- Dec 22, 2006
- 9,572
- 11,371
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Tottenham Hotspur
Almost as much as they love baying for blood of a coach.. if North beat the Crows it will be a feast on Matthew Knicks scalp.
Rumour The North Ultimatum
- Thread starter The Phantoms Ghost
- Start date
- Tagged users None
To put the obvious out there:
For starters this proposal would have to be put forward to the members to vote on, and that's if the club would want to. Needless to say the members would likely reject the proposal, like they rejected the GC proposal.
I don't think it's likely fans would turn up to these games because there's likely not North supporters in the ACT. The members would probably rather fold.
Folding: In the charter you need a majority vote from all clubs for a proposal to fold another club. Not likely to get the majority vote.
I knew that about relocation, not about folding, but I did know the AFL couldn't simply just fold them, even if they wanted to, which they don't.
What about clubs owned by the AFL? Could the AFL fold the Suns/Giants? Not that they would/should.
Anyway, I hope ACT gets their own team.
After seeing the passion from the Eagles supporters in last weeks derby, it's actually hard to see even the members who can't get a seat jumping ship to WA3. There's the casuals but a lot of the members are die-hards.
So, I'm not as sure about WA3 working as I once was and if the comp goes to 20, surely it's gotta be ACT, surely.
Not sure, they do have members and if I am correct the charter rules still apply, so they'd have to put it to the members.
Lol what a load of s**t. You can't fold a club
Yep I know, like I said it's in the charter, a proposal has to be forward to all the clubs in the competition and then a majority vote would have to get up for it to get up. Would never happen, not sure why you think my post is a load of sh*t.Lol what a load of s**t. You can't fold a club
You cannot fold a club.
You are trying to say revoke a licence which in theory, is possible. Realistically it would never work and would get dragged thru courts. Especially with non AFL owned clubs.
If Collingwood was kicked out of the comp it would still exist, not 'folded'
Last edited:
Yeah I know, as I've just stated.
Yeah but they kind of did that with Fitzroy, didn't they?
It wasn't really a merger so much as it was a rebranding of the Bears. Roys licence, history and assets are done and dusted in the AFL as far as I'm aware.
It was a different time, though, and Fitzroy were in a far worse situation, so I guess that one never had a chance of going to court.
The Fitzroy case is one of insolvency if I am correct, Roylion will have the true reasoning.
As far as I'm concerned, it wasn't a merger at all. It was the Bears given the lions moniker etc.
In any case >now< and for however how long previously, if I am correct the charter states you need first a proposal to 'fold' a club and all the clubs must vote, and a majority vote is the only avenue to a 'fold'.
Yeah, I've heard Roylion talk about this before.
I guess bolded is the difference - clubs didn't have to vote on it back then.
Not 100% sure but you might be right.
- Moderator
- #463
Fitzroy were $2.7 million in debt in 1996. $1.25 million of that was owed to one secured creditor, (Nauru Insurance Company) which was being serviced and wasn't due to be paid back until 2001.
Nauru appointed an administrator to Fitzroy when they found out that the AFL was refusing to guarantee Nauru (Fitzroy's only secured creditor) would be paid out from the merger monies that would have been paid to the proposed 'North Fitzroy Kangaroos'.
This appointment took the power to merge from North Melbourne and Fitzroy and placed it in the hands of the administrator of Fitzroy, Michael Brennan, who under heavy AFL pressure, was persuaded to consider a deal with the Brisbane Bears under AFL auspices.
On 4 August 1996 a deed was executed by Fitzroy (controlled by Michael Brennan as administrator) and the Brisbane Bears Football Club Ltd. and the AFL. 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.
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 the club from the AFL.
Fitzroy Football Club continued to exist and competes in the VAFA to this day.
The AFL 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 other clubs rejected the Fitzroy-North Merger 14-1 and accepted Brisbane's re-branding, as the AFL preferred "for strategic reasons". 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.
No AFL club (that is not owned by the AFL) can be merged, relocated or folded (liquidated) against the will of the club's members, directors and shareholders. A football club can have its licence withdrawn to compete in the AFL competition however. However I don't call that 'folded'. I call that 'expelled'. Fitzroy was expelled.
Thanks RoyLion
Your knowledge on the history of Fitzroy and its sad demise is impressive.
In the part I've bolded in your last paragraph, if the AFL did withdraw a clubs licence to compete, it can be overturned in court, can't it?
What might have happened if Fitzroy did not voluntarily surrender its licence?
- Moderator
- #466
It would have been dragged through the courts. The AFL couldn't liquidate Fitzroy, as it didnt own the club. That was up to the shareholders and creditors.
On December 22 1997, Brennan resigned as the administrator and returned control of the Fitzroy Football Club to its directors. Fitzroy emerged from what was effectively an 18 month coma. The shareholders voted to continue the club after that happened.
