Fitzroy Vs the Paddle Pop lion court case

[iRoar2]

I wouldn't mind the club de-merge and revert back to the bears. I never supported the old fitzroy lions in the past and kinda hate to see them trying to hijack and derail the club. I really doubt Fitzroy will win this case.

WTF, hijack and derail the club?

Posts like this are the reason why we have to support the present action by fitzroy. It seems that the club spin of bullshit is taking effect with some, lets hope it is only a few. The action by fitzroy needs to be put in perspective, we cant rely on Bowers or anyone at the club to provide that perspective, as they have lost it completely. Any CEO who behaves like Bowers has limited time left at the helm.

It is only a matter of time before the board loses confidence in him (too many stuff ups) and he knows it.

 

[Stocka]

It's inevitable that there will be people like Fairley and Ruse who have their outlier, minority views. At the end of the day, a forum like this embraces a fair degree of freedom of speech and that includes minority views, whether the majority like it or not.

Mind you, I've come to think of Fairley as being the John Farnham of the board. After all, how many times can someone say they're "leaving" then only to return later on?

Surely it is time to move on from this divisive nonsense. I can't believe that so much time and energy has been devoted to a fu.....logo. I am out of here...

As I said the other day and will say again one last time...time to move on from this divisive nonsense and get back to what we are all here for...to support our club. I am over this crap and I am 'outa here! Go Lions!

Stocka...it is time you stopped talking to yourself on bf and came up with your own words rather than trying to use mine. I don't edit your comments, I have my own mind. Goodbye!

Encore?

 

[lionbear]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...-deserve-respect/story-e6frf9jf-1225837789148

Very good report, I think it explains Fitzroy side of this very well

 

[iRoar2]

That Herald Sun article articulates the state of play nicely. Now lets see if our club has a concsience!?

 

[notting18]

I think an important point to consider is I highly doubt that if the board had gone to the FFC as a merger prior to making any changes and said "look for the improvement of the club we would like to make some changes to the logo/jumper. What do you think?" a compromise would almost certainly have been reached. The FFC is almost staking their future on this action and would not go to court lightly.

If the club had handled the situation we could've probably ended up with a happy compromise for both merger parties. e.g The Marketing logo and official club logo situation with the BL board agreeing to demand more games in Melbourne as its first priority, exclude us from the Tassie "Melbourne" game or the like.

 

[LIONOFZION]

I think we should all remain calm and wait for the outcome - with our justice system handling this, I trust that common sense will prevail...unfortunately...

 

[OldLion]

United we stand, divided we fall!

In my experience with the Roys, it's divided we stand, united we fall. IMO if the actual jumper wasn't so .. woosy .. this debate wouldn't be going on. You can feel the man-power drain out from the players. End the pantomime - go back and start agai.

 

[BuntonRules]

Is there a place for a FFC member of our board? Not as a powerbase, but to represent our Victorian members, and to act as a sort of 'concience'. If there was one now, I doubt this whole saga would have got this far.

 

[NoelMugavin]

is there any further update on what is happening with this..??

 

[King of Torts]

I have been reading the threads on this issue, however I have not weighed in on the debate. I understand it is a prickly issue.

Is my understanding of the Fitzroy Federal Court action correct in that Fitzroy are seeking the 'logo' of the Brisbane Lions to be returned to the 'fitzroy lion' as per the merger agreement?

Am I further correct in my understanding that the Brisbane Lions could still use the 'paddlepop' Lion on its Jersey but would need to use the 'fitzroy lion' as its club logo? (Though from a marketing perspective this would make no sense).

Does the merger agreement stipulate how the logo is to be used, or does it just say 'in perpetuity'? I would be interested to read it if someone has a link or the like.

 

[Roylion]

Is my understanding of the Fitzroy Federal Court action correct in that Fitzroy are seeking the 'logo' of the Brisbane Lions to be returned to the 'fitzroy lion' as per the merger agreement?

