Kangaroos say no to Gold Coast

[Hondo]

I agree with RoyLion and Strawb for NM supporters to compare their situation to Fitzroy's rather than the Swans is just mis-informed, fear-mongering to get more people against the move

How can a merger/take-over be the same scenario as what the AFL offered the Kangaroos

[Rushby Hinds]

From http://www.crikey.com.au


Broke 'within six months': Demetriou plots a Kangaroo cull


Charles Happell writes:

To a passerby, it would have looked like a harmless chat between two of the AFL’s most important figures; to people sitting nearby, it was significantly more important than that. For the discussion between AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou and AFL Players Association president Brendon Gale at a South Melbourne café last week revealed in gory detail how the league expects the Kangaroos to go broke before the end of next year – and how plans for a replacement team on the Gold Coast are already well underway.

This would mean a seamless transition between the death of the Roos – the club which this month spurned the AFL’s offer of a heavily subsidised relocation to Queensland – and the birth of the new Gold Coast outfit. So, effectively, there will be no need for a 17th licence; the integrity of a 16-team competition will remain intact.

The announcement of the signing of a 50-year lease on a stadium at Runaway Bay, a northern suburb of the Gold Coast, can also be expected soon. This will be the home of the new club.

It was last Thursday morning when patrons at the Montague Park café were given the impromptu rundown of the AFL’s plans by Demetriou, whose voice knows only one volume setting: foghorn. As the regulars were sipping long blacks and quietly minding their own business, at the next table Demetriou began outlining the League’s plans to Gale.

They heard Demetriou say that the Roos, by turning their back on the AFL’s lucrative deal to relocate to the Gold Coast, had "played into our hands". A neat segue – Roos out, Gold Coast in – was now possible.

He indicated plans for the new franchise, even down to the level of drafting rules for players, were already well underway. A Gold Coast starting date of 2010 was therefore on track.

They then heard Demetriou say he expected the Roos to go out of business "within six months" – an astonishing claim given that the club has just signed on Vodafone as a major sponsor, and has hefty commitments from several well-heeled supporters.

Presumably such a scenario could only take place with the connivance of the AFL. The Roos have been braced for a backlash from the AFL over their refusal to budge from Melbourne; now, it would seem, they need to batten down the hatches as well.

At one stage, Demetriou pulled out his Blackberry and read out to Gale details of the whizz-bang new facility at Runaway Bay. Demetriou boasted that it was "five times the size of the Lexus Centre" (Collingwood’s base in Melbourne).

A state-of-the-art complex has recently been built on the site that includes nine purpose-built villas which provide accommodation for touring groups or sporting teams, a FINA-approved 50-metre outdoor swimming pool, an IAAF-certified 10-lane 400-metre athletic track with 3,000 seater stadium, and an enormous gymnasium and health spa.

The amazingly indiscreet display left no-one in any doubt about the AFL’s plans: they now want to be rid of the Kangaroos. And they want to get a toehold in the fastest-growing area of Australia without any further delay.

It’s not the most conventional way to garner a story. But, in the same way that it’s impossible to ignore someone talking into a mobile phone when they’re in the same train carriage as you, so it was in the tight confines of the Montague Park caf (which, incidentally, makes a mean macchiato). Unless you had earmuffs on, there was no escaping the discussion.

Today, the AFL commission will meet in Melbourne to ostensibly discuss the prospect of a 17th licence and how it will realise its Gold Coast ambitions. There will be no announcements at the end of the meeting, for there is much detail to be finalised yet.

But at least we know where the AFL stands on this important issue. And we know this because it was broadcast to a small, surprised audience in a South Melbourne coffee shop.

The Kangaroos now will be in no doubt about the magnitude of the task facing them. For not only do they have to squeeze the pips (again) on their tiny membership base to raise the money to survive; they have to face a league that, like a woman scorn’d, is hellishly furious and bent on revenge.

