Fitzroy Vs the Paddle Pop lion court case

[Bobby Beecroft]

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

Thats the problem, there is no one else & is the reason why I think they have no choice but to take the baton as I just expressed. I guess while there is at least 1 Royboy against the change then they have a duty to represent them in the eyes of that person.

 

[Roylion]

Thats the problem, there is no one else

But who else could there possibly be?

The Fitzroy Football Club seeking a ruling in the Supreme Court in 2010 is legally, (and morally) the same club that used to hold an AFL licence and competed in the VFL-AFL for one hundred years. The club never ceased to exist even though its' AFL club operations were absorbed by the AFL and the administrator into the Brisbane Bears / Lions organisation, via the terms of the merger agreement.

 

[blackers]

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;"

I know the merger agreement was negotiated in a hurry but I was a bit stunned to read that:

* the agreement didn't attach a copy of the logo;
* the wording isn't more specific about where the lion must be used - jumper, club logo, letterhead etc.

I'm a commercial lawyer and drafting contracts is all about being specific about this sort of thing, in order to avoid exactly this sort of dispute.

I support Fitzroy morally in this but I'm skeptical about their chances legally. As a lot of people have noted, hopefully this gets sorted out in meditation. A lot of the newer clubs would love to have the tradition Fitzroy brought to the Brisbane Lions and until now they've done a good job of respecting and preserving it.

 

[POBT]

I'm a commercial lawyer and drafting contracts is all about being specific about this sort of thing, in order to avoid exactly this sort of dispute.

It is worth repeating that the administrator negotiated the agreement, not the Fitzroy Football Club.

 

[Full Wingspan]

I want the jumper too change purely because the old one is way better, not about historical value. As far as I'm concerned, they've breached nothing in that department.

 

[maroon and blue]

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.



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.



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

Irrelevant and subjective to the argument, I was also a shareholder. An amateur football club playing on the hallowed turf does not give it carte blanche authority to claim the Fitzroy crown. It is actually the antithesis of what Fitzroy was about, a rough and tumble working class football club loved for its working class origins. Following an amateur football club in a Fitzroy which has sadly been gentrified is not what I would call a living history.

 

[Bobby Beecroft]

But who else could there possibly be?

The Fitzroy Football Club seeking a ruling in the Supreme Court in 2010 is legally, (and morally) the same club that used to hold an AFL licence and competed in the VFL-AFL for one hundred years. The club never ceased to exist even though its' AFL club operations were absorbed by the AFL and the administrator into the Brisbane Bears / Lions organisation, via the terms of the merger agreement.

Re-read what I posted I am agreeing with you, there is no one else.

The automatic pilot has kicked in a little earlier today.

 

[Roylion]

An amateur football club playing on the hallowed turf does not give it carte blanche authority to claim the Fitzroy crown.

It does, if it is the same club, as the one that held an AFL licence in 1996. Which it is.

And let's face it, strictly speaking all that happened in 1996 is that the club operations of the Fitzroy Football Club were absorbed into that of the Brisbane Bears. The Brisbane Bears Football Club also continued on in its own right, changing its' name from the Brisbane Bears Football Club to the "Brisbane Bears-Fitzroy Australian Football Club" by a vote of the existing Brisbane Bears members. Not Fitzroy members. The "Australian" part was dropped in 2000.

It is actually the antithesis of what Fitzroy was about, a rough and tumble working class football club loved for its working class origins. Following an amateur football club in a Fitzroy which has sadly been gentrified is not what I would call a living history.

I wouldn't say that the Collingwood of the early 1900's is the same as the Collingwood of the early 2000's either. Does that mean because of a football club changes its' character, or changes the competition it competes in, it is a separate entity to its earlier years?

 

[T Rick]

At last...someone with a sense of humour!

 

[maroon and blue]

It does, if it is the same club, as the one that held an AFL licence in 1996. Which it is.

And let's face it, strictly speaking all that happened in 1996 is that the club operations of the Fitzroy Football Club were absorbed into that of the Brisbane Bears. The Brisbane Bears Football Club also continued on in its own right, changing its' name from the Brisbane Bears Football Club to the "Brisbane Bears-Fitzroy Australian Football Club" by a vote of the existing Brisbane Bears members. Not Fitzroy members. The "Australian" part was dropped in 2000.



