News Lions to wear traditional jumper...now reduced by the club to the 'commemorative hat-trick jumper'

[Ronnie Baby]

Woot.

Woot. Woot. Woot.

Get the Vero logo off of it and I'll think about it.

 

[luthor]

Ordered mine yesterday

Ok.

Good ...and good on everyone who has dug deep into their pockets to by one (or more) of our real jumpers. At $143* something a pop they are not cheap.

Now....I can understand (and empathize) with the conscientious objectors who are taking the "screw your grubby little marketing ploy" line ........ But (and this is a BIG But), I firmly believe there is far more traction to be gained for the "cause" if the real jumper's sales are overwhelmingly sold out,as opposed to a wholesale boycott, which will not be treated as such, but treated as wholesale disinterest by our fearless leaders.

I 'm confident that affirmative action with the Real Jumper sales is a far better strategy than some kind silent protest.

* Member's discount

 

[matwt73]

No need to apologise GingerGreatness, I didn't take it personally.

 

[Skoob]

Ok.

Good ...and good on everyone who has dug deep into their pockets to by one (or more) of our real jumpers. At $143* something a pop they are not cheap.

Now....I can understand (and empathize) with the conscientious objectors who are taking the "screw your grubby little marketing ploy" line ........ But (and this is a BIG But), I firmly believe there is far more traction to be gained for the "cause" if the real jumper's sales are overwhelmingly sold out,as opposed to a wholesale boycott, which will not be treated as such, but treated as wholesale disinterest by our fearless leaders.

I 'm confident that affirmative action with the Real Jumper sales is a far better strategy than some kind silent protest.

* Member's discount

I used the new fangled "disagree" button.
I would buy a Guernsey maybe once every 2 or 3 years and suspect many would be the same (I'm talking regular season Home one) (also mean before the change). For all those opposed to the paddlepop, how many would have bought a Fitzroy jumper last year and order a Hero this year?
I fear the sales of "one offs" and commemoratives will have them rubbing their hands. In terms of sales, they sell plenty of paddlepops and are guaranteed sales of a commemorative thing each and every year, possibly moreso from those who hate paddlepop. A lot of people can't afford more than one Guernsey a year, or even one a year but as it stands I think such an exercise would demonstrate to the board that 'all those paddlepop haters are handing over hundreds every year to have something different'.
I don't disagree at all with the sentiments of a show of solidarity and preference. Just not sure this is the strategy to do it.

Two different angles, but I am confident that the pig-headed will be able to spin whichever situation in favour of their argument to keep the paddlepop and mothball the The Lion.
The way Holmes got on the front foot (which I thought was inflammatory) and declared we shouldn't get excited 'cause it ain't stayin', demonstrated their (the board)hard line and determination to not only refuse change but also to not even hear people's pleas.
Sell heaps and it's a good marketing exercise but only works as a one off.
Sell few and there isn't that much interest in our history or "that lion" .

For the record, I plan on ordering one. Mainly though as a celebration of the great men of the time and because their names are printed on it. I already have a jumper from the time.

 

[____]

Ok.

Good ...and good on everyone who has dug deep into their pockets to by one (or more) of our real jumpers. At $143*

* Member's discount

$128 after using the member's $15 voucher

Glad it will actually be put to good use.

 

[Whabbaghetti]

I feel that the suggestion that the guernsey will not be changing can only help drive sales for the commemorative jumper. I'm under the impression that sales of this piece of merchandise would be sabotaged to an extent if there was any thought we could change to it permanently next year or the year after.

Most clubs in recent times have had some sort of one off guernsey, or significant change to their away or clash guernsey to raise money for the club in merchandise sales. With the hall of fame event in Brisbane next year (or whenever its meant to be), one could put smart money on a Bears heritage guernsey being sold. The combination of these functions and one off commemorative guernseys raise much needed money for the club.

In a purely financial sense we are approaching the best time for a permanent change in guernsey. Would the Hall of Fame jumper have sold as well last year, or the 3peat jumper this year if we had the old guernsey? Who would'be spent $160 on a jumper that differed so slightly from the primary home guernsey?

The guernsey in its current form helps drive the sale of these pieces of merchandise; while it in its own right appeals to both supporters who don't care as much about the club's Fitzroy heritage, as well as those who are dedicated to the club and will wear any piece of merchandise the club puts out, no matter what's on it.

Because of this, I think there is still a chance of a change in the next few years, despite what is being said by the club's admin.

