10 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Have a look at any of the News Footage of the day. 
Tiger was Front and Centre. I will bet you a Few $100 on that one dry

i cut many of the ABC News Stories that year on the Merger

The Club rang me at least 3 times over the 96 season to try and get me to vote for a Merger

Bill Guest is a disgrace 

I said Bill Guest and Hassa Mann were the driving forces behind the merger and as Ridley is concerned I am going by the numerous conversations I had with him.

1 hour ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

I often wonder how Kennett would’ve gone as MFC president if the AFL gave it the green light.

During 2013 we were an absolute basket case and things couldn’t get any worse for us.

Typically Melbourne to reject the offer.  Kennett was so good as a president, that Hawthorn changed its constitution to get him back after the Garvey/Gaudry disaster.

The safe option or ''conservatism'' has been the titanic anchor of the MFC lifeboat since the mid-60s.  It''s so heavily entrenched in our culture, that it easily explains the chronic failure post-Menzies.  There have been glimmers of hope under Barassi, Northey, Daniher and Roos; with the latter more focused on our culture, leadership and the veil of negativity.  Conversely, the supporters need a veil of objectivity; and the club needs to adopt more of a 'whatever it takes' approach.  Case-in-point, "we wont draft Martin, if he doesn't want to come".  We have done that in the past too, and it makes me sick.

I wonder if anyone on this site voted for the merger and if so why?

So we've got the 2 resident ferel supporters here trolling away

Both should be banned pernanently

I guess we are bored to bring the merger back up. I wa and in WA during those events so I didn't get the emotional feelings running around between supporters.  I love the Melbourne Footy Club dearly and what I remember and what has been stated here.  After the merger we were still going to be called the "Melbourne Football Club" but we'd change out nickname to the hawks. modify the jumper, but we have done that anyway a few times with plus the clash jumpers.  To be honest that was not much different to before our nickname was called before we changed to the demons under Checker.  It was a take over of Hawthorn, at the time we had all the money.  Ironic isn't it  

The issue was the management of the time could see what was going to happen 10 yrs in the fire to the budget of the club and they could not sustain the increasing costs of running the club.  They had hindsight to see that and we can see the debt we accumulating till Jimmy took over.  The problem is they has no vision of how to fix it.  Post merger Hawthorn got people in who fixed their problems first off field and then infield, they had leaders who got all the supporters on board, we didn't, we went with the millionaire saviour approach.  Also the club could not have foreseen he saviour of the tv right that were to come.

Unfortunately we are still waiting still for our "Don Scott" person to drive the club forward in the way Hawthorn and you could say people like Eddie have done for their clubs.  Be stable and innovative off field and relentless to win onfield is not part of our culture yet, hopefully it will be soon. 

 

 

 

 

18 minutes ago, Darkhorse72 said:

I guess we are bored to bring the merger back up.

 

No,  we are being trolled

With the end play of blaming Melbourne supporters.

Same pattern from the usual suspects

Would we of voted "yes" if it was going to be the Hawthorn Demons?

With the stoppage of football, it was just a matter of time till the Merger saga reared its ugly head again.

Happens every couple of years. Standard Demonland.

Still fascinating to hear all the stories from the people who were at the coal face. 

Would be a unreal if we could get documentation eg. leaflets, ballot papers etc.

Would be great if people who aren't tech savvy could ask loved ones to upload photos of documentation from merger.

Would give people like myself living in another state or overseas a better understanding of what took place during that period.

 

12 hours ago, dpositive said:

At Dallas Brooks Ridley was strident in his demand that there be a merger. Bill Guest and "the suits"

 had the numbers and were arrogant and dismissive in their confidence.

Brian Dixon and Joe Gutnick had the passion and the simple response to Ridleys comment that the board had tried to get support from everyone. The simple line "you didn't ask me" and his presentation of a plan completely blind sided the board and the overflowing crowd were rapturous in their support. 

Ridley had the numbers and won the night but lost the fight. This meeting established divisions that soured the club for years and created an impression that was often displayed on the field. Confusion and disconnect were traits that have been carried on to this date.

We need to acknowledge this blight and spur the current generation to display the best attributes of a united cohesive club that will reap the success it deserves.

