I too was just a young fella when this all happened but being up in Northern Victoria/Southern NSW, I wasn't at the coal face as some others were. I remember the scenes on the TV and they looked brutal.

I am pretty certain that if Melbourne did merge, I would have been a casual fan with no club allegiance. I would be like an 80 year old widow who had been married for 60 years and couldn't bear the thought of committing myself to another team. My team would have been dead.

I too was just a young fella when this all happened but being up in Northern Victoria/Southern NSW, I wasn't at the coal face as some others were. I remember the scenes on the TV and they looked brutal.

I am pretty certain that if Melbourne did merge, I would have been a casual fan with no club allegiance. I would be like an 80 year old widow who had been married for 60 years and couldn't bear the thought of committing myself to another team. My team would have been dead.

Thinking of the merger makes me feel physically ill. I have respect for Ian Ridley - he truly loved the club & saw no alternative. I also sympathize with members who voted 'yes' out of being conned by a campaign of dirty tricks but those who stood & fought are the true heroes of this club. The 'yes' vote is a nasty stain on our history.

  On 13/06/2012 at 07:34, why you little said:

I could never support anything brown & gold. I was there in '87.

You wouldn't have had to.

As Don Scott famously showed .

It was a Melbourne jumper with a yellow hawk on the front.

Make no mistake , we weren't merging.

We were taking over.

  On 13/06/2012 at 07:34, why you little said:

Well each to their own my friend. A Melbourne Dawks flag would not excite me very much at all.

Like a Beatles reunion without John Lennon or George Harrison.

I could never support anything brown & gold. I was there in '87.

So was I wyl.

However I seriously wonder if there will ever be another chance.

My club is probably in the worse shape it has been in for 70 years.

We are shambles on the field and if that continues for too many more years

we will be consigned to the same part of the history books as University, South Melbourne and Fitzroy.

End of story

  On 12/06/2012 at 22:18, Ted Fidge said:

It was a takeover. Get their players, sponsors, supporters, facilities, and five years later have a jumper change and name change back to "the Demons".

One of the worst theories ever floated on this board.

Thank god the whole thing got the dick, I was all set to put the cue in the rack and find a better way to spend my winter if it went through. Everyone who is still sad that we didn't end up as the Hawks can mend your broken heart singing this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMkfpQJVSqI

Edited June 13, 201212 yr by Supermercado

  On 13/06/2012 at 11:54, old dee said:

So was I wyl.

However I seriously wonder if there will ever be another chance.

My club is probably in the worse shape it has been in for 70 years.

We are shambles on the field and if that continues for too many more years

we will be consigned to the same part of the history books as University, South Melbourne and Fitzroy.

End of story

when i see how bad we are and now how North are battling too i keep wondering when the media are going to turn around and suggest we merge....

  On 13/06/2012 at 12:06, DemonDing said:

when i see how bad we are and now how North are battling too i keep wondering when the media are going to turn around and suggest we merge....

Jeff Kennett already suggested it early in the season.

But hold on it is only a couple of months away.

But have faith it will not happen

The AFL wants north to merge with GCS

That will happen before any merge this end of the country

  On 13/06/2012 at 11:54, old dee said:

So was I wyl.

However I seriously wonder if there will ever be another chance.

My club is probably in the worse shape it has been in for 70 years.

We are shambles on the field and if that continues for too many more years

we will be consigned to the same part of the history books as University, South Melbourne and Fitzroy.

End of story

Garbage. We will only fold if our membership base turns up their toes & caves into defeatism. It goes without saying that we need to improve on the field but the socialist equalization policies of the AFL & cyclical nature of the competition gives us the opportunity to turn it around. The above post is nothing but mindless negativity & shameful defeatism.

  On 13/06/2012 at 12:28, Jimmi C said:

Garbage. We will only fold if our membership base turns up their toes & caves into defeatism. It goes without saying that we need to improve on the field but the socialist equalization policies of the AFL & cyclical nature of the competition gives us the opportunity to turn it around. The above post is nothing but mindless negativity & shameful defeatism.

No a better grasp of reality.

But Dream on

I know all about that.

Have been doing it for 48 years.

