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

[Roylion]

I'm sorry but I've gone back through the posts again and I still don't understand why you support Brisbane if you have the view there was never a merger.

Now that Fitzroy are no longer in the AFL, who should I support, if I want to follow an AFL team?

I'Your reason is that the AFL kicked your club out, but another club decided to take bits of their artwork which were only part of your own club's history for maybe 20 years tops?

20 years tops you say? Perhaps you should do a little more reading about the history of Fitzroy.

Not trying to be offensive, but it just seems bizarre to support a team which you believe cuckolded Fitzroy.

Cuckolded my team?

I don't support Richmond, Carlton or Collingwood.

So who should I support again?

 

[*Paul*]

The Lions' website can't decide what's going on:
Here it's just post-1996
http://www.lions.com.au/Club/history/brisbane-lions-history/all-time-playing-list
But here it's everyone
http://www.lions.com.au/Club/history/brisbane-lions-history/brownlow-medalists
and then here, it's Bears and post-97 Lions glued together, with separate tables for tacking Fitzroy on.
http://www.lions.com.au/Club/history/brisbane-lions-history/club-records
and lastly, speechless about how many premierships are in the bag.
http://www.lions.com.au/Club/history/brisbane-lions-history/premierships

 

[South of the Yarra]

Salty Parish would turn in his grave. Fitzroy still lives. Always will. My uncle is a life member of Fitzroy. We are the boys from old Fitzroy. Respect.

 

[Doss]

The 'merger' in 1996 was a merger in name only. In practice, the 'Bears' name was changed to the 'Lions', the Bears' jumper was changed to look similar to the Fitzroy jumper, Brisbane got to take the cream (eight players) of Fitzroy's 1996 list, a couple directors were sent north, and Brisbane were meant to (it's been steadily eroded through time) to play I think six games in Melbourne per year, every year.

The Fitzroy Football Club still exists as its own entity, not in the AFL but legally and on field, they still very much exist. There's reason enough by itself not to transfer the eight Fitzroy premierships over to the Brisbane total. If Brisbane had won a flag between 1987 and 1996, I'd absolutely support that being included in Brisbane's current total.

The current Brisbane Lions are the old Brisbane Bears re-branded. It is really that simple.

 

[Viceregal]

and Brisbane were meant to (it's been steadily eroded through time) to play I think six games in Melbourne per year, every year.

It is supposed to be 'as many games as possible' in Melb with a minimum of six ...

 

[MF]

Besides the obvious reasons around Fitzroy still being a separate entity, has anyone mentioned the fact that both the Fitzroy Lions and Brisbane Bears played alongside each other and against each other for several years which would mean merging any historical data messy and stupid.

 

[Schauermann]

No real issue somehow. Everybody knows about the history and doesn't matter at all for the present.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Fitzroy like University are a club that previously competed in the VFL/AFL. Their VFL premierships are their own.

They left the competition in 1996, best to ignore the guff from the AFL.

 

[Riccardo11]

I have a few season guides from the late 90's that list Brisbane Lions as a club that started in 1997 with no history or records prior to that, and lists the Bears and Fitzroy as two separate entities with records that ended after 1996. This has obviously changed and the Brisbane Lions are a continuation of the Bears, as Melbourne City is a rebranded/taken over Melbourne Heart.

 

[Reality Check!]

Now that Fitzroy are no longer in the AFL, who should I support, if I want to follow an AFL team?

A team that didn't cuckold Fitzroy.

Cuckolded my team?

I don't support Richmond, Carlton or Collingwood.

So who should I support again?

You know very well there were other choices. You could have supported one of the ATB clubs like Port Adelaide who were also cuckolded by Adelaide, who had the umpires cuckold Fitzroy in an infamous match you might know of. Again I want to reiterate that I don't believe there was no such thing as a merger; but going off your point of view it seems as though by buying a Brisbane membership, you are letting yourself get shilled by the AFL.

20 years tops you say? Perhaps you should do a little more reading about the history of Fitzroy

The lion had only been the official logo of Fitzroy since 1977.

 

[Roysforever]

A team that didn't cuckold Fitzroy.



