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

[Roylion]

In which city?

The VFL had two licences to bestow. Queensland had two consortiums bidding for one. At the end of July 1986 the VFL had reaffirms its commitment to a national competition in 1987, with a preference for a team from Brisbane even if a team from SA or WA was not in the league.

Most of the WAFL clubs wouldn't have been able to join any other breakaway competition with financial entry conditions, as seven out of the eight WAFL clubs were effectively insolvent and the WAFL itself was $1.3 million in debt in 1983.

So the only way to have a national competition was to expand the VFL. That expansion had already started to happen with the relocation of South Melbourne to Sydney.

In October 1985, the VFL commission released details of plans for a 14 team competition for 1987. By December 1985 all VFL clubs had signed license agreements with the league, ending any possibility of a breakaway competition. This was after a feasibility study conducted by the VFL on national football that recommended a 12 team competition – eight from Victoria, two from Adelaide and 1 from Perth and Sydney. In November 1985 the National Football League also proposed a national compeition, with a 12 team structure featuring 9 teams from Melbourne and one each from Sydney, Perth and Adelaide which was supported by the WAFL and apparently six Melbourne clubs saying they’d break away. However by December that option was out of the question. I twas VFL expansion or nothing.

Eventually the two licences on offer by the VFL for 1987 probably would have been filled by
a) either a club leaving the WAFL (maybe East Perth which applied to join the VFL in 1980 - some apparent details are here) or SANFL (Port Adelaide or Norwood) or more likely....
b) a new club set up by a private consortium either in Perth or Adelaide. The VFL had indicated that it would expand to WA by other means if the WAFL teams didnt support entry into the VFL.

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

What I'm saying if the WAFL had held off and decided to enter a club in the VFL, the VFL would have gone elsewhere. For example in 1985 St Kilda rejected an offer from Perth Businessman Alan Delaney to buy the Saints and move them to Perth.

The task would have been more arduous without both the licence fees. Would a second one have come in somewhere other than WA?

Possibly if the WAFL expressed no interest in joining the VFL.

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?

Fitzroy would likely to have been supported to go to Brisbane. Both the SANFL and the WAFL announced in early August 1986 that they were reconsidering joining the VFL as the VFL had announced it would take all of its existing Victorian clubs into the national competition in 1987. While the SANFL unanimously voted against joining the VFL in 1987, the WAFL commission and six of the eight WAFL clubs voted to apply to join the VFL in 1987.

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.

Had the VFL provided more incentives for Melbourne clubs to merge, then maybe it would have happened. Melbourne / Fitzroy, St Kilda / Fitzroy and Melbourne / North Melbourne were all involved in merger talks in 1986.

 

[Roylion]

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

And who was going to bring that about?

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Most of the WAFL clubs wouldn't have been able to join any other breakaway competition with financial entry conditions, as seven out of the eight WAFL clubs were effectively insolvent and the WAFL itself was $1.3 million in debt in 1983.

It could be that it was a financial impossibility for the WAFL to stay in solidarity with the SANFL then, regardless of whether that took the form of continuing with separate competitions or forming a joint one with a smaller number of teams each. But if they could rustle up the money for a VFL licence with all the disadvantageous conditions like paying for other clubs' airfares, I wonder if there was actually an opportunity for something more.

Eventually the two licences on offer by the VFL for 1987 probably would have been filled by
a) either a club leaving the WAFL (maybe East Perth which applied to join the VFL in 1980 - some apparent details are here)

But didn't you just say they were all effectively insolvent and couldn't afford a licence fee?

b) a new club set up by a private consortium either in Perth or Adelaide. The VFL had indicated that it would expand to WA by other means if the WAFL teams didnt support entry into the VFL.

Again, who knows whether that would have been found acceptance from the fans without any local club backing. I still feel the WAFL sold out for a lower price than they could have got.