They had the numbers due to proxy votes bought with corporate memberships (Bill Guest?) I doubt it would have stood up to a court challenge

1 hour ago, Darkhorse72 said:

I guess we are bored to bring the merger back up. I wa and in WA during those events so I didn't get the emotional feelings running around between supporters.  I love the Melbourne Footy Club dearly and what I remember and what has been stated here.  After the merger we were still going to be called the "Melbourne Football Club" but we'd change out nickname to the hawks. modify the jumper, but we have done that anyway a few times with plus the clash jumpers.  To be honest that was not much different to before our nickname was called before we changed to the demons under Checker.  It was a take over of Hawthorn, at the time we had all the money.  Ironic isn't it  

The issue was the management of the time could see what was going to happen 10 yrs in the fire to the budget of the club and they could not sustain the increasing costs of running the club.  They had hindsight to see that and we can see the debt we accumulating till Jimmy took over.  The problem is they has no vision of how to fix it.  Post merger Hawthorn got people in who fixed their problems first off field and then infield, they had leaders who got all the supporters on board, we didn't, we went with the millionaire saviour approach.  Also the club could not have foreseen he saviour of the tv right that were to come.

Unfortunately we are still waiting still for our "Don Scott" person to drive the club forward in the way Hawthorn and you could say people like Eddie have done for their clubs.  Be stable and innovative off field and relentless to win onfield is not part of our culture yet, hopefully it will be soon. 

 

 

 

 

Could've been Jimmy but his illness didn't let that play out

An interesting aside to those that think all we need is success on field and all will be well is that the Hawks had a golden period in the 80's that stretched into the early 90's but by 1996 they were on their knees financially.

Different times but it does show how important sound management is along with on field success.

had to laugh at tgr's constant reference to "we" when referring to mfc supporters

what i don't understand is how such an obvious and boring troll is still allowed to post

 

6 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

An interesting aside to those that think all we need is success on field and all will be well is that the Hawks had a golden period in the 80's that stretched into the early 90's but by 1996 they were on their knees financially.

Different times but it does show how important sound management is along with on field success.

Which was why they were seen as ripe for the picking. They had on-field assets and some off field but hubris had become endemic. Mismanagement and extravagance undid all their gains in the '80's. Enter Ian Dicker. The assessment of Don Scott by @TGR is correct. He saw the merger for what it really was - a takeover of HFC - and he displayed so brilliantly with his graphic demo of the jumper. The assessment of Kennett's contribution is overplayed. He sailed smooth seas long after Ian Dicker had calmed the storm and set the ship on course. Without Ian Dicker I doubt there'd have been a HFC for Kennett to play with

On 4/17/2020 at 11:51 AM, Ohio USA - David said:

Who remembers the Hawthorn Demons jumper... At least we would have won a Premiership or three since 1964

 

You are not a true supporter. I AM  MELBOURNE  THROUGH AND THROUGH.  I don't think you understand that. Ohio.

On 4/17/2020 at 11:51 AM, Ohio USA - David said:

At least we would have won a Premiership or three since 1964

Just because Hawthorn won premierships since,  does not mean the merged club would of won a premiership. 

Edited April 19, 20204 yr by one_demon

On 4/18/2020 at 8:32 AM, TGR said:

Typically Melbourne to reject the offer.  Kennett was so good as a president, that Hawthorn changed its constitution to get him back after the Garvey/Gaudry disaster.

The safe option or ''conservatism'' has been the titanic anchor of the MFC lifeboat since the mid-60s.  It''s so heavily entrenched in our culture, that it easily explains the chronic failure post-Menzies.  There have been glimmers of hope under Barassi, Northey, Daniher and Roos; with the latter more focused on our culture, leadership and the veil of negativity.  Conversely, the supporters need a veil of objectivity; and the club needs to adopt more of a 'whatever it takes' approach.  Case-in-point, "we wont draft Martin, if he doesn't want to come".  We have done that in the past too, and it makes me sick.

the Afl stopped it. Not Mfc , not saying MFC would have gone with it , but the AFL stepped in 

On 4/18/2020 at 9:36 AM, drysdale demon said:

I wonder if anyone on this site voted for the merger and if so why?

