Born 1883, murdered 1996

[Punk Rooster]

Punk Roosters???

regards,

REB

I thought you of all people would've worked out the connection...
Crow + gay men= Crows supporters!

[Rik E Boy]

Me of all people?? WTF??

regards,

REB

[Punk Rooster]

Didn't mean it to come out like that!
Everyone knows Crows supporters are...... <insert sledge>

[Rik E Boy]

LOL

[ORDoubleBlues]

"Without AFL support, a Fitzroy merge was inevitable," said Hore-Lacy. Mergers had been on the agenda since 1989, when Fitzroy made terms with Footscray, only for the people to rise up. Now there was $6 million on the table for the first two clubs to take the plunge. Melbourne, Hawthorn, North Melbourne and Collingwood all looked at the idea. Collingwood's offer — the Lions' logo on the club's socks — was derisory.

If Eddie had been president at the time, they wouldn't even have offered them that.

Or maybe Eddie would have done for Fitzroy what he did for Western Bulldogs a couple of years back, ie, negotiate two major sponsors for them to keep them alive.

Not questioning his know how and his ability to get things done but his idea of a merger involving Collingwood would be to swallow that club whole.
He did turn things around at Collingwood but one of the guys he got on board was Brad Cooper and look where he is now.

[PhilG]

..

[Roylion]

Why? Why don't you give the background of your beef with him?

He finished off the AFL football club, and destroyed it. I never like seeing a club go like that, and he was the main problem at the time. That enough of a beef?

No, because I don't consider that to be correct. Dyson Hore-Lacy is an acquaintance of mine. I consider him to be a very honorable man who is fiercely Fitzroy. I also consider that in his time at the club he and the other board members did everything possible to keep the club going in the AFL, often at great cost to themselves and under considerable pressure. Remember as directors they were personally responsible for the club's debts. In fact when the Nauru Insurance Corporation failed to pay their next instalment of the loan they had agreed to (in effect in breach of their contract with Fitzroy), seven directors themselves lent $235,000 to the club in order to meet player payments in he short term. And there's no doubt the board tried everything to try and remain competitive in the AFL. They even negotiated a $500,000 sponsorship with Bruno Grollo, which in the end failed because Grollo didn't get the contract for the Queen Victoria redevelopment project. In the end opposition from the AFL commission to their continued existance in the AFL was too much, and the board therefore pursued a merger wiith North Melbourne.

Because you might gain another perspective. From my reading of your comments in this thread, I don't think you know what you are talking about. My credentials/experience? Shareholder of Fitzroy Football Club since 1986. Ordinary Member since 1978. Coterie member - Lion Hunters. Social club member from 1992. Cheersquad member in early eighties. Enough for you?

No. You didn't know a whiner when you saw one.

As I said previously, you don't know what you are talking about.

Rubbish. Upon what basis do you claim this? As I said Fitzroy was servicing its debt in 1996. With more support from the AFL they could have survived as a stand alone club in the AFL. Yes they may have had to play some home games interstate, but so do Melbourne, Hawthorn, St Kilda and Western Bulldogs. They're still the same clubs as they were before the movement of games..

Servicing it's debt in 1996?? It was out of control!! That's servicing it? Do me a favour! They would NOT have survived as a stand alone club in the AFL.

Where are you getting these ideas from? As I said Fitzroy's debt was $2.7 million, of which $1.25 million was owed to the Nauru Insurance Corporation. Fitzroy sought a merger, not because they were broke. In July 1995, the board decided that to remain competitive in the AFL, particuarly on-field they needed another million dollars in revenue from somewhere. The board decided that if could not find that funding then it woould actively seek a merger partner, preferably with a Melbourne based AFL club. At no point was the VFA considered. Even the AFL made two merger proposals to Fitzroy and offered to pay all debts if the board woud definitely guarantee a merger by the end of 1996. Fitzroy couldnt definitely guarantee such a merger because 75% of shareholders needed to vote in favor of a merger, if one was to occur. The AFL therefore withdrew their support, to the point where they even threatened the withdrawal of Fitzroy's dividend, which was paid as a matter of course to all AFL clubs.

Heck - even now there's TOO MANY Melbourne based clubs in the AFL!

That's a matter of opinion as well. The AFL, I think, aare quite aware of the falloout that would occur, if a club was seen to be let go, as Fitzroy was.