[Aerie]

I agree with RoyLion and Strawb for NM supporters to compare their situation to Fitzroy's rather than the Swans is just mis-informed, fear-mongering to get more people against the move

How can a merger/take-over be the same scenario as what the AFL offered the Kangaroos

What the Kangaroos were offered, South Melbourne, Fitzroy - it's not all that different in the end. The club loses it's name and it's heartland. None of them are the clubs that once were. In 15 years, South Melbourne, Fitzroy and North Melbourne if they moved, would all be just a part of history. People that support them can make their own minds up to how much or little of the old club is in the new. A Kangaroos club representing the Gold Coast is no better or worse than the Lions merging with the BB's to represent Brisbane IMO - especially seeing they kept the Fitzroy colours, song and logo.

[am Bays]

If Grima signs with us (now that the brotherly love ties with Centrals are no longer) I think I might have to buy a 'Roos membership

[Dutchy]

If Grima signs with us (now that the brotherly love ties with Centrals are no longer) I think I might have to buy a 'Roos membership

HIT ME - http://kangaroos.com.au/Membership/tabi ... fault.aspx

[redden whites]

If Grima signs with us (now that the brotherly love ties with Centrals are no longer) I think I might have to buy a 'Roos membership

Go for the Cornes Club membership option Tassie .Entry to 5 games and comes with a Blue and White dunce hat .

[Dutchy]

As for the article Rushby it adds nothing to the shine Mr AD is rapidly losing in the footy community, the beginning of the end?

[Andy #24]

As for the article Rushby it adds nothing to the shine Mr AD is rapidly losing in the footy community, the beginning of the end?

Right on Dutchy! Wasn't Demitriou a Nth Melb player? Maybe he's angry cause he couldn't get a game, bastard! I hate him.

[Dirko]

As for the article Rushby it adds nothing to the shine Mr AD is rapidly losing in the footy community, the beginning of the end?

Just out of interest, how much do the Kangas owe the AFL. I assume they have taken out a loan similar to what Carlton did a few years ago to shore things up? If so how much Dutchy and when is the repayment due.
I know Carlton borrowed 1.5 m and it's due back next October.

[Hondo]

Sorry lads I think that AD story is made up .... or loosely inspired by real events

If that were true it would be all over the papers and JB would be screaming blue murder

Instead its on crickey.com.au

Cue X-Files theme ....

[Roylion]

I agree with RoyLion and Strawb for NM supporters to compare their situation to Fitzroy's rather than the Swans is just mis-informed, fear-mongering to get more people against the move

How can a merger/take-over be the same scenario as what the AFL offered the Kangaroos

What the Kangaroos were offered, South Melbourne, Fitzroy - it's not all that different in the end. The club loses it's name and it's heartland. None of them are the clubs that once were. In 15 years, South Melbourne, Fitzroy and North Melbourne if they moved, would all be just a part of history. People that support them can make their own minds up to how much or little of the old club is in the new. A Kangaroos club representing the Gold Coast is no better or worse than the Lions merging with the BB's to represent Brisbane IMO - especially seeing they kept the Fitzroy colours, song and logo.

From my point of view I would have much preferred that Fitzroy relocated rather than merged.

- The club would have still been the 'Fitzroy Football Club' (trading as the Brisbane Lions)
- A significant part of the board would have been Victorian (certainly much more than is currently the case with the brisbane Lions)
- Fitzroy's history would have been retained with all Fitzroy Football Club records continued. (That is not the case now)
- All Melbourne-based coterie groups would have been retained and continued.
- A better deal re: the minimum number of games in Melbourne (say 7-8 per year) could have been negotiated.
- Our best and fairest medal would have been named solely after a Fitzroy champion.
2001-02-03 would have been our 9th, 10th and 11th premierships, instead of our 1st, 2nd and 3rd. It's interesting to compare the talk in the media about South Melbourne's last premiership when Sydney won their premiership in 2005, compared to the talk about Fitzroy's 1944 premiership when Brisbane won their first in 2001. The coverage about the Bloods far outstripped any media talk about Fitzroy at their respective times.
- The FFC logo would still have been used in some capacity on the jumper, with perhaps the FFC jumper used solely for our Melbourne matches.
- Brunswick Street Oval would have been developed into our Victorian social club and training base
- Our 'Past Players and Officials Association' would have remained a stand-alone entity instead of being merged with another AFL club's 'Past Players and Officials Association.
- The colours and song would have been much closer to Fitzroy's original version

[Hondo]

Aerie you only need to remember back to Sydney's premiership in 2005. It was all about their first premiership in 40+ years, all the old South Melbourne stars came out, all the old stories, etc. It was still the Swans, even the guernsey was almost identical to the old South Melbourne.

