Fitzroy Vs the Paddle Pop lion court case

[Dylan12]

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.

Sure I have been critical of the Brisbane Lions of late concerning their treatment of Fitzroy, but I take umbrage at being "desperate to pot the club over everything at the moment." However, I stand by my comment, and know others do, that the Brisbane Lions pick and choose whatever convenient part of Fitzroy suits. Harsh...maybe...off the mark...maybe, but not far from it either.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Sure I have been critical of the Brisbane Lions of late concerning their treatment of Fitzroy, but I take umbrage at being "desperate to pot the club over everything at the moment." However, I stand by my comment, and know others do, that the Brisbane Lions pick and choose whatever convenient part of Fitzroy suits. Harsh...maybe...off the mark...maybe, but not far from it either.

Is there an exact benchmark of correct Fitzroyness that I am unaware of?

 

[Dylan12]

Is there an exact benchmark of correct Fitzroyness that I am unaware of?

C'mon, of course not. I am hardly trying to be sarcastic about this but I reiterate my earlier point. Either honour a merged partner properly or not at all. The board, CEO, a smarmy barrister have all clearly alluded to the hinderance of being merged with Fitzroy has become.

A starting benchmark would be to honour the merger agreement. Now, without having the agreement in front of me, the club should be demanding a minimum of 7 games in Vic and sticking to the jumper/logo. During the premiership years, the club often referred to Fitzroy regularly and its history...the Bris Lions have been awfully quiet for a numebr of years.

Overall TBD, I know you are smart enough to recognise that the club's recent attitude towards Fitzroy has been deplorable. To then, come out occasionally and say that this particular guernsey has x amount of history and commemerate Denning now after all the recent crap reeks of painting a picture that the club "honours" Fitzroy heritage. To some it may appear so, but to most who were Fitzroy through and through, it comes across of just picking whatever suits the club on any given day without a real firm committment.

That is my take TBD, I am sure you may have your own, but until the board/ceo etc proactively start to recognise Fitzroy, the lions jumper etc, I am very sceptical of their motives...but that is me.

 

[Stocka]

C'mon, of course not. I am hardly trying to be sarcastic about this but I reiterate my earlier point. Either honour a merged partner properly or not at all. The board, CEO, a smarmy barrister have all clearly alluded to the hinderance of being merged with Fitzroy has become.

A starting benchmark would be to honour the merger agreement. Now, without having the agreement in front of me, the club should be demanding a minimum of 7 games in Vic and sticking to the jumper/logo. During the premiership years, the club often referred to Fitzroy regularly and its history...the Bris Lions have been awfully quiet for a numebr of years.

Overall TBD, I know you are smart enough to recognise that the club's recent attitude towards Fitzroy has been deplorable. To then, come out occasionally and say that this particular guernsey has x amount of history and commemerate Denning now after all the recent crap reeks of painting a picture that the club "honours" Fitzroy heritage. To some it may appear so, but to most who were Fitzroy through and through, it comes across of just picking whatever suits the club on any given day without a real firm committment.

That is my take TBD, I am sure you may have your own, but until the board/ceo etc proactively start to recognise Fitzroy, the lions jumper etc, I am very sceptical of their motives...but that is me.

I tend to agree with this and it is the feeling that I've been getting regarding the issues of the last few months. Essentially, the feeling is that the Fitzroy link is exploited when it's financially favourable, but merely receiving lip service on other occasions.

With that said, I don't like the idea that some (not necessarily yourself Dylan) have been putting out about "demerging" the club. For someone like myself and my dad, this would put us in the position of having no AFL club to support. Well, for my dad and me, this is one of the things that we do together. I don't think I could handle not having that and the idea of having to choose a different AFL team is a hard one to stomach.

As much as I am extremely disappointed by the logo/jumper issue amongst a couple of other things, I would be even more disappointed if there was no club in the AFL that at least in some way represented the Fitzroy identity. Hopefully things change and this link in the merged club of the Brisbane Lions moves away from merely giving lip service to the merger agreement and seemingly only making the Victorian connection significant when there is money to be made out of it.

 

[Dylan12]

With that said, I don't like the idea that some (not necessarily yourself Dylan) have been putting out about "demerging" the club.

As much as I am extremely disappointed by the logo/jumper issue amongst a couple of other things, I would be even more disappointed if there was no club in the AFL that at least in some way represented the Fitzroy identity. Hopefully things change and this link in the merged club of the Brisbane Lions moves away from merely giving lip service to the merger agreement and seemingly only making the Victorian connection significant when there is money to be made out of it.