No they weren't in trouble from that point at all. Fitzroy had quite a few successful years down at the Junction Oval and has built quite a following. The real trouble began in the 1970's when like many other clubs, Fitzroy overspent on gaining a number of top players. It was badly tiimed as from the early eiighties the competiition began to move froma semi-professional to professionsal. Some clubs, includign Fitzroy, were caught short. Some due to veruiious factors managed to recover, some continued to struggle.

You're wrong. Everyone played the player buying game, with mixed success.

Yes. I'll repeat what I said. Some clubs, including Fitzroy, were caught short. Some due to verious factors managed to recover, some continued to struggle. Richmond ("Save Our Skins") and Footscray are two that spring to mind that embarked on massive fund-raising ventures to save them from leaving the AFL. Perhaps they should have gone to the VFA too?

Then there was the introdcution of zoning, which only helped a few clubs which dominated the 70's. Fitzroy (and South Melbourne) were left behind the worst.

From zoning? Rubbish. What evidence have you got for this? From 1968-1985, Fitzroy had a reasonable zone for players, though it is true that some clubs had more productive zones than others. Fitzroy's troubles didn't come from poor zoning. North Melbourne's success in the mid-1970s didn't come from zoning.

The "success" at the Junction Oval was nothing like what they needed at the time. It certainly paled when compared to the shifts by Richmond and St.Kilda at about the same time.

Fitzroy at the Junction Oval from 1970-1984 was a real home base for the Lions and one where many Fitzroy supporters felt at home. Average crowds there were just over 14,500.

Fitzroy had a small supporter base in any case, because of a sustained lack of success in the 1960s. This made it far more difficult for Fitzroy to recover from any financial setbacks,, relative to other VFL-AFL clubs.

It could have been a lot worse if it hadn't been for the zones and Fitzroy could have been down as far as South Melbourne were when they were shifted to Sydney. Who knows? Maybe it could have been the Sydney Lions if it hadn't been for the supporters in the zones.

I don't understand the point you are trying to make here. Supporters in each of the zones weren't responsible for the amount of supporters and revenue a particuar cub had or didn't have. The reasons for support or lack of it were far more complex.

And that was the mistake. It was because the name Footscary was dropped that caused the furore and ended up saving the Bulldogs. I don't think that Fitzroy were that far in front of Footscray (yes, the Bulldogs were in big trouble at the time) as you think. I'd go so far as to say that Fitzroy were the second worst off club in Victoria at the time.

In 1989? I don't think so. St Kilda and Richmond just to name a couple were in worse financial shape than Fitzroy. 12 wins that year saw us performing quite well on the field and the club debt was estimated at somewhere about $800,000.

I disagree. Playing 4 or so home games games down in Tasmania in the same manner as Hawthorn are doing would have added considerably to Fitzroy's smallish supporter base, generated extra revenue, which was lacking in their current home ground arrangement at Princes Park.

No. The football public in Tasmania would not have embraced such an arrangement. Even now I query it.

There's no doubt in my mind that Hawthorn will be the big winners in their recent naming rights deal. More revenue, sponsorship, members and so on. Fitzroy were very keen to establish a similar presence over a number of years, but didn;t receive the support. They pioneered the possibility of playing home games in Tasmania (1991) and Canberra (1995).

Besides - North Hobart was not a good enough venue.

Good enough at the time and who know what it would have become with a continued regular AFL presence.

What's your problem with Leon Weigard?

He was an even bigger whiner than Hore Lacy! He was an embarassment! Like a friend of mine observed in 1986, "What's Leon Wiegard going to whinge about this week?"

That's it? Because he's a 'whiner'? What...he spoke up in defence of Fitzroy? The same as any club chairman would do. Met him personally have you? Or is this an impression gained from the media.

Another fiercely loyal Fitzroy person who did everything he could to keep the club in the AFL.

That's your opinion. One I don't share. And one that successive Fitzroy boards didn't share. Their preference was to merge with another Melbourne based club and maintain a Fitzroy identity in the top football competition in the country, which they helped to found.

So what? What gives them the right to make such a claim? None!

The shareholders actually. Fitzroy directors are elected by the club's shareholders. One director was elected by the ordinary members as per the articles of association. As the elected directors of the club they had every right to decide the club's direction, the same as any board.

They should have put their survival ahead of misplaced pride, and moved to the VFA. All the boards at Fitzroy made the same mistake, and they paid the price for it.