  On 13/06/2012 at 07:34, why you little said:

Well each to their own my friend. A Melbourne Dawks flag would not excite me very much at all.

Like a Beatles reunion without John Lennon or George Harrison.

I could never support anything brown & gold. I was there in '87.

This was an emotional occasion, as would be a Demon flag:

  On 13/06/2012 at 03:21, dpositive said:

I was there at the time and it is still too raw to objectively remember.

It seems as others have said more a takeover of the Hawks but the process being undertaken effectively meant the powerbrokers (the suits) treated the members with some disdain and certainly communications were not transparent.

The vote tampering which was a perceived as legitimate was part of the arrogance displayed

and when statements that "we had looked everywhere for sponsors and had nowhere else to go" was responded to by Joe Gutnick stating "you did not ask me" there was a palpable air of mistrust.

While I have no doubt the intention of the board was to ensure MFC survival it was survival as they saw it not as was apparent for the majority of supporters Brian Dixon and the Gutnick camp may have lost the vote but won the court of public opinion.

The fashion that JIm used in getting the club revitalised was a direct contradiction. Seeking and getting the involvement in a publicised fashion of all members and supporters. Democracy rather than a benevolent patriachial dictatorship.

I hope we do not see the demise of Melbourne but believe we will need to have some on field success to maintain our relevance to the next generation of supporters.

Entirely agree. The arrogance and pig-headedness of the position taken by the pro-merger crew was disgraceful. I appreciate that Ridley acted in good faith, but he was not listening. The way they stacked proxy votes demonstrates that they were relentlessly pursuing their agenda, rather than having the members vote.

I was there at Dallas Brooks, and I saw how many people were locked out of voting. There is no doubt that this was known to those in control, and they let that happen.

Now that we have a training and growth venue, as well as financial stability, I wonder how these people can look at themselves.

To those who say that it was a takeover, I say there is no such thing. We were going to merge the theme song, the jumper, the colours, the identity and the history. Hawthorn saved itself and us.

  On 13/06/2012 at 12:33, old dee said:

No a better grasp of reality.

But Dream on

I know all about that.

Have been doing it for 48 years.

Reality says that we currently suck on the field, I have no issue with that. But the club is in a far better position off the field than it has been for most of the past 48 years. Back in the black, a rekindled relationship with the MCC, settled non-shared training bases & a beefed up footy department spend.

I'm under no illusion that much more hard work is required but we have important foundations in place that just haven't been there in the past not to mention that the draft gives us a better crack at better players rather than our pox former recruiting zone.

I strongly doubt we'll win 70% of our games til 2015 but it won't mean we're in dire straights like you've stated previously.

  On 13/06/2012 at 12:58, Jimmi C said:

Reality says that we currently suck on the field, I have no issue with that. But the club is in a far better position off the field than it has been for most of the past 48 years. Back in the black, a rekindled relationship with the MCC, settled non-shared training bases & a beefed up footy department spend.

I'm under no illusion that much more hard work is required but we have important foundations in place that just haven't been there in the past not to mention that the draft gives us a better crack at better players rather than our pox former recruiting zone.

I strongly doubt we'll win 70% of our games til 2015 but it won't mean we're in dire straights like you've stated previously.

That last line that you quote was not well written.

I was trying to say By 2015 season we need to be winning 70% of our games / season.

Not between now and then.

Not even my dreams are that good Jimmi C

  On 13/06/2012 at 13:04, old dee said:

That last line that you quote was not well written.

I was trying to say By 2015 season we need to be winning 70% of our games / season.

Not between now and then.

Not even my dreams are that good Jimmi C

Ah ok, 14-15 wins in 2015 - it seems a million miles away but it isn't impossible, plenty of teams have turned it around from where we are now.

Yeah anyone who thinks we would have just absorbed the Hawks players and changed back to the red & blue Demons after 5 years would have been in for a rude shock. It would have ended in legal battles that would have shattered the already politically fractured new club. The old Fitzroy crew took Brisbane to court just because they wanted to change the kind of Lion they had on the jumper, do you really think the Hawthorn component would have just let us change back to the Demons and get rid of the yellow? Not to mention our entire history would have been wiped (go and check how many flags are recorded in the history books for the Bribane Lions).

