Born 1883, murdered 1996

[am Bays]

Yeah I know, I was having a subtle sledge against myself. Nothing I've seen so far is over the line as long as they keep the "insults" at themselves rather than 3rd parties....

[scott]

This has been nothing less than an interesting debate, but...

Nothing I've seen so far is over the line as long as they keep the "insults" at themselves rather than 3rd parties....

That comment suggests they've both been insulting each other, when all I've seen is Phil stooping that low (and it's always a sign of weakness when one can't provide a clear and supported opinion, so they choose to go down the insult path).

To be honest, Roy's remained incredibly calm, because no doubt with all that he's proven, described and stated with his notable credentials amongst a plethora of sweeping statements, unsupported opinions and sheer obstinacy by Phil, it would be very easy to riposte with a string of vitriol.

I applaud you Roy, not only for your views and opinions, but for how you've handled yourself.

[PhilG]

..

[Sheik Yerbouti]

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?

Booney some of you guys seem to come over as almost champing at the bit to edit, sensor, or delete posts. Parking Inspector type mentality. Not really a pot, but don't you have a secret moderators forum to discuss this type of thing, or do you prefer to remind the rest of us publicly ?
The debate on this forum was one of the best, well researched arguments seen for yonks, without personal abuse until Phil went postal with ''idiot, liar & fool'' in his last two posts. Even that is tame compared to some of the stuff posted over the life of this site.
Leave it alone eh.

[am Bays]

Did anyone touch it?? As mods though we have to read it all, I 'll explain my post for you slowly I was actually having a go at myself - mocking my ability to comprehend anything that comes in multiple paragraphs......

I agree with you it was a well written, and analysed debate...

[Booney]

Im with you Tassie,and Im not quite sure where the Sheik is coming from.I have not touched any of this thread,my onlt interest has been to keep a tabs of one of the most thorough and enjoyable debates I have seen on here,well,clearly it is the most well researched and backed.

Sheik,I think the mods on here do a great job,and,at times I have discussed threads with other mods via pm before making any changes,only o foll would delete or edit something off their own back,Im sure you will agree it is the thing to do,as is monitoring all topics.

[PhilG]

..

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Thanks Phil, I do think you let yourself down on the last two posts though.

Tassie & Booney, I know you did'nt touch the posts, but you both came on reminding everyone ''we're the moderators & we're watching'' why?
There was nothing that needed anyone to butt in & remind us that moderators we're lurking.

''as long as they keep the "insults" at themselves rather than 3rd parties....''

''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,''

That's got jack shit to do with anything that was posted, you gotta see that. Is'nt that what the secret board is for, or pm's ?

[Booney]

Thanks Phil, I do think you let yourself down on the last two posts though.

Tassie & Booney, I know you did'nt touch the posts, but you both came on reminding everyone ''we're the moderators & we're watching'' why?
There was nothing that needed anyone to butt in & remind us that moderators we're lurking.

''as long as they keep the "insults" at themselves rather than 3rd parties....''

''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,''

That's got jack shit to do with anything that was posted, you gotta see that. Is'nt that what the secret board is for, or pm's ?

Well I do apologise for my/our perceived over exhuberance.

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Thanks Phil, I do think you let yourself down on the last two posts though.

Tassie & Booney, I know you did'nt touch the posts, but you both came on reminding everyone ''we're the moderators & we're watching'' why?
There was nothing that needed anyone to butt in & remind us that moderators we're lurking.

''as long as they keep the "insults" at themselves rather than 3rd parties....''

''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,''

That's got jack shit to do with anything that was posted, you gotta see that. Is'nt that what the secret board is for, or pm's ?

Well I do apologise for my/our perceived over exhuberance.

Always said you we're a good man.

[am Bays]

Yeah, good point now that you put it in that context, play on....

[Sheik Yerbouti]

oh, all right.
Your a good man as well.

[PhilG]

..

[Roylion]

You're an idiot.