Thanks to the AFL who refused "for strategic reasons" (Commissioner John Kennedy July 4th 1996) to accede to the Fitzroy boards's preference to merge with North Melbourne.

On the field - it does NOT! THAT is my point. If they'd moved to the VFA, they WOULD have an on field presence today!

If they'd merged with the Kangaroos, as was the Fitzroy board's clear preference, the North Fitzroy Kangaroos would be on the field today.

But unlike the other clubs they never got out of that debt.

Sorry? Are you implying that all Melbourne based clubs are debt-free? I suppose the Western Bullldogs must be getting close after the $4.5 million injection they've had over the last three years. Melbourne and North? Debt-free as well are they

So what happened? I'll tell you what happened. They stuffed up.

I think you'll find that the AFL had a fair say in the eventual outcome, in an effort to force a Melbourne based club out of the competittion, to fit in Port Adelaide. Even when the AFL achieved their wish, they still wouldn;t allow Fitzroy to merge with a clb of their choice.

They wouldn't do the right thing, realise that their desire to maintain an AFL presence was not possible - and move to the VFA.

How many times do I have to say it? A move to the VFA was never considered. You may think hat was the wrong decision, but the board and the shareholders did not. A number of options was considered at various shareholders meeting I attended. Relocation was top of the list, and faiiling that (thanks again to the AFL) a merger was the next preference wwith a melbourne based club. Moving too the VFA was NOT considered. Whether you think that was right or wrong is immaterial. It's merely your opinion and you weren't a shareholder, member or supporter of Fitzroy.

Not only that, they didn't use that strength to eliminate their debt. Why? Because it wasn't enough! So much for doing well financially!

Certainy the financial situation wasn't sustained, due to various factors, such as Quit reducing their sponsorship. continued AFL pressure to merge such as refusing to allow private businessmen such as Bernie Ahern lend us money and trying to limit anything Fitzroy negoitated for more revenue, such as the Schweppes deal. Fitzroy even did a deal with CUB which sponsored us for $250,000. The AFL threatened to sue because they felt the money should have gone to them, because they had guaranteed another Fitzroy debt (no money was ever directly lent by the AFL) and even threatened to reduce the other club's dividends because the money hadn't been given to the AFL. Fitzroy also lost any bargaining power to deal with Carlton after a renewal of the lease at Princes Park when the AFL guaranteed 22 games at Princes Park, no matter if Fitzroy played there or not. That all happened after 1993.

I'll kepp repeating it, because you insist on hanging on to the very attitude that cost the Lions it's AFL presence at the end of 1996. The sooner you acknowledge that fact, the easier it will be for you to understand the very concrete commentary I am presenting.

And the sooner you understand that the directors and shareholders of Fitzroy preferred a merger with a melbourne based club and not a return to the VFA, you'll understand what I am saying.

I have considerable grass roots football experience. I could run off about five clubs in Fitzroy's zone that went belly up because of the Lions (not directly - I'm referring to the sponsorship issue). I will never forgive Fitzroy for that.

Fitzroy had every right to seek sponsorship from a variety of sources, both large and small. Local clubs do not have a monopoly on sponsorships. Indeed Fitzroy to a large extent was a local inner city Melbourne club. Zones didn't exist after 1985. If businesses were happy to sponsor Fitzroy rather than their local club then that is their perogative.

And those were the signs I was referring to - in part. The other sign - and we are still seeing it today - is the fact that there are too many Melbourne based clubs in the AFL. Merging didn't work because really no one wanted to merge.

We don't know if merging will work, because in reality there hasn't been a merger in the AFL between two geographically close clubs, such as Fitzroy and North Melbourne.

That was part of the servicing debt problem! Why do you think Fitzroy even started that? It was part of their sponsorship drive to create the finance they needed to eliminate the debt! And it failed!

It was going very well, until the Nauri Insurance Corporation struck financial trouble, after the original board was voted out due to political elections in Nauru. As a result they refused to pay the next instalment of the seven year $3 million agreed loan which was negotiated at the end of 1994. This was a loan that was due to be paid back by the end of 2001. By 1996 Nauru had had lent $1.25 million, which Fitzroy was repaying. Fitzroy of course couldn't pay back the amount in one hit and so an administrator was appointed to recover the debt.

