Did Gil just put mergers back on the agenda?

[Walshawk]

If GWS came in to grow the game in Western Sydney it has been a failure. If it came in simply add more games and add to the broadcast rights then Tas can do then and more. Off field GWS is doing far worse than Fitzroy was during its final years.

If we send Toby Greene

4

Toby Greene

Age

30

Ht

182cm

Wt

85kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

22.7

5star

K

12.5

5star

HB

10.2

5star

M

4.8

5star

T

3.0

5star

G

1.2

4star

D

17.5

4star

K

9.5

4star

HB

8.0

4star

M

4.8

4star

T

1.0

2star

G

2.3

5star

D

26.6

5star

K

12.4

5star

HB

14.2

5star

M

4.8

5star

T

3.6

5star

G

0.0

1star

and his mates to Hobart, it kills two birds with one stone.

 

[Coolangatta]

If GWS came in to grow the game in Western Sydney it has been a failure. If it came in simply add more games and add to the broadcast rights then Tas can do then and more. Off field GWS is doing far worse than Fitzroy was during its final years.

If we send Toby Greene and his mates to Hobart, it kills two birds with one stone.

Yeah nah, let’s see how the Giants go when their Canberra deal expires. Your mob should sign a 5 year deal to play 3 games a year in Canberra while the Giants focus on WS.

If by 2037 they’re still a failure then move them to Canberra. It’d be tempting to just leave them in WS but if they’re going to always be a failure then maybe they shouldn’t be there at all.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Mergers make far more sense than creating more teams.

 

[Engimal v3]

Mergers make far more sense than creating more teams.

I'd rather support North in a lower Victorian league (see Fitzroy 2023) than support some merged club.

Mergers are a good way to rip the heart out of 2 clubs.

 

[Rob]

I'd rather support North in a lower Victorian league (see Fitzroy 2023) than support some merged club.

Mergers are a good way to rip the heart out of 2 clubs.

You're not wrong, but you'd lose a lot more fans relegating a team than merging them. From all reports Fitzroy draws barely a few hundred to its games nowadays.

 

[Coolangatta]

You're not wrong, but you'd lose a lot more fans relegating a team than merging them. From all reports Fitzroy draws barely a few hundred to its games nowadays.

If you were pressed to keep the comp to 20 teams but go fully national and cover all major geographical areas then Tassie and NT as new teams and Northern Roos in NQLD and Saints to Canberra is how I’d do it.

Maybe keep one in Vic and Giants to Canberra if they truly fail the WS market.

But it would be better imo to not cap the max number of teams and go over 20 if the growth is there in the future. No need to make an offer for a club to move if they’re financially successful.

I’m sure if the AFL ever wants to go beyond 20 teams one day then they’ll brainstorm new competition structures, whether they are popular or not.

 

[Obzerva]

I'd rather support North in a lower Victorian league (see Fitzroy 2023) than support some merged club.

Mergers are a good way to rip the heart out of 2 clubs.

Agree, I guess it depends on what the supporters prefer, would you like the club intact at VFL level, or a half club at AFL level in potentially new colours, new nickname, etc

 

[Roylion]

Agree, I guess it depends on what the supporters prefer, would you like the club intact at VFL level, or a half club at AFL level in potentially new colours, new nickname, etc

If the merged club had enough of the identity of both original clubs it might work. From this point of view I can only see one merger possibly working...

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 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.

It's very difficult to ensure a balance of two identities when negotiating a merger

The only Melbourne based merger that might work would be the Kangaroos and the Dogs 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.

But even then I just can't see that happening.

The long term rivalry between the Melbourne based clubs makes any merger unpalatable to their supporters and there would have to be very pressing reasons for such a move to even be considered.

In the past the "Melbourne Lions" would have probably worked. Maybe the "Footscray Lions" playing out of the Western Oval. 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.

 

[Coolangatta]

If the merged club had enough of the identity of both original clubs it might work. From this point of view I can only see one merger possibly working...

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 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.

It's very difficult to ensure a balance of two identities when negotiating a merger

The only Melbourne based merger that might work would be the Kangaroos and the Dogs 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.

But even then I just can't see that happening.

The long term rivalry between the Melbourne based clubs makes any merger unpalatable to their supporters and there would have to be very pressing reasons for such a move to even be considered.

In the past the "Melbourne Lions" would have probably worked. Maybe the "Footscray Lions" playing out of the Western Oval. 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.

Why not the North West Melbourne Roodogs?

 

[Roylion]

Why not the North West Melbourne Roodogs?

What's a Roodog?

 

[RedV3x]

Mergers make far more sense than creating more teams.

So who are you going to merge ? - the underperformers ? - yes, let's merge Eagles and Dockers.