I've got no doubt you call everyone that, who doesn't agree with your narrow minded set view of football. I have no reason to change my mind on the basis of anything you've said.

You're effectively calling me a liar. Is that all you can do?

As I said it's easy to say in hindsight. I have no way to confirm what you thought in 1993. If you want to interpret my comment that I am calling you a liar, then so be it.

Shut up - and accept that I'm right.

I'm perfectly entitled to my opinion about the Fitzroy Football Club, given my long involvement with the club and the fact that I was actually there in 1996 and before. Why should I accept that you're right? So far you've given me NO concrete evidence on any of your claims. Yes, you have an opinion that Fitzroy Football Club should have gone to the VFA. Yes you have an opinion about Leon Weigard and Dyson Hore-Lacy. That's despite the fact that you've had no personal involvement with them, apart from what you've seen in the media. You can't even give me an example of some of the comments. You refuse to read the other side of the story, yet you call me narrow minded. You can have your iopinions, but based on the lack of evidence to back up anything you've said, I give very little credence to that opinion. As I've said your opinion about what Fitzroy should have done was one that was not shared by the Fitzroy Football Club board or shareholders, whose preferred option was to merge with a Melbourne-based AFL club. And their opinion about the future of THEIR club is the one that counts.

You have no idea about football - and you can't claim it.

Oh rubbish. How would you know? You don't know any of my history of involvement in local football. And yet you presume to make such an arrogant claim. And on top of that you tell me to "shut up and accept that I am right.", as if you're some all-knowing all seeing god of football. I've played and I've umpired both over the last thirty years. Do you really think I spent every waking moment at the Fitzroy Football Club since 1978 and further back?

That is the advantage I hold over you. If you have experience with other clubs - then I might listen. But you don't - so I won't.

How do you know what I have and haven't done in local football? My experience in local football may not be as far-ranging as yours is in local football, but that has little bearing on the Fitzroy Football Club. And the Fitzroy Football Club is what we're discussing.

You are a liar and a fool and won't accept otherwise. If you can't see what's so glaringly obvious I won't bother saying another word.

You have failed to address any of my points except to once again present your narrow minded view that Fitzroy should have gone to the VFA. The baord and shareholders of Fitzroy disagreed.

Heck - I only replied to this because you effectively called me a liar. And I repudiate it, and that is all I will say because I do not feel it's needed to justify myself to a fool like you.

And neither do I have to justify myself. I have excellent reasons for saying what I do and if you fail to see where I'm coming from, then I might well say the same as you.

My last word - FITZROY SHOULD HAVE GONE TO THE VFA

The second time you've said 'this is my last word'. As I have said repeatedly the board and shareholders (of which I was one) of the Fitzroy Football Club did not share that view.

My credentials lie in the varied experience I've had taking a huge interest in the game as a whole. I did that through umpiring for 18 years with various leagues, videoing from 1989 to 1993, staying in touch with the metropolitan league secretaries including when local issues came up (that's how I know about the clubs folding in Fitzroy's zone), commentary at various times - as well as my project work on the history of the game at the grass roots level.

Well good for you. And your experience with the Fitzroy Football Club is what exactly?

You would have noticed the stats I gave (which actually made it into the final report) about how many clubs have fallen over or merged across Victoria since 1990. I'm well known within the VCFL.

Well good for you again. Fitzroy wasn't in the VCFL. And your knowledge and understanding of the Fitzroy Football Club is what exactly?

What annoys me is the fact that they refused to see the signs - unlike virtually all the other clubs I noted to the enquiry.

