Fitzroy Vs the Paddle Pop lion court case

[Stocka]

Still leaves your question unanswered: error, or intention.

One of the great philosophical and psychological questions of our time....

 

[Last of the Roys]

Scott Palmer wrote a little blurb about both logos being on the website in today's Sunday Herald Sun. When I went to the website today the old logo was gone.

I don't really know what if anything is going on, although there is a report on the Fitzroy BigFooty board of Brisbane perhaps caving in to Fitzroy's demands re the official use of the old logo (note that doesn't mean a change in the Paddle Pop jumpers or the marketing use of the Paddle Pop logo).

 

[Football Pope]

And it's back today......

 

[fitzroy_lions123]

it is too!
interesting....

 

[Mobbs]

oh yeah, look at that!

 

[weevil]

And it's back today......

LOL there is clearly something going on.

 

[Mobbs]

Is anyone else visualising two webmasters tried to hold each other back from the enter key at a desk up in Brissy?

 

[whatboutbob]

From Tony Kelly's intro to the latest Lions Tale, after detailing the positives from this season:

Our sole disappointment and frustration is the continued spending of a great deal time, effort and members' valuable money on the logo dispute with the Fitzroy Football Club. We are happy to receive all feedback but not pleased to spend large amounts of precious club income on legal costs when this money could be much better spent on improving members' services.

Great to read that the club's going so swimmingly that this is their sole disappointment.

 

[Roylion]

Our sole disappointment and frustration is the continued spending of a great deal time, effort and members' valuable money on the logo dispute with the Fitzroy Football Club. We are happy to receive all feedback but not pleased to spend large amounts of precious club income on legal costs when this money could be much better spent on improving members' services.

A situation of your own making Tony. Had you consulted your merger partner over one of the two remaining planks of the merger agreement you have with them, then it's very likely that the time, effort and member's money you lament being spent, would not have needed to be spent.

In the end Fitzroy had to initiate Supreme Court action for that consultation to be made. Only now that consultation is called 'mediation'.

I guess Fitzroy members shouldn't be surprised. After all, Michael Bowers has made quite clear that the Fitzroy Football Club means little to him in the scheme of the Brisbane Lions. After all, in an interview with Jeff Dowsing in Inside Sport conducted last year, he dismissed the incorporation of the Fitzroy Reds into the Fitzroy Football Club as a Fitzroy Reds gimmick and that in his view, the Fitzroy Football Club was singularly no more but part of the new whole of the Brisbane Lions.

"I can't see it and people can spin it any way they like."

Apparently the Brisbane Lions hierarchy were quite surprised to learn in the first Supreme Court hearing that since the 'merger,' that Fitzroy had close to 1,500 of its own members. In fact it was clear that they felt that Fitzroy Football Club was just a shell of a company that was in no position to offer resistance to any change to the merger agreement that the Brisbane Lions wanted.

 

[royboy2]

The case for the plaintiff

With thanks to KruZin

 

[Jorgo]

The case for the plaintiff

Case closed.

 

[Hollow Knight]

I guess Fitzroy members shouldn't be surprised. After all, Michael Bowers has made quite clear that the Fitzroy Football Club means little to him in the scheme of the Brisbane Lions. After all, in an interview with Jeff Dowsing in Inside Sport conducted last year, he dismissed the incorporation of the Fitzroy Reds into the Fitzroy Football Club as a Fitzroy Reds gimmick and that in his view, the Fitzroy Football Club was singularly no more but part of the new whole of the Brisbane Lions.

"I can't see it and people can spin it any way they like."

To be fair Roylion, I think this can to some degree be reduced down to a matter of opinion.

Keep in mind that I threw some money Fitzroy's way, so I am not the enemy, but I can understand how some people might not see the Fitzroy Football Club in the VAFA as the same club they used to cheer for in the VFL/AFL and may instead see the continuation of Fitzroy being the club that wears their colours, their logo (up to 2009) and sings a variation of their song in the highest league in the land.

Laurie Serafini is certainly one of those people, and there are a few old Royboys who post here that think the same.

