threenewpadlocks
Brownlow Medallist
Interesting thoughts, and I appreciate it. I think your view is that of a fan that is heavily involved with things such as attending training sessions, which is not the position of a majority of fans, even passionate ones, (naturally) as it is self-evident that things like training attendances by fans is minute.It would depend on the new identity of the proposed merged club.
The late Ian Ridley said one of his biggest mistakes in negotiating the Melbourne-Hawks merger in 1996 is that Melbourne ignored a key price of research advice in that members and supporters see as the enduring symbols of their club, their colours, the tradition [things like history, club song etc.] and the club emblem and will reject a merger if there wasn't enough of that retained in the new entity.
If the majority of those can be retained in the identity of the new club, then the supporters of both original clubs will feel there is enough of their original club's identiy to warrant their continued support.
.
A Melbourne-Fitzroy merger to form the 'Melbourne Lions" was very close in 1986 and a lesser extent in 1994 and probably would have worked. It was called off both times by Melbourne on the verge of a public announcement - especially in 1986 where it was 24 hours from being put to the members of both clubs. In 1994 according to Dyson Hore-Lacy, Fitzroy had an in principle agreement with Melbourne to merge in August 1994, which was taken to the AFL, leaked to the press (most likely by Hawthorn) and scuttled soon after.
In 1986, Melbourne pulled out when Fitzroy chairman Leon Wiegard asked for slightly more time to raise more money for Fitzroy in a planned gala event at Festival Hall. Melbourne also realised that many of Fitzroy's top players were due to come out of contract at the end of the year and may not have been playing for the new Melbourne Lions club.
The official name was going to be the "Melbourne-Fitzroy Football Club" (trading as the 'Melbourne Lions') with 6 Fitzroy directors and 6 Melbourne directors on the new 12 man board. Joint chairpersons - one from Melbourne and one from Fitzroy. The guernsey was going to be the Melbourne jumper with the Fitzroy lion logo added to the front. Very like the current Brisbane Lions jumper.
Maybe the 'Footscray Lions' playing out of the Western Oval could have worked too, instead of the failed proposal of the 'Fitzroy Bulldogs' playing out of Princes Park, which the overwhelming majority of Footscray supporters vehemently rejected.
The 'Footscray Lions' jumper might have been Fitzroy's red and blue jumper with a white Fitzroy FFC logo and possibly white horizontal stripes to evoke Fooscray's jumper but still primarily in the Fitzroy design. A gold Fitzroy Lion would have been added on the breast of the jumper. In any case it would have been a bit more equal than the proposed "Fitzroy Bulldogs" playing out of Princes Park and hence may have been accepted by a larger percentage of Footscray supporters.
I personally would have liked and supported the "Melbourne Lions" because of the similarity of the colours and the proposed jumper being close to Fitzroy's. Came close to happening. Could have got behind the "Footscray Lions" perhaps, depending on the final identity.
That is true, but their supporters only get to see them play between four and six times a year, excluding possibe finals.
True. But the supporter base gets to see them play at home and also can get more involved in the club (social functions, training etc.) given that its base is still in Melbourne.
It's very difficult to ensure a balance of two identities when negotiating a merger
The only Melbourne based merger that might work in terms of identity would be the North Melbourne and the Western Bulldogs mainly on the basis of the similarity of colours. A name something like "North West Melbourne Bulldogs" might be accepted by both supporter bases. The name of North Melbourne would be retained. Reference to the western suburbs and Footscray's mascot would also be in the name. Western Bulldogs's colours of red, white and blue retained with North Melbourne vertical stripe guernsey design, or maybe a red yoke and royal blue and white vertical stripes. Would share the MCG, but football HQ and training base might be at the Western Oval and administrative HQ might be at Arden Street. VFL side could be the Footscray Kangaroos playing out of the Western Oval and wearing a Footscray jumper, with a white North Melbourne Kangaroo replacing the Bulldog logo.
11 home games, plus 4-6 games against other Melbourne based clubs could see up to 15-17 opportunities to see their team play live. Not to mention the opportunity to attend AFLW games if desired.
In my view, in which I would claim that I am a highly passionate Dogs supporter, and a social club member that has gone to functions (without being to the same passionate extent of you) would much prefer to only be able to watch the Bulldogs only four to six times a year without any being home games but that club still unquestionably being the one and the same club as the one that was historically so, than support a team such as North West Melbourne Bulldogs. Even if I could accept that such a merged club would still be half (if not more in terms of branding) a Dogs club and there would be enough colours songs, traditions etc. in that new merged club, I still would not feel that it really represents the old Dogs club simply because it could not as it would have to be equally as responsible in representing a different club, too.
I also think the ease and the extent that Bears cum Lions could represent Fitzroy's heritage in the VFL/AFL was made so because there was no real need, or significant desire, to equally represent Bears heritage, as a franchise that was only a decade old, had minimal supporters and had only been based in the city of Brisbane instead of Cararra for a few years. It's somewhat ironic that even though I agree completely that it was a rebrand and not a merger, in some ways the Brisbane team could better represent Lions heritage because of the fact there was no significant desire to maintain Bears branding or Bears history in the club. I see all the arguments you've presented in that a Lions team could keep Fitzroy heritage in a merged entity, but I'm scepitcal in the long-term ease and persistance that that could be maintained in the same way that Brisbane could, given that there would always be a battle between the hertiages of the two former teams in a way that just doesn't exist with Bears heritage. I can't speak for you obviously, but I do find it a bit peculiar that you assume it's a fait accompli that any merged entity such as the Melbourne Lions would have still significantly presented Lions branding well in perpetuity, just because they said so at the time.
Yeah. It's a bit tiresome cutting and pasting my own material in response to the same comments made by others over and over again. But in the interests of truth, I'll keep doing it.