It's rubbish. Fitzroy was aware of their precarious financial situation from early on. The amount of merger and relocation talks that the Fitzroy Football Club was involved in make it very clear that Fitzroy were not ignoring the signs. Naturally the preference was to remain as a stand alone entity in the AFL., but relocation or a merger with another Melbopurhe based club was always the alternative. I disagree with the notion that they ignored the signs,

For example:
1979: Fitzroy investigated a move to Sydney to play in the competition as the Sydney Lions. Fitzroy went as far to look at the SCG, had talks with North Sydney with a view to establishing a HQ to play out of. They also looked at training grounds, had a sponsor organised and were given the blessing of the VFL. Fitzroy even registered the name "Sydney Lions" The club wasn't incorporated at that stage so any proposal had to go to the members, which of course were dead against it. (especially after finishing fourth that year) Fitzroy was incorporated in 1981.
1985: Fitzroy and Melbourne discussed the possibility of merging as the Melbourne Lions. The jumper was chosen, the board agreed on
1986: Fitzroy investigated a relocation to Brisbane to form the Brisbane Lions. In the meantime a Melbourne based company Hecron agreed to become a part time owner of the club in return for financing the club to the tune of $2.6 million (which would have enabled the club to pay off its' debts and afford to pay for new facilities and players) Fitzroy knocked back the offer from Paul Cronin's syndicate on the strength of that, but then the VFL knocked that Hecron deal on the head. Too late to reconsider the Brisbane offer.
1989: Fitzroy, at the request of the VFL, agreed to merge with Footscray. At first reluctant, Fitzroy were keen to preserve as much of the Fitzroy identity as possible. After being threatened with the loss of their licence by the VFL, Footscray also agreed to merge. We know what happened there.
1992: Fitzroy tried playing games in Tasmania, as already explained.
1994: Fitzroy once again tried to merge with Melbourne to form the Melbourne Lions. Fitzroy also had discussions with Hawthorn and North Melbourne at the time. Due to the beans on the proposed merger being spilled by Geoff Lord of Hawthorn, Melbourne board memnbers came under considerable pressure from their members not to merge and they pulled out.
1995: Fitzroy offer to relocate to Canberra and play seven home games in the national capital, only to be refused by the AFL. More informal merger discussions with North Melbourne were held
1996: Fitzroy enter into more serious discussions with North Melbourne, after resolving in July 1995 to seek a merger if they could not find an extra $1 million They enter into discussions with North Melbourne in May 1996 and agree on a merger with North on July 3rd 1996, two days before the July 5th AFL commission imposed deadline.

There you go. There's eight concrete examples of mergers and relocations that Fitzroy attempted. In each the Fitzroy board had to put aside their pride.

There was a stubborness present that didn't affect or apply to those clubs either.

It's rubbish. Your ONLY example of supposed Fitzroy stubborness is that they should have gone tot he VFA.

And with the mergers a lot of pride was put aside (I cite Orbost and Snowy Rovers merging as the most recent example of this).

As with Fitzroy in the various merger / relocation attempts mentioned above. You argument about Fitzroy doesn't wash. Oh yes...I know..Fitzrey should have gone to the VFA.

Fitzroy never once put their pride aside,

Absolute and utter crap. The examples above are more than proof of that. Any club that considers merger or relocation of course has to put their pride aside. I've shown you that with the examples above.

and by 1996 that attitude had become a major liability to the AFL.

Only because the AFL wanted it to be that way...as I have also pointed out...complete with concrete examples iof a complete lack of AFL support even to conclude a mergfer that BOTH clubs had agreed on. Funnily enough, you haven't any of those points either.

And it was their own fault.

I disagree with that. Fitzroy tried everything possible both to merge, relocate and to remain a s standa lone entity. Of course the only thing they didn't try was move to the VFA. That was never an option for the board or the shareholders. Whether it was right or wrong is a matter of opinion. However your opinion in my view was/is less valid that mine. You weren't a member and shareholder of the Fitzroy Football Club. I was / am.

I don't like it - but my annoyance with Fitzroy and the way they conducted themselves outstrips that disappointment that you say should exist.

