News New Western Bulldogs logo?

[jethro11]

If they were in the VFA from 1883 to 1896, that would of been 13 years. Plus 87 in the VFL/AFL, and you get 100 years.

 

[E92_]

Haha your funny. Wait your serious ?

And Geelongs is great. Not only that, it is unique that they have an on field and off field logo. And they both look amazing.

You're joking right? Take off the rose coloured glasses, Geelongs logo is probably in the top 6-7 worst logos in the AFL, it reminds me of the Brisbane and Adelaide logos with the cartoon looking animals.


Their off field logo on the other hand is great and should be their main logo.

 

[Omegaville]

Well, then there's the other argument which I was going to bring up but didn't.
The AFL being the "top level of competition" would be dated from either 1987 (WCE and BB making it a more "national" comp) or 1990 (adoption of the AFL name). Prior to that, at various times in history the VFA, SANFL or WAFL were of equal or superior standard.

 

[Mero]

Well, then there's the other argument which I was going to bring up but didn't.
The AFL being the "top level of competition" would be dated from either 1987 (WCE and BB making it a more "national" comp) or 1990 (adoption of the AFL name). Prior to that, at various times in history the VFA, SANFL or WAFL were of equal or superior standard.

Not in Victoria, which is where Footscray were playing.
From the minute the club delegates met to discuss which teams would break away it was always regarded as going to be the superior comp. Initially there were worries some of the clubs left in the VFA would not be able to pay their debts.
You can actually find a letter from Mr Copeland, (who the medal is named after) from Collingwood to The Age (early Oct 1896) where he complains about how unfair it is that some clubs are getting in to the VFL, where others aren't.
His solution was to merge the remaining VFA clubs into the closest VFL team, (Richmond with Collingwood, Port with South, North with Carlton, Footscray with Essendon) so that the debts would be covered.
He actually admits Collingwood were only asked to join because they'd had a good run with injuries and ended up winning the premiership. Had they not, as the newest club in the VFA, they probably wouldn't have been invited to join the VFL.

 

[aCunningPlan]

Well, then there's the other argument which I was going to bring up but didn't.
The AFL being the "top level of competition" would be dated from either 1987 (WCE and BB making it a more "national" comp) or 1990 (adoption of the AFL name). Prior to that, at various times in history the VFA, SANFL or WAFL were of equal or superior standard.

I agree, while the VFL was considered the better league it was not officially Australia's top flight league. The AFL however is. I would like to either see premierships counted from 1990, or all club premierships counted (ie. including Port's SANFL flags).

 

[Silent Alarm]

Nah, we should count it as VFL/AFL. The AFL is the same entity as what the VFL was, so you continuity should be maintained. You know how they had the Super League in rugby? If we had, say, the National Football Championship as a breakaway, then VFL records should be banished. However, such a competition or form of competition never existed.

The other thing is, only one club is going to benefit from this – Port. What's the point in that?

 

[____]

There should be two lists

One for VFL/AFL premierships

And one for VFL/AFL premierships from 1987 onwards.

Also irrelevant to this thread but when comparing premierships with Victorian teams, Fitzroy premierships should definitely count towards the Brisbane Lions.

 

[Gibbsy]

The other thing is, only one club is going to benefit from this – Port. What's the point in that?

That's why you usually only see Port supporters campaigning for this change.

 

[Gibbsy]

Also irrelevant to this thread but when comparing premierships with Victorian teams, Fitzroy premierships should definitely count towards the Brisbane Lions.

Nah. You know I disagree with a lot of your views, but don't take it personally. They are two entirely different clubs. Brisbane Lions is the product of a merger between Fitzroy and Brisbane Bears, but most people recognise Brisbane Lions as a continuation of the Bears (even the AFL, who have the Bears and Lions stats together as one - so if the Bears had have won a flag, it would be counted as a BL flag).

Fitzroy's premierships belong to Fitzroy - who are currently playing in the VAFA.

 

[Gibbsy]

Oh, and Roylion . Hehe

 

[SJ]

I agree, while the VFL was considered the better league it was not officially Australia's top flight league. The AFL however is. I would like to either see premierships counted from 1990, or all club premierships counted (ie. including Port's SANFL flags).

Counted in what? By whom? What list is this?

The VFL/AFL lists its premier teams since 1897. There is no tally or count.

Apart from the expansion franchises, basically all clubs have won flags outside of the VFL/AFL and clubs should take pride in their own history and success internally.