You know very well there were other choices. You could have supported one of the ATB clubs like Port Adelaide who were also cuckolded by Adelaide, who had the umpires cuckold Fitzroy in an infamous match you might know of. Again I want to reiterate that I don't believe there was no such thing as a merger; but going off your point of view it seems as though by buying a Brisbane membership, you are letting yourself get shilled by the AFL.



The lion had only been the official logo of Fitzroy since 1977.

Why are you so determined to challenge Roylion's AFL team of choice??? He has every right to choo-choo-choose the team he most identifies with. I wrote this post earlier in the thread about the difficulties we all encountered at the end of the 1996 season....

'The grave decision of what do following the merger haunted all Fitzroy supporters at the end of 1996. I appreciated one of my patients recently saying their initial intention was to visit the zoo every Saturday just to watch the Lions play! Ultimately decisions were left to the individual and this sadly meant the Fitzroy family would move in all different directions. Personally, I was quite disenchanted with the white-anting of the AFL (another worthy thread to read on the Fitzroy board) and my passion for the competition was lost. Years later I was chuffed when Fitzroy could begin fielding a team in the local VAFA and I could now watch the Royboys play at our traditional home, Brunswick Street Oval, on a Saturday afternoon. It may not be the elite on-field competition, however, the club that runs out to the theme song forever ingrained into my veins is the club I hold so dear.'

Therefore whilst Roylion and myself each moved in different directions as far as the AFL competition is concerned (please ignore the Geelong listing on my profile) I respect his and numerous other supporter's decision to barrack for Brisbane.

 

[Roylion]

A team that didn't cuckold Fitzroy.

What do you mean by 'cuckold'? Brisbane made an offer to rebrand itself as a club that might appeal to Fitzroy supporters and that was accepted by the AFL and 14 of the 16 clubs. Collingwood, Western Bulldogs, Richmond, Adelaide, Hawthorn, Geelong and North Melbourne also made 'merger' offers to Fitzroy in 1996.

Melbourne made a merger offer to Fitzroy back in 1994.

You know very well there were other choices. You could have supported one of the ATB clubs like Port Adelaide who were also cuckolded by Adelaide.

Why the hell would I support Port Adelaide? They don't resemble Fitzroy in any way shape or form. Moreover I'm not South Australian. I'm not a Queenslander either, but Brisbane resemble Fitzroy a hell of a lot more than Port Adelaide do.

Again I want to reiterate that I don't believe there was no such thing as a merger; but going off your point of view it seems as though by buying a Brisbane membership, you are letting yourself get shilled by the AFL.

Can I remind you that the Brisbane rebranding was sanctioned by 14 of the 16 clubs at the time and it was they who had the final say. In the end, the AFL only had the power to make a recommendation. The only club that voted against was North Melbourne who were chasing their own merger with Fitzroy. Fitzroy under the control of the administrator, abstained from the vote.

I also am a shareholder, and a gold member of the Fitzroy Football Club and have been every year since Fitzroy left the AFL competition. For me, Brisbane are the AFL club that most resembles Fitzroy. No other club in the AFL has such a connection. If another club rebrands to our colours and emblem and begins to commemorate and celebrate Fitzroy's VFL-AFL history as part of their own club operations, well then I'll reassess the AFL club I support.

How about the Essendon-Fitzroy Football Club trading as the "Essendon Lions" playing in a royal blue jumper with a red diagonal stripe, a gold lion on the breast as well as a gold number on the back?

No?

Well until then, it's the Brisbane Lions....

The lion had only been the official logo of Fitzroy since 1977.

When it was trademarked. It has been in use by Fitzroy since 1957 and on the official Fitzroy jumpers since 1968.

 

[reincarnated]

They formed a new club called Brisbane Lions. So they are basically treated as one.

Imagined if Carlton and Essendon merged and became Essendon Blues. Do they then have 32 Premierships?

If for example Fitzroy moved to Gold Coast at that time and became Gold Coast Lions then their records will stand like Swans'.

 

[Exe Gesis]

I really cant see why they would include them. In the nrl the wests tigers dont incl balmain or the magpies prems.
Stgeorge illawarra do but that was a takeover of the steelers.