 

[spotthedog1]

Use of a 'lion logo' is not solely restricted to all things Fitzroy. England, Detroit, Aston Villa amongst others use a lion logo.

It's VERY clear that the logo of the Brisbane Lions was meant to be "the Fitzroy lion logo". , as the agreement very clearly states.

There is no other "Fitzroy lion logo". The Fitzroy Lion logo was first used in 1965 and became the official logo of Fitzroy in 1977 until 1996.

Otherwise the clause would have read

"7.2 c) The logo of the merged club will be a lion logo in perpetuity;"

It reads: "7.2 c) The logo of the merged club will be the Fitzroy lion logo in perpetuity;"

As I have stated, i differ from your view. Just because you read it that way doesn't mean that it is correct, and I strongly debate the assertion that anything about this is "VERY clear". I can even do something similar... The Fitzroy Lion image was never defined in the agreement. Obviously, small changes were made to the logo were made at various times during it's tenure at Fitzroy. At different times, it was combined with different symbols and backgrounds that prevented it from being the exact same logo at all stages during it's history. Which of those is "The Fitzroy lion logo". Surely if there was a specific element or image that this pertained to, it would have been defined in the agreement. The fact that it doesn't must surely indicate that the parties did not want it defined at a specific image. This is the exact same logic as you used. I actually don't think it 'surely' means anything, but saying that "they didn't say this, so it must mean this" is just wrong. By the same logic:

The club can't have meant the same image to be used across time, otherwise it would have specified what image. Otherwise the clause would have read

"7.2 c) The logo of the merged club will be identical to the Fitzroy Lions' marketing image used between 1977 and this merger in perpetuity."

It reads "7.2 c) The logo of the merged club will be the Fitzroy lion logo in perpetuity".

Vague, huh. I wonder why.

While I'm at it, there are various additional stylised designs that have been produced as a potential alternative. Many of these are significantly different to the sideways facing lion, though the Lion is still facing sideways. Some are yellow, some white, and I even saw a silver one that was lauded as a great adaptation of the logo by Fitzroy fans and suggested as a replacement. Why are these not considered different to the Fitzroy Lion? The PP Lion is only a minor change to the original - they've merely turned the Lion's head. If someone else can change his colour and it be lauded by the Fitzroy supporters, surely the club can turn his head.

I'm not asking you to agree with me here. I get that that won't happen, and I don't mind that. But just because I don't agree with you, doesn't mean I'm wrong. We just differ in opinion.

 

[lionbear]

Its actually pretty clear, can I ask you what the Paddle pop's Lion association with Fitzroy is?

 

[adey115]

"Synonymous with Greatness" - Absa-freaking-lutely.

I rest my case.

That the Club said this out loud as part of the press release, then shat in the face of it by saying that the PP is our across the club symbol ongoing, speaks so highly of the 'Club's (ie. Board) lack of connection with those it represents - its supporters and members - on this topic.

Ask the people Board members. Just bloody well ask them.

I plan to buy one and send a note telling them I've bought it, but I haven't been a member since they brought in the PP, nor bought any other piece of merchandise since they brought in the PP. IN pure and simple dollars terms - the Club has received nothing from me since they brought in the PP, and this is the first sign of dollars from me since the PP.

Perhaps if this 'two game' jumper sells like hot cakes, then the Board without connection to its constituents on this matter, will purely be fired up by the dollars generated by merchandise sales and perhaps raise the topic again. Maybe they'll be naive enough to think that if the 'temporary' jumper with the names on it sold, if we re-hash it again without the names on a permanent basis, it'll sell again.

I would hope that their thinking isn't that screwed up. But if that's what it takes to change the PP on the jumper then so be it. Buy it in its droves people, and tells these disconnected people what you really think.

 

[fortunatelygone]

$128 after using the member's $15 voucher

Glad it will actually be put to good use.

Did you have to go instore to use the members voucher? I tried to use mine online about a month ago and it wouldn't work

 

[____]

Did you have to go instore to use the members voucher? I tried to use mine online about a month ago and it wouldn't work

I think so. I plan on collecting mine before a home game (don't have a credit card so will have to pay by cash).

 

[whatboutbob]

Did you have to go instore to use the members voucher? I tried to use mine online about a month ago and it wouldn't work

I wonder if you could do it over the phone. There's a code on the voucher IIRC.

 

[lionbear]

I would love to know if this thread has had impact on the People at the club, I wonder if Lions Insider has seen this and passed it on?