Read what I type. I am saying that if Fitzroy had received a modicum of AFL support from 1991 onwards, then it most likely they would be in the AFL today as a stand-alone entity. The AFL actively worked against Fitzroy, unlike their present attitude towards Melbourne based clubs such as Footscray which to date has received over $4.5 million in donations from the AFL over the last three years. Not loans that have to be paid back. Donations. North and Melbourne ave also received multi-million dollar donations while the AFL also recently bailed Carlton out.

The present attitude of the AFL is not the same as it was in the 90's, so don't make that comparison. They didn't help any Victorian clubs back then - they were too busy constantly bailing out Sydney.

Rubbish. Both Hawthorn and St Kilda were financially assisted in 1992. Of course generally the attitude of the AFL was not disposed to helping clubs unless they had a purpose. The AFL wanted one or more clubs out of the competition and were to prepared to support mergers. Amazing that at least $12 million was available for mergers and yet even $1 million of that would have helped a foundation member of the competition to remain in that competition.

In the end they lost almost everything, and you can't say that about me! As for calling my view narrow, you wouldn't say that if you'd seen what I have. .

Of course it's narrow. You refuse to acknowledge any other perspective about Fitzroy apart from your own narrow views. I was involved in much of the process and we're talking about a club that I've been a supporter of from as early as I can remember. I'm a third generation Fitzroy supporter. For Christ's sake you won't even read the other side of the story because Dyson Hore-Lacy is *sob* a 'whinger'.

And if you think I'm presenting a one sided view, I'm also a member and supporter of the Fitzroy Reds AND the Brisbane Lions. I'm well aware of all the options, but the board (Elaine Findlay, John Stewart, John Petinella, Colin Hobbs, Robert Eales, David McMahon, Kevin Ryan and Dyson Hore-Lacy) acted in what they thought were the best interests of the club and were supported by the majority of the shareholders.

You were wrong. The Fitzroy boards were wrong.

That's your opinion and your opinion only. Only Fitzroy members and shareholders have the right to decide the fate of their club. That was taken out of their hands by the AFL.

The fact that Fitzroy no longer has an on field presence any more bears me out.

The Fitzroy board did not want to merge with the Brisbane Bears. They believed Fitzroy would have an on-field presence in the AFL as the North Fitzroy Kangaroos,, playing in red, royal blue, gold and white.

You're missing the point. My argument is relevant no matter where it's applied. I'll use clubs that couldn't stay in the VFA as an example;

Berwick, Kilsyth, Mordialloc, Caulfield (forgetting that their merger with Ashburton fell over for the moment), Waverley, Geelong West (in a merger), Traralgon - need more? They tried the VFA and couldn't keep at it - so they went back to where they came from. Except for Caulfield of course, but then they did move down to survive. The fact that they didn't had nothing to do with finance. Their demise was completely political.

Their decision to do so was made by their respective boards and they did what was right for them. The Fitzroy board pursued a merger with North Melbourne in the belieef they were doing the right thing by the shareholders and members of the Fitzroy Football Club. Were you one of them?

Appropriate to the very legacy you are so keen on putting in my face! I've seen clubs fold and merge all over the place - so don't tell me I don't know!

I'll ask again. Were you a member, supporter, board member, shareholder and/or former player of the Fitzroy Football Club? Unless you were/are how can you determine what or what is not appropriate for the Fitzroy Football Club?

Do you think that would even have been though of if Fitzroy were already on the skids? For goodness sake!

That my point. Fitzroy wouldn;t have been on the skids, had the AFL supported us in a number of ways, such as our application to play 4 home games in Canberra.

For a start, it wasn't a merger with Brisbane. It was a takeover.

It wasn't a corporate merger with Brisbane that's true.

North Melbourne knew that and it's the main reason why they were pissed off.

No they were pissed off for a whole heap of other reasons other than that. Don't tell me I have to go through all that as well. Do you actually know anything about the events of 1996...other than the basic scratching of the surface you may have got out of newspapers?

I've already said that the AFL should have SAID "Move to the VFA". They were giving off the unmistakeable signs with the rejections you were talking about.

They didn't say that and they had no intention of saying that. They wwanted to retain as many of the Fitzroy supporters to the AFL as they could.

12,782 is NOT a big enough crowd for the AFL. They needed at least 15,000 - why do you think they won't approve stadiums that hold less than that?

Of course it's not a big enough crowd for the AFL....today. It's something Fitzroy could have built upon,, esppecially as in 1995 rugby league was in turmoil. That crowd was the first match in Canberra and that was eleven years ago.