In my view your annoyance has little basis in fact and rests on suppostition and ignorance about the Fitzroy Football Club. I've read nothing from you about the Fitzroy Football Club that changes my mind on that score. You may know a lot about local football, but you don't know much about the Fitzroy Football Club.

[PhilG]

..

[Roylion]

I will only address this;

Can’t address any of my other points?

That's because you have a closed mind and will not listen

And you haven’t a closed mind on anything I’ve put forward? Where exactly have you acknowledged anything I’ve said? Time after time you refuse to address any of the points I’ve made. All you’ve done is made unsupported generalized statements

to those who have a much wider experience of the game of football than you could ever claim.

What a breathtakingly arrogant, self inflated, self important statement that is. How do you know what I have or have not done in football, compared to yourself? You may think you are God’s gift to football and no one else’s opinion counts but yours, but you sure don’t know much about Fitzroy. Yet you proceed to offer advice on what Fitzroy should have done. Moreover you tell me to “Shut up - and accept that I'm right.” Why should I accept you’re right? You haven’t answered any of my questions. You haven’t provided concrete examples of why and how certain people are morons or idiots; you haven’t addressed any of my comments about the circumstances of Fitzroy's exit. Nor will you I suspect. You simply don't know enough about the circumstances.

For example you make a statement like “What annoys me is the fact that they refused to see the signs - unlike virtually all the other clubs I noted to the enquiry. There was a stubborness present that didn't affect or apply to those clubs either. And with the mergers a lot of pride was put aside (I cite Orbost and Snowy Rovers merging as the most recent example of this). Fitzroy never once put their pride aside,…..”

As I've demonstrated your statement above is clearly crap. I give you plenty of examples of how Fitzroy did put their pride aside over a number of years and sought a merger along the lines of your quoted Orbost and Snowy River example and you completely ignore it, only to crap on again about how Fitzroy should have gone to the VFA. It is quite clear from the examples provided that your statement that “Fitzroy never once put their pride aside..” is garbage.

When you make stupid, unfounded statements like the above, the rest of your unsupported statements don’t exactly fill me with confidence that you’re right and I’m wrong about Fitzroy.

How about you answer my questions with specific concrete examples to support your opinions (which you haven’t done so far)? I want some specific detailed examples of how Fitzroy indirectly forced clubs in their zone to fold, as well as specific detailed answers to other questions I’ve asked. Provide those and I’ll be more likely to “listen” to you. I don’t care that you have 18 years of umpiring, videoing or whatever. I have experience in local football too, both umpiring and playing. As if that really means anything in a debate on the Fitzroy Football Club anyway.

Football is football - no matter who plays it. Fitzroy or any club in the VCFL (or metro football for that matter).

Yes they kick, mark and handball and there are 18 men on the field that if they kick a goal get 6 points for their team. We're talking about more than that.

The fact that you do not respect this fact and the WIDE VISION this experience gives me warrants only contempt for your narrow, biased, knowledgeless diatribe.

That is quite laughable.

This is the same person that despite making derogative comments about Dyson Hore-Lacy and Leon Weigard being “idiots” and “morons” cannot provide one specific example to back up said claims, despite being asked by me to do so on several occasions. A vague comment about how Dyson Hore-Lacy “…finished off the AFL football club, and destroyed it” was all that was offered. That's rubbish. Then there was more rubbish about how Dyson Hore-lacy “put the blinkers on that he should have taken off”. I then provided more specific examples of how Dyson Hore-Lacy “swallowed his pride” and sought mergers and relocations for Fitzroy from 1994-1996. You failed to acknowledge those points as well. You said “I saw the idiot [Leon Weigard] on TV. Some of the things he said were mind boggling.” However you couldn’t give an example of these ‘mind boggling’ statements. As I said they can’t have been that mind boggling, if you can’t remember any.

You state that Fitzroy brought their exit from the AFL upon themselves and yet could not provide ONE SINGLE example of how they did so.