I see this no different to country and metropolitan footy clubs which often change leagues. Their historical premierships will always be remembered on the inside, but their opponents in a new league couldn't give a stuff about those.

 

[____]

AFL, who have the Bears and Lions stats together as one.

That really annoys me. Personally I think Bears/Fitzroy/Brisbane Lions should be kept seperately.

And I said when comparing to Victorian teams
e.g. Collingwood 15 flags, Lions 11
Lions 3, Crows 2

Can only compare apples to apples.

Anyway back on topic...

 

[LadyPants]

Fitzroy premierships should definitely count towards the Brisbane Lions.

That really annoys me. Personally I think Bears/Fitzroy/Brisbane Lions should be kept seperately.

Am I misreading this or have you just gone back on what you said?

 

[Mero]

Nah. You know I disagree with a lot of your views, but don't take it personally. They are two entirely different clubs. Brisbane Lions is the product of a merger between Fitzroy and Brisbane Bears, but most people recognise Brisbane Lions as a continuation of the Bears (even the AFL, who have the Bears and Lions stats together as one - so if the Bears had have won a flag, it would be counted as a BL flag).

Fitzroy's premierships belong to Fitzroy - who are currently playing in the VAFA.

So they merged, but they also continued on independently ???

Fitzroy people started saying it was a takeover, which I (and apparently the AFL) believe it was.
But then is became expedient to suggest it was a whole new club and that Fitzroy could continue on somewhere else.
You wouldn't expect that with two companys that merge & form a new company name.
They never have one of them continue on in business in their original name.

It's either a merger or a takeover, and either way, that doesn't leave Fitzroy with anything of their old club in the VAFA. Except the memories and the desire for it to be so.
They were r*ped and pillaged by the AFL for the short term gain of a few premierships in Brisbane and a couple of thousand ex-Fitzroy members to take on Melbourne based Brisbane membership.
What they did achieve belongs to Brisbane, whether that means the Lions (Est 1997) or Brisbane (Est 1987 Merged with Fitzroy 1997). Again, taking companiess as a guide, if a company invented something and later merged/was taken over by a bigger organisation, the parent company would claim the invention as their own history, though noting it was before the merger. Same applies to Fitzroy's success. It now belongs to Brisbane.


PS Not sure how this works into it, but it was something funny that I found in relation to Fitzroy.

They've actually won as many finals as Fitzroy (but not as many as Bisbane)

 

[Jhuner]

Ahh, ATMOSS. The gift that keeps on giving just gave a little more.

(and the mis-shapen shield has now officially been overdone. You heard it here first )

That was terrific, I like the logo's and I guess all you need to have is a great vision and goal.

 

[Roylion]

So they merged, but they also continued on independently ???

No. There was no merger. Read the Deed of Arrangement signed between the Brisbane Bears and the Fitzroy administrator on the Fitzroy board. That explains it quite clearly.

Fitzroy people started saying it was a takeover, which I (and apparently the AFL) believe it was.
But then is became expedient to suggest it was a whole new club and that Fitzroy could continue on somewhere else.

It didn't become expedient. The general public began to discoverwhat the true situation was. Fitzroy returning to the playing field in 2009 and taking Brisbane to the Supreme Court in 2010 brought Fitzroy's continued existence into the consciousness of the football following public.

You wouldn't expect that with two companys that merge & form a new company name.

Brisbane Bears Football Club Ltd and Fitzroy Football Club Ltd. did not merge in 1996. Ask ASIC and the Supreme Court who both have confirmed that fact. Both continued on in their own right. One still has an licence to compete in the AFL competition. One does not.

They never have one of them continue on in business in their original name.

Once again read the Deed of Arrangement on the Fitzroy board.

It's either a merger or a takeover, and either way, that doesn't leave Fitzroy with anything of their old club in the VAFA. Except the memories and the desire for it to be so.

That is incorrect. Fitzroy Football Club in the VAFA was formed in 1883 and played in the VFL-AFL competition from 1897 to 1996. Legally and spiritually the club now playing in the VAFA is THE Fitzroy Football Club.

What they did achieve belongs to Brisbane, whether that means the Lions (Est 1997) or Brisbane (Est 1987 Merged with Fitzroy 1997). Again, taking companiess as a guide, if a company invented something and later merged/was taken over by a bigger organisation, the parent company would claim the invention as their own history, though noting it was before the merger. Same applies to Fitzroy's success. It now belongs to Brisbane.

