By mjg -
March 4th 2010 @ 1:51am
Get a Roar profile
Loading ...Related coverage
Fight to retain the Fitzroy Lion is worth it
The legal stoush between the Brisbane Lions and the remnants of the Fitzroy Football Club over the new logo is a fight worth having, as far as old Roys are concerned.
Symbols and heritage may not matter as much to a new club, but tell Collingwood to change their black and white stripes and you’ll have some idea of how Fitzroy people regard the jumper.
Yes, the Lions were previously Gorillas and the red was historically maroon (should never have changed), but all the Roys of 1996 vintage have is memories and they remain priceless.
Fitzroy was a reluctant bride, of course.
Then president Dyson Hore-Lacey negotiated an agreement with North Melbourne that most supporters reluctantly endorsed. It made sense for two inner Melbourne clubs with small supporter bases to come together.
Unfortunately for everyone involved, Fitzroy’s demise coincided with a North Melbourne premiership year. The other Melbourne clubs, particularly Richmond, feared the proposed merger would create a superpower and it was vetoed.
In stepped Brisbane and the rest is history, complete with a superpower triple premiership run.
The merger agreement with the Bears included a clause to retain the Fitzroy Lion logo in perpetuity and for the new club to play at least six games a year in Melbourne.
The AFL draw for 2005 had only five Lions games in Melbourne. The Lions negotiated with Fitzroy’s continuing entity in Melbourne to play one of the Victorian matches wearing a Fitzroy jumper to offset the loss of a game.
That has since been a feature of Lions matches in Victoria and one that’s much appreciated by Fitzroy people.
According to a report on the Fairfax website (http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/court-battle-over-brisbane-lions-logo-20100303-phz3.html) during a costs application in the Supreme Court, counsel for Brisbane, Rodney Garratt QC, said a historic club with a dwindling supporter base should not be allowed to control the activities of an ongoing organisation.
Their argument seems to be that the Lions is a new club, forget about the past.
They clearly don’t understand what it means to be a Fitzroy person or a Victorian supporter of the Lions.
The club is more than a football team; it is a spiritual being that pervades the lives of those who embrace it. The spirit is manifest in the jumper, the logo and the song.
From a Fitzroy perspective it’s a battle worth fighting. Can Brisbane people honestly say the same?
What do they gain by changing the historic Lion to a “Paddlepop” version?
Discover the best in new art and culture at our sister site, Lost At E Minor
Please support The Roar columnist Troy Chaplin's charity initiative: Baby Archie's Bear Giving Program. Please support generously.
(49)
VooDoo said | March 4th 2010 @ 4:00am | Report comment
It seems they gain an enhanced brand that the club believes will help them grow their appeal nationally. Brissy is struggling for members by AFL standards.
My brother is/was a Fitzroy supporter, and I attended their last match in Melbourne. I truly empathise with their supporters, as I couldn’t imagine my club being taken over. That said, the lion logo on the guernsey has only existed post-merger, as prior to that Fitzroy had the ‘FFC’ monogram on the chest. Most people would agree the lion silhouette was poorly drawn by present design standards, which doesn’t diminish it’s historical significance but does help to explain why Brisbane wishes to modernise it now.
Perhaps there is another way forward, and that’s an out-of-court agreement to play Melbourne matches in the traditional Fitzroy guernsey with the monogram and allow Brisbane to wear their new strip at home games. It would satisfy both parties and surely followers of the Roys would prefer to see the traditional strip get an airing several weekends each year.
Al said | March 4th 2010 @ 2:12pm | Report comment
I remember that match well, the scoreline read something like 180 to 30, pretty much a true reflection of what Fitzroy had been reduced to.
Redb said | March 4th 2010 @ 7:33am | Report comment
There are some really good articles about ongoing existence of the traditional Fitzroy Football club and it’s merger with the Fitzroy Reds who play out of the tradtional Brunswick Street Oval in the VAFA in front of a group of dedicated tragics.
It is unfortunate and many footy fans can sympathise to a point but I think some need to move on. Like it or not the clubs future is in Brisbane and despite some initial misgivings about the new logo I can understand why they changed it. I reckon it will be real goer with kids.
I don’t remember Opera House sails on the old South Melbourne jumper.
Fiztory could have completely died, just look at some of the old Sydney clubs in the NSWRL?