I wouldn't say that the Collingwood of the early 1900's is the same as the Collingwood of the early 2000's either. Does that mean because of a football club changes its' character, or changes the competition it competes in, it is a separate entity to its earlier years?

No Collingwood is not the same, but having a direct lineage it would be reasonable to accept the change in the Pies, reflecting society as a whole. But Fitzroy joining the silvertails in the ammo's, now that's a long bow. By the way, it is conveniently forgotten that the first partnership for Fitzroy after the merger was with the Coburg- Fitzroy Lions, truly reflective of Fitzroys origins in many ways. But more importantly, what that first "association" with Coburg shows is that the current joining with the Reds may only be transitory.

 

[Stocka]

But Fitzroy joining the silvertails in the ammo's, now that's a long bow.

It's more of a long-bow to regard VAFA teams as "silvertails", to be honest. The Fitzroy Reds in particular are definitely not "silvertails". Having been to many games over the years the vast majority of people who appear to be associated with the club are blue-collar, working-class types and students.

Likewise, I actually work in the area of North Fitzroy. Sure, there is quite a representation of upper-middle-class in the area, but everyone I know who is associated with the club (I mainly know people who are involved with the Juniors out of the locals) are great people. Let's not be reverse-elitist about our allegiances!

If you are worried about that at any rate, it's surprising that you'd follow the Lions, considering that the Brisbane-based club doesn't have any "working class roots" and the current board/administration appear to be acting more as an "old boys club" under their own steam rather than representing the members when it comes to the issues of the logo and jumper.

By the way, it is conveniently forgotten that the first partnership for Fitzroy after the merger was with the Coburg- Fitzroy Lions, truly reflective of Fitzroys origins in many ways.

I don't think it's been conveniently forgotten. The fact that it only lasted one year, which happened to be 10 years ago, means that it simply isn't a talking point any longer.

But more importantly, what that first "association" with Coburg shows is that the current joining with the Reds may only be transitory.

I disagree. Fitzroy has had been involved with the Reds for 10 years now and has the powerful Fitzroy Juniors as feeder teams. The fact that the club represents the local area as a senior football team seems to attract not only Fitzroy supporters but also locals. The union of Fitzroy and the Reds which dates back for over a decade now, has largely gone from strength to strength.

It's unlikely that there'll be any of the troubles that plagued the Coburg-Fitzroy arrangement.

 

[Roylion]

No Collingwood is not the same, but having a direct lineage it would be reasonable to accept the change in the Pies, reflecting society as a whole.

And the Fitzroy Football Club of 2010 is the same Fitzroy Football Club as in 1996, just not on the national stage. In other words the Fitzroy Football Club that used to represent the suburb of Fitzroy is the same club as the Fitzroy that now represents the suburb of Fitzroy. Therefore it is not unreasonable to accept a similar change in the Roys, reflecting society as a whole.

But Fitzroy joining the silvertails in the ammo's, now that's a long bow.

I don't think so. Stocka's explanation covers my thoughts on that quite adequately.

By the way, it is conveniently forgotten that the first partnership for Fitzroy after the merger was with the Coburg- Fitzroy Lions, truly reflective of Fitzroys origins in many ways.

Fitzroy Football Club sponsored the Coburg Lions in return for naming and uniform rights in 1999-2000. There was no merger or legally binding partnership.

But more importantly, what that first "association" with Coburg shows is that the current joining with the Reds may only be transitory.

I don't think you quite understand what happened at the end of 2008 between the Fitzroy Football Club and the Reds. Effectively the Fitzroy Reds (aka the University Reds) no longer exist. With the Fitzroy Reds' consent, and indeed at their instigation, all the Reds' assets and club operations were transferred to the Fitzroy Football Club. The Fitzroy Reds Football Club also relinquished its membership of the VAFA and transferred its membership to the Fitzroy Football Club. (approved by the VAFA). Fitzroy Football Club as a result resumed playing operations for the first time since 1996.

