Echo Issue Outline: copyright Echo Education Services
First published in The Echo news digest and newspaper sources index.
Issue outline by J M McInerney

---

Should AFL clubs merge?
On Saturday, September 1, 1996, Fitzroy played its last AFL game.
The club has now ceased to exist as a separate entity. As a result of the AFL's first merger (between Fitzroy and the Brisbane Bears) Brisbane will play next year as the Brisbane Lions, with some eight of the current Fitzroy players among their number.
The Melbourne and Hawthorn clubs are also being urged to merge. Members of both clubs have had posted to them, from their boards, an information kit including arguments in favour of the merger. They will be invited to vote on the merger at a special meeting on September 16.
On September 3, it was reported that three former Hawthorn presidents would seek a Supreme Court injunction against the Hawks in a bid to stop the Hawthorn/Melbourne merger. While Melbourne businessman, Joseph Gutnick, has pledged $3 million to help Melbourne survive as a separate club.
These developments have refuelled the debate surrounding mergers and the general direction in which the AFL is heading.

Background
Australian Rules football was initially almost entirely a Victorian competition. The league was known as the VFL (Victorian Football League). The VFL dates from 1897.
It was not until 1982 that the first VFL club was established inter-state when South Melbourne moved to Sydney to become the Sydney Swans.
Throughout the 1980s and 1990s further clubs have been established in other states. Sydney has been joined in the competition by West Coast, Brisbane, Adelaide and, most recently, Fremantle. With these developments the league is now called the Australian Football League or AFL.
As the game became established in other states, the pressure on Victorian clubs to merge grew greater.
1996 was declared a non-merger year as it marked the centenary of the VFL competition, which was established in 1897.
The AFL commission gave Fitzroy a 12 month reprieve for 1996 as it was considered important that all the foundation clubs in the VFL be in existence during its centennial year.
In June, 1996, the Fitzroy club was taken over by an administrator. The club was bankrupt, however, the AFL had guaranteed that all players would be paid through to the end of the year.
Fitzroy and North Melbourne then announced that they had signed heads of an agreement for a merger between the two clubs. The supporters of both clubs appeared to approve, however, the AFL, which preferred a merger between Fitzroy and Brisbane, refused publicly to endorse the merger or to help reach a compromise when other clubs objected to the proposed club's players lists.
The two clubs were given until July 5 to finalise their agreement, however, 18 hours before their deadline had been reached, it was announced that Fitzroy would merge with Brisbane.
Fitzroy's coach, Mick Nunan, resigned on July 6 and was replaced by Alan McConnell.
Fitzroy played their last Melbourne game against Richmond on August 25 and their final league game against Fremantle, at Subiaco, on September 1. Fitzroy won only one game in the 1996 season.
Next year, at least eight of the current Fitzroy players will join the Brisbane team. Brisbane will become the Brisbane Lions and will adopt the colours of the Fitzroy guernsey. The club will receive a $6 million bonus from the AFL, which has been offered to all merging clubs.
By September, the boards of both Melbourne and Hawthorn were recommending a merger. (Hawthorn requires $1.7 million to meet its debts and play through to the end of the year.)
This merger was endorsed by the AFL commission. It does not however have the support of all former players nor of some supporter lobby groups.
The question of whether each club should merge will be put to their respective members on September 16. In the meantime each club has established rescue groups to ward off merger, with Hawthorn seeking donations to help meet its $1.7 million obligations.
Three former Hawthorn presidents have been reported as seeking a Supreme Court injunction to prevent the Hawthorn board proceeding with the merger and Melbourne businessman, Joseph Gutnick, has pledge $3 million to help Melbourne survive as a separate club.