It’s sad but reality. Surely old fans of University which disappeared from the VFL in the early days were similiarly disenfranchised or the countless clubs that folded or disappeared when the VFL became a breakaway competition from the then premier comp the VFA in 1897.
Look through the list of clubs in the VFA and see which ones are still around, it happens as time moves on, population demographics change and/or a lack of success diminshes fans apetite for involvement. eg; Hotham, Northcote, even Victorian Railways!
Al said | March 4th 2010 @ 2:13pm | Report comment
Would you tolerate Essendon getting rid of their sash just to sign up an extra fifty kids?
Redb said | March 4th 2010 @ 2:23pm | Report comment
This is not about tolerance its about reality.
Al said | March 4th 2010 @ 2:25pm | Report comment
So you would be fine if Essendon got rid of their sash despite it being pretty much the only thing they have ever worn in their entire existence?
Chris said | March 4th 2010 @ 4:11pm | Report comment
Or if changing the Red sash to hot pink would help Essendon gain fans you would support it?
Personally I think its doubtful Brisbane will gain any fans out of the jersey change – its the kind of thing more likely to piss existing fans off (as indeed it is) than gain new ones to offset this.
While we are at it why don’t all AFL/NRL teams change thier jerseys to new designs every year? After all – they will make a quick buck. If it hasn’t happened to your club you are simply unable to understand just how bad it feels.
elbusto said | March 4th 2010 @ 6:54pm | Report comment
What Redb is saying, I think, is that Fitzroy Lions is now the Brisbane Lions so deal with it. The connection with Fitzroy, to all intents and purposes, is dead.
Throwing hypotheticals about other Clubs is irrelevant. The Lions have been in Brisbane for a lot of years now. If Essendon moved to, say, Hobart, then 13 years later something similar would happen and the response would be lessened by ten years of reality and natural generational change in attitudes.
I went to a game between Saints and Brisbane in 1997 and watching people walking around in Fitzroy gear looked strange even then.
I do not like the Brisbane Lions but I think they are within their rights to make this change.
The Club belongs to Brisbane. The Fitzroy connection is now a fantasy and a memory.
Interesting discussion though.
mjg said | March 4th 2010 @ 7:27pm | Report comment
So what value do you place on a legal agreement? None?
elbusto said | March 4th 2010 @ 7:40pm | Report comment
In a debate about a symbol on a jumper – I could not care less. If our Courts are going to be polluted with cases like this the winner can only be the lawyers.
Having had some experience in Courts and Tribunals as an Advocate I think its possible a Court might find that possession is 9 parts of the law and sentimentality can do what it likes.
This is, after all, much of what this is about – sentimentality – move on is my advice.
AM said | March 4th 2010 @ 9:29pm | Report comment
Fact – the agreement states ‘the Fitzroy Lion logo in perpetuity’. It doesn’t say ‘a Lion’, or even ‘a Fitzroy Lion’. It states ‘the Fitzroy Lion’. Those old Roys who made the decision to go with supporting the BL did so predomiantly because they couldn’t barrack for another enemy club, because of the theme song, because of the colors, and because of the now traditional BL jumper. It needs to be noted that both old Roys and QLD based Lions supporters hate that new jumper – and the cartoon Paddlepop has been widely condemned by one and all. This legal action is the only avenue for BL supporters from wherever they came from (Roys, Bears, wherever) to see that logo changed back, and with it potentially the jumper (if the BL are smart enough if they lose). It is not only a Fitzroy viewpoint. The BL have stated that they think the logo and jumper will sell more memberships – bollocks. I can understand that a new jumper and logo will potentially bring additional merch sales. However in order to maximise those sales, surely you would consult your fans and members, not insult them with arrogance, and by protecting the tradition liked by current members – modernise, but not butcher. Look at how Port have handled their guernsey change – a public competition won by a 6 year old that LOOKS like a football jumper, and then full consultation of members and fans alike. The BL did the opposite. The BL have created this mess, not the FFC. The BL states they may lose millions – if so, it is of their own doing for creating ugly merch that one suspects isn’t actually selling all that well, by trying to breach a binding agreement, and by treating its membership and fan base with contempt.
Al said | March 4th 2010 @ 8:36am | Report comment
Fitzroy was killed off in 1996, time to move on but to make sure history doesn’t repeat itself with other Vic clubs being “merged” off with newly created artificial entities.
