Born 1883, murdered 1996

[heater31]

Who's Buy??? I'll ave a pint of Pale thanks

[Dogwatcher]

How about this one?

[Dutchy]

[rod_rooster]

Please sir, can we have some more

[Roylion]

The latest from Phil about Fitzroy, after I asked him to debate me again on Fitzroy.

"There's no point in that. Trolls exist only for this sort of entertainment - when the reality is they live in their own ego and only listen to what they want to hear."

That's the pot calling the kettle black. Since when has Phil actually acknowledged any points I've made. And then he stated...

"The information he operates off is sanitised by the club he holds dear.

Is it? How do you know that Phil? Show me how it i is sanitised? Provide some alternative viewpoints backed up by supporting evidence.

And then....

" Did he ever wonder why the club's membership was way below the other clubs? You work it out!"

Well Phil. In a nutshell, (it's more involved that what I'm about to describe) Fitzroy had a small supporter base. Why did they have a small supporter base? Because historically they never had a great deal of money to compete with other clubs for the best players. This led to perennial poor preformances especially in the mid to late 60's. When Fitzroy rose again they did so by buying players in the late 70s, and like many other clubs went into debt. However unlike other clubs they didn't have the supporter base to compete with other clubs and fell further and further behind. Forced by the VFL/AFL to move from the Junction Oval in 1984, the club lived as a tenant of various clubs offering receiving poor deals. At the same time as the club moved from an semi-professional to a professional league, Fitzroy (like other clubs) struggled to keep up, lost players, which led to poor performances, which led to further loss of membership and so on.

On top of that there was a concerted effort by the AFL to get Fitzroy out, so that Port Adelaide could come in and remain at 16 teams. It was the AFL that rejected the relocation to Canberra for example and gave no support whatsoever to Tasmania. Hawthorn, St Kilda and North get plenty of support now from the AFL in their playing of home games away from Victoria. Fitzroy didn't get any.

What did Fitzroy do about it? From 1978 they sought a variety of mergers and relocations. 1978 to Sydney, 1986, merger with Melbourne which came very close, 1986.... relocation to Brisbane, 1989.... merger with Footscray, 1991..... home games in Tasmania, 1995.... merger with Melbourne, 1995.... relocation to Canberra, 1996... merger with North melbourne

"I'll bet they knew as I did at the time that their days in the AFL were numbered! So they bailed. I would have done the same thing in their shoes.

What's your point? See above for they tried to do....the same which has been explained to you earlier in this thread. Your point to move to the VFA was never considered by the shareholders. A vote was taken on it in 1996 and rejected.

And then he said....

"Those are the cold hard facts - and Roylion refuses to believe them. Too bad. Better if he stays that way - a sanitised spoon fed lap dog who doesn't know any better. "

Well come on Phil. If you're so sure of your facts and that I'm been spoon-fed a sanitised version, come on here and show me how.

Prove it once and for all!!

Back up the statements on your wiki-space and have the guts to come in here and debate it, point by point.

[Dutchy]

2nd quarter starts...game on!

[Sojourner]

On top of that there was a concerted effort by the AFL to get Fitzroy out, so that Port Adelaide could come in and remain at 16 teams. It was the AFL that rejected the relocation to Canberra for example and gave no support whatsoever to Tasmania. Hawthorn, St Kilda and North get plenty of support now from the AFL in their playing of home games away from Victoria. Fitzroy didn't get any.

That is an interesting point, various clubs are on welfare payments from the AFL in the current competition to stay viable. Considering how Fitzroy were treated, why dont the AFL maintain that same standard today?

[Dissident]

Back up the statements on your wiki-space and have the guts to come in here and debate it, point by point.

Or, admit you might be, POSSIBLY, wrong on some things...

[am Bays]

On top of that there was a concerted effort by the AFL to get Fitzroy out, so that Port Adelaide could come in and remain at 16 teams. It was the AFL that rejected the relocation to Canberra for example and gave no support whatsoever to Tasmania. Hawthorn, St Kilda and North get plenty of support now from the AFL in their playing of home games away from Victoria. Fitzroy didn't get any.

That is an interesting point, various clubs are on welfare payments from the AFL in the current competition to stay viable. Considering how Fitzroy were treated, why dont the AFL maintain that same standard today?

Becasue ATM there is no club sitting outside the AFL waiting to come like there was in 1995....no need to get rid of club (Fitzroy) to make room for another (Port)

[Sojourner]

Becasue ATM there is no club sitting outside the AFL waiting to come like there was in 1995....

How about the Southport Sharks?

http://www.southportsharks.com.au/

If the Coast is to get its own team, an upgrade of Gold Coast Stadium at Carrara is crucial, and Cr Clarke said the AFL would have to be the ones to transform the Carrara complex into a first-class facility.

"They would have to either take a lease or buy Carrara and put the money into it," he said. "Until we get a positive approach we can't go any further in it."

