Quarter of a century without Fitzroy: Is the AFL better or worse off?

[Mootsy]

Hardly a 'perfect merger'. It was a rebranding of the Brisbane Bears with AFL owned IP and some pre-draft player concessions.

Still way better than no merger at all though, but i agree that perhaps there could have been more to it, such as maybe playing a number of home games in Melbourne and respecting Fitzroy as a club more-so. Perhaps continuing on or forming as a bonafide VFL club at the same time as the merger.

I think there is still a College Fitzroy team.

 

[Roylion]

Still way better than no merger at all though,

Brisbane Lions are the same club as the Brisbane Bears.

Fitzroy wanted to merge with North Melbourne. In the end they were ejected from the AFL competition and now play in a lower competition at their original ground in their own jumper.

 

[Mootsy]

Brisbane Lions are the same club as the Brisbane Bears.

Fitzroy wanted to merge with North Melbourne. In the end they were ejected from the AFL competition and now play in a lower competition at their original ground in their own jumper.

Yeh that makes sense, i forgot about the North option.

It was a bit of a kick in the teeth for fans.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

100%

Hard for Fitzroy fans initially, but the name-sake still lives on in Brisbane and more resources and money, success can be and was utilised in Brisbane, so it was a perfect merger. Within no time they had already won 3 premierships.

Did the merge help that though? Aside from Chris Johnson, what did Brisbane get that directly led to their dynasty?

 

[Mootsy]

don't worry fitzroy fans, we(and a few other victorian clubs) are not that far behind you at this point, lol.

the inevitable carlton/essendon merger, oh my.

 

[JimmyBC]

don't worry fitzroy fans, we(and a few other victorian clubs) are not that far behind you at this point, lol.

the inevitable carlton/essendon merger, oh my.

Essendon have one major positive out of this season.. Dodoro is finally out the door

 

[Pistol Night]

Essendon have one major positive out of this season.. Dodoro is finally out the door

Its actually impressive he could oversee a list for 20 years and not win a final

 

[JimmyBC]

Its actually impressive he could oversee a list for 20 years and not win a final

One of the most bizarre runs in list management history.

 

[Roylion]

the inevitable carlton/essendon merger, oh my.

Can't see that ever happening.

 

[WesternSydneyHawk]

1995 - 27th May - Fitzroy played their Round 9 home game in Canberra against West Coast
1995 - 15th June - Ian Collins publicly supported Fitzroy's application to play four home games in Canberra in 1996, after application by Fitzroy was submitted (Malcolm Conn: The Australian)
1995 - 25th August - AFL commission rejected Fitzroy's application to play four home games in Canberra in Season 1996
1995 - 28th August - AFL Commissioner Ron Evans told Dyson Hore-Lacy that if Fitzroy were prepared to play the majority of its home games in Canberra, the Commission might look at it. Fitzroy had eleven home games, means that the "majority" was seven.
1995 - September - North Melbourne made a formal written merger proposal to Fitzroy
1995 - October - "AFL for Canberra" endeavours to meet with Fitzroy Football Club, the Ainslee Football Club, the ACT Chief Minister and the AFL commission to discuss a deal where Fitzroy (who had agreed to do so) might play up to seven home games in Canberra. Request for meeting was rejected by the AFL.
1996 - 21st February - Ross Oakley informs Dyson Hore-Lacy that the AFL would not support any initiative for Fitzroy to play any home games in Canberra. Oakley publicly calls Fitzroy their "weakest product" and that the Canberra initiative would not be "creditable".

Thanks for shedding light on this history Roylion .

Just out of curiousity, what was Ainslie's involvement in Fitzroy's Canberra talks?

Was it that Ainslie would continue as a separate entity, and Fitzroy would just be a tennant of Alan Ray Oval?

Or was a merger between Fitzroy and Ainslie ever on the cards?

If so, Ainslie's a very wealthy club. It not only owns a pokies palace at its home ground, but also a second social club at the golf club it owns at Gungahlin.

If such a merger was the plan, then surely the Tricolour's pokies revenue would sqallow any outstanding debt to Nauru in a year or two.

Especially if the Lions continue playing five games a year in Melbourne, this would be a preferable outcome compared with what ended up happening to Fitzroy. Not to mention in 2024, Canberra is still yet to get its own AFL club!

 

[Handsuper47]

It's probably worse when you consider the likes of North, Saints and Bulldogs are still around and only one of them has ever managed to find their feet - and all three of them combined still have less flags than Fitzroy.