Tommix said | March 4th 2010 @ 2:06pm | Report comment
Although on paper it was a merger, spiritually it was a takeover. Kudos to the Fitzroy faction for trying to preserve what little is left of the Fitzroy football club.
Al said | March 4th 2010 @ 2:10pm | Report comment
Ross Oakley admitted it was a “corporate takeover”. The Fitzroy/North Melbourne proposed amalgamation would have been a merger, instead we got an interstate side that became an AFL backed power all in order to win over a few fairweather supporters in Brisbane whilst North Melbourne are still struggling and were almost forced interstate not too long ago.
Corey said | March 4th 2010 @ 3:33pm | Report comment
True, but imagine if Fitzroy and Nth. Melbourne merged, what emblem and what team name would we have. I think the Brisbane Lions should remember their history along with keeping the logo. They should also have their away jersey as the Fitzroy jersey, that would show their Victorian supporters some commitment.
mjg said | March 4th 2010 @ 4:09pm | Report comment
I argued for using the Fitzroy jumper in away games from day one, but it took years to be accepted.
I agree that would be a reasonable compromise in exchange for changing the style of the Lion logo.
Jeb said | March 4th 2010 @ 7:58pm | Report comment
As a lions supporter (from Brisbane) I’d say that the overwhelming feeling up here is that the new jumper looks crap. And for that reason alone it shouldn’t be changed.
Obviously the marketing department has come along and proposed a new jumper that will supposedly appeal to kids, however I personally think this approach is fraught with danger. It’s easy to go overboard and become cartoonish. Case in point: a-league logos, strips, names etc.
bever fever said | March 4th 2010 @ 8:23pm | Report comment
The problem was always that Fitzroy had a small supporter base, this was THE problem.
Fitzroy, before it was called Fitzroy was known as North Collingwood, says it all really.
I reckon their jumper was great though.
Al said | March 5th 2010 @ 12:40pm | Report comment
When were they ever known as North Collingwood?
bever fever said | March 5th 2010 @ 4:31pm | Report comment
Along with Fitzroy, Collingwood was subdivided in 1838 into allotments each of about 12 ha. At that time both districts were generally known as Collingwood, although the Fitzroy part was differentiated by being known as upper Collingwood or Collingwood west.
http://localhero.biz/article/permatitle/history_of_collingwood,_victoria/
I did get it a bit wrong, my mistake, and although it was a long time ago, these things tend to get handed down through generations , especially if families live in the same general area, so i would imagine that the premier/bigger club in that area would take the lions share (so to speak) of the support base.
Many families in upper or west Collingwood would have probably identified more with Collingwood than Fitzroy.
AM said | March 5th 2010 @ 5:49pm | Report comment
Fitzroy Football Club came into existence in 1883 from memory. Geographically Fitzroy was smaller. The football club itself was never known to be anything but Fitzroy…. the other side of Smith St was always viewed as the scum side, but I’d suggest that both sides of Smith St actually felt that way about the other. But certainly the Fitzroy Football Club were not known as anything but Fitzroy in terms of suburb name.
bever fever said | March 5th 2010 @ 11:37pm | Report comment
I am not say that Fitzroy football club was formerly called Collingwood, what i am saying is that Collingwood and Fitzroy (the suburbs)had a big brother little brother relationship, the fact that Fitzroy was formerly called upper/west Collingwood left IMO Collingwood with a dominating position.
Interestingly the population of the city of Fitzroy in 1921 was 34,938, yet in that same year the city of Collingwood had 34,239, and their populations have pretty well mirrored each other since.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Collingwood
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Fitzroy#Population
We know plenty of Collingwood people moved to the suburbs (had families etc) along the Epping line, but where did all the Fitzroy people go ?.
Those stats actually suprised me because i had always thought that Fitzroy had a very small population, which in turn would lead to a small supporter base in future generations, as people moved out of the city to the suburbs but took their club allegiances with them and passed them on to younger family members etc.
Axel V said | March 4th 2010 @ 8:24pm | Report comment
What I don’t understand is, why did they change it into such a stupid, ugly, cartoony lion in the first place? The Old Fitzroy Lion is far superior
Jeff Dowsing said | March 4th 2010 @ 8:53pm | Report comment
Agree Axel, BL had one of the best jumpers in the AFL, now it’s a cheap looking parody you might find in Dimmeys.