What Fitzroy currently have now is certainly not transitory.

 

[Bobby Beecroft]

And the Fitzroy Football Club of 2010 is the same Fitzroy Football Club as in 1996, just not on the national stage. In other words the Fitzroy Football Club that used to represent the suburb of Fitzroy is the same club as the Fitzroy that now represents the suburb of Fitzroy. Therefore it is not unreasonable to accept a similar change in the Roys, reflecting society as a whole.

& this is the crux of the matter for thousands of voices that are not heard, do not post on BF, may support the current Lions or in fact may well be lost to the AFL forever.

Via legal set-up the FFC is still the same entity as 1996, that seems to be agreed by all & has no arguments form anyone. As a result they are clearly the only entity with the legal right to defend merger agreement. But what makes up this current FFC?

Is the FFC in 2010 the same one that represented us in 1996, or even in 1986 our last genuine season of great hope? The numbers clearly say no.
How many current members of the FFC were members in either of the 1986/1996 seasons? I would extremely conservatively guess less than 5% & it's probably closer to 2%.

In fact there is a new breed of FFC member that have a connection in 1 of 2 ways:
1) that are only connected via this new playing operation. New members that never cared about Fitzroy during the turmoil of 1996 & years leading up to it, and also that have no support for the current Brisbane Lions. In fact the huge majority support and maybe members of rival AFL clubs. eg. Scribe
2) are now members/supporters/sympathisers because of common element. They don't like the new Lions jumper. Ironically some are ex-Bears supporters. Were some of these people standing in the background of a smug Noel Gordon the day the 'merger' announcement was made? (just throwing it out there). eg. TBD/Quigs? not saying you guys are NG fans - just using you as egs of the new FFC man.

So while regurgitating the legal rhetoric & agreements perhaps consider the many thousands that do have absolutely no alliance with the current amateur FFC & will never again feel the same about the FFC as they did in 1986 & 1996.

To say the FFC of 1996 is the same as today is almost an insult to the intelligence to these people (I do take it as one). Legally the set-up maybe the same but to the huge majority it is clearly not the same FFC.

Sidenote - please don't respond to my post by resorting to sections of the merger agreement or explaining the legal structure of the current FFC. I have now been on BF for quite a while & have read them 1,000's of times. They will not change my opinion----> my automatic pilot response previously.

This is not a personal shot at anyone mentioned/quoted just trying to best explain my feelings & that of many other ex-FFC members that I know.

Cheers

 

[LIONOFZION]

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

With a ****y tiara on its head

 

[Roylion]

Is the FFC in 2010 the same one that represented us in 1996, or even in 1986 our last genuine season of great hope? The numbers clearly say no.
How many current members of the FFC were members in either of the 1986/1996 seasons? I would extremely conservatively guess less than 5% & it's probably closer to 2%.

Upon what basis do you claim this?

Fitzroy Football Club has 1,200 odd members (and rising). 2% of those equates to 24 members from the 1986/1996 days. Are you really claiming that there are only 24-60 odd members of Fitzroy Football Club, who were members or Fitzroy supporters in 1996 or before? I think there is a far higher percentage, which would include at the VERY least the three hundred annual members who paid their annual memberships each year from 1998-2008 for the Fitzroy Football Club Ltd. Those three hundred would not have been from the Fitzroy Reds, as the Reds had their own membership structure at the time...they most obviously have been those (for want of a better word) "die-hards" from the time Fitzroy Football Club was in the AFL. Gee, if you're going to pay a membership to a club that doesn't have any playing operations for twelve years, chances are you would have been a member in 1996, when the club competed in the national competition, even it was struggling.

At the very least that takes the proportion of old Fitzroy members from the current 1,200 odd Fitzroy members from your estimation of 2-5% to at least 25%.

Then there's the shareholder members (of whom I am one). I don't know exactly how many are currently involved with the Fitzroy Football Club. However almost all of them were shareholders of Fitzroy when it was in the AFL. It was their decision in 1998 to continue the club and many continue their association with the club to this day.

I know at least four of the current Fitzroy board who were paid up Fitzroy members in 1996.