Arguments in favour of AFL mergers
The first argument offered in support of AFL mergers is that they are required if the sport is to remain a national competition.
Therefore it is necessary to look initially at the arguments put in favour of Australian Rules football being a fully national competition.
The main argument offered in favour of Australian Rules being a national competition is that had it remained Victoria-based it would have lost support to national codes and been unable to grow and develop.
Peter Costigan, a member of the Press Council and a current affairs commentator, claimed in an article, published in The Herald Sun on September 1, `The demise of Fitzroy is due directly to a decision taken in the '80s that the game had to be nationalised to avoid it becoming a small-time backwater in the suburbs of Melbourne.'
Peter Costigan further claimed, `In terms of the objectives, the decision has been spectacularly successful.
The Australian Football League is now the biggest national sport, with major teams in all states except Tasmania, revenues well in excess of $200 million a year, the largest number of fans who attend matches and the biggest consistent TV audience of any sport.'
According to this line of argument, for Australian Rules to succeed nationally it is ultimately going to be necessary to reduce the number of Victoria-based clubs.
If this were not done, it has been argued, as additional clubs are established in other states, the total number of clubs in the competition would make aspects of the competition difficult to manage. Especially, it has been suggested, it would make properly representative finals unwieldy.
It has also been suggested that having a preponderance of clubs in Victoria would spread resources in that state - players, sponsors and supporters - too thinly. This, some have argued, would leave Victorian teams unable to compete with `super teams' from states that support only one or two AFL clubs and so have a relatively larger pool of potential players upon which to draw.
Jake Niall, a sports columnist writing in The Age's Sportsweek, has argued, `The problem with the Eagles is that they have too many good players, including a number of young Victorians.'
The second argument offered in favour of mergers is that for some clubs they have become a financial necessity.
According to this line of argument, unless clubs can afford to pay the substantial amounts now offered to attract players they will simply become insolvent or bankrupt.
This is the argument that has been put to Hawthorn club members. The club requires $1.7 million to clear its debts and keep it running until the end of the year.
Hawthorn president Brian Coleman has been reported as suggesting that the club has no viable financial future apart from a merger.
`At the moment a lot of [Hawthorn supporters] think they just have to find the money this year, but they'll have to put in this year and the year after and the year after that,' Brain Coleman has said.
Related to this is the claim that without being able to afford to have a number of the best players, financially pressed clubs are unlikely to continue to have successful seasons and thus unlikely to attract either a significant supporter following or significant sponsorship.
This point of view suggests if a club is in financial difficulty, its performance is likely to deteriorate, leading to further financial difficulty.
It has also been implied, without being directly stated, that clubs which are not financially viable are unlikely to be able to field teams capable of producing a good standard of play and that this not only damages them but the whole competition.
Ms Bettie Jefferies, a Fitzroy supporter for more than forty years, has been reported as stating, `The saddest thing is the way we went out. We have been flogged week in and week out and that is not Fitzroy - we are a proud team and a team of fighters.'
Those who believe that financial insolvency and related poor performances on field are grounds for merging suggest that such performances affect the whole game.
According to this line of argument, the best arrangement would be a smaller number of more evenly matched teams.
This would, it is suggested, result in more closely contested and thus more interesting matches.
Those who hold this view maintain that the total competition is more important than the fate of individual clubs.
Patrick Smith, a football commentator writing in The Age's Sports Monday supplement, stated, `Life goes on ... A smattering of Fitzroy supporters and a mass of Fremantle fans farewell the Lions ... Fremantle has been in the competition two minutes but is pall-bearer to the 113-year-old Fitzroy.'
A similar point was made by Age sports commentator Tim Atkinson, writing about Fitzroy's final game against Fremantle. `As one door closes, however, another opens and yesterday's winning margin was the best in Fremantle's short history ...'