RedB, I wrote the Roy Boys Rebooted article in Inside Sport last year, and it’s certainly a complicated, uneasy alliance. I also did some voluntary work at the Melbourne BL office when the merger first took place, and it was nothing more than ‘an acquisition of Fitzroy bits and pieces’. Yet some FFC people bought into it, and a lot more when they started winning flags.
BL have made a better effort in the past 10 years, but only when they finally twigged to the benefits of a solid Melb support base. They do just enough to keep them happy.
BL’s CEO doesn’t recognise the Fitzroy FC that is playing in the VAFA as being Fitzroy FC – much as many Fitzroy diehards don’t recognise the Brisbane Lions as having anything to do with Fitzroy.
To some FFC’s action may seem pedantic, but it’s bound in 15 years of angst and frustration with the AFL and Brisbane over various matters.
Btw, I don’t barrack for either club (never have).
Redb said | March 5th 2010 @ 7:58am | Report comment
Jeff, That was a good article on Inside Sport I enjoyed it.
Mixing emotion with litigation is never likely to bring about a great outcome.
Qu. What where the Brisbane Lions trying to do by changing the logo?
I get the impression from diehard Fitzroy fans that they beleive it’s an act of treachery to somehow further disenfranchise them. I personally liked the fact that the Lions played in their original strip when in Melbourne. Will this continue?
Taking the emotion out and even the subjective opinions on the new logo, does anyone think the Bris Lions are deliberately trying to piss off fans? Are they deliberately trying to destroy their fanbase or do they have a bigger picture they’re trying to create?
Qu. What are the FFC fans trying to achieve by suing?
No doubt to force the Bris Lions to change the logo back to the original. If they succeed how do the FFC fans think this will play in the Brisbane market? Notwithstanding there are fans in Brisbane who dislike the new logo, do FFC fans think this will take the club forward or will it just weaken the club even more?
I always come back to, that despite perception of arrogance and lack of communtity involvement (unlike Port’s great new jumper), management have the best intentions for the club going forward.
If you make that assumption and they honestly beleive they need to broaden their appeal with a new look that is essentially Brisbane only, what value can legal action add? The Swans Opera House Sails on their jumper created a new look for Sydney.
IMO the impact of legal action successful or not will only weaken the club.
AM said | March 5th 2010 @ 9:29am | Report comment
Qu. What where the Brisbane Lions trying to do by changing the logo?
Twofold:
a) the are under the impression, or trying to create the impression that the new logo and thus new guernsey will sell more membershis – which is pure unadulterated wishful thinking
b)a new guernsey (and I guess new logo on polo tops) will seel more merchandise
Let’s just address b) then, because a) is bollocks.
Put out a new jumper and of course some sales will occur. If you like wearing a footy jumper, unless you are a kid in a growth spurt, year to year you aren’t needing buy a new jumper. But when there is a new jumper, some people will feel they need to have it.
Only problem – the new jumper has been widely condemned as ugly by QLD based Lions, Melb based Lions, and the majority of people. It doesn’t look like a footy jumper. So sales of a brand new jumper surely haven’t been maximised. And isn’t that a form of mismanagement?
And of course it has lead to backlash with members and fans alike. And the clubs arrogant correspondence and public comments (demonstrated beautifully by the BL QC in court) has left many BL people (I’m not talking Board and Admin – I’m talking the fans) with a bad taste in their mouths.
I understand the idea of an updated jumper to increase merch sales. But why not ‘tweak’ and modernise the existing, with consultation with existing fans, members and (in the unique case of a merged club) merger partners? That is less likely to lead to the angst that has been created by the BL board and Admin, wouldn’t have lead to the legal action by the FFC, make existing fans and members feel like ‘this is my club’, and lead to the desired merch sales. Here is an example that I believe would have been universally approved by all parties, and acheived the aims of merch sales: http://www.costasportslogos.com/content/brisbane-lions-home-jumper-afl
ON that jumper, the Lion has been tweaked and modernised, but it essentially an adaptation of the Fitzroy Lion, and the now traditional BL jumper. The blue could be lowered if required, the back could be all maroon if required.
The result – no legal action due to consultation, modernised new look, less people pierced off, existing members and fans happy, potential merch sales… but the BL Board and Admin did the opposite.