 

[adey115]

I would love to know if this thread has had impact on the People at the club, I wonder if Lions Insider has seen this and passed it on?

You mean, I wonder if they take notice of what members and supporters actually think on this topic?

Seems to be wishful thinking there LB....

Line up a hundred people - Lions fans, non-Lions fans, Rugby League fans who have little regard to the Lions, people new to Australia, Martians....
Show them the 'two game' guernsey
Show them the PP guernsey
Ask them which one they think is better.......

I wonder what the balance would be.

 

[spotthedog1]

Its actually pretty clear, can I ask you what the Paddle pop's Lion association with Fitzroy is?

What it's association with Fitzroy is? It's a minor adaptation of the initial representation (even if you don't like it). It's still a lion. As I've stated, my opinion of the merger agreement stating that the lion shall remain the logo is that the club shall maintain the lion as the logo - not a specific representation of the lion, just the lion itself. Hence they are not going to change the logo, etc - still the Brisbane Lions, and not changing to the maroons, bears, or any other logo. "It's actually pretty clear"? No. It isn't. Will everyone please stop pretending that everything is black and white.

On a different note, it's been documented heavily that the old lion is preferred by most to the new lion. I saw the poll last year that gave options of the old and new, and the old was more popular with members (not all, but most). I'd be interested to see just how important most members feel that this is though. Obviously, most of the people commenting on this thread feel quite strongly about it, but I can't imagine there'd be more than 100 here in that crowd, despite the loudness with which they comport themselves, and most are diehard fans (certainly not using that as a derogatory word - i would consider myself a diehard fan). I would suggest that the average member isn't quite so diehard, and even if they prefer the design, I'd be interested to see how most (members, not just BF members) would rank it in terms of importance. Even more interesting, I'd be interested to see how a poll would go in terms of the old lion, the current lion, and a new lion that is actually decently designed (unlike the current). I'm not a PP fan, but i'm not an old lion fan either. I'd love the club to actually come up with a decent proposal for a new mascot image. Would be very interested to see how that would rank in voting.

Finally - to those who suggest that they aren't happy with lack of club consultation. I can understand this to a degree, but at the same time, it's rather whiny to be honest. I manage a business consultancy business, and as part of that, I help directors make decisions as part of their business. Now, doing polls and things like that are a useful tool, but not the be-all-and-end-all. At the end of the day, the owners (read: members) of a business (read: club) are responsible for electing the directors. Once this happens, that ends the owners (read: members) role in the running of the business. The surest way to destroy a business is to have every owner, manager and employee thinking that they are responsible for making decisions on behalf of the business. Everyone heads in different directions, and nothing works. The directors of the business should be appointed, and then make the decisions (after all, they are the ones experienced at running a business). Excellent directors then make the owners (read: members) believe that they were involved in the business. The owners (read: members) job, following the election of directors, is to sit down and shut up, or vote them out. In my opinion, the club made the decision and followed it through. Could they have done a better job of making the members believe it was their decision? Yes. But should the members really have had an actual vote? No.

I know that this is going to draw backlash, but oh well. I'm sick of this debate. It's done, BBFFC and FFC have settled, it's just a small group of fans who have their knickers in a twist.

 

[GingerGreatness]

I doubt it Lionbear.

The same way those in favour of the PP tend to get marginalised on this forum as some type of non-traditionalist sycophant, the "do something about the PP" crew get marginalised in the real world as anti-establishment, vocal minority yahoos. Both are unfair. And embarrassing.

 

[lionbear]

What it's association with Fitzroy is? It's a minor adaptation of the initial representation (even if you don't like it). It's still a lion. As I've stated, my opinion of the merger agreement stating that the lion shall remain the logo is that the club shall maintain the lion as the logo - not a specific representation of the lion, just the lion itself. Hence they are not going to change the logo, etc - still the Brisbane Lions, and not changing to the maroons, bears, or any other logo. "It's actually pretty clear"? No. It isn't. Will everyone please stop pretending that everything is black and white.

Minor adaption?

Come on, like it or not, its not a minor adaption, its a major overhaul of the clubs intellectual property, and the fact of the matter is when your an organisation that the board is a representation of the members, the failure to consult its members in a major way to make such a major change is a poor decision by the board.

I will say it a million times, I hate the logo, but the boards inability to provide us with solid research and information justifying the change or the failure to change back is what upsets me, it shows a failure in leadership and a failure to represent the members properly. Provide solid proof justifying the retention of PP and I will accept it, hate it but accept it.