No it doesn't belong to Brisbane. Your company analogy in this case is incorrect.

From the Deed of Arrangement. "

Definitions (page 5)

"Merged Club" means Brisbane Bears which will conduct the combined Club Operations of Fitzroy and Brisbane Bears following the Merger;

2. ARRANGEMENTS (page 6)

Except as provided in this Deed, nothing in this Deed will be construed or interpreted to mean that Brisbane Bears will assume any liability for the debts or obligations of Fitzroy or that the Brisbane Bears will have any input in the ongoing management of Fitzroy after the Merger Date.

Note that last part. The Brisbane Bears will NOT have any input into the ongoing management of Fitzroy after the merger date. When Fitzroy came out of administration, control of the club was returned to the elected Fitzroy directors. That is the current situation.

If Brisbane want to acknowledge Fitzroy's AFL history as part of their own club in order to attract a Melbourne support base, then Fitzroy won't oppose that. However the history that the Lions are acknowledged is actually that of the Fitzroy Football Club now in the VAFA.

 

[Mero]

OK, happy to stand corrected. They have not merged.
They are the University of the modern era.
Supposedly merged, for all intents and purposes, but in reality, not.
So then why even call them Brisbane Lions?
Why pretend it has anything to do with Fitzroy?
Why not just keep the Bears name and colours and move on with the draft picks and players?
And if that's the case, then only the Brisbane Bears history should be observed, because they are the club who took over Fitzroy and ran them until the merger (which wasn't a merger).

PS I feel more confident of the position that Brisbane Lions are a re-badged Brisbane Bears than I was before.

 

[Gibbsy]

I've created a monster

 

[Mero]

I've created a monster

I believe Wayne Jackson started it.
And in many respects, Greg Miller exacerbated it.

 

[fumbler]

Fitzroy tragics you don't know wether to be sorry for them, or us?

Port Adelaide Power claim premierships back until 1884, but seriously the Power is a different team to the old Port no matter how they spin the same club jargen.

 

[kolja51]

my take - primary and secondary logo.

 

[E92_]

First logo looks great, not sure about the use of grey/silver though.

 

[Mero]

Seriously? I thought that was less in question than Brisbane.
Port Adelaide Magpies were given a licence to compete in the AFL.
But to get in they had to change their emblem and jumpers.
Everything else stayed the same.

That's like saying North Melbourne joined the VFL in 1925, changed their jumpers, got a few new players, so they must be a different club.
Simply put; it is exactly the same club.

 

[fumbler]

Seriously? I thought that was less in question than Brisbane.
Port Adelaide Magpies were given a licence to compete in the AFL.
But to get in they had to change their emblem and jumpers.
Everything else stayed the same.

That's like saying North Melbourne joined the VFL in 1925, changed their jumpers, got a few new players, so they must be a different club.
Simply put; it is exactly the same club.

I see where you are coming from Mero but if you look at it how you posted the Port Pies were given a licence changed thier name logo and jumpers, so it is an entirely new entity.
Now that the Power and the SANFL Magpies have a "brotherhood" the continued history of one club seems feasible but in all reality One club got a licence then that club ceased to exsist as it started a new structure in a different organisation under a new set of club rules and regulations.
I myself think it is a continuation of the same PAFC but for a purist would they?

Also North Melbourne did cease to exsist between the VFA and VFL does anyone know wether they ceased operations altogether, and or did they have that sort of thing back then?

 

[Mero]

I see where you are coming from Mero but if you look at it how you posted the Port Pies were given a licence changed thier name logo and jumpers, so it is an entirely new entity.
Now that the Power and the SANFL Magpies have a "brotherhood" the continued history of one club seems feasible but in all reality One club got a licence then that club ceased to exsist as it started a new structure in a different organisation under a new set of club rules and regulations.
I myself think it is a continuation of the same PAFC but for a purist would they?

Also North Melbourne did cease to exsist between the VFA and VFL does anyone know wether they ceased operations altogether, and or did they have that sort of thing back then?

Well they ceased operations after the VFA kicked them out for trying to join the VFL.
So they started a merger with Essendon, and the best players went over to Essendon with plans for them to play at Arden St.
But then the Essendon Council said they would kick Essendon Town (VFA) off Windy Hill so Essendon VFL stopped merger talks and moved there.
North and Essendon Town merged with a new board, new colours, and were still thought of as the old North Melbourne. Or maybe the Shinboner spirit was something that belonged to someone else. (the North that died)