Mergers don't work because of the animosity towards the partner -their history and culture are being swallowed up.
IMO the Swans have continued the South Melbourne story and likewise
I believe Brisbane have continued the Fitzroy story but any merger of Victorian teams as many people keep proposing
apart would result in too much against.
I think people, Victorians would be more in tune with relocation than merger as a club retains it's history whilst moving
into a more exciting future.

 

[Demon13304]

So who are you going to merge ? - the underperformers ? - yes, let's merge Eagles and Dockers.

Mergers don't work because of the animosity towards the partner -their history and culture are being swallowed up.
IMO the Swans have continued the South Melbourne story and likewise
I believe Brisbane have continued the Fitzroy story but any merger of Victorian teams as many people keep proposing
apart would result in too much against.
I think people, Victorians would be more in tune with relocation than merger as a club retains it's history whilst moving
into a more exciting future.

Yeah mergers suck, end of story. Relocation is better I guess.
That 57 years of pain, heartache and drought that we broke in 2021? Doesn't mean as much if it's The Melbourne Hawks doing that.

As much as I would never want to Demons to relocate, at least if they ever did i still feel like I'm supporting the same club with its own history and I can at least see them play several games in Victoria. Still rather it not happen though

 

[Coolangatta]

When I think of a relocation that easily could've worked, the Western Sydney Bulldogs comes to mind. Same colours and club song would've been retained. If that had have happened + a North relocation to the Gold Coast, we still would've had a 16 team comp.

 

[RedV3x]

When I think of a relocation that easily could've worked, the Western Sydney Bulldogs comes to mind. Same colours and club song would've been retained. If that had have happened + a North relocation to the Gold Coast, we still would've had a 16 team comp.

Arguably a stronger 16 team competition.

 

[Colonial]

Mergers make far more sense than creating more teams.

Cool enjoy that merger with North (or insert another smaller Vic side) then

 

[Colonial]

When I think of a relocation that easily could've worked, the Western Sydney Bulldogs comes to mind. Same colours and club song would've been retained.

Lol no

 

[Rich01]

Weak clubs think they are protected from merging because members can just vote it down.

The AFL has all the power here.
If they want a club to merge they simply turn the screws and withdraw all over and above funding to the club.

Clubs like GWS, GCS and North wouldn’t last 2 seasons without this prop up.

What holds in their favour is the need to forfill tv rights agreements that see a certain amount of games played on tv each week. Less clubs make that more challenging.

But with 19 teams, there’s an opportunity to revert downwards and not have this as a major factor.

 

[Coolangatta]

Lol no

Well I'm glad the Giants exist now but I'm saying back then if the North to Gold Coast move had have happened, keeping the competition to 16 teams, then the AFL would've had two options on the table for expansion into Western Sydney:

Expand to teams 17 and 18: GWS and Tassie
Keep to 16 teams: Western Sydney Bulldogs

I would've been inclined to see how the Gold Coast Roos went in their first few years and considered the Bulldogs relocation, but all that said and done, the AFL can't make anyone do s**t unless they put the financial squeeze on club assistance.

 

[Roylion]

Weak clubs think they are protected from merging because members can just vote it down.

The AFL has all the power here.
If they want a club to merge they simply turn the screws and withdraw all over and above funding to the club.

No club, owned by its members, can be forced to merge. They can turn the screws but they cannot actually directly order two clubs to merge. All the AFL can really do in the end is withdraw a club's licence to compete in the AFL competition.

We've already seen that.

Clubs like GWS, GCS and North wouldn’t last 2 seasons without this prop up.

North Melbourne could still not be forced to merge.

 

[Rich01]

No club, owned by its members, can be forced to merge. They can turn the screws but they cannot actually directly order two clubs to merge. All the AFL can really do in the end is withdraw a club's licence to compete in the AFL competition.

We've already seen that.

North Melbourne could still not be forced to merge.

100% correct. But they could turn the screws and withdraw funding if they were adamant they wanted to cut the comp by one team.

The club would then face a choice- merge or die.

The difference to the North situation a decade ago is that wasn’t the choice North members were faced with. It was merge or continue to exist.

A merge or die option changes members view significantly unfortunately.

 

[Roylion]

100% correct. But they could turn the screws and withdraw funding if they were adamant they wanted to cut the comp by one team.

The club would then face a choice- merge or die.

Not 'die'. Leave the AFL competition. The club would still exist. That happened to my club.

The difference to the North situation a decade ago is that wasn’t the choice North members were faced with. It was merge or continue to exist.

In 2007? Wasn't it 'relocation'?

A merge or die option changes members view significantly unfortunately.

That would totally depend on what was on offer in the merger. If your club's identity is largely obliterated in the identity of the new 'merged' club, then leaving the competition and playing at a lower level (like Fitzroy have done) may well be preferable. The AFL also faces potential legal action in the courts if the 'turning of the screws' is deemed prejudical to their chances of being able to compete on a fair basis. The 1989 Fitzroy-Fooscray proposed merger is a case in point.

