxies.

If Hawthorn hadn't made the issue moot, it probably would have ended up in court.

 

[Roylion]

Large numbers of people locked out of the meeting

Only members were eligible to enter the meeting and to vote.

while the board pulled out an extraordinary number of proxies.

Sounds a bit Trumpish to me. The ballot was rigged?

I sometimes vote by proxy. Are you suggesting my vote in Fitzroy Football Club ballots or Brisbane Lions ballots are invalid?

Proxy votes for the Melbourne Hawks numbered 7,000 of which roughly 4,000 voted yes and 3,000 voted no. Michael Perry from Arthur Anderson was the returning officer.

 

[Roylion]

Bit hard being in Perth, at least your club (one of) has its original identity

So you haven't seen the crowds for the Fitzroy Football Club (in its original identity) playing in a lower league at their original home ground.

So on what basis do you make the claim that:

"If it were me I'd rather Fitzroy as they are now, much better than merging with Melbourne. Even though it's VAFA.

I'm guessing most would."

Bet they're glad that merger didn't happen, and I do find that surprising,

Why is it surprising? The merger terms were in their favour.

at least hawk fans stuck firm, or did they vote for it too?

They voted against. For obvious reasons.

 

[Carringbush2010]

So you haven't seen the crowds for the Fitzroy Football Club (in its original identity) playing in a lower league at their original home ground.

So on what basis do you make the claim that:

"If it were me I'd rather Fitzroy as they are now, much better than merging with Melbourne. Even though it's VAFA.

I'm guessing most would."



Why is it surprising? The merger terms were in their favour.



They voted against. For obvious reasons.

I guessed wrong then, it's surprising to me because a merge is a compromise - regardless if it was in 'their favour'

I guess maybe you're right, which would indicate that maybe clubs will be proposed to merge / relocate / relegate (if there is confidence that market won't be lost). If that is the case then why hasn't anyone put a proposal thus far post 1996?

If it really is the case that the market is ok with mergers then that's pretty sad.

 

[telsor]

Only members were eligible to enter the meeting and to vote.

Problem was the building was too small for the crowd, so a large number of valid members were unable to enter.

I sometimes vote by proxy. Are you suggesting my vote in Fitzroy Football Club ballots or Brisbane Lions ballots are invalid?

Proxy votes can also be be entrusted to others (e.g. board members) who choose which way they vote. While there are often good reasons for this, it can also mean it's not representative of the views of the membership at large.

 

[Roylion]

I guessed wrong then, it's surprising to me because a merge is a compromise - regardless if it was in 'their favour'

I guess maybe you're right, which would indicate that maybe clubs will be proposed to merge / relocate / relegate (if there is confidence that market won't be lost). If that is the case then why hasn't anyone put a proposal thus far post 1996? [/QUOTE]

Because the AFL has changed its policy and supports clubs. Clubs won't entertain a merger unless it is a last resort.

If it really is the case that the market is ok with mergers then that's pretty sad.

I haven't said that. You're continually misconstruing what I'm saying.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

In 1996 52.5% of Melbourne members eligible to vote voted in favour of a merger with Hawthorn.

That would have never held up to a court challenge, there was plenty of shenanigans that went into making sure that vote got up.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Although the 'eligible to vote' criteria was a bit iffy.

Large numbers of people locked out of the meeting, while the board pulled out an extraordinary number of proxies.

If Hawthorn hadn't made the issue moot, it probably would have ended up in court.

Some sponsors or board members took out a bunch of memberships and used them as proxy votes (Bill Guest from memory was the main one) plus as you say people locked out or refused the chance to vote.

 

[Roylion]

Problem was the building was too small for the crowd, so a large number of valid members were unable to enter.

Ian Ridley claims this was not the case.

"No member who sought to enter and vote than night was turned away. No one who was willing to wait was shut out and prevented from voting. Many supporters were turned away because they were not members."

The Dallas Brooks Hall final voting figures were:
- 1,455 opposed the merger
- 497 supported the merger.

Proxy votes can also be be entrusted to others (e.g. board members) who choose which way they vote. While there are often good reasons for this, it can also mean it's not representative of the views of the membership at large.

It was well publicised what the Board members were arguing. If you assigned your proxy vote to a board member, then you would have been well aware which way it was going to be cast.

 

[Roylion]

Some sponsors or board members took out a bunch of memberships and used them as proxy votes (Bill Guest from memory was the main one)

And that was certainly true of the Demon Alternative and other anti-merger groups who were advertisng in the papers for members. Joseph Gutnick and his family also joined the Melbourne Football Club as members for the first time. The total numbers of members who signed up for the first time or renewed their memberships, specifically to vote between the announcement of the merger proposal and the vote was 800.

plus as you say people locked out or refused the chance to vote.

Were they members or supporters? Supporters weren't entitled to vote.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I guess maybe you're right, which would indicate that maybe clubs will be proposed to merge / relocate / relegate (if there is confidence that market won't be lost). If that is the case then why hasn't anyone put a proposal thus far post 1996?

Because the AFL has changed its policy and supports clubs. Clubs won't entertain a merger unless it is a last resort.



I haven't said that. You're continually misconstruing what I'm saying.
[/QUOTE]

So the question is why has HQ changed its policy to support clubs? Considering they spruik a 'national' competition when in reality it's an expanded VFL competition. What does that say? Are they averse because they're worried the market won't accept mergers / relocations / relegations to actually make it more national? Is HQ actually biased toward vic clubs? That would be a conspiracy wouldn't it and would be inconsistent in their message that this is a national comp.

Not saying you said that, just saying if it is correct that the market are happy to accept compromise then that's pretty sad.

Still a firm believer that we may not see either of the 3 because

A/ HQ has mentioned its intent to ensure all clubs survival.

B/ Maybe the vic market would not want any of the 3, I know I don't. Some non vic fans do.