I think the boards weakness in matters like this is why we are in such a poor state at the moment, we have no strength and thats why the club appears in my opinion weak on issues we should be fighting to the hilt on.

Port Adelaide have listened to their members on many things over the last 3 years and their crowds and results are starting to reflect this, when will our club do the same.

Its more than a jumper here, its the way the club goes about its processes which I personally believe is why we have ended up in such a mess.

 

[krisholio14]

I doubt it Lionbear.

The same way those in favour of the PP tend to get marginalised on this forum as some type of non-traditionalist sycophant, the "do something about the PP" crew get marginalised in the real world as anti-establishment, vocal minority yahoos. Both are unfair. And embarrassing.

As an outsider, it seems pretty clear to me as far as the jumper goes.

Of all the 'new' teams from the 80's and 90's, the Lions were the only ones to get it right from day one, with a simple, classic, timeless design. To the point it took the other clubs years to catch up. But as soon as they all caught up, the club decides to change to a design that is more convoluted and dated than any of the other new clubs ever had.

That guernsey will be back soon enough do worry about that. It's a beauty and eventually someone in the back room will see sense and bring it back.

 

[Hollow Knight]

I doubt it Lionbear.

The same way those in favour of the PP tend to get marginalised on this forum as some type of non-traditionalist sycophant, the "do something about the PP" crew get marginalised in the real world as anti-establishment, vocal minority yahoos. Both are unfair. And embarrassing.

I have no doubt that we are actually somewhat a minority. The issue is that the majority aren't pro-Paddlepop, they just don't really care either way. Which is absolutely fine.

But this just goes back to your previous point about it being a dividing element. If you have a minority (but a not-insignificant minority) of fans who are upset by the decision and then the rest (with seemingly a few exceptions) are completely apathetic either way... why make the decision.Especially when a large percentage of those upset are from a key stakeholder group in the merged club.

That is what doesn't stack up. The cons are obvious... the pros... still can't really see them.

I am sure I am seen by some as a club apologist at times, because even if I don't personally agree with a decision, I tend not to complain if I can see an underlying logic to it.

You won't often see me hammering the coach after a game for example if he made a strategic move that didn't end up working out, as long as the decision had some merit at the time.

Same with the cuts to the Victorian office... I don't like it, but I can appreciate the financial circumstances that led to the decision.

But that Paddlepop.... I just can't see the compelling logic to keeping it.

 

[Hollow Knight]

That guernsey will be back soon enough do worry about that. It's a beauty and eventually someone in the back room will see sense and bring it back.

I'd like to believe you, but our faith has already been tested a couple of times.

We have already gone through a few stages of "now is obviously the time for them to fix this" only to be disappointed.

 

[Skoob]

I have no doubt that we are actually somewhat a minority. The issue is that the majority aren't pro-Paddlepop, they just don't really care either way. Which is absolutely fine.

But this just goes back to your previous point about it being a dividing element. If you have a minority (but a not-insignificant minority) of fans who are upset by the decision and then the rest (with seemingly a few exceptions) are completely apathetic either way... why make the decision.Especially when a large percentage of those upset are from a key stakeholder group in the merged club.

That is what doesn't stack up. The cons are obvious... the pros... still can't really see them.

I am sure I am seen by some as a club apologist at times, because even if I don't personally agree with a decision, I tend not to complain if I can see an underlying logic to it.

You won't often see me hammering the coach after a game for example if he made a strategic move that didn't end up working out, as long as the decision had some merit at the time.

Same with the cuts to the Victorian office... I don't like it, but I can appreciate the financial circumstances that led to the decision.

But that Paddlepop.... I just can't see the compelling logic to keeping it.

This, but also;
I respect those who like and support the PP. (I am one who has bought PP merch though I prefer the traditional).
What should be noted though is that whilst the "hardline, give us our old Lion back or we'll boycott" type, (who's views I also respect) are vocal and passionate, PP supporters/advocates are not.
That's not to say they are not passionate supporters, just that in all the debates and arguments, I do not recall 1 (except maybe Kezz) argue hard for the retention of PP. No calls for "leave our PP alone" or "we hate" or "don't want the that old thing back."
Some are arguing that we don't need the old one but very few ever argue that the new must stay.

That is the major difference in the arguments.

 

[Roylion]

The Fitzroy Lion image was never defined in the agreement. Obviously, small changes were made to the logo were made at various times during it's tenure at Fitzroy. At different times, it was combined with different symbols and backgrounds that prevented it from being the exact same logo at all stages during it's history.