Fitzroy began taking ordinary memberships once again from December 1997, once they came out of administration.
AFL spokesman Tony Peek also said in February 1998 that the AFL's lawyers had told Fitzroy's directors to stop using the name "Fitzroy", even though they had no legal power to do, having not trademarked the name 'Fitzroy'.
Peek claimed that the AFL's licence agreement required a club to give up its name if it stopped playing in the AFL competition. The AFL has never pursued this claim in court, knowing that they would probably lose. The AFL cannot legally prevent the Fitzroy Football Club from entering any football competition and using the name "Fitzroy",(apart from the AFL competition), on the basis that the AFL own the 'Fitzroy brand' or the 'Fitzroy' name.
Fitzroy Football Club also own the Fitzroy 'FFC' logo that they used on their VFl-AFL jumpers. The logo has been trademarked by the Club from 10th June 1998 until at least 10 Jun 2028.
Trademark: 764288.
Fitzroy Football Club can use their FFC logo trademark on any clothing, footwear and headgear including football jumpers and socks, scarves, shirts, T-shirts, shorts and neckties that they merchandise, irrespective of whether the AFL likes it or not.
Once the FFC logo was trademarked by the Fitzroy Football Club, Fitzroy sold FFC jumpers and other merchandise with the FFC logo on it, completely independently of the AFL.
The reason the Fitzroy board has never taken the AFL to court about their expulsion from the AFL was that the administator of Fitzroy had signed away Fitzroy's ability to take any legal action against the AFL. The agreement says that Fitzroy will "...release AFL from all claims connected with its AFL Licence and such termination and surrender;"
Last edited:
Wow. I don't know if I'm misreading this or not but it sounds like... Fitzroy caved in and lost the will to keep fighting for its survival. I know the AFL blocked them from moving to Canberra, though, which didn't help. Manuka oval is on Fitzroy street...
I haven't looked into this but I don't actually believe it.
Obviously members are never going to vote to relocate or fold which means according to you all clubs are safe for eternity. This is clearly BS.
Last time James Brayshaw had to come in and "save" them.
If it's just a member vote then that wouldn't have been necessary.
if the AFL truly wanted them gone they would be gone. The AFL see them as a fixture item to satisfy broadcasters.
That's what keeps them going. Not members.
Last edited:
Engimal v3
**** m**nl*nd*rs
Relocation of North is not at all feasible, as I'd enter the homes of any AFL executive suggesting it and attack them and their families with weapons.
- Moderator
- #470
In seeking a merger with other clubs? Fitzroy explored a number of options to remain in the AFL in some way either through merger or relocation. Let's also not forget that Melbourne and Hawthorn explored a merger in 1996 and many other clubs also explored mergers.
Fitzroy's main ones were:
- Sydney Lions 1981 - playing in Fitzroy jumper with SFC logo instead of FFC
- Melbourne Lions 1986 and 1994 - playing in Melbourne jumper with gold Fitzroy Lion on front of jumper
- Fitzroy Bulldogs 1989 - playing in Fitzroy jumper with two gold horizontal bars added
- North Fitzroy Kangaroos 1996 - a combined Fitzroy and North jumper in colours of both clubs (red gold, blue and white).
- Brisbane Lions 1986 and 1994 onwards - effectively what the Brisbane Lions (formerly Bears) have now.
- Canberra - Fitzroy Lions 1995 - Fitzroy colours, seven home games
Merger offers from other clubs included: (and these were all approaches to Fitzroy, not the other way round)
- Fitzroy-Collingwood Magpies (1992 and 1996)
- Hawthorn Lions (1996)
- Geelong Lions (1996)
- Adelaide Lions (1996)
- Norwood Lions (1996)
And a couple of other laughable offers from Richmond and Footscray in 1996
The Fitzroy board's preference was a merger with a Melbourne based club rather than a relocation interstate, because of the ability for Fitzroy supporters to watch the merged club on a regular basis, instead of 4-6 times a year.
Yes, they did.
Last edited:
What exactly is a "charter"?
A "trademark " "licence" and "liquidation " are all completely separate legal concepts
- Moderator
- #473
Any AFL club, not owned by the AFL, cannot be merged or relocated against the will of the members, directors and / or shareholders, depending on the contents of the club's constitution. All that can be done is to remove a club's licence to compete in the AFL competition. Depending on how that is done, that may or may not result in legal action.
Last edited:
- Moderator
- #474
Yes? For example withdrawing a club's licence to compete in the AFL does not liquidate the club.
Ok but the AFL controls the revenue streams.
Also what is "ownership" exactly. In a sporting context where one requires a licence.
They'd need a white knight to fund them if the AFL decided to given them the ass. Or raise the $30 mill a year from members to cover the shortfall. Would need some kind of EPL style funding.
No way it's just dependent on a "vote" and a "charter".
I could write myself up a "charter" and nobody will take any notice of it.