The Southport Sharks have been after an AFL licence since 1996, and Cr Clarke would love to see the powerhouse club involved.

"From my understanding, the AFL is happy with the amount of teams they have got so it will probably have to be a relocated team," he said.

"To me it would be ideal if the AFL and the Southport club combine in some sort of ownership with North Melbourne. Or any other team that comes here, but I think North Melbourne is the obvious one."

If the AFL was to buy a stake in the Roos, it would be similar to when the league bought the Sydney Swans in the early 1990s.

"I think it is a really good thing and I think it's the way to go... Sydney is a good example of that," he said.

http://www.gcbulletin.com.au/article/20 ... ports.html

[Roylion]

Or, admit you might be, POSSIBLY, wrong on some things...

Why would I admit I'm wrong on this issue? If I thought I was wrong (or more pointedly thought PhilG was right) I wouldn't make a comment, other than to agree with him. I don't agree with his comments and I've said so clearly and why I disagree with him.

Whether I'm wrong about Fitzroy is for other people to decide. All I can do is put my side of the argument from my perspective as a longtime shareholder and member, read what the other side has to say, and conclude whether or not they have a fair, justified, supported point. If they have, I'm happy to acknowledge it. If they haven't, I'll criticise their point and say why I think it's wrong. I'm quite happy to debate these things logically and fairly, without resorting to abuse. And that's exactly what I have done.

[Roylion]

Becasue ATM there is no club sitting outside the AFL waiting to come like there was in 1995....

How about the Southport Sharks?

http://www.southportsharks.com.au/

If the Coast is to get its own team, an upgrade of Gold Coast Stadium at Carrara is crucial, and Cr Clarke said the AFL would have to be the ones to transform the Carrara complex into a first-class facility.

"They would have to either take a lease or buy Carrara and put the money into it," he said. "Until we get a positive approach we can't go any further in it."

The Southport Sharks have been after an AFL licence since 1996, and Cr Clarke would love to see the powerhouse club involved.

"From my understanding, the AFL is happy with the amount of teams they have got so it will probably have to be a relocated team," he said.

"To me it would be ideal if the AFL and the Southport club combine in some sort of ownership with North Melbourne. Or any other team that comes here, but I think North Melbourne is the obvious one."

If the AFL was to buy a stake in the Roos, it would be similar to when the league bought the Sydney Swans in the early 1990s.

"I think it is a really good thing and I think it's the way to go... Sydney is a good example of that," he said.

http://www.gcbulletin.com.au/article/20 ... ports.html

I agree. Any team on the Gold Coast whether relocated or not, and if it is to be successful, has to involve the Southport Sharks in some capacity.

[Wedgie]

Or, admit you might be, POSSIBLY, wrong on some things...

Why would I admit I'm wrong on this issue? If I thought I was wrong (or more pointedly thought PhilG was right) I wouldn't make a comment, other than to agree with him. I don't agree with his comments and I've said so clearly and why I disagree with him.

Whether I'm wrong about Fitzroy is for other people to decide. All I can do is put my side of the argument from my perspective as a longtime shareholder and member, read what the other side has to say, and conclude whether or not they have a fair, justified, supported point. If they have, I'm happy to acknowledge it. If they haven't, I'll criticise their point and say why I think it's wrong. I'm quite happy to debate these things logically and fairly, without resorting to abuse. And that's exactly what I have done.

I think Diss was actually backing you up and was commenting on Phil.

[Roylion]

Or, admit you might be, POSSIBLY, wrong on some things...

Why would I admit I'm wrong on this issue? If I thought I was wrong (or more pointedly thought PhilG was right) I wouldn't make a comment, other than to agree with him. I don't agree with his comments and I've said so clearly and why I disagree with him.

Whether I'm wrong about Fitzroy is for other people to decide. All I can do is put my side of the argument from my perspective as a longtime shareholder and member, read what the other side has to say, and conclude whether or not they have a fair, justified, supported point. If they have, I'm happy to acknowledge it. If they haven't, I'll criticise their point and say why I think it's wrong. I'm quite happy to debate these things logically and fairly, without resorting to abuse. And that's exactly what I have done.

I think Diss was actually backing you up and was commenting on Phil.

LOL. Yes, you could read it that way. If that's the case, apologies Diss. You quoted me, so I thought you were making that comment to me.

[RustyCage]

On top of that there was a concerted effort by the AFL to get Fitzroy out, so that Port Adelaide could come in and remain at 16 teams. It was the AFL that rejected the relocation to Canberra for example and gave no support whatsoever to Tasmania. Hawthorn, St Kilda and North get plenty of support now from the AFL in their playing of home games away from Victoria. Fitzroy didn't get any.

That is an interesting point, various clubs are on welfare payments from the AFL in the current competition to stay viable. Considering how Fitzroy were treated, why dont the AFL maintain that same standard today?