I offer a lengthy and detailed explanation of why the Fitzroy board did what they did and another lengthy explanation of how the AFL actively worked to force Fitzroy out of the competition, backed up with specific examples, and yet you refused to acknowledge ANY of the points I’ve made. I ask for some specific detailed examples of how Fitzroy wasn't innocent in its exit from the AFL and you refuse to provide any at all.

You accuse me of being narrow-minded and yet it is you who point blank refuses to read the other side of the story about Fitzroy's exit from the AFL.

You also state there was but ONE option for Fitzroy and that was to join the VFA. That’s narrow-minded in the extreme. As I have repeatedly said there were a number of options available and the preference was a merger or relocation. The board and shareholders considered that any merged club’s team WOULD be the on-field representative of Fitzroy, whether as the Fitzroy Bulldogs, the Melbourne Lions or the North Fitzroy Kangaroos.

You can bleat all you want about your precious Lions. You won't listen (which as I said you have form for), you refuse to understand the nature of the game at all levels -

The nature of the game…which is what exactly? Swallowing your pride and affecting mergers like your quoted ‘Orbost and Snowy Rovers’ merger? As I have demonstrated Fitzroy attempted to do exactly ewhat Orbost and Snowy Rovers attempted to do ....over a number of years, despite your erroneous statement that they ‘refused to see the signs’. I think I’ve proven that your opinion that they failed to see the signs statement is just crap. Yet another point you’ve failed to acknowledge or ‘listen to’.

and that makes your so called knowledge base as good as worthless to this debate.

I don’t think so. The thread is about the Fitzroy Football Club. As I have repeatedly said I am a shareholder of said club. I was involved in the events of 1996 as a shareholder. I believe I’m well qualified to comment on said club. I even have experience in local football on top of that as well…as if that really means anything in this debate.

Bottom line - Fitzroy considered a number of options. The one they should have taken was never considered. And it should have.

Your opinion only. You weren’t a member or shareholder either then or now.

I maintain - despite anything that you say otherwise - that the FFC would still be an on field entity today had they shifted to the VFA as I suggested in 1993.

The Fitzroy board and shareholders maintained that the club would have an on-field presence had they been able to preserve the name and identity of the club as per a relocation.. (Sydney Lions, Brisbane Lions, Canberra Lions) or a merger with a Melbourne based club, especially if the name ‘Fitzroy’ was preserved. Hence the Fitzroy Bulldogs in 1989 and the North Fitzroy Kangaroos in 1996. The Melbourne Lions merger proposal was a departure from the insistence on preserving the name "Fitzroy", but the board considered that preservation of the red, blue and gold and the Lion emblem, as well as the inclusion of Fitzroy in the merged club’s corporate name to be adequate compensation in that regard.

What on-field presence does the Orbost Football Club have today? The Snowy Rovers? If they have an on-field presence in the form of the new merged club, then why wouldn’t Fitzroy have an on-field presence in the form of the North FITZROY Kangaroos or something similar? How can you then say that Fitzroy ignored the signs, had too much pride or would have had more than a zero on-field presence had they gone to the VFA? Those statements by you are just rubbish.

If you don't believe me, that's your problem.

One I’ll deal with.

I've said enough. And so have you. Debate closed.

Is this your ‘last word’ again? That’s three times now.

[PhilG]

..

[Roylion]

I can

So do it then. If you're so right, then you should be able to easily counter all my points ewith logical well reasoned arguments

- but I won't.

You can't.

Because you won't listen.

That's just a convenient excuse. Apart from the fact that you think Fitzroy should have gone to the VFA, what point are you exactly trying to make? Where's the concrete evidence (i.e specific examples) that:

- Fitzroy wasn't innocent in its exit from the AFL.
- Fitzroy didn't see the signs and had the "blinkers on"
- Fitzroy had too much pride/stubborness to consider alternatives
- Hore-Lacy and Weigard are 'idiots' and 'morons'.
- Fitzroy indirectly caused local clubs in their zone to fold
- Zoning saved Fitzroy in the 1960s or alternatively: zoning caused Fitzroy to fail. You don;t seem too sure on which it was.
- That I have claimed that 'Fitzroy had some inailiable (sp?) right to stay in the AFL". I have never claimed that.

