News Merger agreement broken again

Remove this Banner Ad

Dear *****
We work closely with the Brisbane Lions Football Club in relation to their fixture, in particular their games in Victoria given the fixture/scheduling landscape has changed dramatically since the Merger Agreement was drafted and signed in 1996, including:
· 12 matches (up from 11) in Queensland given the inclusion of the Gold Coast Suns
· 10 “home” matches for Victorian Clubs outside of Victoria – Darwin (2), Tasmania (6), Cairns (1), NZ (1) – that we do our best to share different Clubs through each year as the away side
· Removal of Optus Oval as a venue in Melbourne
In working with Brisbane Lions FC during the process for 2013 Fixture, we specifically ensured that a NAB Cup match (v Collingwood) was scheduled for Etihad Stadium in 2013 to ensure the Lions were in Victoria during the 3 rounds of that competition (which they would not have been otherwise) in recognition of there being 5 matches in Victoria in the home and away season in 2013.
We will continue to work with the Club on fixture issues in the years to come.
Regards,
Simon
mail

Simon Lethlean
General Manager- Broadcasting, Scheduling & Legal Affai
 
delirious1 said:
Dear *****
We work closely with the Brisbane Lions Football Club in relation to their fixture, in particular their games in Victoria given the fixture/scheduling landscape has changed dramatically since the Merger Agreement was drafted and signed in 1996, including:
· 12 matches (up from 11) in Queensland given the inclusion of the Gold Coast Suns
· 10 “home” matches for Victorian Clubs outside of Victoria – Darwin (2), Tasmania (6), Cairns (1), NZ (1) – that we do our best to share different Clubs through each year as the away side
· Removal of Optus Oval as a venue in Melbourne
In working with Brisbane Lions FC during the process for 2013 Fixture, we specifically ensured that a NAB Cup match (v Collingwood) was scheduled for Etihad Stadium in 2013 to ensure the Lions were in Victoria during the 3 rounds of that competition (which they would not have been otherwise) in recognition of there being 5 matches in Victoria in the home and away season in 2013.
We will continue to work with the Club on fixture issues in the years to come.
Regards,
Simon
mail

Simon Lethlean
General Manager- Broadcasting, Scheduling & Legal Affai
Click to expand...

This is from the AFL I assume?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

delirious1 said:
Dear *****
We work closely with the Brisbane Lions Football Club in relation to their fixture, in particular their games in Victoria given the fixture/scheduling landscape has changed dramatically since the Merger Agreement was drafted and signed in 1996, including:
· 12 matches (up from 11) in Queensland given the inclusion of the Gold Coast Suns
· 10 “home” matches for Victorian Clubs outside of Victoria – Darwin (2), Tasmania (6), Cairns (1), NZ (1) – that we do our best to share different Clubs through each year as the away side
· Removal of Optus Oval as a venue in Melbourne
In working with Brisbane Lions FC during the process for 2013 Fixture, we specifically ensured that a NAB Cup match (v Collingwood) was scheduled for Etihad Stadium in 2013 to ensure the Lions were in Victoria during the 3 rounds of that competition (which they would not have been otherwise) in recognition of there being 5 matches in Victoria in the home and away season in 2013.
We will continue to work with the Club on fixture issues in the years to come.
Regards,
Simon
mail

Simon Lethlean
General Manager- Broadcasting, Scheduling & Legal Affai
Click to expand...
Considering Princes Park was last used as an AFL venue in 2005, it shows that they are running pretty thin on excuses for the draw.
 
Is the Deed Of Arrangement enforceable ? If it is, then the AFL can and should be taken to court to make it right. If this part of the merger agreement isn't enforceable, does that make the rest of it as flexible. Could the FFC, for instance, decide that they don't want the club to be the Lions anymore ? If the Deed is not enforceable, then I'd suggest some frustration must be directed at the FFC people at the time who allowed it to be so.

And as for those calling for the Lions to be reinstated to the VFL, why ? How is the VFL anymore prestigious these days than the VAFA ? It's a mis-mash of struggling standalone clubs (Port aside) and AFL clubs that tell the likes of Box Hill, Casey etc what to do and when to do it. I'm sorry to say that FFC doesn't have the money to field a competitive side in the VFL. There is a lot of romance around for Fitzroy, but romance doesn't equate to dollars. You wouldn't be able to play at Brunswick Street, unless the ground was fully fenced off and the general public, drumming groups, or local social soccer groups were kept off it. Good luck with getting that through the Yarra Council. And what would happen to the club in the VAFA ? You wouldn't be able to have both. It would be wrong to ditch that team, with a strong on-field presence and strong juniors, for the romance of a VFL team.

I'd suggest you just forget about the AFL. Join up the VAFA team. You'll get 18 games in Melbourne. A bloody good standard of footy, and won't have to worry about the knobs running (or should that be ruining) the top competition in the land.
 