The St George Illawarra example is a tricky one, and I'm very confused by it still.
In many statistical sites, including the NRL site itself, the "St George Illawarra Dragons" have only won one grand final, and their regular season wins-losses and general game and season records all start when the clubs merged. Meanwhile, the "St George Dragons" history is stuck at 15 grand finals won, their history of regular season wins etc stopping when they merged.
But then you hear other people and other sites, say that it was a takeover and that the Dragons have won 16 grand finals. But everywhere I look, official stats sites still say that StG-Ill has won one grand final, and StG has won 15.

The general rule of thumb then, is that when two clubs merge, then it becomes a whole new entity, starting a new history. The two clubs who merged dont CEASE to exist, they basically enter an agreement to start a new club together. So Fitzroy Lions still exist as a VFL club, and Brisbane Bears (i really dont know what happened to that corporate entity, but theoretically they still exist as a business?), put their money and resources together and set up a new incorporated entity. Theoretically then, a portion of the proft made from the Brisbane Lions FC would be funneled back to the Fitzroy Lions and Brisbane Bears. Theoretically, that's how a merger is SUPPOSED to work on the financial side of things.

 

[Exe Gesis]

I know for instance, during WW2, some NFL teams couldn't field teams, so they merged for a few years, and then when the war ended, they ceased operating as a merger, and resumed their separate identities. When it comes to history and stats, those merged teams never carried on the stats/history of the separate teams. When the merged teams split back up, resuming their former identities, then those identities resumed carrying on the history/stats that were put on pause before the mergers.

 

[Roylion]

They formed a new club called Brisbane Lions. So they are basically treated as one.

No they didn't form a new club. Brisbane rebranded themselves from Bears to Lions.

If for example Fitzroy moved to Gold Coast at that time and became Gold Coast Lions then their records will stand like Swans'.

That would be the club moving interstate. Fitzroy did nothing of the sort. Fitzroy still exist in their own right in Melbourne. 132 years old this September.

|
|
V

 

[Roylion]

The general rule of thumb then, is that when two clubs merge, then it becomes a whole new entity, starting a new history. The two clubs who merged dont CEASE to exist, they basically enter an agreement to start a new club together. So Fitzroy Lions still exist as a VFL club, and Brisbane Bears (i really dont know what happened to that corporate entity, but theoretically they still exist as a business?), put their money and resources together and set up a new incorporated entity.

No, they did not. Read the Deed of Arrangement on the Fitzroy board.

Brisbane Bears Football Club Ltd. renamed itself the Brisbane Bears-Fitzroy Football Club Ltd, after a vote by the existing Brisbane Bears Football Club Ltd. members. The same entity held the same licence to compete in the AFL competition both before and after 1996. It does to this day.

So the Brisbane Football Club were formed as a football club in 1987, branded as the Bears. They exist in the AFL to this day, except branded as the Lions.

Fitzroy Football Club continued on with its own board of directors, it's own shareholders and it's own members. Just no AFL licence. To be a member or shareholder of Fitzroy is not to be a member of the Brisbane Lions. The reverse is also true.

Theoretically then, a portion of the proft made from the Brisbane Lions FC would be funneled back to the Fitzroy Lions and Brisbane Bears. Theoretically, that's how a merger is SUPPOSED to work on the financial side of things.

Fitzroy Football Club have completely different revenue streams from the Brisbane Lions. Fitzroy do not receive a dividend from the Lions' business. The only thing that has happened is that the Brisbane Lions have sponsored a Fitzroy player or have contributed a small sponsorship.

 

[Exe Gesis]

No they didn't form a new club. Brisbane rebranded themselves from Bears to Lions.



That would be the club moving interstate. Fitzroy did nothing of the sort. Fitzroy still exist in their own right in Melbourne. 132 years old this September.

|
|
V

Did Fitzroy merge with the Brisbane Bears or not?

It doesn't matter if they still exist in the VFL as a separate same entity, because using the Wests Tigers example, both Wests Magpies and Balmain Tigers still exist in the state comp as separate entities. They formed a new entity, 50:50 board membership, both teams resources/money used to establish the merged entity in the NRL, and portion of profits from the Wests Tigers funneled back to Wests Mapgies and Balmain Tigers.

Did Fitzroy actually merge with the Bears? And part of their merger agreement was the retention of their identity/history in the state comp (VFL). So maybe Brisbane Bears, who owned that AFL license before the merger, continued owning that same license after the merger, with a rebranded name of Brisbane Lions, no Bears team left to exist playing in some QAFL state comp....but did Fitzroy merge with that Bears-owned license or not?

