why aren't Fitzroy's premierships considered part of Brisbane Lions history?

[GC2015]

For the period of 1987 to 1996 the two clubs were opponents. The Bears' second highest score of 187 was kicked against Fitzroy. How does that figure in merged records?

Things are easier to argue from a 'vibe' point of view because (A) it was a relatively short period of time in the scope of the league and (B) neither club ran into each other in a grand final or even on the way to one in the finals. Imagine if Hawthorn and Essendon merged? Do their supporters both claim a 1983-1985 threepeat?

Well, what were they going to do? When it looked like North and Fitzroy were going to merge in 1996. How would that have played out? Would North just assume all of Fitzroy's premierships or would we get what we have now with Brisbane? What about when Hawthorn and Melbourne were looking like they were going to merge in the 90s?

And the Supreme Court made rulings in 2010 that for legal purposes supersede any AFL declaration, that's why Roylion bolds those elements in his reposts.

Has the Supreme Court made any ruling on which entity has a claim to the VFL/AFL history of Fitzroy? If they haven't then surely whatever the AFL rules stands, until overruled by the Supreme Court. Seems to be a real grey area right now because the AFL appears to recognise Brownlows won by Fitzroy players as Brisbane Lions' Brownlow medallists, but not premerships won by Fitzroy.

Who can own history?

...

They control their competition and its history.

According to you, the AFL owns its competition history, which includes Fitzroy's involvement in the VFL/AFL. So the AFL could very easily clear this up and just make a statement that all Fitzroy records are assumed by the Brisbane Lions, but they haven't done that and I reckon that's been done on purpose for symphathetic reasons.

The AFL will market the events of 1996 as a merger. However there was no merger.


Marketing. The AFL markets the events of 1996 as a merger

In reality the Brisbane Bears / Lions (formed 1986) and the Fitzroy Football Club (formed 1883) are two different clubs.

I understand that it wasn't a merger, but if the AFL is going to market it as a merger then they should also clear up whether the Brisbane Lions have a claim to all or none of Fitzroy's historical VFL/AFL achievements. This half in, half out approach is confusing.

Will Lachie Neale be the Lions' 5th or 12th Brownlow medallist should he poll the most votes tomorrow night? Will he tie Hadyn Bunton Sr's club record of three Brownlows or does he already hold the club record for most Brownlows won by a Lion? According to the AFL's social media accounts, the answer is that all of Fitzroy's Brownlow history has been assumed by the Brisbane Lions.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Has the Supreme Court made any ruling on which entity has a claim to the VFL/AFL history of Fitzroy? If they haven't then surely whatever the AFL rules stands, until overruled by the Supreme Court. Seems to be a real grey area right now because the AFL appears to recognise Brownlows won by Fitzroy players as Brisbane Lions' Brownlow medallists, but not premerships won by Fitzroy.

The point being is that the whole starting point of the argument was that the Lions claimed in the very legal arguments that they presented to the Supreme Court (and accepted by the court) that they were only ever Bears rebrand Lions in the AFL. By extension, it's impossible for them to own the Fitzroy history. This is because they themselves are not claiming a merged entity which would be the only circumstance that you could equally claim the history, especially as it pertains specifically of the 1987-1996 period, which would require giving equal weight to those two teams for that period. But the Lions never made that argument, legally, at the Supreme Court, in 2010.

They're allowed to promote and be the custodian of the history, in particular in how it rates to an ongoing basis in the highest level competition played in Victoria/Australia bit they're not allowed to "own" it. That may seem like a trivi distinction, but it isn't.

 

[Roylion]

Well, what were they going to do? When it looked like North and Fitzroy were going to merge in 1996. How would that have played out?

That was a merger that both the boards of the respective clubs wanted. Unlike the Bears merger. Not one Fitzroy director has ever served on the Brisbane Lions board.

Would North just assume all of Fitzroy's premierships or would we get what we have now with Brisbane?

A new entity was possibly going to be formed and the records would have started anew for the North Fitzroy Kangaroos. That includes issuing a new licence.