All your statements. And ones which you've failed to adequately back up with any evidence.

You delight in telling me that you have so much more football experience that I do. So come on, it can't be too hard for someone with the breadth of football experience that you've had to provide hard factual evidence to support these statements.

So I won't waste my breath.

Translation: I have no idea what I'm talking about in relation to Fitzroy.

All you can do is bleat about Fitzroy this and Fitzroy that.

The thread is about Fitzroy. You chimed in with certain claims about Fitzroy, which it appears you can't back up.

So back up your statements with concrete evidence. Then I'll 'listen'. It should be easy shouldn't it?

BORING!

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

I'm sure trying to talk about a subject you clearly have little idea about, would be boring. However I'm very happy to talk about Fitzroy for as long as you like. So anytime you want to answer my questions by providing the evidence to back up your statements, I'm very happy to respond further to any comments about the club I've been involved with for a very long time.

I'll be waiting.

[PhilG]

..

[Roylion]

That just proves how biased you are. This about MORE than just Fitzroy! This about FOOTBALL!!

It's about Fitzroy and Fitzroy's exit from the AFL.

1. They failed to consider a move to the VFA

I've explained time and time again that the Fitzroy board considered a merger with a Melbourne based club would ensure a Fitzroy on-field entity. You know just like the Snowy Rovers and Orbost.

2. Every attempt to remain in the AFL was doomed to fail but they never saw it;

Oh rubbish. Why would they see it, especially as the AFL was pushing mergers? The North Fitzroy Kangaroos only failed because the AFL didn't support it and wanted to merge Fitzroy and Brisbane for "strategic reasons" (John Kennedy - AFL commissioner). For example, Ian Ridley the president of Melbourne was shocked at what the AFL had decided, especially as the proposed merger conditions were in line with AFL guidelines and also because the clubs expected that North would be have an opportunity to water down their demands. Both clubs didn't even need to go to their members to effect the merger, unlike before 19181.

a. Of course it didn't work. That was a lousy read of it's own fans by the club!

Still it puts paid to your claim of how the Fitzroy board could put aside their pride. It's clear that they saw the signs and tried to do something about it. Still I suppopse you think the Melbourne and Hawthorn boards had their heads in the sand as well re: mergers, because they failed to read their fans.

b. Then what happened? It fell through! Care to explain why? I'll bet YOUR board threw it out!

In fact it was Melbourne who withdrew. But of course you would have known that, if you had any knowledge of Fitzroy at all.

c. The AFL knocked the Hecron deal on the head because they were waiting to see what happened with Sydney to gauge the viability of private club ownership. A thoroughly responsible decision, and the first sign by the VFL that the Lions needed to get their house in order internally.

That may have been so, but the Hecron deal would have paid off Fitzroy's debts and allowed them to move forward.

d. Yes - and it wouldn't have happened if the merged entity had been called the Footscray Lions. But of course Fitzroy didn't want that did they?

They wanted the name 'Fitzroy' preserved if at all possible. The fact that they agreed to merge, just shows that they didn't have their heads in the sand, their blinkers on or that they had too much pride, as you claimed. Are you 'listening' yet?

e. And it failed - as it should have. As already explained.

Throught a lack of AFL support. As already explained.

f. By this time some clubs knew that Fitzroy's days were numbered - as I did. Whether or not they felt that a move to the VFA was the best option for the Lions in their opinion I obviously couldn't say. Melbourne was clearly one of clubs who could see it.