Fitzroy would likely to have been supported to go to Brisbane. Both the SANFL and the WAFL announced in early August 1986 that they were reconsidering joining the VFL as the VFL had announced it would take all of its existing Victorian clubs into the national competition in 1987. While the SANFL unanimously voted against joining the VFL in 1987, the WAFL commission and six of the eight WAFL clubs voted to apply to join the VFL in 1987.

I wonder if those clubs realised they were voting themselves into irrelevance. In any case, once the WAFL capitulated, the game was up for the SANFL, they just didn't realise it until Port made their play.

Had the VFL provided more incentives for Melbourne clubs to merge, then maybe it would have happened. Melbourne / Fitzroy, St Kilda / Fitzroy and Melbourne / North Melbourne were all involved in merger talks in 1986.

Interesting, I knew about the others but not St Kilda. I notice they weren't in your list of financially troubled clubs on the previous page. It amazes me how a club survived intact into the modern day with just one premiership in over a century, and which I thought was never as close to extinction as Footscray was with their similar lack of success. It's a real testament to St Kilda's long-suffering fans.

I suppose St Kilda had the benefit of a distinct geographical heartland for their fanbase, particularly once South had moved away. Fitzroy and North surely found this more difficult being hemmed in by Carlton, Collingwood and Essendon. Footscray also had a distinct geographical heartland, but a far less wealthy one.

 

[Roylion]

It could be that it was a financial impossibility for the WAFL to stay in solidarity with the SANFL then, regardless of whether that took the form of continuing with separate competitions or forming a joint one with a smaller number of teams each.

Ideally the WAFL and SANFL wanted a joint national competition. The VFL didn't.

But didn't you just say they were all effectively insolvent and couldn't afford a licence fee?

In regard to the WAFL, seven out of the eight...yep.

Again, who knows whether that would have been found acceptance from the fans without any local club backing. I still feel the WAFL sold out for a lower price than they could have got.

Once a break-way competition involving the VFL became an impossibility (December 1985) the only way the WAFL could be involved in a national competition was joining the VFL (who had already flagged moving to national competition as early as 1985).

Interesting, I knew about the others but not St Kilda. I notice they weren't in your list of financially troubled clubs on the previous page. It amazes me how a club survived intact into the modern day with just one premiership in over a century, and it's a real testament to their long-suffering fans.

Having a reasonable support base in a distinct geographical region that can rally in times of trouble. Like Footscray's efforts in 1989. Something Fitzroy didnt have sandwiched as they were between Collingwood and Carlton. Apsrt from its very early yearasm Fitzroy's most successful era was in the late 70s early 80s when they were at the Junction Oval down in St. Kilda. They had the fourth highest membership in the VFL in 1981.

 

[peetoo]

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

And if one did fold, the usual suspects would still want more, rinse and repeat.

 

[Flags_In_The_Bag]

Wish they were still in the AFL

 

[Freomaniac]

The sheer size of Australia and it's population makes a national football competition very difficult. The AFL needed a successful Brisbane team and the only way they could move forward with that was the Fitzroy takeover. A very unfortunate set of circumstances, but necessary. The destruction of WA, SA, VFA and Country football has also been the price to pay for it....!

The population has increased a fair bit since 1996 . That is almost 30 years ago.

There is over 26 million people living here now.

I agree that the destruction of local footy in SA, WA and Victoria was a sad price to pay too.

 

[Partridge]

i only come to these threads for a Roylion education, yet always leave feeling depressed. what the AFL did to fitzroy is a disgrace and anyone who loves their team should never wish such an outcome on opposition fans.

It's partly depressing, partly enlightening, but not at all surprising to see how many opposition fans seem quite proud of Fitzroy's demise, even though the same fate could have easily happened to their own club. The pretense that only Fitzroy deserved the treatment they got speaks of incredible arrogance and total ignorance of the facts from that timeframe. Considering the obstacles the AFL deliberately put in their way, it's amazing they stayed as long as they did.