What about when Hawthorn and Melbourne were looking like they were going to merge in the 90s?

Likely the same as above.

Has the Supreme Court made any ruling on which entity has a claim to the VFL/AFL history of Fitzroy?

No. Why would they? Why can't both the Brisbane Lions (as a current entity in the AFL) and the Fitzroy Football Cub (formerly of the AFL) both be the custodians - the Lions in the AFL and Fitzroy (as the actual club).

If they haven't then surely whatever the AFL rules stands, until overruled by the Supreme Court.

It's the AFL's competition. They can do as they please to recognise their own history. They can't take that history from Fitzroy nor can they say to Fitzroy that thye cant recognise their own club's history.

Seems to be a real grey area right now because the AFL appears to recognise Brownlows won by Fitzroy players as Brisbane Lions' Brownlow medallists, but not premerships won by Fitzroy.

Marketing.

According to you, the AFL owns its competition history, which includes Fitzroy's involvement in the VFL/AFL.

It's their competition. They can recognise the history as they see fit.

So the AFL could very easily clear this up and just make a statement that all Fitzroy records are assumed by the Brisbane Lions, but they haven't done that and I reckon that's been done on purpose for symphathetic reasons.

A letter I received some time ago.

"We acknowledge receipt of your letter of 5th July, 2001 and wish to advise the following.

The question of the statistical and historical records of the Fitzroy Football Club, the Brisbane Bears and Brisbane Lions has been the subject of considerable discussion between our Football Operations department and our Historian and Statistician.

We have resolved the following

1 . For players who played for Fitzroy or the Brisbane Bears, their records were ruled off as at October 31, 1996.

2. For players who played for the Brisbane Bears/Brisbane Lions, for example, Marcus Ashcroft, their playing records were combined based on the principle of continuous service. This approach has been strongly supported by various senior media commentators.

3. Players who played for Fitzroy and the Brisbane Bears/Brisbane Lions should not have their playing records combined.

4. Using Alastair Lynch as an example and there are others including Chris Johnson and Martin Pike who played for Fitzroy against the Brisbane Bears, we did not believe it was logical to have those games for Fitzroy against the Brisbane Bears counted as part of the combined total of games for the Brisbane Lions.

5. Given that the Brisbane Lions' position has been that the playing records of players who represented the Brisbane Bears and Brisbane Lions should be continuous, we also felt it was logical that the match records of the club including head to head against other clubs should also be continuous.

6. By designating the number of games players such as Alastair Lynch and Martin Pike have played for Fitzroy, we believe we are appropriately recognising their Fitzroy history and heritage. Again, using Martin Pike as an example, he played 36 games for Fitzroy including some for Fitzroy against the Brisbane Bears. He also played at Melbourne and with the Kangaroos before being drafted by the Brisbane Lions last year.
We did not believe it was logical for Pike being regarded as having played 37 games for the Brisbane Lions after he played his first game for the Lions this year.

In addition, our statistics department will continue to record the history of the Fitzroy Football Club and it will be continued to be presented in our official annual statistical history which is provided to the media and sold at various book stores.

Yours sincerely,

TONY PEEK
General Manager. Corporate Affairs & Communications"

I understand that it wasn't a merger, but if the AFL is going to market it as a merger then they should also clear up whether the Brisbane Lions have a claim to all or none of Fitzroy's historical VFL/AFL achievements. This half in, half out approach is confusing.

That's the AFL for you.

Will Lachie Neale be the Lions' 5th or 12th Brownlow medallist should he poll the most votes tomorrow night?

He'll win Brisbane's 6th Brownlow medal, if he polls the most votes on Monday night.

Voss - 1996
Akermanis - 2001
Black - 2002
Neale - 2020, 2023

Will he tie Hadyn Bunton Sr's club record of three Brownlows or does he already hold the club record for most Brownlows won by a Lion?

Already holds the record.

According to the AFL's social media accounts, the answer is that all of Fitzroy's Brownlow history has been assumed by the Brisbane Lions.