Personally (and keeping in mind I don't come from a Fitzroy background), my perspective was somewhere in the middle. You have the same Fitzroy legal entity providing the official legal basis of the old club who have given Brisbane the mandate to carry on the emotional/aesthetic representation of Fitzroy at the elite level.

The merger itself brings together these two spheres and that is what allows Fitzroy to live on at the top level and gives the Brisbane based AFL club a link to a heritage, history and support base of a great club that existed long before itself. IMO of course.

Fitzroy without the representation of Brisbane Lions = a once great elite club now battling away in the ammos (IMO)

Brisbane Lions without the legal and symbolic support of Fitzroy = a corporate entity shamefully disguised in the ill-gotten skins of a proud and historic club (IMO)

You clearly have a different appreciation of the situation and that is fine. Where we agree is that it is just so sad to see how the actions of a few Brisbane Lions officials have driven a massive wedge into the merger.

Bowers assessment of Fitzroy as a standalone ammos club is a matter of subjective opinion that he is entitled to. Where he has erred terribly is in seeming to not recognize how much there is to gain (and very little to lose) by respecting and preserving the relationship with Fitzroy.

 

[Mobbs]

As I don't receive any of this correspondence, can a get a little confirmation that :

Our sole disappointment and frustration is the continued spending of a great deal time, effort and members' valuable money on the logo dispute with the Fitzroy Football Club. We are happy to receive all feedback but not pleased to spend large amounts of precious club income on legal costs when this money could be much better spent on improving members' services.

is the actual wording in the whatever that mail out is? I presume its a Brisbane Lions FC mailout to its members?

 

[lionbear]

Bowers assessment of Fitzroy as a standalone ammos club is a matter of subjective opinion that he is entitled to. Where he has erred terribly is in seeming to not recognize how much there is to gain by respecting and preserving the relationship with Fitzroy.

I think this is the big one. Bowers needed to do some more research before changing the logo and underestimated the passion from down south.

Personally I am not a fan of the logo, but if Bowers shows me concise research justifying the change I wouldn't make a sound about it. His failure to do that is what has caused such a major issue for the club.

 

[western royboy]

As I don't receive any of this correspondence, can a get a little confirmation that :



is the actual wording in the whatever that mail out is? I presume its a Brisbane Lions FC mailout to its members?

Direct quote from Lion's Tale - Lions Members Newsletter

 

[Carn the Roys!]

I was a little put off by Bowers comments in the artical mentioned. But given I wasn't paying as much attention to football before Fitzroy merged with the Reds to start fielding sides again I didn't really know what you guys have been putting up with for a while from the guy running the club.
Bowers does not care about the history of the club one way or another, he cares about 'market shares' and 'brand recognition'. The kinds of things people go to the footy to forget about.
There's no way he could understand the importance of a football team playing in front of a few hundred die hards on a cold Melbourne saturday for no other reason than the love of the jumper.
Being one of those die hards who get down to see the Roys play at Brunswick St I'd like to see a stronger bond between the two clubs. For the good of both clubs.

 

[PaddlePopLion]

Personally (and keeping in mind I don't come from a Fitzroy background), my perspective was somewhere in the middle. You have the same Fitzroy legal entity providing the official legal basis of the old club who have given Brisbane the mandate to carry on the emotional/aesthetic representation of Fitzroy at the elite level.

The merger itself brings together these two spheres and that is what allows Fitzroy to live on at the top level and gives the Brisbane based AFL club a link to a heritage, history and support base of a great club that existed long before itself. IMO of course.

Fitzroy without the representation of Brisbane Lions = a one great elite club now battling away in the ammos (IMO)

Brisbane Lions without the legal and symbolic support of Fitzroy = a corporate entity shamefully disguised in the ill-gotten skins of a proud and historic club (IMO)

You clearly have a different appreciation of the situation and that is fine. Where we agree is that it is just so sad to see how the actions of a few Brisbane Lions officials have driven a massive wedge into the merger.

Bowers assessment of Fitzroy as a standalone ammos club is a matter of subjective opinion that he is entitled to. Where he has erred terribly is in seeming to not recognize how much there is to gain by respecting and preserving the relationship with Fitzroy.

Throughout this entire thread, this post IMO is the most balanced and accurately reflects the view of the majority of Lions supporters especially those based in QLD. Well put. I couldn't agree more.