Fitzroy Football Club are seeking a Supreme Court ruling on Clause 7.2 c) which states that

"The logo of the merged club will be the Fitzroy lion logo in perpetuity;"

"The Fitzroy lion logo" had been trademarked at least four times including:
1) Trade mark 415755, registered on 24 May 1989 by the AFL (when Fitzroy were part of the competition),
2) trade mark 547027, registered on 15 October 1992 (again when Fitzroy were part of the competition);
3) trade mark 751045, lodged on 16 December 1997 and registered on 8 September 2000 (after the 1996 merger);
4) trade mark 841774 lodged on 7 July 2000 (for the new Brisbane Lions logo) and registered on 15 March 2002;

All of Fitzroy's and Brisbane Lions official logos contained the "Fitzroy lion logo" which was described in those trademarks as variously "lion, paw on football" or "lion standing, paw on football"

Brisbane's new lion logo does not have "lion standing, paw on football". It consists, as you know, of a lions head with the words "Brisbane Lions"

Fitzroy's full statement of claim can be downloaded from their website www.fitzroyfc.com.au

Am I further correct in my understanding that the Brisbane Lions could still use the 'paddlepop' Lion on its Jersey but would need to use the 'fitzroy lion' as its club logo? (Though from a marketing perspective this would make no sense).

Yes. The Fitzroy Football Club has no input into the design of the jumper.

The relevant clause reads:

7.2 b) The playing uniform of the Merged Club will, for a period of 7 years after the Merger Date for away games, comprise the existing Fitzroy playing uniform (or the existing Fitzroy preseason playing uniform) (save that the emblem shall be be BL not FFC) and for all home games and all games after 7 years, will predominately comprise all Fitzroy colours in a design approved by AFL;

This means that the Brisbane Lions must use "Fitzroy colours" (maroon, blue and gold) on their jumper for all home games. White also qualifies, because Fitzroy used to have a white FFC monogram as part of its playing uniform. Nowhere does it say a 'lion' must be on the playing uniform and no where does the agreement say what sort of lion. The logo requirements are much more definitive. It seems to be fairly clear what "the Fitzroy lion logo" actually is especially as it was trademarked (pictured and described in words in those trademarks) both before and after the merger.

Does the merger agreement stipulate how the logo is to be used, or does it just say 'in perpetuity'? I would be interested to read it if someone has a link or the like.

It needs to be the official logo of the club and I would assume be used in that capacity. The logo should appear on all official correspondence, relevant website and any other visual capacity where the Brisbane Lions are being represented visually by the club. Fitzroy would accept "the Fitzroy lion logo" being part of any logo design, the Brisbane Lions come up with.

Whether you could successfully argue that extends to the official playing uniform is debatable.

 

[King of Torts]

Fitzroy Football Club are seeking a Supreme Court ruling on Clause 7.2 c) which states that

"The logo of the merged club will be the Fitzroy lion logo in perpetuity;"

"The Fitzroy lion logo" had been trademarked at least four times including:
1) Trade mark 415755, registered on 24 May 1989 by the AFL (when Fitzroy were part of the competition),
2) trade mark 547027, registered on 15 October 1992 (again when Fitzroy were part of the competition);
3) trade mark 751045, lodged on 16 December 1997 and registered on 8 September 2000 (after the 1996 merger);
4) trade mark 841774 lodged on 7 July 2000 (for the new Brisbane Lions logo) and registered on 15 March 2002;

All of Fitzroy's and Brisbane Lions official logos contained the "Fitzroy lion logo" which was described in those trademarks as variously "lion, paw on football" or "lion standing, paw on football"

Brisbane's new lion logo does not have "lion standing, paw on football". It consists, as you know, of a lions head with the words "Brisbane Lions"

Fitzroy's full statement of claim can be downloaded from their website www.fitzroyfc.com.au



Yes. The Fitzroy Football Club has no input into the design of the jumper.

The relevant clause reads:

7.2 b) The playing uniform of the Merged Club will, for a period of 7 years after the Merger Date for away games, comprise the existing Fitzroy playing uniform (or the existing Fitzroy preseason playing uniform) (save that the emblem shall be be BL not FFC) and for all home games and all games after 7 years, will predominately comprise all Fitzroy colours in a design approved by AFL;

This means that the Brisbane Lions must use "Fitzroy colours" (maroon, blue and gold) on their jumper for all home games. White also qualifies, because Fitzroy used to have a white FFC monogram as part of its playing uniform. Nowhere does it say a 'lion' must be on the playing uniform and no where does the agreement say what sort of lion. The logo requirements are much more definitive. It seems to be fairly clear what "the Fitzroy lion logo" actually is especially as it was trademarked (pictured and described in words in those trademarks) both before and after the merger.



It needs to be the official logo of the club and I would assume be used in that capacity. The logo should appear on all official correspondence, relevant website and any other visual capacity where the Brisbane Lions are being represented visually by the club. Fitzroy would accept "the Fitzroy lion logo" being part of any logo design, the Brisbane Lions come up with.

Whether you could successfully argue that extends to the official playing uniform is debatable.

Excellent. Thanks for that Roylion. I will have a look at the FFC's Statement of Claim.