Marketing.

 

[buttermuffs]

For the period of 1987 to 1996 the two clubs were opponents. The Bears' second highest score of 187 was kicked against Fitzroy. How does that figure in merged records?

Things are easier to argue from a 'vibe' point of view because (A) it was a relatively short period of time in the scope of the league and (B) neither club ran into each other in a grand final or even on the way to one in the finals. Imagine if Hawthorn and Essendon merged? Do their supporters both claim a 1983-1985 threepeat?

You just run with it. Like **** it why not have the club record show that the club scored its second best ever score against its other half. It’s only confusing if you know nothing about it.

Really the only thing that was slightly concerning was if Fitzroy and the Bears both were competing and winning premierships in the years they overlapped. That didn’t happen though since Fitzroy last played finals in ‘86 and the Bears came in the year after. With their last premiership being in ‘44 as well there’s no reason why that can’t be considered official shared history.

 

[The Tilt]

Will Lachie Neale be the Lions' 5th or 12th Brownlow medallist should he poll the most votes tomorrow night? Will he tie Hadyn Bunton Sr's club record of three Brownlows or does he already hold the club record for most Brownlows won by a Lion? According to the AFL's social media accounts, the answer is that all of Fitzroy's Brownlow history has been assumed by the Brisbane Lions.

See, I think you're putting too way much store on the AFL's social media activity. The post on the Brownlow tally was likely made by a dim-witted 23-year old Comms adviser who works weekends. It really doesn't count for anything.

The only Brownlows won by players playing for the Brisbane Lions were won after 1987, since the club has only existed since 1987. It's that simple.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Don’t bother, he’ll just cut and paste you into oblivion and keep pretending his club didn’t merge with Brisbane nearly 30 years ago.

People might struggle with consuming all the detailed facts etc. I’ve been listening to this stuff for a long time and it really is - in effect - very simple.

Just think of it like this:

(1) The AFL kicked FFC out of the AFL competition. That’s all. They didn’t “kill” the club or wind it up. Or merge it. They just kicked them out of the league. Below AFL level, clubs leave leagues all the time. This is what happened.

(2) The AFL owns all AFL clubs’ nicknames and logos. The simply told Brisbane they can use Fitzroy’s nickname and logo in the AFL

(3) For agreeing, Brisbane got a few other trinkets like cash and some AFL players from Fitzroy’s list.

No matter how some interested parties want to label it, that’s all that really happened. Very straightforward and explains why Brisbane (est 1987) still exist, as does Fitzroy. Of course there’s all the legal details etc, but that’s the easiest way to think about it.

 

[Pie eyed]

This is the most infuriating aspect about the premiership tally that really triggers me. What the **** was the point of the merger if you can't take both club's records and history with you? Why the hell do 'the bloods' talk about their premierships won 100 years ago and consider them apart of Sydney's history, if you can't do the same with Brisbane?



This is the most ******* argument I have ever heard. The fact is South Melbourne would have merged with Sydney if they already had a pre-existing club. It was just convenient for them that there was no existing Sydney team and the VFL wanted to make one. There is "literally" zero difference between the league shutting down South Melbourne and Fitzroy in order to relocate them up north.

Agree.


If Sydney can claim continuity then Brisbane and Fitzroy can certainly claim the same.
Brisbane and Fitzroyed merged.
Fitzroy is a club which still actually exists.
The same cannot be said for South Melbourne.
No continuity.


South Melbourne struggled on field and financially since WW2 and in 1980 was in debt to the tune of $180,000.
The VFL had been promoting the game in Sydney since 1979 with the odd game played at the SCG well in advance of the later move by the Swans to Sydney in 1981. Around this time, its known that Fitzroy were looking at a move to Sydney, but were saved by a fundraising campaign in 1980.
The situation worsened on October 14 when the VFL refused to back down, compelling South to play in Sydney in 1982. The decision sadly disappointed the KSAS board, while the players were quite happy with it. The board refused to back down, and by November 7th much of the playing list was on strike with players owed money and several terminating contracts with the club.