Why do you think all the work has been done at York Park? To get the capacity up to the correct level. 12,000 was not enough. They were pulling more in Sydney. And they knew it and at the time gave Canberra the bird. Sure - it was a bad call, but again that had nothing to do with Fitzroy.

Yes it did for reasons I've already explained ad nauseum. Two years later (1998) North played in Canberra.

Getting together with the enemy (the Raiders) would have been the error that Fitzroy made if that's correct. If so - that's yet another mistake that would have contributed to Fitzroy's demise.

Why would a joint venture between the Raiders and the Lions have been a mistake?

Indirectly - yes. That's not the whole beef, but it's a big slice of it.

So there's obviously another agenda at work here, other than what was best for Fitzroy Football Club.

That view was wrong and I stand by it.

You can stand by it all you like. It makes little difference. You weren't/aren't a Fitzroy supporter, member or shareholder so how you have reached the conclusions about Fitzroy or the Fitzroy board seem fairly shaky and flimsy to me. You clearly have little idea of the circumstances that led to Fitzroy leaving the competition or the circumstances that led to those decisions. Moreover you aren't prepared to consider any other perspective apart from your own narrow views, which clearly are driven by another agenda. You make weak excuses in refusing to find out about other perspectives to trying to justify your statements on the basis that they are ''whingers'. All you've done is made some sweeping unsupported statements supposedly based on your knowldedge of grass roots footy, but little knowledge of Fitzroy Football Club.

Fitzroy brought it's problems on itself. They deserved what they got in the finish.

And I;ve clearly demonstrated that this may not be the case. What in terms of concrete evidence have you actually got to support your case. Hang on let me guess...

FITZROY SHOULD HAVE MOVED TO THE VFA

Yep.....that's it. Your opinion is the only thing you have to offer. No facts or evidence of any kind to support that opinion.

And forget any claim to presence and so forth in the AFL - because that's what did your club in.

I've explained above what did my club in. It differs from your opinion.

[am Bays]

Christ you blokes are good.....

[PhilG]

..

[Rik E Boy]

Scene: The Office Monday Morning at Ipswich Inc.

CAMPO: So REB, waddya get up to on the weekend, watch any of the footy finals?
REB: Shit no. I went on to the net and watched Born 1883, murdered 1996!
CAMPO: Crikey! Don't tell me another famous Australian has died!!

...to be continued.

regards,

REB

[Roylion]

There you go. The bolded part. THAT is why he was bad for the club in the finish. He couldn't look past that fierce loyalty and it put the blinkers on that he should have taken off.

Rubbish. Yet Dyson Hore-Lacy and his board pursued two mergers, one in August 1994 (Melbourne + Fitzroy = Melbourne Lions) and in 1996 (North Melbourne + Fitzroy = North Fitzroy Kangaroos). Melbourne got cold feet and pulled out (only to pursue a merger two years later) and the other was stymied by the AFL.

Why? It was a lost cause! They couldn't - or wouldn't see it.

Once again easy to comment in hindsight. I'll say it again...the board's and shareholders' preference was to merge with another Melbourne based club, if Fitzroy couldn't continue to exist as a stand alone entity in the AFL. The board saw the writing on the wall, hence their protracted merger negotiations with Melbourne and North Melbourne in particular. Discussions were also held with Hawthorn, Geelong, St Kilda, Collingwood, Richmond, Footscray, Brisbane Bears, Adelaide Crows (the last two keen to cement a Melbourne support base) and even the South Australian Cricket Association on behalf of Norwood.

As I said previously, you don't know what you are talking about.

I do, because I have a wide ranging experience in football as a whole. I doubt you can claim such a wide range.

In relation to the Fitzroy Football Club you don't know what you are talking about.

Ideas? Facts, my friend - facts born out by the reality that Fitzroy has ZERO on field presence in football.