Absolutely right, Mappa, especially about the VFL/VFA. It's current format is an utter insult to the amazing second tier comp that was so tribal and infectious around suburban Melbourne with it's Oakleighs and Camberwells and Mordiallocs and Prahrans etc.

Some new superleague across the suburbs formed by breakaways from existing leagues, maybe. The VFL, it can go **** itself. Has the reek of where the AFL goes to relieve itself. The sooner the Frankstons, Ports, etc get out of there and get into some new league formed by clubs, the better for them and their reputation.
 
Mappa said:
Is the Deed Of Arrangement enforceable ? If it is, then the AFL can and should be taken to court to make it right. If this part of the merger agreement isn't enforceable, does that make the rest of it as flexible. Could the FFC, for instance, decide that they don't want the club to be the Lions anymore ? If the Deed is not enforceable, then I'd suggest some frustration must be directed at the FFC people at the time who allowed it to be so.
...
Click to expand...

Is it enforceable - ultimately only a court can decide that, but I believe it is. It was done I assume under the Corporations Act legislation that governs mergers, so I don't see why it wouldn't be enforceable. Brisbane, Fitzroy and the AFL were all ultimately parties to the merger.

However, court action is very costly, so who is going to fund it? The Lions are in a very bad situation financially and are beholden to the AFL (sound familar?). FFC might be able to help - but only if they got pro-bono representation, which would be a stretch. If I had some spare cash to throw around I would fund it myself. However, in the meantime the way to ensure it is enforced will be for the Lions and their supporters to put pressure on the AFL to do the right thing.

As for the last sentence - the Fitzroy side of the merger was handled at the time by the Administrator that was appointed by receivers to handle the Club. The Club's board and supporters had no say in the matter.
 
3KZ is Football said:
Here's the solution that I have put in place.

1. Don't buy a Brisbane Lions Membership.
2. Buy a Fitzroy Football Club Membership and attend as many of their games as possible.
3. Look forward to Saturdays in exactly the same way that I did in the '70's, 80's and early '90's.
4. Watch Brisbane games when they are on 'free to air' and maybe pay at the gate once or twice when they play in Melbourne.

It works for me!
Click to expand...

Yes to the first 3!
 
This is bullshit, and an insult to the old Fitzroy faithful! (I follow Melbourne, but my grandad is a mad Roys supporter who used to live near the Brunswick St oval).
I'm also disappointed that we aren't playing Brisbane in Melbourne this year.
 
Stocka said:
Given that teams like WCE, Fremantle, Port Adelaide, GWS and GC (none of whom could seriously claim a two-town focus like the Lions or Swans) have fewer supporters attending games in Melbourne than the Lions, these teams should be the ones who are fixtured in to play at these alternate locations, if Victorian-based teams are intending on playing their home games elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Ummm, no.

Teams like WCE, Fremantle, Port Adelaide etc. are not pawns to be moved around to satisfy AFL agendas. Why should West Coast be sent to all corners of the country to ensure that Brisbane gets the away games it wants?

I'm sorry, but the 'minimum Victorian games' clause is ridiculous and I hope is is not enforceable. It's a massive AFL **** up that it is there in the first place. Hawthorn for example have a contract to play 4 home games in Tasmania. If the draw was done properly they would be allocated their 11 home games then would decide which ones they would like to play in Tassie. If it's West Coast in Tassie and Brisbane in Melbourne then so be it, that should be their decision after the draw is released. That's not how it works, and the Tasmania clause (like a Brisbane Lions minimum Melbourne games clause) is yet another factor impacting the draw.

Don't get me wrong, I support the merged entity and the fight to preserve Fitzroy's place within said entity, but if the club is so keen on preserving its status as a 'two town' entity then how about lobbying for a BBFFC home game in Melbourne? It seems hypocritical to support Brisbane playing all home games in Brisbane and expecting the AFL to look after the FFC heritage via the fixture. Where was the outrage when Melbourne played home games at the Gabba?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Scotland said:
Ummm, no.

Teams like WCE, Fremantle, Port Adelaide etc. are not pawns to be moved around to satisfy AFL agendas. Why should West Coast be sent to all corners of the country to ensure that Brisbane gets the away games it wants?

I'm sorry, but the 'minimum Victorian games' clause is ridiculous and I hope is is not enforceable. It's a massive AFL **** up that it is there in the first place. Hawthorn for example have a contract to play 4 home games in Tasmania. If the draw was done properly they would be allocated their 11 home games then would decide which ones they would like to play in Tassie. If it's West Coast in Tassie and Brisbane in Melbourne then so be it, that should be their decision after the draw is released. That's not how it works, and the Tasmania clause (like a Brisbane Lions minimum Melbourne games clause) is yet another factor impacting the draw.