When this (the merger) was first mooted, it sounded logical and a good deal for Melbourne. Hawthorn was probably the wrong choice in the end for Melbourne. Perhaps, Fitzroy would have made a better choice and perhaps we might have been up there on the premiership dais from 2000 all the way to 2004 or even 2005 - but of course they knifed Fitzroy before the merger deal was announced.

Anyway, the more information that came out, the more distasteful the merger proposal sounded and felt. I didn't go to vote that night but I was against.

Gutnik came in and I really do believe that he had been a supporter. He changed the club and gave it his money. Some of his innovations were ahead of their time. In other respects, I suppose he didn't understand what the game was about. His removal from the presidency was as disgraceful as some aspects of the proposed merger.

What strikes me as tragic about our club is that since the sacking of Norm Smith we have had no shortage of infighting and faceless men who were always ready to step in and destabilise the club at times when we least need it. Some still lurk out there today.

If that's one thing the current regime can rid the club of then we might finally be able to look forward to better times.

  On 13/06/2012 at 04:17, Hip & Shoulder said:

The reason no one had 'asked' Joe Gutnick was that he'd never had anything to do with the MFC before the merger proposal was put forward. He'd never been a supporter or even a barracker. (Yes, there is a difference.) No one had ever heard of him.

And the players supported the merger because it was their best chance of being able to play in and win a Grand Final, and that's what playing football is all about.

this is correct on Gutnick. Ridley mentions in the book that Joe was not at all involved in the club until he came forward at the prospect of the Merger. He had to sign up as a member in order to be involved, and a member of MFC staff had been put in contact with Joe one time previously, as he was told he may be able to help the club with sponsorship. However, Joe was not interested in sponsoring the club at that time.

An inconsistency in the book however was the motives for the Merger. The MFC at the time was financially stable, however a consultants report which the club seemed to place far too much faith in, and treated as absolute gospel, was forecasting a large increase in the AFL salary cap in the coming years, and the club believed it would not be able to afford such large increases. This was the motivation for pursuing the merger.

o while a cash injection was not required at the time, the ability to strongly grow the club's revenue was required. However what Joe brought in was cash, which was not what the MFC required at the time, and a common misconception amongst the public. The MFC sought the merger for the training facilities and larger supporter base that the merger would provide.

What was also interesting is that Joe almost supported the pro-merger side according to the book. After Joe showed up on the scene, he met with Ian Ridley a number of times. After meeting with Ridley and Gary Lyon the day after the merger game against Hawthorn (and Melbourne's last for the season), Joe agreed to support the pro-merger team if the players came out in public support of the merger by signing a statement of support to be publicly released. Ridley and Lyon went to the pub where the players were having their post season beers, and gathered a group of around 15 senior players. While the majority of players were supportive, some were concerned such as Brett Lovett who wasn't confident of getting a game for the merged club. Ultimately it was decided ( at Ridley's insistence according to the book) that they players couldn't sign such a statement, and the board would proceed without Gutnick's support.

  On 13/06/2012 at 12:58, Choko said:

Entirely agree. The arrogance and pig-headedness of the position taken by the pro-merger crew was disgraceful. I appreciate that Ridley acted in good faith, but he was not listening. The way they stacked proxy votes demonstrates that they were relentlessly pursuing their agenda, rather than having the members vote.

I was there at Dallas Brooks, and I saw how many people were locked out of voting. There is no doubt that this was known to those in control, and they let that happen.

Now that we have a training and growth venue, as well as financial stability, I wonder how these people can look at themselves.

To those who say that it was a takeover, I say there is no such thing. We were going to merge the theme song, the jumper, the colours, the identity and the history. Hawthorn saved itself and us.

A couple of points from what I've read in the book, Ridley claimed that no 'members' were locked out of the Dallas Brooks Hall, rather that these were supporters that were not members, and therefore not eligible to vote. Just because people were locked out, doesn't mean that they were members. He also mentioned that they wanted to book Melbourne Park (Rod Laver Arena) but that the Dali Llama had booked the venue for the night. It then does seem strange that if they couldn't get Melbourne Park, that they would chose a far smaller venue as their alternative.