Arguments opposing AFL mergers
The principal argument offered against AFL mergers is that they cut across club loyalties.
According to this line of argument, one of the distinguishing features of Australian Rules football is the strength of grass-roots support.
Age columnist, Michael Gawenda, has observed that traditionally football culture was `one where footy was essentially a suburban sport full of tribal passions and loyalties, where people followed their clubs from early infancy until the day they died, where the love of the jumper really meant something for players and supporters alike.'
Those who hold this view tend to argue one of two points. Firstly, they are likely to claim that mergers betray supporters and players.
Fitzroy player, Jarrod Molloy, has commented on the effect of the merger on those such as Fitzroy trainer, Kevin Elms, `Kevvy's been part of Fitzroy for 35 years. What does he do now with his time? That got to me and you've got to think of the supporters and those at the club for 30, 40, 50 years. It's part of their life that's gone.'
A similar comment was made by Garry Linnell, deputy editor of The Sunday Age and the author of `Football Ltd. The Inside Story'.
Mr Linnell has been critical of the AFL's reaction to the attempts being made to prevent the Hawthorn-Melbourne merger.
Mr Linnell has commented, `By denigrating the efforts of those who would save a club, they denigrate all of us who have ever been aroused by its passion.'
Secondly, it has been suggested that, by undermining the connection between supporter and club, mergers may actually alienate a percentage of supporters and reduce overall crowds.
Age columnist, Martin Flanagan, has stated, `Sport may be a business but it's also more than that, otherwise we'd have crowds of 80,000 wanting to watch board meetings of major companies.'
According to this line of argument, if Australian Rules becomes patently no more than a business producing a product, then the level of supporter involvement may well decline.
This position has been voiced by Larry Abramson, in a letter published in The Age's Sportsweek, `While I endorse the concept of a national football competition, I have to say I've had enough and I'm not going to take it any more.
It's because the AFL has rapidly developed a national product in preference to a national competition.'
Some supporters of Fitzroy, Melbourne and Hawthorn have similarly indicated that they will cease to support merged clubs.
Jill Macpherson-Smith, a long-time Hawthorn supporter has stated, `I've got a heart - I care ... I won't barrack for anyone else. I won't. I'm not a turncoat. I care.'
At Fitzroy's final game against Fremantle, a number of supporters stood under a banner reading, `The BRISBANE LIONS - NOT FOR THESE BOYS. Thanks for the memories, FITZROY.'
Those who hold this view argue that mergers and perhaps even the national competition may not be in the long-term interests of Australian Rules football.
There are those who claim that football is in danger of becoming a spectacle, without any close connection between supporters and clubs.
This is the position implicitly put by Liz Duggan, also writing to The Age's Sportsweek, `The AFL has sanitised the game so much and taken the emotion out of it.
The AFL is so arrogant - Aussie Rules is certainly not the greatest game any more.'
Should such supporter alienation become general, it is argued, attendances and television ratings may actually decline and sponsors become more difficult to attract.
Finally, there are those who have criticised the way in which the AFL commission, in particular, has handled the club merger negotiations and their consequences.
There have been criticisms levelled at the way the AFL commission has pressured Fitzroy to merge for the last ten years.
Looking just at the 1996 season, the AFL commission has been criticised for its part in the failure of the proposed merger between Fitzroy and North Melbourne.
(The Fitzroy/North Melbourne merger was seen as preferable by some because it would have allowed Fitzroy to remain based in Melbourne with its traditional supporters.
The Fitzroy/Brisbane merger has been claimed to be a take-over rather than a merger with few advantages for Fitzroy, while for Brisbane it has been said to mean the injection of a number of new players and $6 million from the commission.)
It has further been noted that the costs of making a commemorative occasion of Fitzroy's final appearance as a separate team were borne entirely by Fremantle.
A Fremantle spokesperson said that the commemorations - which included a band, a parade of some former Fitzroy greats, and Sandra McIvor, from the West Australian Opera Company, singing Auld Lang Syne - cost some $10,000, none of which came from the AFL commission.
The AFL commission has been further criticised for its supposedly dismissive attitude towards attempts by groups of players and supporters to prevent a Hawthorn/Melbourne merger.
Garry Linnell has asked, `Why are people such as Don Scott at Hawthorn, a man who bled and bruised for his club over many long, cold seasons, and Brian Dixon at Melbourne being publicly reviled and ridiculed by their opponents?'
The club's board has also been criticised for not dealing fairly with supporters and for providing one-sided merger information.
Former Melbourne player, Brain Dixon, has stated, `He [Melbourne president, Ian Ridley] has no right to send [merger information] to Melbourne members without showing both sides of the case.'

Further implications
It is difficult to be sure what will happen within AFL football as a result of Fitzroy's merger with Brisbane and the probable merger of Melbourne and Hawthorn.
(If a majority of members of the Hawthorn and Melbourne clubs vote against a merger on September 16, it has been predicted that the boards of both clubs, which have promoted the merger, will resign en masse.)
It has been suggested that with the impetus it will gain from the influx of new players and the $6 million payment the AFL is making to merging clubs, the Brisbane Lions are likely to achieve a premiership within a couple of seasons.
It is difficult to predict whether it will retain the support of many former Fitzroy supporters. Initial indications make this appear unlikely. However, should the club become as successful as some have suggested then it is likely to attract a new body of supporters.
If the merger of Hawthorn and Melbourne goes ahead as anticipated then this is likely to create a new `super-club' within suburban Melbourne. It will be interesting to note whether any new club formed in this manner will meet with the objections which the proposed Fitzroy/North Melbourne merger encountered when other clubs objected to their players lists.
If the Melbourne/Hawthorn merger goes ahead this is likely to give further impetus to other Melbourne clubs considering mergers. The end result may well be a significantly reduced competition, in terms of the number of competing teams, with those teams which remain in the league being wealthier and more competitive.
Australian Rules seems certain to attain a higher profile in other states. This is happening already.
This year will be the first year in which only one of the qualifying finals will be played in Melbourne, at the MCG. In 1996, qualifying finals will be played in Perth, Sydney and Brisbane. Further to this, the Sydney Swans have topped the ladder for the first time and go into the finals with many believing they may well win the premiership.
It is unclear what will happen to the character of the sport, particularly as it has been known in Victoria. It is difficult not to foresee a reduction in local fervour as clubs draw less and less an purely local support, however, this is a trend which has been gathering strength over at least ten years.
There are those who have argued that Australian Rules football will have to change in character if it is to withstand the competition presented by games such as basketball, which, particularly via the NBA, has a strong hold on the interest and loyalty of Australian teenagers. Across Australia, basketball has the highest participation rate of any sport.
Some commentators have suggested that from the time football began to be televised, the importance of the local supporter who attended the game from week to week was fatally undermined and it became necessary to develop the game as a highly competitive spectacle, similar in style to other international sporting competitions with which it would have to compete for a television audience.
Whatever the previous developments which have occurred in sport, however, recent events seem to mark a change in the national psyche.
Some social commentators have suggested that the changes occurring in football reflect similar changes which have occurred in other areas.
Peter Costigan has suggested that the Fitzroy/Brisbane merger was `a microcosm of what is happening in broader Australian life'.
Mr Costigan goes on to refer to a growing commercialism and professionalism in sport, and then to the financial deregulation which has exposed Australia's financial institutions to far greater competition and seen numbers of them merge in response to this. The deregulation of the Australian workforce seems part of a similar trend.
Overall, the pressure toward mergers among Victorian football clubs seems to embody a competitive urge which has little regard for the `battler', once a respected figure in Australia's national mythology.
As an interesting footnote, a Melbourne-based Fitzroy may continue to exist. VFL club Coburg is negotiating a merger with the old Fitzroy club. Should the merger occur the new club would be called Coburg-Fitzroy and would play in the VFL next season. Such a merger would not prevent the Brisbane Lions taking their place in the AFL competition.
Fitzroy has trained at the Coburg ground for the last two years and both clubs share the Lions as their monniker.
Fitzroy is still controlled by administrator Michael Brennan, however, it has been suggested that because the club has not been formally wound up, when creditors have been paid and the administrator has moved out, the former Fitzroy board, which did not resign, will regain control of the company name, Fitzroy Football Club, and the club's hotel.
The primary advantage that a Coburg/Fitzroy merger would have is that it would allow Fitzroy supporters to follow a local team and attend games each week.
(The VFL referred to here is a second-division competition, which prior to the formation of the AFL used to be known as the Victorian Football Association or VFA.)