When Brisbane won in 2001 it was seen as their first flag because they are mostly viewed (wrongly as RoyLion will tell me) as the old Brisbane Bears with a nick-name change. Few looked at it as Fitzroy's first flag in X years.

Sorry Roylion I think I repeated you now I read your post properly

[Psyber]

As for the article Rushby it adds nothing to the shine Mr AD is rapidly losing in the footy community, the beginning of the end?

If the report is accurate it just seems to be a logical outcome in the commercial world.

Sure, if that that was how the AFL intended to respond if the Kangas turned the deal down it should perhaps have been spelled out up front, but with Telstra involved what did anyone actually expect????

I am certainly not surprised..

[Aerie]

Aerie you only need to remember back to Sydney's premiership in 2005. It was all about their first premiership in 40+ years, all the old South Melbourne stars came out, all the old stories, etc. It was still the Swans, even the guernsey was almost identical to the old South Melbourne.

That was the first and one of the only times I'd ever heard South Melbourne mentioned with regards to the Sydney Swans. More likely more to do with there being no Melbourne team in the GF than anything else. Merger or relocation - the old club is still shafted into the back blocks of history.

Yes, I can see how relocation to a different state would be better (or should I say not worse) than merging interstate. But only just. South Melbourne, then Fitzroy, who's next...

[Psyber]

Aerie you only need to remember back to Sydney's premiership in 2005. It was all about their first premiership in 40+ years, all the old South Melbourne stars came out, all the old stories, etc. It was still the Swans, even the guernsey was almost identical to the old South Melbourne.

That was the first and one of the only times I'd ever heard South Melbourne mentioned with regards to the Sydney Swans. More likely more to do with there being no Melbourne team in the GF than anything else. Merger or relocation - the old club is still shafted into the back blocks of history.

Yes, I can see how relocation to a different state would be better (or should I say not worse) than merging interstate. But only just. South Melbourne, then Fitzroy, who's next...

Whoever's money runs out next.. Perhaps someone else won't last 6 months.

[Roylion]

Aerie you only need to remember back to Sydney's premiership in 2005. It was all about their first premiership in 40+ years, all the old South Melbourne stars came out, all the old stories, etc. It was still the Swans, even the guernsey was almost identical to the old South Melbourne.

When Brisbane won in 2001 it was seen as their first flag because they are mostly viewed (wrongly as RoyLion will tell me) as the old Brisbane Bears with a nick-name change. Few looked at it as Fitzroy's first flag in X years.

Sorry Roylion I think I repeated you now I read your post properly

No problems. But yes, I agree with you. The premiership in 2001 was definitely Brisbane's first. Had Fitzroy relocated, it would have been widely viewed as the club's 9th. The Brisbane Lions are without doubt a different club from Fitzroy. Habving said that the Brisbane Lions do have elements of Fitzroy in their identity. That's why I now support them.

[Roylion]

Merger or relocation - the old club is still shafted into the back blocks of history.

From my point of view I would view the Sydney Swans as the same club as the old South Melbourne for a whole host of reasons. Even though I support the Brisbane Lions, I don't regard them as a direct continuation of Fitzroy. Fitzroy records and history were "ruled off" at the end of 1996. For all intents and purposes South Melbourne's history continues. Sydney's next premiership will be regarded as the club's fifth, not second.

Many of the supporters from the old South Melbourne appear to see it that way as well. The Swans have close to 10,000 Victorian members and quite large Victorian support compared to the Brisbane Lions who have under 5,000 Vic. members and a Vic. supporter base of between 12-15,000. Yet the Lions have been far more successful on the field (3 premierships from four successive Grand Finals compared to Sydney's one from consecutive Grand Finals). Fitzroy were in the competition for fifteen more years than an entity known as South Melbourne. Yet it's the Swans that have the greater Victoreian supporter. I can only put that down to the fact that many of the Swans supporters see their club as a continuation of their old beloved South Melbourne. Very few Fitzroy supporters now supporting the Brisbane Lions would argue that in relation to Fitzroy.