 

[Mobbs]

Throughout this entire thread, this post IMO is the most balanced and accurately reflects the view of the majority of Lions supporters especially those based in QLD. Well put. I couldn't agree more.

Conflict of interest!!! (j/k)

 

[Mobbs]

Direct quote from Lion's Tale - Lions Members Newsletter

thanks western royboy, just had that confirmed also by another source

I just didn't want to go off half cocked in response to a quote that turned out to be in any way not the true reflection.

Forgive my obviously annoyed tone, but umm ... isn't the best way to avoid a legal challenge in this matter, to ... ahh ... not have breached the agreement ?

 

[Roylion]

... I can understand how some people might not see the Fitzroy Football Club in the VAFA as the same club they used to cheer for in the VFL/AFL and may instead see the continuation of Fitzroy being the club that wears their colours, their logo (up to 2009) and sings a variation of their song in the highest league in the land.

Laurie Serafini is certainly one of those people, and there are a few old Royboys who post here that think the same.

I can see why many supporters they would think so, even despite the fact that the AFL club operations of Fitzroy were essentially incorporated into that of the Brisbane Bears. I've been a member of the Lions from 1997-2009, so I also regard them as the guardian and embodiment of Fitzroy's AFL identity. However that does not make the Brisbane Lions the Fitzroy Football Club.

However legally the Fitzroy Football Club of 1996 is the same entity as that of 2010. Football clubs do not end or wind up, because they change competitions.

You have the same Fitzroy legal entity providing the official legal basis of the old club who have given Brisbane the mandate to carry on the emotional/aesthetic representation of Fitzroy at the elite level.

And as such, a merger agreement exists between those two entities. The Fitzroy Football Club still exists in its own right. The entity that now plays in the VAFA has one VFA premiership and eight VFL-AFL premierships and a merger agreement with the Brisbane Lions. They are not the Fitzroy Reds.

The merger itself brings together these two spheres and that is what allows Fitzroy to live on at the top level and gives the Brisbane based AFL club a link to a heritage, history and support base of a great club that existed long before itself.

And still exists in its own right.

Fitzroy without the representation of Brisbane Lions = a one great elite club now battling away in the ammos (IMO)

But still the Fitzroy Football Club with one hundred years of participation in the VFL-AFL.

Brisbane Lions without the legal and symbolic support of Fitzroy = a corporate entity shamefully disguised in the ill-gotten skins of a proud and historic club (IMO)

Some would say that was the situation now (and always has been).

You clearly have a different appreciation of the situation and that is fine.

I've been a shareholder of the Fitzroy Football Club since 1986 and still am in 2010. As such there is no doubt in my mind that the Fitzroy Football Club of 1986, 1996 and 2010 is one and the same. We've moved competitions of course, but that doesn't make Fitzroy a new club. We still wear the same jumper, we're back at our original home ground of Brunswick Street and so on.

It is just so sad to see how the actions of a few Brisbane Lions officials have driven a massive wedge into the merger.

Yes. But that gets back to my original point. Those officials have made it quite clear that the Fitzroy Football Club means little to them. Yet they are the Brisbane Bears - Fitzroy Football Club's merger partner. Even so, they weren't consulted on a change to an agreement between them.

Bowers assessment of Fitzroy as a standalone ammos club is a matter of subjective opinion that he is entitled to.

His assessment that the 'Fitzroy' competing in the VAFA is the Fitzroy Reds and as such has little to no stake in the merger agreement is wrong.

The Fitzroy Football Club is not "singularly no more" and is far more than merely part of the new whole of the Brisbane Lions. They are clearly separate entities.

Where he has erred terribly is in seeming to not recognize how much there is to gain by respecting and preserving the relationship with Fitzroy.

Not just Bowers, but the entire Brisbane Lions board of directors. All but one of them is Queensland based.

 

[Hollow Knight]

I understand all that Roylion.

My point is that some people have a different attachment to the Fitzroy identity. The legal continuity of an ABN (and I am being pointedly facetious here) may hold less of an affinity for some people relative to seeing their club colours represented at the elite level.

