Fitzroy Vs the Paddle Pop lion court case

[guzroo]

Does anyone know if the Fitzroy Football Club asked its members what they thought of the new logo before launching legal action. I would hate to think that a minority within the club are doing this without the majority.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Does anyone know if the Fitzroy Football Club asked its members what they thought of the new logo before launching legal action. I would hate to think that a minority within the club are doing this without the majority.

I reckon the Fitzroy admin consider it their assumed duty to ensure that the merger agreement is upheld.

But yeah, there could be discord in the Fitzroy membership ranks as to whether the admin's interpretation of that particular clause is correct or not. Roylion would know more about whether a plebicite or something was undertaken.

 

[whatboutbob]

Fitzroy Football Club win day in court

"Any follower, adult at least, of Australian football in Victoria remembers the misfortune of the Fitzroy Football Club - the Lions," Justice Mukhtar said.

"I think justice will be best served by allowing the plaintiff (Fitzroy) to continue with its case which, for all practical purposes, it will not be able to do if an order for security for costs is made.

"In my view, an order for security would unfairly stultify Fitzroy's right to litigate."

 

[Roylion]

I reckon the Fitzroy admin consider it their assumed duty to ensure that the merger agreement is upheld.

That's correct and has been so since the merger. For example Fitzroy threatened legal action at the end of 2004, when the only five games were scheduled in Victoria, breaking another clause of the merger agreement. That time a settlement was reached.

But yeah, there could be discord in the Fitzroy membership ranks as to whether the admin's interpretation of that particular clause is correct or not. Roylion would know more about whether a plebicite or something was undertaken.

There's been no formal vote, but Fitzroy canvassed quite a few of their members and shareholders before they took legal action. Fitzroy is a company limited by guarantee, so the shareholders elect the directors. Given today's ruling the case now won't cost Fitzroy a cent as their legal counsel are working pro bono. If there was any dissent and I haven't heard of any, today's ruling would remove one of the main reasons why dissent might arise.

 

[Back2Back2Back]

Does anyone know if the Fitzroy Football Club asked its members what they thought of the new logo before launching legal action. I would hate to think that a minority within the club are doing this without the majority.

Did the Lions ask the Brisbane based members either? I certainly don't remember approving any changes...

 

[GingerGreatness]

Haven't read it yet, but entire judgment from yesterday is here:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2010/180.html

 

[POBT]

For those interested, paras 5-7 sum up the decision.

1. Fitzroy has a reasonable case.

2. Fitzroy is pursuing this matter for altruistic purposes (ie they won't make any money).

3. A costs security order would be oppressive given Fitzroy's limited finances.

 

[adey115]

Did the Lions ask the Brisbane based members either? I certainly don't remember approving any changes...

The BL Board and Admin neither asked Melb based members or Bris based members. The X person 'focus group' (if it actually existed of 'independent' members) doesn't exactly amount to open dialogue with members.

 

[Football Pope]

For those interested, paras 5-7 sum up the decision.

1. Fitzroy has a reasonable case.

2. Fitzroy is pursuing this matter for altruistic purposes (ie they won't make any money).

3. A costs security order would be oppressive given Fitzroy's limited finances.

Thanks for that POBT.

 

[notting18]

Given today's ruling the case now won't cost Fitzroy a cent as their legal counsel are working pro bono. If there was any dissent and I haven't heard of any, today's ruling would remove one of the main reasons why dissent might arise.

Not exactly true. The decision in the supreme court yesterday prevents the Brisbane Lions from forcing Fitzroy from putting forward the party-party costs up front. If the FFC are unsuccesful, or even if succesful in extreme
circumstances, the court can, and
in most cases does award costs and the FFC could have to pay whatever the final party-party costs of the Brisbane Lions turn out to be. Although these costs can be capped and there is some discretion that applies.

 

[POBT]

I've had a bit of a think about it and I don't believe that the court will necessarily award costs against Fitzroy if they lose. While costs usually follow the event, the decision on the security order application is consistent with the way I think the court could determine a costs order. The reality is that the application by Fitzroy has some merit. Fitzroy aren't seeking the declaration in order to improve their financial state. Finally, Fitzroy has only limited ability to pay costs and a significant costs order could spell their demise. In the event that the BLs win, I think there's a good chance that the court will decide (perhaps on public interest grounds relating to the fact that footy is still a community game, even if it is big business to the AFL and its clubs) not to make a costs order against Fitzroy.

BTW, this isn't an informed opinion - just a bit of "vibe" talk!

 

[guzroo]

Did the Lions ask the Brisbane based members either? I certainly don't remember approving any changes...

While it would have been nice to have a say the board are elected to run the club in a way they see fit even if it means doing things without the member’s approval. Saying that if they loose this case they need to be held accountable for their actions.

 

[Judge]

I've had a bit of a think about it and I don't believe that the court will necessarily award costs against Fitzroy if they lose. While costs usually follow the event, the decision on the security order application is consistent with the way I think the court could determine a costs order. The reality is that the application by Fitzroy has some merit. Fitzroy aren't seeking the declaration in order to improve their financial state. Finally, Fitzroy has only limited ability to pay costs and a significant costs order could spell their demise. In the event that the BLs win, I think there's a good chance that the court will decide (perhaps on public interest grounds relating to the fact that footy is still a community game, even if it is big business to the AFL and its clubs) not to make a costs order against Fitzroy.

BTW, this isn't an informed opinion - just a bit of "vibe" talk!

POBT, I wouldn't be too confident about the above.