Completely agree. My family and I have all been staunch Fitzroy/Brisbane Lions members for many decades and ever since I can remember. My family were all for Fitzroy relocating to Brisbane at the end of the 86 season and we were especially supportive of the merger in 1996 as it retained our identity unlike the takeover attempts of the Bulldogs in the early 90's and North Melbourne in 96.

I actually think I did get over excited a day or two ago and said if the Brisbane Lions did not honour Fitzroy, then it should de-merge. Well that was clearly me being melodramatic, because like you Stocka, I would be left without a club. I absolutely love the lions to bits, probably even too much, however I just want the club to embrace Fitzroy like it once used to and cease this lip service that they only seem to give lately.

 

[Always a Lion]

Is there an exact benchmark of correct Fitzroyness that I am unaware of?

What?

All that any Brisbane Lions supporter via a Fitzroy origin asks for, is that the merger agreement be abided by.

Hell we'll even take what the admin has dished out for us in recent years.

That will do. Brisbane Lionness pre October 2009 was adaquate enough Fitzroyness for me.

I get it TBD, you wanna move on. So do I/we, the last thing we want to be bothered by is losing our club. Again.

We are not the bullies. Just people with a vested and invested interest.

 

[Hollow Knight]

What?

I have a pretty good track record of being sympathetic to the Fitzroy cause, I just find it hard to understand how the same people complaining about a lack of reaching out to Fitzroy then complain that something like the Clen Denning tribute is a shallow charade.

I am all for holding the admin accountable but to do that effectively doesn't involve blindly poo-pooing everything they do.

Keep the rage focused and productive. There will be an approprate time to re-ignite the debate regarding jumpers, logos and merger agreements. In the mean time, bring on the Navy Blues. Footy's back!

 

[Dylan12]

I just find it hard to understand how the same people complaining about a lack of reaching out to Fitzroy then complain that something like the Clen Denning tribute is a shallow charade.

Because it is short-term gesture and tokenism at best. I probably wouldn't feel that way if the club had honoured the merger agreement and openly spoke of trying to obtain a better deal for Vic members, the 7 games in Melbourne, belittled those opposing the jumper change, Tony Kelly's condescending open memo etc etc etc, the list just goes on and on.

I am all for holding the admin accountable but to do that effectively doesn't involve blindly poo-pooing everything they do.

I am not trying to shit on the admin people at every turn or doing it blindly, I have clearly stated my reasons that I believe it is lip service in an attempt to be seen to be respecting the Fitzroy heritage. Well, give me something tangible and long lasting and I will get off their back.

Keep the rage focused and productive. There will be an approprate time to re-ignite the debate regarding jumpers, logos and merger agreements. In the mean time, bring on the Navy Blues. Footy's back!

So far this evening, the discussion concerning the above IMO has been what you would call focussed and productive. I have no problem whatsoever with your opinion TBD, but surely threads such as this are designed to discuss such concerns on an ongoing basis.

That being said, I hope we smash the Blues tomorrow night and make the Gabba a hostile environment for both Blues players and fans alike.

 

[Always a Lion]

Yes, I know your track record TBD, and I have to say that as Brisbane Lions people we mostly share very similar views.

My take or interpretation on what Stocka and Dylan are saying is that it is pretty difficult to follow just how genuine the Admin is about anything Fitzroy. I can understand how they feel, and how sceptical they are. They feel poo-pood by the Admin. Hard to be loyal in the face of disloyalty.

Personally I applaud any honour and respect that our past champs are being payed, whether they be old Roys or old Bears.

I take your advice to remain focused, and hope that what you say is true, that there will be an appropriate time to re-ignite the debate re jumpers, logos and merger agreements (other petty stuff ought not be lumped in with that load), but at the moment momentum does seem to be slipping away, whilst we focus on the field (which is perhaps what the Admin wishes us to do).

I wish to do the same. Footy is back and I'm excited. C'mon Lions, Send those Carlton lads back home black and blue.

 

[Stocka]

I think the issue is not so much whether or not the tribute to Clen Denning is superficial. I think the tribute itself will indeed be sincere and honouring of him as a person and will pay due respects to his family.

I suppose, in the eyes of those Brisbane Lions supporters who are coming from a Fitzroy perspective, that it is more a case of contrasting this with what appears to be a disregard for the spirit of the merger in other areas. This perhaps then makes the tribute appear to be a case of paying lip service to the supporters who follow the club due to the merger agreement, as opposed to saying that the tribute to the person of Clen Denning and his family is superficial.

 

[Jorgo]

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.

That guy is actually a mate of mine. I know he's very proud of his Pop and his career and know he's stoked about the Lions remembering him.

So let's not tarnish a nice gesture with pointless squabbling.

Vale.

 

[lionbear]

For me its a case fo there is a time to argue for the old jumper to be returned. Lets leave that till October ans make sure we as supporters are all as one in trying to pay tributes to former greats the right way and supporting the club in a premiership push.