 

[oak79]

It's partly depressing, partly enlightening, but not at all surprising to see how many opposition fans seem quite proud of Fitzroy's demise, even though the same fate could have easily happened to their own club. The pretense that only Fitzroy deserved the treatment they got speaks of incredible arrogance and total ignorance of the facts from that timeframe. Considering the obstacles the AFL deliberately put in their way, it's amazing they stayed as long as they did.

Most people sympathise with Fitzroy supporters, but its the reality of how the AFL was formed.

The question is are we now an VFL or an AFL (national comp)? If the answer if AFL, there shouldn't be 11 teams (now 10) in 1 state. Find me another national comp in any sport worldwide that has more than half the teams in 1 location.

The sad reality is that clubs in the saturated market of Victoria that aren't financially viable, and have few fans, arguably shouldn't be propped up.

I feel for Roys, Roos, Dogs and Saints fans - but they should be operating in a state comp, not a national comp. Not folded, just step down a level. But at least the Lions fans still have a presence via Brisbane in the AFL that many fans have embraced. Particularly on the back of those 4 flags.

 

[PhatBoy]

I was just a kid in this era so I am no expert, but my recallection and osmosis of the era is something like;

it would have been fantastic if the AFL had have moved Fitzroy to Canberra for 1997, right as the superleague war was starting. Had they done that, then the Roy fans would have had their whole team left to support, and Canberra would likely be firmly AFL territory these days. There is a decent chance the Raiders would have not come out the other end, and have been a weird little pub trivia question, like the Perth Reds.

However, the AFL of 1996 was not the AFL of 2024. It was a transitional period for the lague. They wern't on the brink of bankruptcy like they were a decade earlier, but they wouldn't come into real money until after Nine secured the rights several years later. They had a problem; Port Adelaide were set to enter the league, and with Sydney still touch and go, and the bears being an outright disaster, there was no chance they would expand to 17 teams as it was not tenable for them to either stay there, or go to 18. Especially in another developing market.

The AFL were looking to rationalize in Melbourne. They had gotten rid of South. They were trying to merge the Hawks and Demons, and one way or another, Fitzroy were on the way out. Once the North/Fitzroy merger was shot down, merging them with Brisbane was the only feasible option left on the table for them. The AFL wanted Fitzroy to move in the 80s. They eventually got what they wanted.

1996 was a crazy year for the AFL. Nothing like the Superleague of course; but it was probably the most tumultuous year in the competitions history (except maybe the war years). Had things gone a little bit differently, we could today have a competition with the Brisbane Bears, Melbourne Hawks and the North Fitzroy Kangaroos running around. And since that would have left them with 15 teams, it is also likely there would have been a third Perth team or Tasmania join in 98 or 99.

Funnily enough the Raiders’ crowds actually went UP during super league in 97 and dropped off again after the war ended.

 

[Partridge]

Most people sympathise with Fitzroy supporters, but its the reality of how the AFL was formed.

The question is are we now an VFL or an AFL (national comp)? If the answer if AFL, there shouldn't be 11 teams (now 10) in 1 state. Find me another national comp in any sport worldwide that has more than half the teams in 1 location.

The sad reality is that clubs in the saturated market of Victoria that aren't financially viable, and have few fans, arguably shouldn't be propped up.

I feel for Roys, Roos, Dogs and Saints fans - but they should be operating in a state comp, not a national comp. Not folded, just step down a level. But at least the Lions fans still have a presence via Brisbane in the AFL that many fans have embraced. Particularly on the back of those 4 flags.

The reality is the competition is an expanded VFL competition. Which every club went along with.

The bolded sentence makes some claims that don't necessarily measure up. It's stated absolutely with certainty that Melbourne can't support 11 (or 10) teams. There's never any evidence offered as to why. It's can't be the finances of the league - the competition right now is swimming in money, and the amount that has been given to GWS, Gold Coast, not to mention other Melbourne teams like the Dogs, North, and others explodes the notion that a struggling team can't be propped up. Plenty of them have been since. Contrary to myth though - Fitzroy were never propped up at all. They wouldn't have had any less fans than North or St.Kilda or the Dogs, three teams that were (and are) hardly historical powerhouses.