Don't get me wrong, I support the merged entity and the fight to preserve Fitzroy's place within said entity, but if the club is so keen on preserving its status as a 'two town' entity then how about lobbying for a BBFFC home game in Melbourne? It seems hypocritical to support Brisbane playing all home games in Brisbane and expecting the AFL to look after the FFC heritage via the fixture. Where was the outrage when Melbourne played home games at the Gabba?
Click to expand...
I have less of a problem with this than the fact that the AFL guarantees certain clubs blockbuster games every year regardless of where they are on the ladder. The poorer Victorian clubs have no chance of holding Friday night games because the AFL wants to maximise crowd attendences and revenue (has something to do with Vlad getting his big bonus).
 
Scotland said:
Ummm, no.

Teams like WCE, Fremantle, Port Adelaide etc. are not pawns to be moved around to satisfy AFL agendas. Why should West Coast be sent to all corners of the country to ensure that Brisbane gets the away games it wants?
Click to expand...

Why not?

As far as I'm concerned it suits the premise that we're talking about in this thread, from the perspective of the wants of Melbourne-based Lions supporters, that's why. As a WCE supporter you're entitled to feel differently, but I couldn't be bothered reading the tedious uptightness of the remainder of your reply, given that your perspective on the issue will be different to mine, therefore making your opinion entirely irrelevant, uninteresting and unwelcome to me and making any further discussion with you on the topic pointless on this board.
 
Scotland said:
Ummm, no.

Teams like WCE, Fremantle, Port Adelaide etc. are not pawns to be moved around to satisfy AFL agendas. Why should West Coast be sent to all corners of the country to ensure that Brisbane gets the away games it wants?

I'm sorry, but the 'minimum Victorian games' clause is ridiculous and I hope is is not enforceable. It's a massive AFL **** up that it is there in the first place. Hawthorn for example have a contract to play 4 home games in Tasmania. If the draw was done properly they would be allocated their 11 home games then would decide which ones they would like to play in Tassie. If it's West Coast in Tassie and Brisbane in Melbourne then so be it, that should be their decision after the draw is released. That's not how it works, and the Tasmania clause (like a Brisbane Lions minimum Melbourne games clause) is yet another factor impacting the draw.

Don't get me wrong, I support the merged entity and the fight to preserve Fitzroy's place within said entity, but if the club is so keen on preserving its status as a 'two town' entity then how about lobbying for a BBFFC home game in Melbourne? It seems hypocritical to support Brisbane playing all home games in Brisbane and expecting the AFL to look after the FFC heritage via the fixture. Where was the outrage when Melbourne played home games at the Gabba?
Click to expand...
I personally think we should (wce) play hawks in tas or melb in darwin.

I am a melbourne wce member & i sure know a lions supporter would be more excited to see the lions play in melb than i would be for a eagles game.

Want to know the reason why wce play most games at v melb
Teams in melb now??? $$$$$$$$ our corprate packages bring in lots of $$$ to the afl & its somthing that wce can not offer if a game is played in hobart or lunceston.
 
Ok lets look at the facts.
In 1996 fitzroy averaged 15,876 per game.
In 2012 port adelaide averaged 20,620. Of which included ( showdowns) which get 30-40

To say port are in a better position than the roys were in 1996 is a bit confusing. 5,000 improvement in 18 years in a 2team town
 
JM71 said:
Hasn't Etihad Stadium been added to AFL Venues since the merger agreement, therefore offsetting the loss of optus oval...
Click to expand...
Firstly as Mobbenfuhrer pointed out Etihad was built to replace Waverley, so we are still one ground down.

But the financial costs of playing games at Etihad means that the break-even point for crowd attendence is quite high, about 30,000, but at a smaller ground it would be much lower around 12-15,000 making games against the likes of GWS and Gold Coast profitable for the smaller clubs. A perfect example of this is what is happening at Geelong, they have the most profitable ground in the league by a considerable margin, it is so profitable that a crowd of 20,000 will make Geelong more money than a fullhouse at Etihad and a crowd of 30,000 would make more money than have 75,000 at the MCG.

I know that I and a majority of football fans at a game with only 20,000 at it would rather be in a ground that holds a maximum of 30,000 but has atmoshpere than a concrete monolith that has not atmosphere and feels empty with the same number of spectators.
 
Admiral Afterworld said:
Saying Brisbane and Fitzroy merged into one continuing club yet also saying VAFA Fitzroy is the original strikes me as a big slice of double cake.
Click to expand...
Admiral Afterworld said:
Saying Brisbane and Fitzroy merged into one continuing club yet also saying VAFA Fitzroy is the original strikes me as a big slice of double cake.
Click to expand...
I guess some other clubs may realise what its like to
Lose there side.mabye for say 2years
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #50
Admiral Afterworld said:
Saying Brisbane and Fitzroy merged into one continuing club
Click to expand...

They didn't merge into one continuing club. Who is saying this?

Admiral Afterworld said:
yet also saying VAFA Fitzroy is the original strikes me as a big slice of double cake.
Click to expand...

Is there a legitimate reason why Fitzroy Football Club in the VAFA is not the same club that once held a licence to compete in the AFL competition?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top