 

[Exe Gesis]

Brisbane Bears Football Club Ltd. renamed itself the Brisbane Bears-Fitzroy Football Club Ltd

Why did they rename themselves Brisbane Bears/Fitzroy Football Club Ltd? Why was a Victorian FC added to their name, unless that football club (fitzroy) AGREED to merge to form a NEW entity.....that would CONTINUE owning the AFL license that previously was owned by the Bears club.

The history of the Brisbane Bears (stats, records) ENDED when they merged with Fitzroy, or ended when they adopted a new name of BB-FFC Ltd....regardless of the fact that the same AFL license was continuing. It's not at all like South Melbourne renaming themselves Sydney and continuing their history (stats, records). Irrespective whether the Swans relocated or not, renaming themselves Sydney didn't start a new entity. But the Bears history ended after the renaming....why? Because it wasn't a simple renaming. It was a merged entity, adopting the FFC -- even tho the FFC still wanted to exist in the VFL. Like the Wests Magpies and Balmain Tigers do.

I don't know what's REALLY going on with the financial side of things between the Brisbane Lions and the Fitzroy Lions, showing or not showing a genuine financial merger or ongoing financial aid to the FFC in the VFL...you would know.

But logic, the PRAGMATICS, says that the FFC and BB merged, with the merged entity CONTINUING the license owned by the Bears, but that same license club did not carry forward any historical records/stats of either the Bears or the FLions...because it's a merged/new entity.

 

[Roylion]

Did Fitzroy merge with the Brisbane Bears or not?

No they did not. Brisbane acquired some bits of Fitzroy.

It doesn't matter if they still exist in the VFL as a separate same entity, because using the Wests Tigers example, both Wests Magpies and Balmain Tigers still exist in the state comp as separate entities. They formed a new entity, 50:50 board membership, both teams resources/money used to establish the merged entity in the NRL, and portion of profits from the Wests Tigers funneled back to Wests Mapgies and Balmain Tigers.

Nothing like that happened in the 'merger'. Brisbane does not exist anywhere else other than in the AFL. No Fitzroy director has ever served on the Brisbane board. Brisbane Lions funds are not channelled into Fitzroy.

Did Fitzroy actually merge with the Bears?

No, they did not.

And part of their merger agreement was the retention of their identity/history in the state comp (VFL).

No. Fitzroy does not play in the state comp. Fitzroy came out of administration was returned to the control of the elected directors, who started to rebuild the club. Only in 2009 did they return to the playing field. That occurred with no assistance from Brisbane.

So maybe Brisbane Bears, who owned that AFL license before the merger, continued owning that same license after the merger, with a rebranded name of Brisbane Lions, no Bears team left to exist playing in some QAFL state comp....but did Fitzroy merge with that Bears-owned license or not?

No, they did not. Haven't I explained this already on numerous occasions in this thread?

 

[Exe Gesis]

Fitzroy-owned AFL license
Brisbane Bears-owned AFL license

Fitzroy merges their club, not their license, with the Bears club, and the merged entity continues running the AFL license that the Bears had.
The Fitzroy AFL license is taken from them and given to the SANFL, who sub-licenses it to Port Adelaide.
With the AFL license taken from Fitzroy, the club still chose to exist, and to field a team in the VFL.
The AFL license taken from Fitzroy did not end the club itself -- it's not the AFL license ITSELF that determines whether a club exists or not in the world. It's up to the club to decide whether to continue existing or to cease operating. It doesn't even need to field a team in the VFL to continue existing as a business/club. As long as there are ways for a business/club to make income to continue running itself as a business/club then it can continue existing as a business/club.

 

[Roylion]

Why did they rename themselves Brisbane Bears/Fitzroy Football Club Ltd? Why was a Victorian FC added to their name, unless that football club (fitzroy) AGREED to merge to form a NEW entity.....that would CONTINUE owning the AFL license that previously was owned by the Bears club.

I would suggest that you read the Deed of Arrangement which reproduced in full on the Fitzroy board.

The Brisbane Bears rebranded themselves as the Lions to attract a Victorian supporter base, $6 million from the AFL and improve their playing list.