Desperate to sort out its financial problems, the South board appealed to the VFL for relief and requested $400,000 to be loaned from the ground improvement fund, a fund that South Melbourne had been "frozen" out of due to their long history of financial failure.. The VFL agreed on November 18th, making South the first club to be bailed out by the league.

One of the conditions of the loan was that the club had to commit to Sydney for the following two years.
On December 9th, it was reported that meetings took place where the VFL presidents favoured the league taking over the running of South.

Eventually South Melbourne as a club failed and was taken over by the VFL.
The club would have totally ceased to exist but for the largess of several of the powerful VFL sides of the time, not the least Collingwood, and the VFL who provided the money which kept the Swans afloat, through the move to a Sydney license and for decades thereafter to keep the club afloat in a hostile sporting city.

This was widely reported as a relocation, but in reality it was not.
Any pretense to continuity soon evaporated when the license was sold to a private owner in 1985.
The Sydney Swans entered privatisation in 1985 when Dr. Geoffrey Edelsten purchased the club. Edelsten was chairman for less than 12 months before he stepped down, making way for a group of investors led by John Gerahty, Mike Willesee and Basil Sellers.

Effectively South Melbourne would have ceased to exist without the move.
Through the VFL and later AFL rhetoric, the Swans have a history of convenient mis-recording of actual history.

Prior to being forced to move to Sydney the extant South Melbourne FC was itself an amalgamation of two sides, one being Albert Park ,the original South Melbourne FC, and Cecil Football Club.
The South Melbourne/Sydney Swans history has conveniently been tweaked to claim that the Cecil Football Club founded in 1874 was the birthplace of South Melbourne despite the fact that the Albert-park Football Club, which had a senior football history dating back to May 1867 (Albert-park had, in fact, been known as South Melbourne during its first year of existence).

 

[Roylion]

Brisbane and Fitzroyed merged.

No they did not.

 

[Pie eyed]

Explain.

 

[jarrod_island_doggies]

You just run with it. Like **** it why not have the club record show that the club scored its second best ever score against its other half. It’s only confusing if you know nothing about it.

Really the only thing that was slightly concerning was if Fitzroy and the Bears both were competing and winning premierships in the years they overlapped. That didn’t happen though since Fitzroy last played finals in ‘86 and the Bears came in the year after. With their last premiership being in ‘44 as well there’s no reason why that can’t be considered official shared history.

I mean I get the appeal of the vibe - I grew up supporting the Roys (third generation) and have played for them in the VAFA. It would be really cool for the flags to be added to bolster history and lend gravitas to the Lions of today. But it would be a furphy. As far as I'm concerned you might as well let Port count all their SANFL premierships pre-1997, Freo do the same for East/South Fremantle and Geelong call the VFA pre-1896 the VFL/AFL.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

We don't need their history anyway, we'll just build our own.

 

[Gydafud]

This is a great week for VFL/AFL, South Melbourne/Sydney and Fitzroy/Brisbane threads. Another generation learning the history of it all.

Good luck Roylion

 

[T2B_]

People might struggle with consuming all the detailed facts etc. I’ve been listening to this stuff for a long time and it really is - in effect - very simple.

Just think of it like this:

(1) The AFL kicked FFC out of the AFL competition. That’s all. They didn’t “kill” the club or wind it up. Or merge it. They just kicked them out of the league. Below AFL level, clubs leave leagues all the time. This is what happened.

(2) The AFL owns all AFL clubs’ nicknames and logos. The simply told Brisbane they can use Fitzroy’s nickname and logo in the AFL

(3) For agreeing, Brisbane got a few other trinkets like cash and some AFL players from Fitzroy’s list.

No matter how some interested parties want to label it, that’s all that really happened. Very straightforward and explains why Brisbane (est 1987) still exist, as does Fitzroy. Of course there’s all the legal details etc, but that’s the easiest way to think about it.

That was so much easier to take in than all the other walls of texts and back and forths, thank you.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

That was so much easier to take in than all the other walls of texts and back and forths, thank you.