It was Fitzroy that approached Melbourne in this case. The fact that they agreed to merge, just shows that they didn't have their heads in the sand, their blinkers on or that they had too much pride. Are you 'listening' yet?

g. Should have been ALL home games, not just seven. Even then it wouldn't have worked because the AFL wanted a second club in Sydney and Canberra wasn't on their radar at the time. That would have happened no matter who proposed Canberra - let alone Fitzroy.

You're talking rubbish. Canberra was definitely in the AFL sights. Fitzroy had already played a game in Canberra in 1995 and the over 12,000 crowd that they attracted (against West Coast) encouraged the AFL on that front. In fact Fitzroy was originally given the green light to play there again. Even the media reported on this quoting Ian Collins as saying..."the current confusion in the Rugby League community between the ARL and the Super league gives a window of opportunity" ("Fitzroy's Canberra fixtures hailed by Collins" - Matthew Conn - The Australian 16/6/1995"). When the Roys organised more sponsorship and it looked like being a success, the AFL who were keen to keep the competition at 16 teams when Port Adelaide entered in 1997 decided that Fitzroy was not be allowed to play there. It didn't fit in with the AFL Five Year Plan which involved eliminating a Melbourne club, which they believed would "free up $2 million in expenditure for promoting the game." (Graeme Samuel quoted by Stephen Linnell in the Age July 22nd 1994). And as I said, two years later North played the first of their home games in CanberraJ

h. And the proposal was unacceptable to the AFL because North were trying to claim extras that would have put them at an advantage over the other clubs. That was North's fault and it was why the merger was scuttled.

Got some specific details of that? In fact North were asking for no more or no less that what the AFL had promised to all clubs via their merger package to encourage Melbourne based club mergers. They were the same conditions that later on were promised to melbourne and Hawthorn when they tried to merge.

And don't forget that Fitzroy wanted nothing to do with the Brisbane offer, but they had no choice!

All of the above were signs, and each one of them was ignored.

What absolute utter garbage. You accuse me of not listening, but you haven''t understood a thing I've said. All you are focused on is the one "Fitzroy have enterd the VFA" option. If the signs were ignored, Fitzroy would not have sought a succession of mergers and relocations. If one merger or initiative failed, Fitzroy often entered into discussions with other clubs. I haven't even mentioned some of the merger discussions that Fitzroy entered into with other clubs,

The fact that they never considered the VFA is more than enough proof of this.

More garbage.

Hore-Lacy and Weigard are 'idiots' and 'morons'.

If you want concrete evidence of that I suggest you go back into the TV archives, World of Sport in particular in the case of Wiegard.

You made the claims. Present them here.

Are you sure you aren't actually either of these men? You are sure sounding like it with your own brand of whining!

What I'm doing is explaining in detail is why Fitzroy chose the option of merging that they did and asking for concrete evidence to support your claims.

I'll get back to you with the full details of that because I'll have to look it up, but I can tell you this at least off the top of my head. Two entire leagues disappeared in the early 1990's. Now I'm not saying Fitzroy was responsible for that, but the club losses that were didn't help because they came from those leagues! The two leagues were the Eastern Suburbs Churches FA, and the Melbourne North FL.

You claimed that Fitzroy was responsible for local clubs disappearing. Now you saying that Fitzroy may not have been responsible? Do you actually know what you're talking about? I want a specific explanation of exactly how Fitzroy was responsible for the disappearances of local clubs as you claimed. After all yuo said that this was one of your main beefs with Fitzroy.

Zoning saved Fitzroy membership numbers.

Got some facts to support that statement? For example do you know what Fitzroy's record membership is?

Zoning did not help with player lists. That should explain that. You don't seem to know the difference between the outside of the fence and the inside!

You don't seem to know the difference between fact and fiction. All I read from you is a number of unsupported unsubstantiated statements. And yet you expect I should be 'listening' to you. Why should I? Oh yes.....that's right...you have so much more expereience in local football than I.

And BTW I was referring to Fitzroy making the claim, not you personally.

And where did Fitzroy make this claim? They sought mergers remember. That means that they didn't think had an inalienable right to remain in the AFL as a stand alone entity.