There are some Royboys here (I believe Bobby Beecroft is one of them) who identify Fitzroy as the element that is represented as part of the merger, and not the organisation that plays in the VAFA.

I certinaly am not in a position to say they are wrong, and I'd never suggest you are wrong either.

But some people definitely have a less "legal" (pointedly facetious again) assessment of affairs, and perhaps more of a subjective one. A gut feel perhaps.

 

[royboy2]

There are some Royboys here (I believe Bobby Beecroft is one of them) who identify Fitzroy as the element that is represented as part of the merger, and not the organisation that plays in the VAFA.

some people definitely have a less "legal" (pointedly facetious again) assessment of affairs, and perhaps more of a subjective one. A gut feel perhaps.

As do I

 

[Mobbs]

Correct Brown Dog, and the same works in reverse, as I know you respect.

My point is that some people have a different attachment to the Fitzroy identity. The legal continuity of an ABN (and I am being pointedly facetious here) may hold less of an affinity for some people relative to seeing their club colours represented at the elite level.

Legal continuity being one element. Ground, colours, song, names like Hughson in the team, and the actually that it is the same club - That also engenders an affinity. For Brisbane Lions fans, colours, song, AFL representation, nickname, lots of affinity there too. The one thing that (to me, personally) cannot be aligned between the two, is the respect of the Fitzroy of old. Fitzroy FC respects it, Brisbane Lions FC has people like Bowers.

There are some Royboys here (I believe Bobby Beecroft is one of them) who identify Fitzroy as the element that is represented as part of the merger, and not the organisation that plays in the VAFA.

And to think I gave that sonofabitch a position in the Roys FFC!

But some people definitely have a less "legal" (pointedly facetious again) assessment of affairs, and perhaps more of a subjective one. A gut feel perhaps.

Gut feel indeed, not the domain of one camp. My gut feel is that I'd prefer the option where the management doesn't opine that Fitzroy is just a thorn in the side of its quest for commercial greatness.

Summary: No matter what anyone says, ever, ever, EVER - folk high up at the Brisbane Lions FC has broken agreements, and then claimed they're hurt by being taken to task about it. Until they introduce some basic ethics into this issue, I cannot respect them as a football club at all, not to mention one that should engender my support. That BlackFlag guy on Bay 13 gets no quarter, what about an entire football club that welshes on a promise?

 

[Roylion]

My point is that some people have a different attachment to the Fitzroy identity. The legal continuity of an ABN (and I am being pointedly facetious here) may hold less of an affinity for some people relative to seeing their club colours represented at the elite level.

Yes, that's true. I've enjoyed watching Fitzroy's colours and lion go around in the AFL from 1997 onwards. That's why I've been a paid up member (until this year) and why I attended all four Grand Finals from 2001-04 (the only GFs I've ever been to), cheering for the Lions.

There are some Royboyshere (I believe Bobby Beecroft is one of them) who identify Fitzroy as the element that is represented as part of the merger, and not the organisation that plays in the VAFA.

Yes I understand that. A great many however regard the organisation that plays in the VAFA as the one and the same as the element represented as part of the merger.

Fitzroy, even in the dark years of 1997-2008, was always more than just merely an ABN and with the resumption of playing operations at the end of 2008, definitely is so.

In my view, as a lawyer and CEO Bowers should have understood that, more-so than supporters who by and large are far less interested in that sort of thing. Had Bowers and the Board consulted with the Club's merger partner over changes to "the Fitzroy lion logo", then the whole legal challenge by Fitzroy could have been avoided in the first place.

 

[whatboutbob]

In my view, as a lawyer and CEO Bowers should have understood that, more-so than supporters who by and large are far less interested in that sort of thing. Had Bowers and the Board consulted with the Club's merger partner over changes to "the Fitzroy lion logo", then the whole legal challenge by Fitzroy could have been avoided in the first place.

I keep returning to this point over the last few months. As such I can't help but conclude that the Board's actions in this matter have been either negligent, ignorant, deceptive or a combination of those.

Given their "we're not changing the logo" line, I'd be inclined to think deception is certainly not foreign to them and I suspect willful ignorance is not beneath them ("but we didn't realise your honour!").

Either way, none are characteristics I want in our club's administration.