The truth is Fitzroy were deliberated killed because the AFL wanted to do it (most likely to make room for Port). They wanted something done and used many underhanded ways to do it. It's impressive how many people still believe it was either deserved or justified.

 

[Roylion]

The bolded sentence makes some claims that don't necessarily measure up. It's stated absolutely with certainty that Melbourne can't support 11 (or 10) teams. There's never any evidence offered as to why. It's can't be the finances of the league - the competition right now is swimming in money, and the amount that has been given to GWS, Gold Coast, not to mention other Melbourne teams like the Dogs, North, and others explodes the notion that a struggling team can't be propped up. Plenty of them have been since.

They sure have.

Between 2002-2009 the following clubs received extra funds from the then named Competitive Balance Fund
Western Bulldogs - $8.4 million
North Melbourne - $5.8 million
Melbourne - $5.25 million
Carlton - $2.1 million

Had Fitzroy received the same amount of money, say as Melbourne did, they would have
1. paid off their only secured creditor - Nauru - to whom they owed $1.25 million (due in 2001) - which meant an administrator would not have been appointed. Fitzroy was already profitable between 1993-1995.
2. redeveloped Brunswick Street Oval as a permanent training base. (As i said above, this step already had the approval of the Fitzroy Council and needed $250,000 to bring it to fruition).
3. paid 100% of the cap - thereby being able to retain their drafted and traded players and remain more competitive on the field.
4. developed their recruiting zone out Balwyn and Doncaster way, thereby developing a significant supporter base / identity and increasing their membership (particularly if they were competitive).

Contrary to myth though - Fitzroy were never propped up at all. They wouldn't have had any less fans than North or St.Kilda or the Dogs, three teams that were (and are) hardly historical powerhouses.

Fitzroy made a profit from 1993-1995.

Fitzroy chairman Dyson Hore-Lacy said if they could have found another million dollars at the start of 1996, they would have used $500,000 to upgrade facilities (agreed deal already successfully negotiated with the existing Fitzroy local council) in a move back to the Brunswick St Oval as their training and administrative base and the other $500,000 to pay players to improve their playing list). Fitzroy would not have sought a merger with North Melbourne or indeed any other club.

The truth is Fitzroy were deliberated killed because the AFL wanted to do it (most likely to make room for Port). They wanted something done and used many underhanded ways to do it. It's impressive how many people still believe it was either deserved or justified.

It was official AFL policy to remove a small Melbourne club from the competition.

The AFL told Fitzroy in January 1996, that no financial assistance would be forthcoming unless Fitzroy was prepared to guarantee a merger by 31st October 1996. The club was told quite unequivocally by Ross Oakley that supporting Fitzroy financially was not part of their "five year plan" which was to remove at least one Melbourne club.

In fact the AFL proposed at the time, the winding up of Fitzroy Football Club Ltd., issuing Fitzroy’s licence to a new entity called Fitzroy Lions Pty. Ltd, owned and run by the AFL, which would then be underwritten by the AFL to then tune of $650,000 and would merge with whoever the AFL decided at the end of the year. The members and shareholders of Fitzroy would get no say. The proposal had to be accepted by Fitzroy by April 30th or otherwise would be withdrawn.

Had they continued in the AFL competition past 1997 and hence received funding from the AFL 'Competitive Balance Fund' as other small Melbourne clubs did, Fitzroy would have most likely been now playing out of the Docklands with their administrative base at the Fitzroy Club Hotel in North Fitzroy / Northcote and would have been training at the Brunswick Street Oval, 500 metres south of their admin. base with upgraded facilities.

A Roy Morgan poll conducted in the eighties suggested Fitzroy had a supporter base of 200,000 that they could have built on.