So, a break down of the current Fitzroy membership base, would include those who are shareholder members from the late eighties and nineties, some of whom are former Fitzroy VFL-AFL players (such as Bernie Quinlan for example) and some of whom are Fitzroy supporters from when the club was in the AFL (both non-Brisbane Lions and Brisbane Lions folk). Some members are from the Reds (obviously in terms of former players and officials and some supporters.) The amount of people present in the VAFA crowds at Fitzroy games sporting AFL Fitzroy items such as Lion scarves and the like, suggests that the proportion of Fitzroy people (whether members or not) from the AFL days is far greater than 2%-5% of the whole.

A couple of Fitzroy officials have also suggested to me that a few "ex-Fitzroy" supporters who are becoming alienated from the Brisbane Lions, are also returning to support the Fitzroy Football Club, by becoming Fitzroy members.

In fact there is a new breed of FFC member that have a connection in 1 of 2 ways:
1) that are only connected via this new playing operation. New members that never cared about Fitzroy during the turmoil of 1996 & years leading up to it, and also that have no support for the current Brisbane Lions. In fact the huge majority support and maybe members of rival AFL clubs. eg. Scribe
2) are now members/supporters/sympathisers because of common element. They don't like the new Lions jumper. Ironically some are ex-Bears supporters. Were some of these people standing in the background of a smug Noel Gordon the day the 'merger' announcement was made? (just throwing it out there). eg. TBD/Quigs? not saying you guys are NG fans - just using you as egs of the new FFC man.

Of course there are these types of Fitzroy members and supporters and they are obviously an important part of the club. However to suggest, as you appear to have, that these two types make up 95-98% of the entire current membership base of the Fitzroy Football Club is, in my view, incorrect.

So while regurgitating the legal rhetoric & agreements perhaps consider the many thousands that do have absolutely no alliance with the current amateur FFC & will never again feel the same about the FFC as they did in 1986 & 1996.

Many of those thousands would probably have no idea that the Fitzroy Football Club even still exists in its own right. Fitzroy as a continuing, living, breathing, independent entity is slowly starting to seep into the consciousness of the general footballing public. Many people, also want to follow an AFL club and sadly, Fitzroy will never again belong in the AFL.

To say the FFC of 1996 is the same as today is almost an insult to the intelligence to these people (I do take it as one). Legally the set-up maybe the same but to the huge majority it is clearly not the same FFC.

Clubs change. Personally I really don't see much difference between the Fitzroy Football Club of say before 1966 and the Fitzroy of 2010. Both effectively were amateur clubs, representing the suburb of Fitzroy, playing out of the same ground. Fitzroy Football Club has essentially returned to its' roots.

They will not change my opinion----> my automatic pilot response previously.

And likewise. All I've attempted to do is explain why I believe the Fitzroy Football Club of 2010 is the same entity/club as the Fitzroy of 1996, 1986, 1973, 1957, 1944, 1922 and so on right back to 1883. I've read nothing from those who might disagree with that notion that would cause me to think differently.

 

[Paul D]

Latest on the court case... (more legal mumbo jumbo)
http://www.fitzroyfc.com.au/home.html
Latest Developments on the Fitzroy Lion Logo

Today (Wednesday 24th March) Associate Justice Mukhtar reserved his decision on the application by Brisbane Lions that Fitzroy provide security for Brisbane Lions' costs.

Brisbane Lions seeks $177,500 for its costs between 15 February 2010 and the start of the trial. Brisbane Lions wants Fitzroy to provide security for that sum shortly after a mediation, which is scheduled to be completed by 30 April 2010. A trial date has not yet been fixed.

Fitzroy has argued that the order should not be made as it would shut Fitzroy out from pursuing its case and that there are many reasons why the order sought by Brisbane Lions should not be made. Argument took place today on whether Brisbane Lions should be able to cross-examine Mr Bill Atherton, the Secretary of the Fitzroy Football Club, on his affidavit about the finances of Fitzroy, and whether the membership and supporter base of the Club had been canvassed to provide financial support for the litigation.