 

[L_W_P]

Merge Melbourne and St Kilda into a peninsula powerhouse. Absorb everything from St Kilda, through Moorabbin and out to Casey Fields and Frankston.

If you need a 2nd merger (to bring in WA3, FNQ or a stand alone Canberra team) then the West Melbourne Kangeroos makes sense.

People will shout it down but it'd make sense to absorb the smaller Vic clubs into each other vs another Brisbane/Fitzroy style take over.

 

[Rich01]

Not 'die'. Leave the AFL competition. The club would still exist. That happened to my club.


In 2007? Wasn't it 'relocation'?


That would totally depend on what was on offer in the merger. If your club's identity is largely obliterated in the identity of the new 'merged' club, then leaving the competition and playing at a lower level (like Fitzroy have done) may well be preferable. The 1989 Fitzroy-Fooscray proposed merger is a case in point.

Yes. Totally respect your views Roy.
Die was perhaps an emotive word, but dropping to the Ammo’s or a similar grade comp may also be death to some. But full respect to you, I wouldn’t want my team to go through what yours did.

2007 was relocation, you are right.
My point is that if the AFL was to rationalise teams, particularly Melb based ones, it would be a merge or ‘remove from the comp’ option cs a relocate. And you know full well if they don’t support a club financially they can bend it to a point that it must do what it’s told, if they don’t have solid financial structures themselves.

 

[Roylion]

And you know full well if they don’t support a club financially they can bend it to a point that it must do what it’s told, if they don’t have solid financial structures themselves.

That is true.

The AFL could possibly face potential legal action in the courts if the 'turning of the screws' upon a club is deemed prejudical to their chances of being able to compete in the AFL on a fair basis.

The only reason Fitzroy didnt take legal action against the AFL in 1996, is because an administrator had been appointed to the club by the Nauru Insurance Company and they were prevented from doing so.

This is how it happened.

5.3A 436A of the Corporations Act states that a Company may appoint an administrator if the board of that company thinks it is or will become insolvent. Part 5.3A 436B states that a Liquidator may appoint an administrator while Part 5.3A 436C states that a secured party may appoint an administrator.

Note the bold of the last section, because this is what happened to Fitzroy.

"A person who is entitled to enforce a security interest in the whole, or substantially the whole, of a company's property may by writing appoint an administrator of the company if the security interest has become, and is still, enforceable."

On 25 July 1996, the creditors of the company (Fitzroy Football Club) resolved that Fitzroy should enter a Deed of Company Arrangement (instead of the creditor's other two choices permissable by the Corporations Act 2001 which was liquidation or ending the administration).

On 4 August 1996 a deed was executed by Fitzroy (controlled by Michael Brennan as administrator) and the Brisbane Bears Football Club Ltd. In consideration of Brisbane Bears Football Club Ltd. agreeing to pay or procure the payment of various amounts mentioned in the deed (such as paying Nauru's loan), and to provide certain indemnities, the administrator agreed to transfer all Fitzroy's operations and activities as an AFL club (including its football operations) to the Brisbane Bears with effect from 1 November 1996.

So in effect the Brisbane Bears purchased Fitzroy's AFL assets as pertaining to its Club Operations and the AFL added on some other bonuses such as priority (pre draft) access to eight players from Fitzroy's 1996 list, some AFL money (an AFL grant to aid its purchasing of Fitzroy's assets.)

As part of the deal, the administrator relinquished (voluntarily surrendered) Fitzroy Football Club's licence to compete in the AFL competition, effectively expelling them.

The AFL also gave permission for all its AFL owned trademarks (pertaining to Fitzroy) to be used by the Brisbane Bears Football Club from Season 1997 onwards and this was ratified by 14 of the 16 clubs on July 4th 1996 to come into effect on November 1st 1996. The Brisbane Bears subseqently re-branded their club identity and continued in the AFL as the "Brisbane Lions". Fitzroy Football Club left the VFL-AFL competition after 100 years of participation.


Fitzroy did take subsequent legal action against the Brisbane Lions in 2010 and the Fitzroy directors defended against legal action from the Brisbane Bears in 1996.

 

[AFootballParent]

When asked about whether we would go to 20 teams he said “18 or 20”. I thought it was a slip of the tongue but he continued… “I think we will end up at an even number. The league has seen expansion and contraction and that will play out“

I reckon the AFL would prefer to stick with 18 teams, and that there will be incentives put in place for a merger. GWS being the most likely target. If it doesn’t happen, we will go to 20,

The problem with a merger is that on paper it sounds good but in reality the history and the culture built from that history are lost


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com