The major issue is the AFL labelled and sold it publicly as a merger for political and marketing reasons.

So people have been hearing that for 30 years and when you tell them it’s not the case, they obviously just dismiss it.

But the truth is really simple

Fitzroy were booted out of the league. They still exist.

Brisbane was the Bears and changed to the Lions.

 

[Rusty Brookes]

View attachment 2118057

Off the AFL's own official social pages. I found this interesting in the context of this thread's discussion.

I won a footy at Gather Round in a trivia contest and one of the questions was which club had one the most Brownlows - I responded with Sydney/South Melbourne and it was given as correct.

[Edit] Just realised my post has nothing to do with the thread itself. Carry on

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Explain.

Fitzroy as a club was put into administration in 1996.

Only its operational department was absorbed into the Brisbane Lions.

So technically the two clubs didn't actually merge, ergo they dont share both clubs' history.

Fitzroy as a club still exists, it was brought out of administration in 1998 and currently plays in the VAFA, which is an amateur league.

it's just easier to say Fitzroy and Brisbane merged, but that's not the correct term really.

Hope that explains it.

 

[Roylion]

The major issue is the AFL labelled and sold it publicly as a merger for political and marketing reasons.

So people have been hearing that for 30 years and when you tell them it’s not the case, they obviously just dismiss it.

But the truth is really simple

Fitzroy were booted out of the league. They still exist.

Brisbane was the Bears and changed to the Lions.

One of the problems is of course, that many don't believe it. So a detailed explanation is sometimes necessary.

 

[GC2015]

One of the problems is of course, that many don't believe it. So a detailed explanation is sometimes necessary.

You can't blame the average footy fan (particularly a younger one) for believing the story they've been told by the AFL. The information you've shared isn't exactly readily available for everyone.

Would you be bothered if the AFL officially credited Fitzroy's premierships to Brisbane? I know they're not the same club, but it would most likely give Brisbane a huge boost if they could officially claim they have 10+ premierships in their history. At that point, the record of 16 doesn't seem very far away for the Lions and things start to change any time you're within reaching distance of the greatest ever.

 

[Roylion]

You can't blame the average footy fan (particularly a younger one) for believing the story they've been told by the AFL. The information you've shared isn't exactly readily available for everyone.

Hence my detailed explanation. Some just won't accept it wasn't a merger unless the very extensive evidence that supports it wasn't a merger is explained.

That's not to say that Brisbane don't have a connection to Fitzroy. They do.

Would you be bothered if the AFL officially credited Fitzroy's premierships to Brisbane?

On what basis would they do that?

I know they're not the same club, but it would most likely give Brisbane a huge boost if they could officially claim they have 10+ premierships in their history.

Would it really?

At that point, the record of 16 doesn't seem very far away for the Lions and things start to change any time you're within reaching distance of the greatest ever.

What sort of things would change?

 

[Johnny Bananas]

I know they're not the same club, but it would most likely give Brisbane a huge boost if they could officially claim they have 10+ premierships in their history.

Stuff that happened many decades ago does nothing for us now. What would really give Brisbane a huge boost is winning a fourth flag on Saturday.

 

[BrainOfMorbius]

Would you be bothered if the AFL officially credited Fitzroy's premierships to Brisbane? I know they're not the same club, but it would most likely give Brisbane a huge boost if they could officially claim they have 10+ premierships in their history.

Speaking as someone who was a Bears member at the time of the merger, I don't see how that would give us any kind of boost. All of a sudden we have an additional eight premierships, all dating before the end of WWII? There would be zero credibility and Brisbane would be accused of overreach everywhere. It would be seen as being massively disrespectful to the Fitzroy legacy. I highly doubt it would go over remotely well with the Victorian fanbase and the Brisbane fanbase is unlikely to be impressed either.

Personally I see the Brisbane Lions as a completely new club for statistical purposes, other than the players who continued on from the Bears to the Lions -- it's the only approach that makes sense.