Can you elaborate on how the proxy vote was stacked? Are you referring to Bill Guest and his employees? Ridley also addresses this in his book, and was disappointed that it had happened, and that he was not aware of it happening until the story broke. Also he talked of how the vote was conducted by Arthur Andersen, and that this reputable firm wouldn't have risked their integrity by compromising the vote (I do note the irony of this statement looking back now) however I'd have to agree with him on this point.

He also noted that the proxy votes had to be submitted by 7pm the day before the meeting, and that they received a heap of votes the following day, meaning that the pro-merger proposal had around 200 votes that couldn't be counted.

Finally, the MFC board didn't see it as a 'takeover' either, but rather a favourable merger. However, the two of the most iconic things that define a footy club were in Melbourne's favour, that being the name and the colours.

  On 13/06/2012 at 12:36, bush demon said:

This was an emotional occasion, as would be a Demon flag:

[media=]

...except it wouldn't be a Demon flag, i'd be a Hawks flag.

  On 13/06/2012 at 13:14, Dr. Gonzo said:

Yeah anyone who thinks we would have just absorbed the Hawks players and changed back to the red & blue Demons after 5 years would have been in for a rude shock. It would have ended in legal battles that would have shattered the already politically fractured new club. The old Fitzroy crew took Brisbane to court just because they wanted to change the kind of Lion they had on the jumper, do you really think the Hawthorn component would have just let us change back to the Demons and get rid of the yellow?

Absolutely,

"You wouldn't have had to.

As Don Scott famously showed .

It was a Melbourne jumper with a yellow hawk on the front.

Make no mistake , we weren't merging.

We were taking over."

Some interesting discussion, including the above. To be honest I voted fro the merger, simply because we would have become the Melbourne hawks...given we have changed our nickname a few times in the past, it wasn't a deal breaker. We were still ging to be the Melbourne footy club, as at the time we were the stronger party by far.

The club was looking tot he future and were in a good position at the time, it was before the TV rights bonanza, which met the growing salary cap. And I think the AFL should pay for this will all the clubs, who manage how they spend it etc, but then the clubs raise money themselves for the training and support facilities.

As for the future, we are in the best position financially for as long as I can remember and I believe we will continue to grow.

As for infighting since Norm Smith, there was infighting in Norm's time, just you had a very successful period that held the club together and a very strong individual.

I was there that night at Dallas Brooks Hall and I'll always remember it. Yes, they did close the doors but only because the place was full, legally they had no choice. I was sitting upstairs on the balcony overlooking the action taking place below me. The hatred and abuse directed towards Ridley, White and co was really disgusting. I understand that people are emotionally tied to the club but the reaction was ugly and way over the top. Argue your opinion, don't make revolting personal attacks.

The only thing that Ridley got wrong and didn't predict was the AFL's change in attitude towards the smaller Victorian clubs. At the time the attitude from the VFL/AFL was 'sink or swim', the handouts wasn't anywhere near the same level as we see today. Also the TV deals wasn't anywhere near the same level. I felt for Ridley because he was a club great and gave wonderful service over many decades.

Gutnick is interesting. Many people say that he saved the club with his money, this isn't really true. Melbourne wasn't in debt when Gutnick became president. What he did was to provide us with a higher media exposure because of his wealth and background, which was absolutely invaluable at the time. However this was offset by the massive infighting that followed him everywhere, for various reasons the club was incredibly instable during his time. Two more interesting points about Gutnick. Firstly, he didn't end up giving all the money to the club that he had promised and secondly (the most startling) was that every single board member he brought to the club ended up turning against him.

No matter what your opinion of him was/is, sadly it took the club about a decade to recover from the trail of destruction left behind after his (and those he brought to the club) reign in power. It's a real pity that it ended like it did, he could have made the club an absolute powerhouse.

  On 13/06/2012 at 22:34, Jarka said:

Gutnick is interesting. Many people say that he saved the club with his money, this isn't really true. Melbourne wasn't in debt when Gutnick became president. What he did was to provide us with a higher media exposure because of his wealth and background, which was absolutely invaluable at the time.