Becasue ATM there is no club sitting outside the AFL waiting to come like there was in 1995....no need to get rid of club (Fitzroy) to make room for another (Port)

Also, the AFL didn't have the huge streams of income 12 years ago as they do now from the TV rights deal.

[Roylion]

On top of that there was a concerted effort by the AFL to get Fitzroy out, so that Port Adelaide could come in and remain at 16 teams. It was the AFL that rejected the relocation to Canberra for example and gave no support whatsoever to Tasmania. Hawthorn, St Kilda and North get plenty of support now from the AFL in their playing of home games away from Victoria. Fitzroy didn't get any.

That is an interesting point, various clubs are on welfare payments from the AFL in the current competition to stay viable. Considering how Fitzroy were treated, why dont the AFL maintain that same standard today?

Becasue ATM there is no club sitting outside the AFL waiting to come like there was in 1995....no need to get rid of club (Fitzroy) to make room for another (Port)

Also, the AFL didn't have the huge streams of income 12 years ago as they do now from the TV rights deal.

But the AFL had $6 million ($12 million - if you count the $6 million that was going to the Melbourne Hawks) to spare, yet couldn't help Fitzroy with their $2.7 million debt - $1.25 million of which was owed to their only secured creditor - the Nauru Insurance Company (it was they who eventually appointed an administrator to recover their debt immediately)

In March 1996, the Fitzroy board resolved to merge if they couldn't find an extra $1 million ($500,000 to improve their cash flow - they were servicing their debts; and $500,000 to bring their team and facilities up to a competitive level). And yet North, the Bulldogs and Melbourne have had multi-million handouts from the AFL since about 2003, of not before. The Fitzroy board chose North Melbourne and weren't even allowed by the AFL to complete that deal.

[RustyCage]

On top of that there was a concerted effort by the AFL to get Fitzroy out, so that Port Adelaide could come in and remain at 16 teams. It was the AFL that rejected the relocation to Canberra for example and gave no support whatsoever to Tasmania. Hawthorn, St Kilda and North get plenty of support now from the AFL in their playing of home games away from Victoria. Fitzroy didn't get any.

That is an interesting point, various clubs are on welfare payments from the AFL in the current competition to stay viable. Considering how Fitzroy were treated, why dont the AFL maintain that same standard today?

Becasue ATM there is no club sitting outside the AFL waiting to come like there was in 1995....no need to get rid of club (Fitzroy) to make room for another (Port)

Also, the AFL didn't have the huge streams of income 12 years ago as they do now from the TV rights deal.

But the AFL had $6 million ($12 million - if you count the $6 million that was going to the Melbourne Hawks) to spare, yet couldn't help Fitzroy with their $2.7 million debt - $1.25 million of which was owed to their only secured creditor - the Nauru Insurance Company (it was they who eventually appointed an administrator to recover their debt immediately)

In March 1996, the Fitzroy board resolved to merge if they couldn't find an extra $1 million ($500,000 to improve their cash flow - they were servicing their debts; and $500,000 to bring their team and facilities up to a competitive level). And yet North, the Bulldogs and Melbourne have had multi-million handouts from the AFL since about 2003, of not before. The Fitzroy board chose North Melbourne and weren't even allowed by the AFL to complete that deal.

Did the TV rights deal and the requirement to have a 16 team comp force the AFL to give handouts to the Dogs and Dees and now the Roos to keep the 16 team comp? Whereas with Fitzroy there was a replacement team ready to come in, so the AFL weren't forced to prop them up?

[TroyGFC]

Where's Blacky's avatar?

[Roylion]

Did the TV rights deal and the requirement to have a 16 team comp force the AFL to give handouts to the Dogs and Dees and now the Roos to keep the 16 team comp?

Southport for example have had an application to join the AFL since 1996. With multi-million dollar profits and a $200 million annual turnover (Brisbane Lions have a $30 million turnover as a comparison), you might say that they have been ready to come in for sometime. The AFL could have kept a 16 team competition, had they let a Melbourne team go say three years ago and Southport would have been very happy to be granted an AFL licence to fill the void. The AFL would have been aware of the angst that would have been created had they been seen to let another traditional club go.

Whereas with Fitzroy there was a replacement team ready to come in, so the AFL weren't forced to prop them up?

Fitzroy were certainly expendable in 1996, although the AFL stated publicly they were prepared to go 17 teams for 1997 Port was more of a sure bet in 1996, coming from a football state. The AFL is a little more cautious when it comes to the Gold Coast. However the pressure is starting to come now. And just like they said in 1996, the AFL hasn't ruled out a 17th licence.

[am Bays]

Did the TV rights deal and the requirement to have a 16 team comp force the AFL to give handouts to the Dogs and Dees and now the Roos to keep the 16 team comp? Whereas with Fitzroy there was a replacement team ready to come in, so the AFL weren't forced to prop them up?

In a nutshell yes, the TV rights deal was all about 8 games a week, once Fitzroy were gone and Port were in AFL needed to prop up the other AFL clubs struggling at that time.....