 

[JimmyBC]

It's probably worse when you consider the likes of North, Saints and Bulldogs are still around and only one of them has ever managed to find their feet - and all three of them combined still have less flags than Fitzroy.

The cull needed to bigger in the 90's when there was appetite for it.

 

[WesternSydneyHawk]

It's probably worse when you consider the likes of North, Saints and Bulldogs are still around and only one of them has ever managed to find their feet - and all three of them combined still have less flags than Fitzroy.

Here's another really important bit of context about Fitzroy being kicked out in 1996, and Port Adelaide being brought in.

In 1996, Adelaide had around 1.1 million people. It has 1.3 million now.

So from one club for every 550,000 people to one club for every 650,000 people.

In 1996, Melbourne had around 3.3 million people.

That's one club for every 300,000 people with 10 clubs, or one club with every 330,000 people with 11 clubs.

Melbourne has 5 million people today. That's one club for every 500,000 people with 10 clubs, and it would have been one club for every 455,000 people with 11.

So Melbourne's rapid population growth these past 30 years compared to Adelaide means the number of clubs relative to population is a lot closer now than it was back in '96.

 

[Woolly Mammoth]

It's probably worse when you consider the likes of North, Saints and Bulldogs are still around and only one of them has ever managed to find their feet - and all three of them combined still have less flags than Fitzroy.

7 of those flags were won before North and Bulldogs were even in the comp, so not a reasonable comparison

 

[Handsuper47]

7 of those flags were won before North and Bulldogs were even in the comp, so not a reasonable comparison

It most certainly is - you joined the same year as Hawthorn did, while West Coast joined in 1987 and they already have the same amount of flags as North.

 

[peetoo]

It's probably worse when you consider the likes of North, Saints and Bulldogs are still around and only one of them has ever managed to find their feet - and all three of them combined still have less flags than Fitzroy.

AFL seemed happy to bury the Hawthorn name too

In another sliding doors, hawthorn and Fitzroy rejuvenated financially at ‘new Waverley,’ could now be powehousedps in the east

 

[Johnny Bananas]

the "AFL" should have been a brand-new super league.

How was that going to happen?

It wouldn't exactly be a "brand new super league", but had the WAFC not bought a VFL licence for 1987, and instead formed an alliance with the SANFL (and perhaps the TFL), they would have increased their collective negotiating power for the makeup of a national competition. Not only that, the lack of licence fee revenue might have made the financial position of at least one VFL club untenable and forced a merger or bankruptcy.

Had this happened, I think it's possible that there would only be 9 or 10 VFL clubs in the national competition, and that includes Sydney and Geelong. Unsure if the Bears would have stuck around, as there would have been less money around to support them after the Skase business empire collapse.

 

[Roylion]

It wouldn't exactly be a "brand new super league", but had the WAFC not bought a VFL licence for 1987, and instead formed an alliance with the SANFL (and perhaps the TFL), they would have increased their collective negotiating power for the makeup of a national competition. Not only that, the lack of licence fee revenue might have made the financial position of at least one VFL club untenable and forced a merger or bankruptcy.

It may well have forced Fitzroy to relocate to Brisbane at the end of 1986, but that wouldn't have formed a superleague.

I doubt whether the WAFL and SANFL would have ever formed an alliance for the purposes of forming a new superleague. Port Adelaide and Norwood were interested in joining the VFL and East Perth had expressed an interest in doing so as early 1980 while South and East Fremantle had discussed a joint venture entry in 1987.

Fitzroy also seriously discussed a merger wth Melbourne in May-June 1986, but that fell through.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

It may well have forced Fitzroy to relocate to Brisbane at the end of 1986, but that wouldn't have formed a superleague.

I agree, but it would have probably made a less Victorian-centric competition.

I doubt whether the WAFL and SANFL would have ever formed an alliance for the purposes of forming a new superleague. Port Adelaide and Norwood were interested in joining the VFL and East Perth had expressed an interest in doing so as early 1980 while South and East Fremantle had discussed a joint venture entry in 1987.

However, none of those bids were received well by the VFL until 1990, when Port made their move because they saw the writing on the wall after the WAFL had capitulated in 1986. Perhaps the WAFL would have never bothered allying with the SANFL in a million years, but had they done so, the proactivity might have forestalled Port's bid.

It's all a big game of what if, but I look at the WAFL as the decisive player and once they threw their lot in with the VFL, there was only ever going to be one outcome.

 

[Roylion]

I agree, but it would have probably made a less Victorian-centric competition.

Which is what it will turn out to be in the end anyway.