Financially, the result will not be great for the club (BLFC) either way.

 

[notting18]

I've had a bit of a think about it and I don't believe that the court will necessarily award costs against Fitzroy if they lose. While costs usually follow the event, the decision on the security order application is consistent with the way I think the court could determine a costs order. The reality is that the application by Fitzroy has some merit. Fitzroy aren't seeking the declaration in order to improve their financial state. Finally, Fitzroy has only limited ability to pay costs and a significant costs order could spell their demise. In the event that the BLs win, I think there's a good chance that the court will decide (perhaps on public interest grounds relating to the fact that footy is still a community game, even if it is big business to the AFL and its clubs) not to make a costs order against Fitzroy.

BTW, this isn't an informed opinion - just a bit of "vibe" talk!

Very possible, and the kind of analysis I would hope would be done, but it is still very much a case which gambles the future of the FFC

 

[lionbear]

A result in Fitzroy's favour would only have legal cost implications and some signage on the club.

Regardless of what happens we aren't going to change our jumper mid season and I heard Puma want out of AFL and our apparel sponsor's current contract finishes at the end of the year.

So a total re-print of merchandise is going to happen one way or the other.

 

[western royboy]

A few observations;

This can hopefully now be resolved thru mediation as Fitzroy have passed the first test and with the benefit of hindsight, they were always going to get this far based upon the Justice's initial comments.

Will Bowers and Co. face reality and realise that they stuffed up and backtrack from this position? Up until this point we haven't wasted too much cash but assuming we can't resolve it at mediation it will start to chew up the funds.

The jumper looks S&%$house in games can't they see that, The Lion just looks ridiculous, I've tried I've given it time but it's just never gonna happen for me.

 

[Hollow Knight]

I think it needs to be re-pointed out periodically that the Fitzroy legal challenge pertains only to the logo, not the jumper.

 

[JB75]

Whist the jumper doesn't have to be changed as the court case relates to the logo, it would seem ridiculous to keep the current lion on the jumper if the club logo was the Fitzroy Lion.

 

[Kickit2brown]

Having supported the Fitzroy & Brisbane Lions for a bit over 20 years, this is a small win in what has been the most disappointing time since i started following the club.

I was still young when the merger took place so i took it on the chin and moved on and followed the club regardless. I sat in the rain with my father and brother and watched us get thumped every week. We turned up rain, hail or shine.

The Brisbane merger was hard. I could no longer go to the footy and watch my team play more than 11 times a year, suddenly i had to settle to watch them 5 or 6 times a year and finals if possible. However watching the boys run out in that jumper each week made me PROUD.

I really hate to see what is going to come out of this. I feel as though even if fitzroy win, the supporters have lost, at the very least its a loss in faith of the club administration. It's a disgrace that it has come to this point and that some supporters who have been putting their $ forward who feel strongly about this point have had to see this happen.

I know it's very hard when you work in a corporate environment to take a backstep, admit you are wrong and reverse a decision but how is this current series of events benefiting anyone? It's common knowledge it has been a poor decision.

I have not spoken in person to a single AFL supporter i know that actually likes the new jumper. They all say the old one was better. It had character and it had tradition & to neutral supporters it looked good.

The public has spoken and very few people like the new jumper, or the way it has been handled. Bowers has had his chance to resolve this issue but he has sat in his corporate box avoiding the backlash instead of embracing the club and listening to the supporters. He is a prick and hopefully he gets what is coming to him.

 

[Jack4814]

Im flabbergasted by the whole thing. Its the same logo. Theres a lion with its paw on a footy. The only difference is that this logo looks about a hundred times better. If there had never been a merger and Fitzroy were still running around are they saying that they would never change their logo at all in the future?

 

[Roylion]

Im flabbergasted by the whole thing. Its the same logo.

No it's not. The new Brisbane Lions official logo is thus:

Theres a lion with its paw on a footy.

No there's not. I certainly don't see a lion with a paw on a footy in the official logo above.

The only difference is that this logo looks about a hundred times better.

That's your opinion. And it's one I, and quite a few other Brisbane Lions supporters and members, don't share.

If there had never been a merger and Fitzroy were still running around

Fitzroy ARE still running around.

www.fitzroyfc.com.au

Fitzroy don't currently use "the Fitzroy lion logo" because it is trademarked by the AFL.

are they saying that they would never change their logo at all in the future?

D you think Essendon will change their jumper at all in the future?

First of all it's not just a matter of changing the logo. Brisbane changed their logo in 2000, with no protest from Fitzroy, because their new logo met the requirements of the merger agreement that "the Fitzroy lion logo" be used in perpetuity. The one above does not. Hence the court case. Fitzroy are trying to ensure that the remaining relevant clauses of the merger agreement they were forced to agree to in 1996 are kept.

 

[Jack4814]

Essendon have changed their jumper. A couple of years ago we had an away strip where the red stripe was enlarged considerably so the jumper was kinda half red half black. Your new jumpers logo is the same as the old one, except the new one looks better. Our logo has changed many times over the years as well but it still has a plane on it, as yours still has a lion on it, which again looks better than the stencil art a 6 year old drew to come up with the old one. Oh and the new lion looks nothing like the paddlepop one

 

[Adamh707]

Opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one. Your still talking about the jumper, the case is not about the jumper.

 

[Dylan12]

Oh and the new lion looks nothing like the paddlepop one

Yeah, the paddlepop lion looks much better than what's on our jumper.

 

[PaddlePopLion]

I think I look GRRREAT!