 

[peetoo]

Replaced by port Adelaide…who’s afl journey is ver chequered

 

[peetoo]

Also hawthorn wanted another club to become anchor at Waverley. AFL was all Out to crush it as an AFL venue and too.
Could have been a different future for both clubs

 

[JimmyBC]

Replaced by port Adelaide…who’s afl journey is ver chequered

Give us a spell we've basically had one down period, hands tied by rubbish stadium deals at football park & SA football politics none of you over there in the fishbowl have any understanding of.

If you think Fitzroy would've had over 70k members and home crowd figures in the top 6 by 2024 keep chugging the gas.

 

[kreuze_missile]

Competition is far better off for the change.

A step towards a truly national competition.

One competition weakling eliminated.

The AFL should seek to replicate four more times by 2040.

North Melbourne, St Kilda, Western Bulldogs, Melbourne.

 

[peetoo]

Competition is far better off for the change.

A step towards a truly national competition.

One competition weakling eliminated.

The AFL should seek to replicate four more times by 2040.

North Melbourne, St Kilda, Western Bulldogs, Melbourne.

At the time the official line was ‘it will make the rest of the competition stronger.’

Contemplating rubbing out the hawthorn name, the strongest of the last 100 years? Made no sense must have been jealousy

In the time since, Melbourne the city has grown by the current population of perth

 

[31550]

The AFL is better off.

Football is worse off.

 

[Pistol Night]

Competition is far better off for the change.

A step towards a truly national competition.

One competition weakling eliminated.

The AFL should seek to replicate four more times by 2040.

North Melbourne, St Kilda, Western Bulldogs, Melbourne.

3 of which have won flags since Carlton’s last and all have played in GFs since Carlton

 

[JimmyBC]

You must admit you'd never design a national comp from scratch with this set-up and number of clubs in Victoria.

 

[Pistol Night]

You must admit you'd never design a national comp from scratch with this set-up and number of clubs in Victoria.

Just eliminate them all apart from the most recent Victorian premier?

 

[JimmyBC]

It'd be like having 15 NFL franchises in LA.. no wonder yanks are always perplexed by the amount of teams in Melboune.

 

[Partridge]

Competition is far better off for the change.

A step towards a truly national competition.

One competition weakling eliminated.

The AFL should seek to replicate four more times by 2040.

North Melbourne, St Kilda, Western Bulldogs, Melbourne.

Based on what? Recent success maybe? Melbourne and the Dogs have each won flags within the last decade. North's last was 1999. It can't be about historical success because Melbourne have won 13 flags.

Maybe it should be whoever is in a long premiership drought. Any club that has gone more than 20-25 years without a flag perhaps.

That's North, St.Kilda, who else I wonder?

 

[peetoo]

It'd be like having 15 NFL franchises in LA.. no wonder yanks are always perplexed by the amount of teams in Melboune.

Most of epl is London or northwest

If aus had one code it would be dominated by Melbourne and Sydney

 

[Bjo187]

Most people sympathise with Fitzroy supporters, but its the reality of how the AFL was formed.

The question is are we now an VFL or an AFL (national comp)? If the answer if AFL, there shouldn't be 11 teams (now 10) in 1 state. Find me another national comp in any sport worldwide that has more than half the teams in 1 location.

The sad reality is that clubs in the saturated market of Victoria that aren't financially viable, and have few fans, arguably shouldn't be propped up.

I feel for Roys, Roos, Dogs and Saints fans - but they should be operating in a state comp, not a national comp. Not folded, just step down a level. But at least the Lions fans still have a presence via Brisbane in the AFL that many fans have embraced. Particularly on the back of those 4 flags.

The nrl has a higher percentage of teams from nsw than the afl has teams from Victoria. However I agree with your overall point. The answer to this question in the modern time is relocations.

Tv now makes it possible for every person to see every game their club plays, they keep their identity, but they spread the game and build their own bigger and more powerful club (see the template of the swans and lions, hugely successful).