Qu. What are the FFC fans trying to achieve by suing?
Have no doubts – the only action available to the FFC is in relation to the logo, not the jumper. But those who hate the new jumper hope that this action will lead to some common sense on that front as well.
The action of the FFC is the only action available to fans of the BL (Melb and QLD based) who hate the new jumper and arrogance of the club in changing it without consultation, AND taking the club in a direction that they are not happy with. Keep in mind – the club ignored its members and fans who were asking before the release of the jumper – are you planning to change the jumper??? They simply ignored those questions from members of their own club!
And let’s get our facts right – the FFC is not sueing. They are asking as to if the BL are breaching the merger agreement terms by changing the logo and not incorporating the Fitzroy Lion. The agreement states ‘the Fitzroy Lion logo in perpetuity’. It doesn’t say ‘a Lion’, or even ‘a Fitzroy Lion’. It states ‘the Fitzroy Lion’.
Are the BL trying to deliberately pierce off Melb based fans??
I don’t think the BL have a financial incentive to nurture the Melb membership base. Melb Lions memberships are expensive per game played in Melbourne. I think it’s $158 for 5 Melb game and 1 Geelong game, and options to get into a few Gabba games (which few take up). So looking at the 6 games in Victoria, that is over $26 a game if you attend them all. Versus $20 Gen Admission. Doesn’t add up does it?
And the reason why the BL have to bump up that price? Because for every Melb based BL member who goes through the gates in Melbourne, the BL has to fork out money to the AFL for that priviledge. So the BL only make real money IF those members don’t actually turn up (ie. the get to keep the share because the person didn’t attend). So the BL also bump up the price so there is some premium on top, if the member turns up to all 6 games.
THe AFL runs with this policy, and it gives no incentive to the BL to cultivate more members.
BUT what I can’t comprehend is why the BL seem to be actively trying to pierce off Melbourne based members and fans? Surely they must realise that having a Melbourne base of support does assist the club:
a) Merchandise. Have merch that people WANT to buy, and they’ll buy it. And a share of those sales goes to the club. Let’s not pull any punches, the new Lions merch with the new logo is horrible. People are already purchasing the retro gear that is available – and funnily enough that features the old Fitzroy lion logo.
b) Ever heard the pindrop as Freo scores a goal in Melbourne? That lack of support must play on the players minds, surely.
THe BL Board and Admin have taken the club down this path. And it is a more than questionable path to take, especially as the Club has the lowest membership base in the league (so why pierce off existing members?) and has suffered 3 financial losses in a row (the only club in the league to do so). There could have been a different path taken.
Redb said | March 5th 2010 @ 9:46am | Report comment
http://www.costasportslogos.com/content/brisbane-lions-home-jumper-afl
Much better design AM.
I agree their approach has been all wrong in terms of consultation. It is however a delicate balance when lawyers get invoved.
Good luck with it but don’t make the lawyers rich or take the whole club down with you.
“THe AFL runs with this policy, and it gives no incentive to the BL to cultivate more members.”
Can you expand on this, does this happen to other clubs?
AM said | March 5th 2010 @ 10:21am | Report comment
‘Take the whole Club down’.
That won’t happen. The AFL will always financially prop up the Brisbane Lions, the Gold Coast Cougars, the Western Sydney Kebabs and the Sydney Swans. They will now never let them die.
Redb said | March 5th 2010 @ 10:26am | Report comment
AM,
Your probably right about that, but I also mean in terms of spirit.
Isn’t better to have a club than none at all?
AM said | March 5th 2010 @ 10:34am | Report comment
I understand that Sydney faces a similar issue in terms of their Melb based memberships. For every Swans member who swipes in Melb, the SS pays over a share to the AFL. So I understand that the SS also put a premium on top of the General Admission price on their Melbourne based memberships, so if the member turns up to every game the Swans play in Melb, then at least the Club keeps a share of the dosh.
I understand it is the same for the BL. The $158 price tag seems to indicate that. So if you are a Lions fan in Melbourne and you are short of a dollar, why would you pay $158 to be a member, when you can go to five games in Melbourne for around $100!!
It makes less of a financial incentive to the interstate clubs to cultivate Melb memberships. The only ones who would potentially work on it would be the BL and SS, due to South and Fitzroy. Freo and Port wouldn’t bother for instance.