Sources

The Age
1/9/96 page 1 news item by Darren Gray and Adrian Rollins, `And the big men cry ...'
1/9/96 page 14 comment by Garry Linnell, `Passion is AFL's pain'
1/9/96 page 15 comment by Michael Gawenda, `Gawenda'
1/9/96 Sportsweek supplement page 5 news item by Linda Pearce, `Johnson heads for Brisbane'
1/9/96 Sportsweek supplement page 5 news item by Rohan Connolly, `Lions look at VFL merge bid'
1/9/96 Sportsweek supplement page 9 news item by Stephen Howell, `It's payback time'
1/9/96 Sportsweek supplement pages 16 and 17 analysis by Rohan Connolly, `The centenary balls-up'
1/9/96 Sportsweek supplement pages 18 and 19 analysis by Stephen Howell, `A season to end all seasons'
1/9/96 Sportsweek supplement page 20 comment by Jake Niall, `Dying for live football'
1/9/96 Sportsweek supplement page 20 letters from Larry Abramson and Liz Duggan
2/9/96 SportsMonday supplement page 5 news item by Patrick Smith, `Finals commotion drowns out Roys' death knell'
2/9/96 SportsMonday supplement page 6 news item by Tim Atkinson, `Freo sends Roys packing'
2/9/96 SportsMonday supplement page 12 news item by Martin Flanagan, `The end'

The Australian
2/9/96 page 1 and 2 news item by Grantly Bernard, `Emotion rules at the Lions' last roar'
2/9/96 page 21 news item by Michael Davis, `Tearful Dermie fights merger'
2/9/96 page 21 news item by Grantley Bernard, `Lions troop off to emotional farewell'

The Herald Sun
1/9/96 page 35 comment by Peter Costigan, `Lions die, change roars'
2/9/96 pages 1 and 2 news item by Phil Skeggs and Ed Gannon, `Footy final revolution'
2/9/96 page 2 news item by Andrew Cummins and Craig Binnie, `Lion's fans weep at team's finale'
2/9/96 page 2 news item by Terry Brown, `It was just like, well, old times'
3/9/96 page 1 and 4 news item by Daryl Timms, `Merger fight'
4/9/96 page 4 news item by Jim Pollard, `Crowd backs jumper merger'
5/9/96 page 15 news item by Phil Skeggs, `Hawks cash danger'
5/9/96 page 15 news item by Jim Tennison, `Battle over a million a year'

What they said ...
The demise of Fitzroy is due directly to a decision taken in the '80s that the game had to be nationalised to avoid it becoming a small-time backwater in the suburbs of Melbourne
Peter Costigan, member of the Press Council and current affairs commentator

I've got a heart - I care ... I won't barrack for anyone else. I won't. I'm not a turncoat. I care
Jill Macpherson-Smith, long-time Hawthorn supporter