I assume, that if the Brisbane Lions changed the Logo so it was consistent with the Lion that appears on the Jersey, that would not be in breach of the merger agreement? As it appears, 'lion standing, paw on football'?

 

[maroon and blue]

I have concerns that the "Fitzroy" which is taking legal action does not represent the original Fitzroy Football Club. Its makeup and membership have changed radically. It may assume it has the legal "high ground" but ex Fitzroy supporters have become so diverse in their allegiences it most likely does not reflect those ex Fitzroy players and members who have embraced the Brisbane Lions.

 

[Roylion]

I have concerns that the "Fitzroy" which is taking legal action does not represent the original Fitzroy Football Club.

As a shareholder in 1986 and a shareholder in 2010 of the Fitzroy Football Club, I have absolutely no doubts that the Fitzroy Football Club of 2010, (playing out of the Brunswick Street Oval and with the same jumper) is the true representative (and indeed is the very same) of Fitzroy Football Club.

Sure...Fitzroy no longer has an AFL licence and now plays in the VAFA, but other football clubs move competitions/leagues, go into recess and the like without having their club identity changed. And no matter what the membership is currently made up of...the bottom line is that the Fitzroy club has a merger agreement with the Brisbane Lions.

Its makeup and membership have changed radically.

Have they? I see quite a few of the old faces from the AFL days now attending Fitzroy's VAFA games, including former Fitzroy AFL players of the likes of Kevin Murray, Bill Stephen and Bernie Quinlan. The playing uniform is the same, the ground is the same as between 1884-1996. Even the Fitzroy board of 2008, which included Dyson Hore-Lacy, Colin Hobbs, Elaine Findlay and David McCahon were on the board in 1996. Other current Fitzroy board members such as Lou Soligo were long time and well known Fitzroy supporters, and who now, believe it or not, support the Brisbane Lions. Bill Atherton (once again believe it or not), supports the Brisbane Lions. I've seen him at Brisbane Lions functions.

It may assume it has the legal "high ground" but ex Fitzroy supporters have become so diverse in their allegiences it most likely does not reflect those ex Fitzroy players and members who have embraced the Brisbane Lions.

And why should Fitzroy's current membership reflect totally the membership of the Brisbane Lions? They play in the VAFA now...not the AFL. And not all Fitzroy supporters - whether ex or not - support an interstate club, even if it does adopt a Fitzroy identity. Watching six AFL games a year isn't a huge incentive for many.

Having said that, at the very least, a couple of current Fitzroy board members are Brisbane Lions members. See above for examples

 

[Bobby Beecroft]

I have concerns that the "Fitzroy" which is taking legal action does not represent the original Fitzroy Football Club. Its makeup and membership have changed radically. It may assume it has the legal "high ground" but ex Fitzroy supporters have become so diverse in their allegiences it most likely does not reflect those ex Fitzroy players and members who have embraced the Brisbane Lions.

I've made this point often, & agree entirely with you.

Legally they have the right, but morally (for the reasons you have stated) I'm still not convinced. ps. guys I don't want to go over old ground with Roylion etc........ again . We have done it to death.

Just expressing my view to M&B that he is not the only one that is thinking down this track, & there are others that share these thoughts.
Peace!!

 

[Roylion]

I assume, that if the Brisbane Lions changed the Logo so it was consistent with the Lion that appears on the Jersey, that would not be in breach of the merger agreement? As it appears, 'lion standing, paw on football'?

Well that ('lion standing, paw on football') is how it has been described in the trademarks. However I'm told (and the statement of claim suggests this as well), is that "the Fitzroy lion logo" is explicitly pictured in the trademarks.

Therefore "the Fitzroy lion logo" (as mentioned in the merger agreement), would have to appear as part of any Brisbane Lions logo, as pictured. Otherwise any lion with it's paw on the football would classify as "the Fitzroy lion logo".

For example:

In my view, the above could not be considered as "the Fitzroy lion logo", even though it is a 'lion standing, paw on football'.

 

[NoelMugavin]

Well said Roylion. Kudos..again!

is there any idea of when this court case or dispute may be finalised..

 

[Hollow Knight]

Well said Roylion. Kudos..again!

is there any idea of when this court case or dispute may be finalised..

They're in mediation for 2 months, then back to court.

 

[Carn the Roys!]

I've made this point often, & agree entirely with you.

Legally they have the right, but morally (for the reasons you have stated) I'm still not convinced. ps. guys I don't want to go over old ground with Roylion etc........ again . We have done it to death.

Just expressing my view to M&B that he is not the only one that is thinking down this track, & there are others that share these thoughts.
Peace!!