 

yes I did as did My wife ( ex hawthorn member) 

as did many of my hawthorn friends. at the time 

it was always going to be MELBOURNE ... something 

as we have changed our nickname a few times already 

Melbourne  DEES 

Melbourne Demons

Melbourne Redlegs

Melbourne Fuchsias 

so it was going  to be Melbourne Hawks ( which lets be honest would have turned into SMFC like on back of Swans Jumper over time)

many reasons convinced us .

the money on offer was great , the social club ( which I believe hawks since sold and rent back ) , the extended list and so on.

As people might want to change history or some just forget  Melbourne voted for the merger ( takeover)

Hawthorn stopped it 

yes many say and most likely is true many top end melbourne supporters purchased memberships to vote for it 

same as Hawks did, to vote against it 

This topic comes up every few years , history always seems to get changed .. Some of us thought it was the right thing at the time , now would I vote the same now or would my friends vote the same , I doubt i would now. 

Edited April 19, 20204 yr by markc

On 4/18/2020 at 4:52 AM, don't make me angry said:

6 million

The AFL began this policy by offering A$6 million to any newly merged football team (an offer which grew to A$8 million by mid-1996)

1 hour ago, markc said:

 

yes I did as did My wife ( ex hawthorn member) 

as did many of my hawthorn friends. at the time 

it was always going to be MELBOURNE ... something 

as we have changed our nickname a few times already 

Melbourne  DEES 

Melbourne Demons

Melbourne Redlegs

Melbourne Fuchsias 

so it was going  to be Melbourne Hawks ( which lets be honest would have turned into SMFC like on back of Swans Jumper over time)

many reasons convinced us .

the money on offer was great , the social club ( which I believe hawks since sold and rent back ) , the extended list and so on.

As people might want to change history or some just forget  Melbourne voted for the merger ( takeover)

Hawthorn stopped it 

yes many say and most likely is true many top end melbourne supporters purchased memberships to vote for it 

same as Hawks did, to vote against it 

This topic comes up every few years , history always seems to get changed .. Some of us thought it was the right thing at the time , now would I vote the same now or would my friends vote the same , I doubt i would now. 

That's fine, I was just curious. I voted against even though I was of the opinion it was most likely going to be a takeover of Hawthorn. The members of the Redlegs group that I spoke to about it at the time all voted against it.

 

4 hours ago, markc said:

 

yes I did as did My wife ( ex hawthorn member) 

as did many of my hawthorn friends. at the time 

it was always going to be MELBOURNE ... something 

as we have changed our nickname a few times already 

Melbourne  DEES 

Melbourne Demons

Melbourne Redlegs

Melbourne Fuchsias 

so it was going  to be Melbourne Hawks ( which lets be honest would have turned into SMFC like on back of Swans Jumper over time)

many reasons convinced us .

the money on offer was great , the social club ( which I believe hawks since sold and rent back ) , the extended list and so on.

As people might want to change history or some just forget  Melbourne voted for the merger ( takeover)

Hawthorn stopped it 

yes many say and most likely is true many top end melbourne supporters purchased memberships to vote for it 

same as Hawks did, to vote against it 

This topic comes up every few years , history always seems to get changed .. Some of us thought it was the right thing at the time , now would I vote the same now or would my friends vote the same , I doubt i would now. 

Thanks Mark.

I was 19 and stupid at the time. I went through periods of I’d vote yes.. I’d vote no... I lived in Fitzroy at the time and was going to go but ended up just waking past DBH on the night and didn’t vote at all. 

On 4/17/2020 at 1:31 PM, demonstone said:

Sorry Moony.  I'd love to oblige but lack both the technology and the know-how to do so.

I can provide the proposed team song, but make sure you've got a bucket handy:

We're the Melbourne Hawks

We're the high-flying Hawks

We're the mighty Melbourne Hawks

We play each game and we play to win

Watch us, we play it with a grin

Every heart beats true for the gold red and blue

As we sing this song for you

One for all and all for one

Two will make you stronger

Keep your eye on the mighty Melbourne Hawks.