Now I'm willing to bet you'll use every excuse in the book to preserve your blinkered view. In order to understand the issues of Fitzroy, you HAVE to look outside of the club. Otherwise you'll NEVER have an unbiased viewpoint.

In order to understand the issue of Fitzroy you have to understand the circumstances of Fitzroy throughout the 1970's 80's and 90's. You claim I have a biased viewpoint, but you refuse point blank to gain a deeper understanding of Fitzroy's situation from the view point of people who were involved. You have a pre-determined view of what Fitzroy should have done which is based on a very limited knowledge of Fitzroy; you refuse to read or learn anything of that viewpoint from me or from other sources such as Dyson Hore-Lacy. Yet you call me biased and blinkered. How about you take the blinkers off, find out the other side of the story and then come to a considered knowledgable decision? I read very little evidence on this thread that you know anything much about Fitzroy at all.

That is why you need to reconsider your position, and accept that you should be having a go at your own board - not the AFL 100 percent and certainly not anyone else who knows the full truth of matters.

As I said, how about you take the blinkers off, find out the other side of the story and then come to a considered knowledgable decision on the issue? I read very little evidence that you know anything much about Fitzroy at all. Your refusal to read or learn anything of that viewpoint from me or from other sources such as Dyson Hore-Lacy shows that you don't 'listen' to anything except your pre-determined views, which in this case is certainly not based on facts.

The fact that you are against less AFL clubs in Melbourne backs that up as well.

And where exactly did I say that? What I did say is that with AFL support Fitzroy could have survived, as is the case with North Melbourne, Melbourne, Footscray and Carlton. What I;'ve also said is that Fitzroy did NOT have that AFL support to survive on their own. The board realised that and despite their hopes of being able to survive as a stand alone entity "swallowed their pride", "took their blinkers off" (your owrds) and sought alternatives such as a merger and relocation.

Where are the Victorian clubs in the AFL finals now? Nowhere! And it's going to keep happening consistently until the number of clubs are cut back.

Perhaps. That's a matter of opinion also. Some believe that it's merely cyclical. I'll guess we'll wait and see.

Are you listening? I'll bet you're not! After all - you have form!

As do you. You did fairly much the same thing as you did here when we had a discussion on bigfooty.com on the White Australian Policy, which you insisted applied to Aboriginals when I clearly demonstrated, backed up with a great many specific examples, that it only applied to immigration. You accused me then of not listening when I didn't agree with you. You even sent me an abusive PM, after saying that it was your last word on the matter. I can post the abusive PM here if you like, with my reply and a reference to the whole thread if you like. I couldn't reply to you via PM, because you didn't allow me to.

And don't accuse me on not providing concrete evidence (unless you are talking about the folded local clubs or the TV archives - in which case you either have to wait, or accept that I have a better memory than yours.

I want concrete evidence. You haven't given specific examples. You seem to think that a generalised unsupported statement is concrete evidence. I wasnt specific explained details.

Oh and incidentally - Orbost and Snowy Rovers HATED each other! And yet they merged, because they HAD to in order to preserve the game in the town. Is that enough pride set aside for you?

So how is this different to North Melbourne and Fitzroy attempting to merge. Or Melbourne and Fitzroy? You accuse the Fitzroy board of not being able to set aside their pride, yet I've given you a number of specific examples of where they did try to effect a merger just like your quoted Snowy Rover and Orbost.

And not only that, I don't hear you saying anything about my VFA to local examples! Too much concrete evidence for you maybe on that score?

What's your point though? Yes, clubs moved out of the VFA. So? Yes...and you think Fitzroy should have the done the same. Yes and....?

I've told you and I've told you that the Fitzroy board and shareholders preferred a merger with a Melbourne based AFL club or a relocation. You know...a merger....along the lines of the Snowy Rovers and Orbost. Aren't you 'listening' to what I'm saying?