IMO Gutnick bought himself the most publicity the promise of 300 grand could buy.

No-one new who the hell he was till he showed up waving $$ on our doorstep , then he was all over the media.

Can't remember much positive he did for the club but do remember him being outspoken and having the balls to stick it to the AFL if he thought we were getting a rough deal.

Also remember he dobbed us in for the salary cap breaches.

As you can see by my name I was and still am against the takeover, and I mean takeover of the MFC by the hawks.

1. When the proxy forms were first sent out by the club you could only give your proxy to mr ridley, I would have thought that would be illegal [New proxies were sent out after threatened legal action] all the old proxies submitted were not recast.

2. I was at the Dallas Brooks Hall that night[ got to ask the first question from the floor] at one stage I went outside to get some needed fresh air and the line of people outside was fairly long and many were waving their membership cards trying to gain entry. to say that only non members were locked rivals julia gillards no carbon tax LIE.

3. My question to mr ridley was on the composition of the board of the brand new club, the board consisted of 14 normal members and the Pres ALL with Full voting rights.

The information was in the 4 page white booklet sent to members from the pro merger board. As 7 members were to come from the then hfc board... 5 from the MFC board and 2 from the MCC. With the Pres to be nominated by the MCC and the hfc having a veto on that selection with the MFC having NO say in the election.

Assuming the 2 MCC members were pro MFC then the Pres had the power ALL the power, hfc only had to veto any nomination it didnt like.

3. After quoting from their own document I asked mr ridley why he gave the hfc all the power. Do you know how our then Pres answered his own member, with nothing not even a no comment , he just treated his members with contempt. You might not like Joe but he gave every question asked of him an answer, not silent contempt.

4 So if you still hanker to be a hawk just head south to the Tassie hawks and I will stay with the MELBOURNE DEMONS.

  On 14/06/2012 at 06:08, no merger said:

As you can see by my name I was and still am against the takeover, and I mean takeover of the MFC by the hawks.

1. When the proxy forms were first sent out by the club you could only give your proxy to mr ridley, I would have thought that would be illegal [New proxies were sent out after threatened legal action] all the old proxies submitted were not recast.

2. I was at the Dallas Brooks Hall that night[ got to ask the first question from the floor] at one stage I went outside to get some needed fresh air and the line of people outside was fairly long and many were waving their membership cards trying to gain entry. to say that only non members were locked rivals julia gillards no carbon tax LIE.

3. My question to mr ridley was on the composition of the board of the brand new club, the board consisted of 14 normal members and the Pres ALL with Full voting rights.

The information was in the 4 page white booklet sent to members from the pro merger board. As 7 members were to come from the then hfc board... 5 from the MFC board and 2 from the MCC. With the Pres to be nominated by the MCC and the hfc having a veto on that selection with the MFC having NO say in the election.

Assuming the 2 MCC members were pro MFC then the Pres had the power ALL the power, hfc only had to veto any nomination it didnt like.

3. After quoting from their own document I asked mr ridley why he gave the hfc all the power. Do you know how our then Pres answered his own member, with nothing not even a no comment , he just treated his members with contempt. You might not like Joe but he gave every question asked of him an answer, not silent contempt.

4 So if you still hanker to be a hawk just head south to the Tassie hawks and I will stay with the MELBOURNE DEMONS.

Well said No Merger.

Hawthorn were not going to be taken over. That is a ridiculous notion.

BOTH Clubs would be diluted & both clubs would not survive.

How often do you hear the Fitzroy Football Club mentioned??

Joe was far from perfect, but at least he had the balls to stand up. The pro mergers had rolled over & were waiting.

Joe stood up & did.

Sorry, that's crap. I remember Ridley answering all questions asked of him. The most likely scenario was that you couldn't hear him because the mob abused and shouted him down everytime he opened his mouth.

Look, Ridley's proposal was destined to fail right from the begining, but I won't stand by and let his character by smeared by childish rubbish. I was there, I saw all the Q&A and what you suggested simply did not take place. Now, if you've got the nuggets use your real username and not an alias so we can see who you are.

What complete and utter tripe.