The history of the Brisbane Bears (stats, records) ENDED when they merged with Fitzroy, or ended when they adopted a new name of BB-FFC Ltd....regardless of the fact that the same AFL license was continuing.

They didn't merge with Fitzroy. Fitzroy exited the competition and the AFL agreed to let the Bears rebrand themselves to more closely resemble Fitzroy for the reasons outlined above.

Its not at all like South Melbourne renaming themselves Sydney and continuing their history (stats, records). Irrespective whether the Swans relocated or not, renaming themselves Sydney didn't start a new entity.

Neither did Brisbane. Like Sydney, they renamed themselves. Unlike Sydney they didn't move cities.

But the Bears history ended after the renaming....why? Because it wasn't a simple renaming.

Yes it was.

It was a merged entity, adopting the FFC -- even tho the FFC still wanted to exist in the VFL. Like the Wests Magpies and Balmain Tigers do.

It's nothing like Wests and Balmain.

I don't know what's REALLY going on with the financial side of things between the Brisbane Lions and the Fitzroy Lions, showing or not showing a genuine financial merger or ongoing financial aid to the FFC in the VFL...you would know.

I do know. I'm a shareholder of Fitzroy have have been since 1986.

Fitzroy are not and were not in the VFL after 1996.

The logic, the PRAGMATICS, says that the FFC and BB merged, with the merged entity CONTINUING the license owned by the Bears, but that same license club did not carry forward any historical records/stats of either the Bears or the FLions...because it's a merged/new entity.

It's NOT a merged new entity. The Supreme Court of Victoria confirmed that in 2010.

 

[Mazza44]

I don't care that the premiership cups are not part of Brisbane Lions history but considering none of our records are carried over it would have been nice for the records to have been reset in 1997.

 

[Roylion]

Fitzroy merges their club, not their license, with the Bears club, and the merged entity continues running the AFL license that the Bears had.

Fitzroy didn't merge anything. Quite apart from the fact the directors of Fitzroy opposed a merger with the Bears, the administrator of Fitzroy sold off bits and pieces of Fitzroy's AFL assets to mainly the Brisbane Bears, until the Club's debts was settled. When the administrator of Fitzroy exited and returned control of the Club (the "entity") to the directors, the directors were left with a shell of a club which they resolved to rebuild. The subsequent rebuilding had nothing to do with the Brisbane Lions. As I said, not one Fitzroy director has ever served on the Brisbane Lions board. Both clubs had as little to do with each other as possible for a long time.

With the AFL license taken from Fitzroy, the club still chose to exist, and to field a team in the VFL.

Where are you getting the idea that Fitzroy fielded a team in the state league of the VFL , after they exited the AFL competition? That never happened and still hasn't happened.

The AFL license taken from Fitzroy did not end the club itself -- it's not the AFL license ITSELF that determines whether a club exists or not in the world.

Yes, I'm aware of that. Fitzroy still exists in its own right because it did not merge with the Bears to form a new entity.

It's up to the club to decide whether to continue existing or to cease operating. It doesn't even need to field a team in the VFL to continue existing as a business/club. As long as there are ways for a business/club to make income to continue running itself as a business/club then it can continue existing as a business/club.

So in other words, Fitzroy did not join with another AFL club to form a new club. Fitzroy continued to exist in its own right. The Brisbane Bears rebranded themselves (they changed their name as South Melbourne/Sydney and Footscray / Western Bulldogs have done.) They now look a lot like Fitzroy, when Fitzroy were in the AFL. That does NOT make them a merged entity.

If North Melbourne were to exit the AFL and the Western Bulldogs were to rename themselves the North West Melbourne Bulldogs and wear blue, white and red vertical stripes as their jumper, that does not mean that the North West Melbourne Bulldogs are a merged entity between Footscray and North Melbourne.

All it means is the Western Bulldogs have rebranded themselves. Again.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Answer the specific question Roylion I asked you instead of just snapping back "no it wasn't" "yes it was"

The specific question.... Explain why the bears history ended the minute the club in your words renamed itself bb-ffc Ltd.

Because it wasn't a simple renaming like the Swans. Instead another entity merged with them, in some capacity, thus creating a new entity. Otherwise, the bears history would've continued like the Swans history did.