Alternatively:

Its a grand old flag at Whorebourne

We;re the mighty fighting Dorks

We didn't play fine in 1939

Cause then we were demons and Hawks

We haven't got any supporters 

but we still do very well

Red and blue and brown and gold

splattered on our jumper

thanks to the greedy AFL

Tale of 2 clubs... 

Hawks 4 flags, 80k members plus $$$ profits each year, proper home base

MFC 0 flags, 50k members plus still in debt & lost 1.5 mill in 2019, no home base

One club moved on , planned their future, the other going around in circles

Edited April 19, 20204 yr by Hogan2014

Again with the merger.

Facts.  ' The club is debt free, and at the end of this year will have  net liquid assets of $1,300,000"   SIGNED W E BALCAM  Finance Director MFC .    Briefing Paper - Finance: Blue paper supplied by the MFC to members.

              We've made profits of about $600,000 over the past two years and we will make a profit again this year. This club has no debt, it does not operate on an overdraft like a lot of other clubs and it does not have a CASH FLOW PROBLEM._ Ian Ridley, The Age 5.6.96.

              The new club would need a salary cap of $5 million if it was to take the best players from both sides, according to club sources.- Daryl Timms, The Herald Sun

              Salary cap 1996 #2.5 million in 1996. Blue Paper Finance_ MFC. 

             AFL would allow an extra sum to the Melbourne Hawks 1997 $300,000  1998 $200,000  1999 $100,000.- Explanatory Notes MFC handout, four page white document.

             Also for all of you who think the Hawks would be submerged by the MFC please read the above white document concerning, Board Of Directors Of Melbourne Hawks.   7 existing directors of HFC.

                                                                5 existing directors of MFC.

                                                                2 Directors nominated by MCC.

                                                                AN INDEPENDENT CHAIRMAN NOMINATED BY THE MCC AND APPROVED BY THE HFC.

           The Mfc had no say in the chairman of their club. All board members had full voting rights. Hfc veto until they get who they want.

          Hawthorns dire financial position has been estimated to be as high as $2.7 million. Significant additional debts to be incurred will include the costs of the expensive merger campaign, player and staff redundancies, the $30 merchandise gift, free junior ticket promotion and new corporate imagery and signage for the proposed new entity........The Demon Alternative.

         

As you can guess I voted NO and I wont even get into the ILLEGAL Blue Proxy Form. 

All of the above documents will be available for  looking  at before the next home game with crowds at seat 52k2. GO DEMONS not hawks.  

On 4/17/2020 at 12:12 PM, Demonland said:

Had the merger gone ahead do you think we would have had the ultimate success?

Unlikely the merged club would have bombed out at the right time to get Hodge, Franklin and Roughead (plus Rioli, Lewis further down the draft), so possibly, but not the same way Hawthorn did it.

On 4/18/2020 at 5:07 PM, daisycutter said:

had to laugh at tgr's constant reference to "we" when referring to mfc supporters

what i don't understand is how such an obvious and boring troll is still allowed to post

 

Daisy, its interesting that progressives get termed  'Trolls',   when they make criticisms of our clubs failing ways since the Mid 60's.  In wanting the club to change from its losing ways,  so we can all enjoy more positiveness and winning ways.

Maybe those who 'dare to',  and see the why's, in our failings,  compared to  'the conservatives',  who do not dare to hop out on that limb,  to also try to create change for the better.

The conservatives can't see the vision because they are trapped in a fear of getting something wrong...which inevitably they do  anyway.

 

What the conservatives typically do is to criticise those who want change to a better methodology,  (so that winning can become more frequent). 

Conservatives generally do not want change.  It's sheer madness.

 

Change,  we must. 

The veil of negativity is due to conservatism within Mfc,  outside the fence.

We have lost most of our progressive supporters over the decades,  because of our failing ways... (they gave up on us)  and its the conservative element that holds the power of numbers, mostly now,  simply because conservatives become  'rusted on'.

 

So what happens when remaining progressives criticise and call for change;  the conservatives try to push them out,  try to silence them,  because all the conservatives can see,  is just plain criticism.   And not the dream behind,  the want for change. 

The conservatives lack the vision to see the way forward,  and out of the mire of conservative soup we flounder within.

.

Edited April 23, 20204 yr by MyFavouriteMartian