But still exists as a club. Many old Fitzroy supporters follow the Fitzroy Reds, as do I. Many consider the Brisbane Lions to represent Fitzroy in the AFL. Why?
* The official name of the club is the "Brisbane Bears-FITZROY Australian Football Club Ltd." They trade as the Brisbane Lions.
* to reflect the above the Lions' team wear the logo of BBFFC on the back of their guernseys
* Brisbane wears Fitzroy's colours, maroon, blue and gold
* Brisbane have the Fitzroy mascot - the Lion
* Brisbane uses Fitzroy's theme song tune, with the lyrics containing the word FITZROY in it as well as phrases from the old Fitzroy song,
* Brisbane have the same Fitzroy coterie groups "Lion Hunters' etc.,
* Brisbane have the father-son rule from Fitzroy (e.g Jonathon Brown),
* Brisbane have the "Fitzroy-Brisbane Past Players and Officials Association" headed by former Fitzroy players. Kevin Murray is a member as are many other old Fitzroy players.
* Brisbane have the Fitzroy-Brisbane Historical Society to preserve the history of Fitzroy, of which I am a member.
* Brisbane have worn the Fitzroy guernsey in official AFL matches since the merger on at least three occasions and will do so in the future.
* former Fitzroy players and officials are automatically life members of the Brisbane Lions
* the Brisbane Lions Best and Fairest Medal is named the Merrett-MURRAY Medal, after Kevin Murray, one of Fitzroy's greatest players. The choice of name for Fitzroy half was chosen by a ballot of Fitzroy people in 1997.
* Brisbane Lions official records are dated from 1997 and include all Fitzroy records of all players that have played for the Brisbane Lions suich as Chris Johnson, Martin Pike, John Barker, Scott McIvor and Alistair Lynch.
* there are two Fitzroy directors on the Brisbane Lions board.
* the Brisbane Lions have a large Victorian social club operation located in the middle of the old Fitzroy recruiting zone at Bulleen in Melbourne.
* Brisbane sponsors the Fitzroy Juniors who play at Fitzroy's spiritual home, the Brunswick St. Oval and have a close relationship with the Fitzroy Reds. (e.g the Reds played in the curtain-raiser for the 2003 Heritage Round Brisbane Lions vs. Collingwood on the MCG) Brisbane wore Fitzroy jumpers that day.

BS!!!!!! Who is dominating the competition right now? Why won't there be any finals in Melbourne after this weekend until the big one? Because the strength is INTERSTATE! Off the field, Adelaide, Port Adelaide, West Coast and Fremantle are KILLING the Victorian clubs! With the help of the AFL, even Sydney and Brisbane are better off! Don't you dare tell me there aren't too many AFL clubs in Victoria! That pretty much proves how deluded you are and how little you understand the game!

And so to compete with the larger clubs and remain in the competition that they had been a member of for 100 years, the Fitzroy board and shareholders resolved too merge with another Melbourne based club. You can spout on all you like about Fitzroy should have done this or should have done that. The bottom line is that the Fitzroy board and shareholders resolved to do what they felt was best for Fitzroy supporters, members and shareholders and that was to merge with another Melbourne based club and retain a Fitzroy identity in the AFL.

If they didn't have the larger root support base, I would have agreed with that. But they do. Tiger fans tend to be fence riders like St.Kilda, but when they all come out Richmond are up there with Collingwood, Carlton and Essendon. The grass roots support that rallied to Footscray also proves their strength. Fitzroy could never claim such support.

Well there you go. Finally acknowledgment of a factor that perhaps the Fitzroy board wasn't totally at fault.

And the evidence of that comes from the VCFL country football enquiry. The zoning system should have changed every three years, but it didn't. The result was that the clubs with the weak zones had trouble competing with the stronger ones - plus the spending North Melbourne did. Fitzroy fell into that the worst, as did South Melbourne.

A minor factor in my opinion for Fitzroy's lack of success.

The zones were responsible for Fitzroy. It literally saved their hides once they moved out of Brunswick Street. It's why the Junction Ocal worked for a little while, even if the strength of pre WW2 wasn't replicated.

I still fail to see how zones "saved Fitzroy's hide" at the time. You've just said that Fitzroy had a poor zone and therefore struggled.

Hawthorn are soon going to realise the folly of their actions. Tasmania is a basket case in football. The suits in Hobart are silently fuming about their precious city being ignored - there's always been a triballistic problem between Hobart and the North Coast. The grass roots there is in serious trouble - and frankly an AFL presence will wreck the state right now.

We'll see. Tasmania will never have their own stand alone AFL side, but that wasn't the intention when Fitzroy played a few games down there. Hawthorn will definitely benefit from the Tasmanian presence. There will be no Tasmanian stand alone AFL side though.

That was why Fitzroy couldn't stay in Tasmania. North Hobart was a terrible ground for AFL football.