The SS has done a great job of it, but there is no ‘merger’ in that one – there is a relocation. And the Swans also have a great ‘football’ person at the helm in Andrew Ireland.
The BL does face different emotional issues in nurturing the Melb members compared to the Swans, because one was a ‘merger’ and one was a ‘relocation’. But the Swans have shown the way of recent and I firmly believe someone like Andrew Ireland is a part of this. Maybe he can see the benefits I mentioned above in crowd support and merch, and some dollars.
Funnily enough, he used to work at the Lions – back when there seemed to be a stronger connection between the BL and the old Royboys.
I believe there was some lobbying to the AFL on the topic of making it more financially viable to cultivate Melb based memberships for clubs like the BL and SS, but I don’t believe it was strong from the BL, and the AFL didn’t want to tamper with it. Not sure of the ins and outs of why.
But it seems fairly obvious to me that the AFL should support incentives to cultivate club memberships – whether the supporter barracks for North and lives in North Melbourne, barracks for the Lions and lives in Melbourne, or barracks for Greater Western Sydney and lives in Timbuktu.
But this is a membership issue – not an issue with regard to changing a jumper to a Paddlepop.
Jeff Dowsing said | March 5th 2010 @ 9:53am | Report comment
Excellent post AM – you are on the money with all your points. You seem to have an insider’s understanding of the situation and what’s going on.
Unfortunately, most people working for BL, or perhaps in marketing per se, have no empathy with FFC or interest in history or tradition. It’s all about a short-term grab for $$$$$.
And to use Fevola as a figurehead in a marketing campaign was wrong-headed from the outset, especially when they have a non-divisive champion with a likeable personality such as J Brown.
AM said | March 5th 2010 @ 10:38am | Report comment
I don’t have an insiders knowledge….
Just corresponded with other Lions fans in Melb, and with the Club directly.
It is a passionate topic. I was a Royboy through and through. AFL is the greatest sport in the world. I couldn’t barrack for another team so I had to go with the team with the most connection, and that is the Lions. so my knowledge is based on having a passion for the topic.
But this year I won’t be a Member. I am not going to financially support the Board and Admin of the BL.
I agree with the $$$$ factor. I can understand why the BL wants the $$$$, and they seems to be viewing merch sales as the answer. But their methodology of going about getting extra cash in my viewpoint has been commercially bizarre.
mjg said | March 4th 2010 @ 9:50pm | Report comment
It’s like every time the Fitzroy people feel on board, the Brisbane hierarchy do something to throw us overboard.
Al said | March 7th 2010 @ 11:52am | Report comment
Funny how they will still reap the benefits of Fitzroy’s “heritage”, ie: potential father-son picks as they have done so in the past with Johnathon Brown for example.
Corey said | March 5th 2010 @ 9:57am | Report comment
to be honest I will not buy this jersey, it looks cartoony and does not offer any heritage any more.
Redb said | March 5th 2010 @ 10:13am | Report comment
Bris Lions members up according to this article.
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/brisbane-lions/lions-fans-back-fevola-20100304-plo4.html
“After an initial backlash from members when Fevola was signed from Carlton – a situation compounded when the popular Daniel Bradshaw became collateral damage from the deal – the Lions’ faithful are rapidly coming around to the idea of the big goal machine roaming the forward pocket.
Membership is up 10 per cent from this time last year, with the Lions having 22,879 members on their books in contrast to the 19,719 at the same juncture in 2009.”
Albeit:
“Three-game memberships have rocketed from 607 at the corresponding date in 2009 to 2145 this year, with the dramatic increase indicating fans are dipping their toes into the waters rather than diving in head first.”
Melbourne based Lions fans membership steady:
“Victorian membership remains relatively stagnant, perhaps influenced by the messy courtroom saga that has accompanied Brisbane’s alterations to Fitzroy’s traditional Lion logo, a drama now being played out between the clubs in the Victorian Supreme Court.
Current numbers are 2020, ahead of 1818 in 2009.”
I’m surprised a bit that Melb based lions members only represent about 10%.