The Fitzroy lion logo in the Supreme Court case was defined by THE Fitzroy Football Club as follows:

Clearly a Lion, clearly Fitzroy's official logo from 1977.

The Fitzroy Lion logo (as above) itself was trademarked by the AFL, which means that Fitzroy cannot currently use the above image as part of its own club identity without AFL permission, even on different backgrounds. The AFL owns the Fitzroy lion trademark and its use was always governed by the terms of a licence agreement that Fitzroy had with the AFL; and Fitzroy’s rights over the trademark ceased when it transferred all its assets to the Brisbane Lions (then called the Brisbane Bears) under the merger terms and surrendered its AFL licence;

"The Fitzroy lion logo" has 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;

Each of these trademarks shows very clearly the above image. There is no doubt as to what 'lion', each trademark is referring to.

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" and appears in that trademark as:

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

Which of those is "The Fitzroy lion logo". Surely if there was a specific element or image that this pertained to, it would have been defined in the agreement.

See above.

Fitzroy Football Club, as a signatory to the merger agreement were very clear in their Supreme Court action in 2010 as to what they believed was meant by the Fitzroy lion logo. It was trademarked by the AFL.

Even the Brisbane Lions themselves were clear in 1999 when in their own magazine they said the Fitzroy lion logo currently used would be used "in perpetuity and its in entirety" for any future logo, including the one they had just changed.

The fact that it doesn't must surely indicate that the parties did not want it defined at a specific image. This is the exact same logic as you used. I actually don't think it 'surely' means anything, but saying that "they didn't say this, so it must mean this" is just wrong.

The image is clearly defined and trademarked by the AFL.

The club can't have meant the same image to be used across time, otherwise it would have specified what image. Otherwise the clause would have read

"7.2 c) The logo of the merged club will be identical to the Fitzroy Lions' marketing image used between 1977 and this merger in perpetuity."

It reads "7.2 c) The logo of the merged club will be the Fitzroy lion logo in perpetuity".

Vague, huh. I wonder why.

Because it was clear to all parties (and certainly clear to the Brisbane Bears and the AFL who wrote the agreement) what exactly was meant by the "Fitzroy lion logo". It had been imaged and described in four AFL trademarks. If they weren't clear as to what the image is, why are Fitzroy banned from using it?

While I'm at it, there are various additional stylised designs that have been produced as a potential alternative. Many of these are significantly different to the sideways facing lion, though the Lion is still facing sideways. Some are yellow, some white, and I even saw a silver one that was lauded as a great adaptation of the logo by Fitzroy fans and suggested as a replacement.

Why are these not considered different to the Fitzroy Lion?

They are different to the "Fitzroy lion."

The PP Lion is only a minor change to the original - they've merely turned the Lion's head. If someone else can change his colour and it be lauded by the Fitzroy supporters, surely the club can turn his head.

No. That change and any smoothing / stylizing or whatever changes the image and does not make it the Fitzroy lion, as identified in the AFL trademarks and the agreement.

 

[Dylan12]

I know that this is going to draw backlash, but oh well. I'm sick of this debate. It's done, BBFFC and FFC have settled, it's just a small group of fans who have their knickers in a twist.

Good afternoon Mr Bowers...or is it Mr Kelly.

 

[whatboutbob]

I'd be interested to see just how important most members feel that this is though.

Of the several hundred members surveyed (randomly) outside the gabba, the majority felt pretty strongly about it. The figures were published along with the rest of the data to which you've referred.

 

[Dylan12]

Changing football fashions
May 2, 2013
Sam Lord

Throughout it’s combined 127-year history – made up from Fitzroy, the Bears and the merged Brisbane Lions – the Club has worn a variety of different home guernsey designs.

While each holds its own special place in the Club’s history, there is no doubting that some have proven more memorable, and successful, than others.

Tuesday’s announcement that the Lions will be wearing a commemorative 3-Peat ‘Hero’ guernsey in two matches this season, has prompted lions.com.au to dust off the archives and take a look back at some of the Club’s different looks over time.

The launch of the 3-Peat ‘Hero’ guernsey is significant as it not only represents the most successful period in Club history, but also the first 13 years of the Club’s existence as a merged entity.

Typically, no explanation as to why the change after "the most successful period in Club history" or why the board implemented a change without the input of its own members.

What a weak, bullshit piece.