[Aerie]

Merger or relocation - the old club is still shafted into the back blocks of history.

From my point of view I would view the Sydney Swans as the same club as the old South Melbourne for a whole host of reasons. Even though I support the Brisbane Lions, I don't regard them as a direct continuation of Fitzroy. Fitzroy records and history were "ruled off" at the end of 1996. For all intents and purposes South Melbourne's history continues. Sydney's next premiership will be regarded as the club's fifth, not second.

Many of the supporters from the old South Melbourne appear to see it that way as well. The Swans have close to 10,000 Victorian members and quite large Victorian support compared to the Brisbane Lions who have under 5,000 Vic. members and a Vic. supporter base of between 12-15,000. Yet the Lions have been far more successful on the field (3 premierships from four successive Grand Finals compared to Sydney's one from consecutive Grand Finals). Fitzroy were in the competition for fifteen more years than an entity known as South Melbourne. Yet it's the Swans that have the greater Victoreian supporter. I can only put that down to the fact that many of the Swans supporters see their club as a continuation of their old beloved South Melbourne. Very few Fitzroy supporters now supporting the Brisbane Lions would argue that in relation to Fitzroy.

Interesting to see those facts. I wouldn't have guessed that. Given Fitzroy were more recent than South and the success the Lions had not too long after the merger, I would've thought the figures would have been the other way around. Then again, time does heal wounds, so maybe some old Fitzroy supporters will come back eventually.

Technically, yes the Swans records continue, but if someone asked me how many premierships Sydney have won, I'd say 1. Same as I'd say Brisbane have won 3. Same as I'd say WWT have won 2. But I'd also mention the premierships won by South Melbourne, Fitzroy and West Torrens as well. The important (very important) thing is that the history still is linked and recognised with the club that has been created from those before it.

So technically, you and hondo are correct in saying what South Melbourne and Fitzroy went through are completely different, but it really is up to the individual and how much of a connection they feel and what is important to them. I think South supporters and Fitzroy supporters would have been cut up in the same way and had the same sense of loss, as North Melbourne would if they relocated - which is why they are fighting so hard to stay where they belong.

[Roylion]

Technically, yes the Swans records continue, but if someone asked me how many premierships Sydney have won, I'd say 1. Same as I'd say Brisbane have won 3. But I'd also mention the premierships won by South Melbourne, Fitzroy and West Torrens as well. The important (very important) thing is that the history still is linked and recognised with the club that has been created from those before it.

The AFL's official records also recognise South Melbourne's history as being part of the Sydney Swans. Their AFL Year Book states that the Sydney Swans have won four premierships. The same publication states the Brisbane Lions have won three. All media outlets count the South Mebourne history as part of the Sydney Swans. Fitzroy's is not counted as part of the Brisbane Lions.

So technically, you and hondo are correct in saying what South Melbourne and Fitzroy went through are completely different, but it really is up to the individual and how much of a connection they feel and what is important to them. I think South supporters and Fitzroy supporters would have been cut up in the same way and had the same sense of loss, as North Melbourne would if they relocated - which is why they are fighting so hard to stay where they belong.

Yes, you're right. Both South Melbourne and Fitzroy supporters do have that sense of loss and I don't blame North melbourne for fighting as hard as they can to stay in Melbourne. However if they did decide to relocate, I would liken that situation as being far closer to South's relocation to Sydney that Fitzroy's somewhat forced merger with the Bears.

South Melbourne supporters can see their history of their club continue in the same competition. Fitzroy supporters can't. In fact the actual Fitzroy Football Club (that once held an AFL licence) still exists, and as a completely seperate entity to the Brisbane Lions. I was a member and shareholder of that club in 2007 and will be again in 2008.

http://www.fitzroyfc.com.au

In contrast the original South Melbourne Football Club does not exist except as part of the Sydney Swans

[Dutchy]

A few have underestimated the Shinboner Spirit

http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,865 ... 11,00.html