Whilst I personally disagree with you I think it is a point that needs to be discussed more indepth (possible on the fitzroy forum?)

For me the fact that the Fitzroy board and shareholders elected to continue the club past 1996 and this same club through a merger with the Fitzroy Reds returned to the playing field in 2009 makes it a continuation of the same club. Although obviously things have changed, its not like its simply the Fitzroy Reds taking the Brisbane Lions to court.

Statements from Fitzroy have indecated they are aiming to act in the best interest of Fitzroy supporters regardless of their stance on the Brisbane Lions and generally speaking Fitzroy seems to wish for better relations with Brisbane.

I would perhaps suggest that you contact Fitzroy to discuss your concerns with them. I'm certain that most Brisbane supporters who have contacted them are very opposed to changes made recently by the Brisbane board and support the action Fitzroy have taken. Wether you support the new logo or are simply concerned by the possible damage that could be done to Brisbane or even question Fitzroys motives I do think that contacting Fitzroy directly would be the best way to get your point across and find out more about Fitzroys views on these issues.

P.S. I'm still holding out hope that progress can be made in mediation that can see the two clubs move forward in a more positive relationship, but I'm not sure its a very strong hope at the moment.

 

[Vidman]

They're in mediation for 2 months, then back to court.

so nothings happening then.

 

[Quigley]

I've made this point often, & agree entirely with you.

Legally they have the right, but morally (for the reasons you have stated) I'm still not convinced. ps. guys I don't want to go over old ground with Roylion etc........ again . We have done it to death.

Just expressing my view to M&B that he is not the only one that is thinking down this track, & there are others that share these thoughts.
Peace!!

What a load of bollox.

I have absolutely no allegience to Fitzroy but I am cheering for them all the way in this.

I think the legal right is what is being argued about I don't think there is any question that they are in the moral right. The Lions management are clearly disregarding the intention of the parties when they entered into the agreement and are now trying to steamroll the little guy.

Bowers the clown is impinging the honour of the club with his actions. I think the AFL should charge him with bringing the game into disrepute personally.

 

[King of Torts]

Well that ('lion standing, paw on football') is how it has been described in the trademarks. However I'm told (and the statement of claim suggests this as well), is that "the Fitzroy lion logo" is explicitly pictured in the trademarks.

Therefore "the Fitzroy lion logo" (as mentioned in the merger agreement), would have to appear as part of any Brisbane Lions logo, as pictured. Otherwise any lion with it's paw on the football would classify as "the Fitzroy lion logo".

For example:

In my view, the above could not be considered as "the Fitzroy lion logo", even though it is a 'lion standing, paw on football'.

I disagree with the above, that is a clearly different logo as it appears, 'lion standing, paw on soccer ball'.

 

[whatboutbob]

Bowers the clown is impinging the honour of the club with his actions. I think the AFL should charge him with bringing the game into disrepute personally.

The problem here being that the AFL signed off on the new logo, so they're also in it up to their neck.

Personally I'm glad someone's holding Bowers accountable and I respect the way they've gone about it.

 

[Bobby Beecroft]

What a load of bollox.

I have absolutely no allegience to Fitzroy but I am cheering for them all the way in this.

I think the legal right is what is being argued about I don't think there is any question that they are in the moral right. The Lions management are clearly disregarding the intention of the parties when they entered into the agreement and are now trying to steamroll the little guy.

Bowers the clown is impinging the honour of the club with his actions. I think the AFL should charge him with bringing the game into disrepute personally.

Your taking what I posted completely out of context & to be honest carrying on for no reason. I've been through this many times & even the staunch TBD thought my point made many months ago was 'interesting'.

Do the research yourself cause F@rked if I going to for someone that appears to have no idea where I am coming from.

Carn the Roys - I am now happy for them to contest the issue, I just don't think they represent the same people they did in 1996. But I feel they have little choice but to fight while people such as Roylion & yourself feel so passionate about it. It becomes an individual choice that many ex/current Roys made some time ago.

Not sure someone with not the same allegiance may have a strong grasp of this, & to be so dismissive is bordering on ignorance.

PEACE.............AGAIN!!

 

[whatboutbob]

Carn the Roys - I am now happy for them to contest the issue, I just don't think they represent the same people they did in 1996. But I feel they have little choice but to fight while people such as Roylion & yourself feel so passionate about it. It becomes an individual choice that many ex/current Roys made some time ago.

Out of curiosity, who do you think would be better or "more morally" placed to defend Fitzroy's end of the merger agreement?