AM said | March 5th 2010 @ 10:44am | Report comment
See my comments above with regards to the cost of Melbourne based memberships. Throw in the logo and jumper change, and you’ve got a low percentage of the total membership. I firmly believe there are another 5,000 Melb based Lions who regularly attend games, stretching to 10k when we are flying. Every club has fickle supporters who only turn up when you’re winning. Those extra people might buy memberships if they see the club as a continuation of Fitzroy – if they see it as ‘their club’. They may also buy merch – but not the current crop of merch and especially not the new jumper.
Fair to say that Lions memberships were likely to increase this year regardless of the logo. Finallists last year for the first time in a while, aggressive recruiting from Voss and his team – fair to say that the Lions should push for top 4 this year. That is always going to bring in more memberships.
Look at the Saints – 32k members as of this morning, and 11k up on the same time last year. Why – they are flying and have a shot at the flag. And when supporters think they are a shot, membership sales increase. And the Lions are getting a similar increase.
BUT would that increase have been greater if they hadn’t pierced of existing members and upset many old Roys? Personally I think the increases would be greater without the kerfuffle – but all in all, it was the BL who generated the problem, even though they are presenting themselves as the victim.
Redb said | March 5th 2010 @ 10:50am | Report comment
No doubt of the bandwagon and perhaps whilst albeit in a ill conveived way the BL management decided to go for a new look and ride the usual upswing in merch sales.
Western Bulldogs membership also going through the grandstand roof, gold memberships with access to Grand Final tickets are sold out for the first time ever in the clubs history.
Clubs have to make hay whilst the sun shines.
AM said | March 5th 2010 @ 11:11am | Report comment
I agree. But the BL methodology of doing that has failed.
Part of maximising membership is not about piercing off existing ones. And a new jumper doesn’t bring in one extra member.
Part of maximising merch sales is not about producing something that pierces all over tradition and is a design that is universally canned.
Part of that strategy change on branding should involve some checking as to if you have any existing agreements that may prevent you from making such changes!
Make hay while the sun shines indeed. But manage the process so it works to the best of your organisation’s abilities. And if your organisation can’t do that because of management issues, then you have to do some analysis of your setup.
Redb said | March 5th 2010 @ 12:19pm | Report comment
No argument with any of that.
Jeff Dowsing said | March 5th 2010 @ 11:25am | Report comment
The 3 game memberships (a concept started by Collingwood), have inflated a number of teams’ membership figures this year.
Al said | March 5th 2010 @ 12:46pm | Report comment
The Hawthorn one game membership is a bit of a joke.
Jeff Dowsing said | March 5th 2010 @ 3:01pm | Report comment
Off topic but didn’t the Hawks have memberships for pets and babies back in the 90′s?
bever fever said | March 7th 2010 @ 10:56am | Report comment
Talking of clubs folding, there was another thread in which the Kermandie football Club ( in Tassie)was folding, as was told by Elbusto, nice of him to find out about that, anyways it seems the great one himself Wazza Capper is trying to pull the club from the brink of extinction.
Good luck Warwick, and to the ladies auxillary at Kermandie football club.
I cant remember which thread this was all posted on.
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/capper-offers-to-save-123-year-old-footy-club-20100307-pq2g.html
elbusto said | March 7th 2010 @ 11:33am | Report comment
Spoke to a mate of mine from that way last week. Kermandie is gone. No hope there. Warwick Capper could not make any difference.
I think Capper is only interested in the publicity and that is not fair on the folk who sincerely want to revive it.
Beaver fever said | March 7th 2010 @ 12:57pm | Report comment
Good mates with the coach, heard an intereview with him today on Perth radio believe it or not, Cappers presence does not hurt, thats for sure.
elbusto said | March 7th 2010 @ 1:38pm | Report comment
Well that is better news. The Club has money. Its Cricket side folded as well I think. Its players they need.Everything else in place.
bever fever said | March 7th 2010 @ 5:15pm | Report comment
I guess if the price of apples goes up , they can attract new farmers, families to the area, the guy on the radio was saying the area has fallen from being a popular tourist spot from 3rd to 13th in the state. ( however they judge that)
At ant rate i have never been there or heard of it, and it was amazing that it came up on a sunday morning sports show in Perth.
Warwick has already spread publicity around Australia.
elbusto said | March 8th 2010 @ 7:53pm | Report comment
http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2010/03/07/132041_sport-news.html
They are gone – The Competition will be 11 Clubs firsts and reserves. Somethng needed to happen a lot earlier.