It was never Fitzroy's case on Brisbane Lions' application for costs security, that Fitzroy had done so. Rather, Fitzroy's case is that if an order were made for Fitzroy to provide security for the costs sought by Brisbane before trial, Fitzroy would then have to launch a public appeal seeking help from members and supporters, and the public generally, to fund the costs Brisbane Lions is seeking.

 

[Black Falcon]

A Merger Marriage made in AFL heaven being denigrated to the courts sounds a lot like a divorce folks. Akermanis got the dogs but who gets to keep the big cat? Brisbane cannot go back to being the Bears, cos QRU grabbed the logo for the Reds.

Seriously tho, excellent thread bloggers. Best I've seen.

Personally, I was aghast when I read that Lions had the paddle-pop logo. Why change a successful image? The new one is too old looking.

Then for the execs to say "we doubt Fitzroy will be able to cover our court costs" was arrogance and ingratitude to the max. Brisbane has been a 'corporate-corporates' club with its membership pricing, and their contempt for the Fitzroy section of its membership is now showing.

I understand the Brisbane argument that "we're still keeping the Lion logo in perpetuity, we just want to change its appearance", but its the way they've gone about it, like bullies in the playground I don't appreciate.

The spirit of the Merger, and the Spirit of the agreement was that THAT Lion was kept in perpetuity ie the Fitzroy Lion. To argue otherwise is legalese evil, or from their point of view "the devil is in the detail."

If this is how the Brisbane Board rewards a vital component of its membership after delivering a three-peat in flags, then quite clearly heads must roll in the Boardroom.

 

[Black Falcon]

Further to the above, club song :

We will always strive for victory
Like Fitzroy and Bears of old
All for one, and one for all
We will answer the call

Looks like Brisbane Lions had better start being
the ONE for ALL of its supporters

 

[3KZ is Football]

A couple of Fitzroy officials have also suggested to me that a few "ex-Fitzroy" supporters who are becoming alienated from the Brisbane Lions, are also returning to support the Fitzroy Football Club, by becoming Fitzroy members.

Clubs change. Personally I really don't see much difference between the Fitzroy Football Club of say before 1966 and the Fitzroy of 2010. Both effectively were amateur clubs, representing the suburb of Fitzroy, playing out of the same ground. Fitzroy Football Club has essentially returned to its' roots.

While I would never classify myself as an "ex-Fitzroy" supporter, I am a former member and life long supporter of Fitzroy who has returned to the fold this year, having taken out a family membership, after I found it impossible to continue as a Victorian based member of the Brisbane Lions. I will continue to be a supporter of the Brisbane Lions in the A.F.L. but not a member, at least not while they continue to wear that ridiculous jumper and while they continue to neglect their Victorian supporters.

Yesterday I was delighted to receive my 2010 membership ticket, a letter of welcome, a sticker and the most recent Annual Report of the Fitzroy Football Club. I will be taking my 5 month old son to watch Fitzroy as soon as he is old enough and he, like me, will hopefully be first and foremost a Fitzroy supporter. His late grandfather was born in Holden Street and as a child attended games at the Brunswick Street Oval. It will be great for us to once again support Fitzroy at their spiritual home.

I really don't care about the legal side of the matter, although Roylion, you have nailed it yet again, for me it is about the heart and the blood that flows through the veins and let me tell you, it feels like Fitzroy to me!

'Carn the Roys!

 

[Dylan12]

I really don't care about the legal side of the matter, although Roylion, you have nailed it yet again, for me it is about the heart and the blood that flows through the veins and let me tell you, it feels like Fitzroy to me!

Being a lawyer myself, the legalities of the matter are of interest. My family have long been financial of the Roys for decades and continued the tradition into the Brisbane Lions.

What I am finding really frustrating at the moment is how the Brisbane Lions "choose" to honour Fitzroy whenever it suits. We know they don't give a stuff about the merger agreement, the jumper etc, playing 7 games in Victoria each year, but then when convenient will mention the history/heritage of a particular guernsey and who wore it etc and then (I am honestly not trying to be disrespectful here) will honour Fitzroy greats such as Clen Denning this week.