Yes it was. However that wasn't the point at the time. The point was to establish a presence in Tasmania in terms of extra membership and sponsorship. It was an attempt to think beyond the square and to derive extra revenue. It didn't work partly beecause the AFL insisted Fitzroy pay for all expenses and accomodation for BOTH clubs that competed, and partly because of the ground.

The AFL knew it, and there was nothing else in Hobart. But the TFL wouldn't play ball and allow anyone to look anywhere else. Actually, that can't be blamed on either Fitzroy or the AFL.

The AFL didn't really make an effort to support Fitzroy in its efforts to establish a viable alterantive. Canberra was the much the same three-four years later.

The other clubs were LAUGHING at him! He was an embarrassment to Fitzroy! I saw the idiot on TV. Some of the things he said were mind boggling (and I wish I could remember an example)!

They can't have been that mind-boggling.

So I was right. Your impression of Weigard is from the media. Ever had any face to face dealings with him in person? I have.

I'll say it yet again. Only Fitzroy members, shareholders and directors have the right to determine the future of their club. They determined they wanted to remain part of the AFL as either a stand alone entity or as part of merged melbourne club. As they have every right to do.

No, thanks to the FFC for refusing to even consider a move to the VFA in the first place.

That was their decision to make and it was one supported by the AFL, for reasons I have already explained.

North were too greedy. That was their fault really. If they'd been more competitive with what Brisbane offered they would have got it.

North asked for what the AFL commission and the clubs had previously agreed was to be contained in the merger package for any two Melbourne based clubs that merged. Brisbane certainly udnercut them, but it was always the AFL's preference to merge Fitzroy with the Bears, contrary to the Fitzroy board's wishes.

They were at some stages. Right now doesn't mean they always were.

What? North Melbourne, St Kilda and Footscray have been in debt for years. StKilda is climbing out of the abyss. Geelong Richmond, Carlton and Collingwood have had massive debts, in fact far greater than Fitzroy ever had. Geelong was $8 million in debt at one stage, dwarfing Fitzroy's $2.7 million.

*sighs*

I'm sick of this - and I don't have time to address the rest of this biased diatribe. Accept it. Fitzroy is not an innocent party in this - far from it.

Once again all you have put forward is Fitzroy should have gone to the VFA and the fact they didn't is an indictment on Dyson Hore-Lacy. It just wasn't Dyson Hore-Lacy's decision. The board allso made that decision and on the board att the time were some people who had been involved with the club for a very long time, including Elaine Findlay, former players Colin Hobbs and David McMahon and other long time Fitzroy members and supporters.

And that's it! You've even put up an argument that Fitzroy's troubles were due to being allocated a poor zone, conceded that the failure of the Tasmanian experiment was out of the control of the Fitzroy board. If that is the case, how is that Fitzroy's fault? How is that Leon Weigard's or Dyson Hore-Lacy's fault? Fitzroy was forced to move from Brunswick Street, because the place was crumbling around them. They didn't own the Brunswick Street Oval and the council refused to repair it? I've given you plenty of examples of how Fitzroy attempted to remain in the AFL and the initatives they took to do so, most of which were hindered or refused by the AFL. Even when they realised the writing was on the wall and sought a merger with a suitable Melbourne based partner in 1996, the AFL stopped that as well (I'm very happy to go to into more details into exactly how the AFL did that). The Fitzroy board's and shareholder's preference was to merge with a Melbourne based AFL club and form a new club with a decidedly Fitzroy identity. Whether you think that is right is wrong is immaterial. The decision was the Fitzroy board and shareholder's decision to make. That there isn't a Melbourne based club with a Fitzroy identity running around in the AFL today is NOT the Fitzroy board's fault. They tried very hard to make it happen and came within 24 hours of making it happen. They didn't sign the merger agreement with Brisbane (although they are bound by it today)

If you don't believe me, that's your problem. History will record Fitzroy as dying at the end of 1996 as an on field entity.

The history of the Fitzroy Football Club is not over yet. As I said... stay tuned. There's a bit happening behind the scenes on a number of fronts that may surprise a few. You may have to revise that last little statement.

And it will record that they brought their problems on themselves.

No it won't. It will record that after a sustained campaign by the AFL commission against the Fitzroy Football Club, the Fitzroy FC was forcibly removed from the AFL competition, against its will. The AFL commission wanted Port Adelaide to enter their limited 16 team competition in Fitzroy's place.

[PhilG]

..