 

[LionKing]

Bump

SUPREME COURT LIST FOR Monday, 03 May 2010

Associate Justice Mukhtar
Court 4, Ground Floor 436 Lonsdale Street, Melb.
4:15 - 2 S CI 2009 10642 Fitzroy Football Club Limited v.
Brisbane Bears-Fitzroy Football Club Limited (For Judgment)

 

[western royboy]

Bump

SUPREME COURT LIST FOR Monday, 03 May 2010

Associate Justice Mukhtar
Court 4, Ground Floor 436 Lonsdale Street, Melb.
4:15 - 2 S CI 2009 10642 Fitzroy Football Club Limited v.
Brisbane Bears-Fitzroy Football Club Limited (For Judgment)

It's just like Mad Max III - Two men enter - One man leave.

 

[whatboutbob]

Looks like they couldn't work it out between themselves.

Wonder if these things are open to the public?

 

[LionKing]

Looks like they couldn't work it out between themselves.

Wonder if these things are open to the public?

Yes it is open to the public

I was going to pop in and have a look myself but I have other pressing commitments to attend

 

[GingerGreatness]

Unless I've missed something, the only thing being decided today will be the admin's costs security application.

ie. In response to the Roys bringing their Application re: the logo, the admin brought an application seeking an Order that before any trial of the Roys case, they (the Roys) put up a surety for the admin's costs - these types of Orders are usually only made when the a person bringing an Application (the Roys) is thought to have a fairly dodgy case, or if the person bringing the case (the Roys) is thought to have limited financial means to meet an Order to pay the defendant's costs if they lose.

This is why at the last hearing, the admin were suggesting the Roys case was dodgy and their supporter base dead or dying - they were trying to convince the Court that the case brought against them was rubbish, or the Roys couldn't meet a costs Order if they lost.

If the admin's application for surety is successful (what I understand is being decided today), then the Roys have 2 choices:-

1. find the funds to put up the surety ($175k odd I think the admin wanted) - this money doesn't go anywhere, unless they lose the case of course;

2. pull out of the litigation, in which case, the case ends.

If the admin's application for surety is not successful, the case continues towards trial - the next step being mediation.

Yay - Litigation

 

[whatboutbob]

Thanks GG.

 

[Eons]

Unless I've missed something, the only thing being decided today will be the admin's costs security application.

ie. In response to the Roys bringing their Application re: the logo, the admin brought an application seeking an Order that before any trial of the Roys case, they (the Roys) put up a surety for the admin's costs - these types of Orders are usually only made when the a person bringing an Application (the Roys) is thought to have a fairly dodgy case, or if the person bringing the case (the Roys) is thought to have limited financial means to meet an Order to pay the defendant's costs if they lose.

This is why at the last hearing, the admin were suggesting the Roys case was dodgy and their supporter base dead or dying - they were trying to convince the Court that the case brought against them was rubbish, or the Roys couldn't meet a costs Order if they lost.

If the admin's application for surety is successful (what I understand is being decided today), then the Roys have 2 choices:-

1. find the funds to put up the surety ($175k odd I think the admin wanted) - this money doesn't go anywhere, unless they lose the case of course;

2. pull out of the litigation, in which case, the case ends.

If the admin's application for surety is not successful, the case continues towards trial - the next step being mediation.

Yay - Litigation

very informative. cheers

any idea how jumper and merch sale have been this year compared to previous years?

 

[Hollow Knight]

Fitzroy FC - 1, Brisbane Lions administration & AFL - 0.

Case to proceed without Fitzroy needing to provide financial guarantee.

Next step is more mediation.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/lion-logo-row-brisbane-v-fitzroy-in-court-20100503-u3h7.html

 

[whatboutbob]

From the link above:

The parties will attend mediation on May 19 ahead of a directions hearing on May 28

Anyone care to explain a "directions hearing"?

 

[GingerGreatness]

^^^

Where the judge will check whether the matter has settled at mediation and if so, make Orders getting rid of the matter. If not, Orders (called directions) will be made - usually setting dates for the final trial of the matter, and make any other administrative Orders necessary to ensure both parties are ready to go on the trial dates.

 

[notting18]

Anyone care to explain a "directions hearing"?

Basically as GG said it is "Daddy" checking in to see what the current situation post mediation as part of a case management system in place to ideally avoid disputes going through to trial.

From a policy point of view re: access to justice I am glad the Administration were unsucessful though as I don't see that the financial guarantee rules should be utilised in situations like this...

 

[whatboutbob]

Thanks guys.

 

[NoelMugavin]

Thank you for the update..it is greatly appreciated!!