Forgive me, but I would rather the Brisbane Lions either wholly support the merger agreement and everything Fitzroy or completely do away with it instead of this convenient way of taking or using little bits of Fitzroy that suits them in order to justify or prove that that we are a merged club. And I am truthful when I say that I do not think the club is sincere with the vale to Clen Denning. An article on a website and wearing black armbands is tokenism at best to Fitzroy and really is not anything that is permanent, such as a jumper or demanding the AFL that the Lions play 7 games in Vic, or demanding a better deal for Lions members in Vic or actually utter the word "Fitzroy" occasionally to build up games in Vic.

 

[adey115]

What I am finding really frustrating at the moment is how the Brisbane Lions "choose" to honour Fitzroy whenever it suits. We know they don't give a stuff about the merger agreement, the jumper etc, playing 7 games in Victoria each year, but then when convenient will mention the history/heritage of a particular guernsey and who wore it etc and then (I am honestly not trying to be disrespectful here) will honour Fitzroy greats such as Clen Denning this week.

Forgive me, but I would rather the Brisbane Lions either wholly support the merger agreement and everything Fitzroy or completely do away with it instead of this convenient way of taking or using little bits of Fitzroy that suits them in order to justify or prove that that we are a merged club. And I am truthful when I say that I do not think the club is sincere with the vale to Clen Denning. An article on a website and wearing black armbands is tokenism at best to Fitzroy and really is not anything that is permanent, such as a jumper or demanding the AFL that the Lions play 7 games in Vic, or demanding a better deal for Lions members in Vic or actually utter the word "Fitzroy" occasionally to build up games in Vic.

I agree with Dylan completely.

The black arm band this week confuses me - although I assume it is worn this week instead of last, because Clen Denning also played a season (I think) for the Blues during his playing career.

What may have been more appropriate than a black arm band now, might have been placing the 1944 Premiership Cup on the ground near where the players run out at their first game in Melbourne this year, to acknowledge the passing of the last member of the 1944 playing side that won the flag. No need for a black arm band, which in my mind is a little inappropriate some months after Clen's passing.

This would have been appropriate at a game early in the season in Melbourne this year. Oh....

 

[3KZ is Football]

Thanks Dylan12 and adey115, you have both accurately articulated what I had thought when I read about the appropriate, but delayed, honouring of Clen Denning this week. Black arm bands should be worn at the first available opportunity after the passing of a former player or person connected with the club, not as part of an "event" at some stage down the track.

Diminishes the gesture and leaves a subtle aftertaste of P.R. spin.

Go Lions!

 

[madvass]

Thanks Dylan12 and adey115, you have both accurately articulated what I had thought when I read about the appropriate, but delayed, honouring of Clen Denning this week. Black arm bands should be worn at the first available opportunity after the passing of a former player or person connected with the club, not as part of an "event" at some stage down the track.

Diminishes the gesture and leaves a subtle aftertaste of P.R. spin.

Go Lions!

IMHO i think thats a bit harsh. The guy died in November last year, last week they wore the black armband for our captain's grandfather who died a week or so before. Round 2 would be the next avalable round IMHO. And if i do recall correctly, the Lions webiste did provide a mention on their website at the time of Clen's passing. I was a die hard fitzroy supporter as well and I dont agree with all the things the club have initiated during the last couple of months, but we can't keep striking them down every chance we get.

 

[Hollow Knight]

IMHO i think thats a bit harsh. The guy died in November last year, last week they wore the black armband for our captain's grandfather who died a week or so before. Round 2 would be the next avalable round IMHO. And if i do recall correctly, the Lions webiste did provide a mention on their website at the time of Clen's passing. I was a die hard fitzroy supporter as well and I dont agree with all the things the club have initiated during the last couple of months, but we can't keep striking them down every chance we get.

This.

If you are desperate to find fault with something, you will. Some people are just desperate to pot the club over everything at the moment. Keep the anger focused and productive.

RE: Clen Denning... one of his grandchildren has posted on the Brisbane Lions Facebook page to say how honoured and pleased they are with what the Lions are doing tomorrow night to pay tribute to him. Good enough for me.

 

[3KZ is Football]

Points taken madvass and Brown Dog.

Go Lions.