[heater31]

Thank christ these are getting smaller

[Sheik Yerbouti]

PhilG wrote:
''I do, because I have a wide ranging experience in football as a whole. I doubt you can claim such a wide range. ''

Phil, you've bought this up on a couple of occasions, would you mind expanding on this ? Roylions explained his role in the Fitzroy saga at the time, would'nt it only be fair for you to enlighten the rest of us on your credentials?

I do know that you submitted into an enquiry into a parliamentary enquiry into Country Football in December of 93 (which I wont publish here due to personal details published) & very well written it was. Which confuses me as to your almost gleeful stance into the collapse of The Lions, as you seem to champion the underdog & it comes over as having a personal agenda against the Roys & the principal head honchos at the time.

[Roylion]

Once again easy to comment in hindsight.

I knew it in 1993!! Is that hindsight?? .[/quote]

As I said it's easy to say you knew it in hindsight. You might as well say you knew it in 1986. Why not in 1978? Why not 1966, wjhen Fitzroy left Brunswick Street That's like me saying in 2006 North will fold and if it happens in 2016, I can say..."see I knew that would that would happen in 2006. North should have gone to the VFL"

This is about the emotion of football. All football - whether it be Fitzroy, Collingwood, Norwood, Port Magpies, Subiaco, Donvale, the Reds, Uni Blues etc etc etc. It's all relevant - and you are talking as though it's not.

Where I have said or implied this? I am telling you, repeatedly, that the shareholders and directors of Fitzroy made a decision to seek a merger with a Melbourne based club, over joining the VFA. What is so difficult about understanding that basic fact? I understand very well the emotion of football.

It is - but because you are so biased you refuse to admit that I have a valid point about my experience in the GAME over you.

Which is what? Fitzroy should have gone the VFA? That's your point. What makes you think you have a greater experience in the GAME than I have? What do you know about my experiences?

It is NOT from the media!

So what it's from then?

Wiegard made a fool of himself for everyone to see.

Such as? Examples?

All the medai did was show it. Whether it be on the news, or anywhere else. It was WIEGARD talking! Not the media. WIEGARD! HIS words - not the media's!

Yes and.....? Some specific examples of how he supposedly made a fool of himself?

I've had enough. Your bias is completely impossible to get through to so you can see the real picture.

What? That Fitzroy should have gone to the VFA? That's the only point you've made. I've explained why they didn't go to the VFA. I've explained the situation behind Fitzroy's exit from the AFL. Why don't you give some specific examples of your claims. You sate you have no sympahty for Fitzroy. Fine. Why don't YOU give some detailed specific examples of why that is the case, instead of the half-baked vague examples you've come out with so far. Oh yes....I Know....Fitzroy should have gone to the VFA. Please...spare me.

Fine. Have that. Live in your room with no windows. If that's what makes you happy then good for you.

Just don't try and ply your bias on other people and expect to be respected - because you won't. [/quote]

I couldn't care less if you respect me or not. I'm entitled to my opinion and what's more I have the experience and first hand knowledge of the Fitzroy Football Club both now and in 1996 and further back as well. You do not.

That's my last contribution to this thread - until such time as Roylion takes off his biased blinkers and realises that Fitzroy is not innocent in it's demise.

So come on then! Give me some specific detailed examples of how Fitzroy wasn't innocent in its exit from the AFL. I've given you planety of detailed examples. Oh yes....sorry I forgot...Fitzroy should have gone to the VFA. Who's blinkered and narrowminde?

[PhilG]

..

[Magpiespower]

A rivalry on SAFooty - finally!

[Booney]

A rivalry on SAFooty - finally!

One which I feel will never be surpassed.

[am Bays]

I hope the other Mods on this forum read all of Roylion's and PhilG's post becasue my head started to hurt......

I'm hopefull nothing slanderous or defamatory was written....

I've heard of Lion's eating their young but this is rediculous

[Booney]

I hope the other Mods on this forum read all of Roylion's and PhilG's post becasue my head started to hurt......

I'm hopefull nothing slanderous or defamatory was written....

I've heard of Lion's eating their young but this is rediculous

Ive had a good read of this Tassie,and I plan to keep up with it as this appears far from over.Nothing so far is over the line,the only thing I would suggest,and this may already be taking place,is the guys continue this via pm,keeping the board clear of anything that could be considered slander,or worse,other than that,great stuff boys,play on.

BTW,you are both arguing the same cause,aren't you?