1987: relocation of Fitzroy to Brisbane: 83% of the clubs would have been in Victoria. (10/12)
2024: 55% of clubs are in Victoria. (10/18).
2030: 52% of clubs will be in Victoria. (10/19)
20th team: 50% of clubs will be in Victoria. (10/20)

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Which is what it will turn out to be in the end anyway.

1987: relocation of Fitzroy to Brisbane: 83% of the clubs would have been in Victoria. (10/12)
2024: 55% of clubs are in Victoria. (10/18).
2030: 52% of clubs will be in Victoria. (10/19)
20th team: 50% of clubs will be in Victoria. (10/20)

I can't say I'm an expert on what the clubs' finances were like in 1987, but I've heard both Footscray and Richmond were in serious strife. If neither West Coast nor Brisbane paid licence fees, that's $8 million the VFL wouldn't have received to prop up struggling clubs. I think it would have forced another relocation or a merger. And who's to say that a WAFL/SANFL alliance couldn't have negotiated three clubs for each of their states?

50% non-Victorian clubs is good, though many complain that having more teams waters down the standard of the competition. Maybe they have a point, though it's far too late to cull anyone now. A more equal negotiation back in the late 80s or early 90s could have led to 50% non-Victorian clubs with only 16 or 18 total.

 

[Roylion]

I can't say I'm an expert on what the clubs' finances were like in 1987, but I've heard both Footscray and Richmond were in serious strife.

Many Victorian clubs were. Fitzroy, Geelong, Footscray, Collingwood, Melbourne, North Melbourne and Richmond were all in financial trouble.

If neither West Coast nor Brisbane paid licence fees, that's $8 million the VFL wouldn't have received to prop up struggling clubs.

There were plenty of millionaires in the 80s that were keen to be involved in football so it was unlikely the VFL wouldnt have found someone to pay the money for a VFL licence.

For example there were two consortiums vying to place a VFL team in Queensland. One was led by Paul Cronin who had tried to lure Fitzroy north to Brisbane and be re-named the 'Brisbane Lions' in 1986. The other was led by John Brown, a prominent sports and business figure. The QAFL-Cronin syndicate had recruited entrepeneur Christopher Skase by November 1986 and they won the licence on the basis of paying the licence fee up front, unlike the John Brown consortium that wanted to pay the licence fee in installments.

There was going to be a 13th team in Queensland irrespective of whether the WAFL was involved or not.

I think it would have forced another relocation or a merger.

Maybe. Club supporters could have rallied to save their club as they did in 1989 with Footscray, when the Dogs were forced into a potential merger with Fitzroy. Maybe Melbourne and Fitzroy could have perhaps restarted their very serious 1986 talks that came very close to occurring. The VFL could have offered licence fees to other consortiums.

50% non-Victorian clubs is good, though many complain that having more teams waters down the standard of the competition.

In my view that is a complete myth.

Maybe they have a point, though it's far too late to cull anyone now. A more equal negotiation back in the late 80s or early 90s could have led to 50% non-Victorian clubs with only 16 or 18 total.

The SANFL and the WAFL were always going to find it difficult to work with each other, much less cope with the self-interest of their own constitutent clubs.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

There were plenty of millionaires in the 80s that were keen to be involved in football so it was unlikely the VFL wouldnt have found someone to pay the money for a VFL licence.

In which city?

There was going to be a 13th team in Queensland irrespective of whether the WAFL was involved or no

In Queensland? But in this scenario Fitzroy are moving there in 1987. Do you mean WA?

If so, who knows whether fans would have taken as well to this version of the Eagles if the WAFL was opposed to them. I would imagine they'd have had to play out of the WACA full time as the WAFL wouldn't have given them access to Subiaco Oval, which would have capped their fan base growth somewhat.

Maybe. Club supporters could have rallied to save their club as they did in 1989 with Footscray, when the Dogs were forced into a potential merger with Fitzroy. Maybe Melbourne and Fitzroy could have perhaps restarted their very serious 1986 talks that came very close to occurring.

The task would have been more arduous without both the licence fees. Would a second one have come in somewhere other than WA? Would they have sold a licence in Adelaide too? Or would the VFL have blocked Fitzroy's move to Brisbane so they could get another licence fee?

The SANFL and the WAFL were always going to find it difficult to work with each other, much less cope with the self-interest of their own constitutent clubs.

Probably right, since it never happened in real life, but I'm positing a scenario where they had the gift of hindsight (or were simply better at working together) and changed their tune.

 

[Cleric]

Better. One more Vic club to fold and the competition is set.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

The cull needed to bigger in the 90's when there was appetite for it.

There was no appetite for it then and there’s no appetite for it now.

It was simply rammed through.