Talk:Brisbane Lions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merge with Brisbane Bears?[edit]

Officially, there was no merger between the clubs; only PLAYING OPERATIONS were merged. Fitzroy then left the comp and now plays in the amateur leagues. If you read the Lions official history, it states that they were founded in 1987; in 1997, they simply took all of Fitzroy's stuff and rebranded.

So with that in mind, should the articles be merged? The Frederick (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flagging my intention to explore WP:Dispute Resolution options, including WP:Mediation options, seeking to resolve all these content issues to do with the article, in hope of ensuring factual accuracy, including the fact Fitzroy's AFL operations were merged with Brisbane, not Fitzroy Football Club itself, which was never merged, the fact Fitzroy continues as an entirely separate club in its own right, and the fact Brisbane Bears-Fitzroy Football Club (trading as Brisbane Lions), is not a new club formed in 1996, as often erroneously claimed, but is a renamed Brisbane Bears, that Brisbane Bears was never "dissolved".
As proven by the Deed of Company Arrangement between Fitzroy Football Club and Brisbane Bears, and by a vote by Brisbane members in 1996, described in the Deed, that vote being to change the name of Brisbane Bears to Brisbane Bears-Fitzroy Football Club (trading as Brisbane Lions).
Additional proof also coming from subsequent assessment of the Deed by the Supreme Court of Victoria, and ASIC & ABR registration details, showing that Fitzroy Football Club never ceased to exist as a separate club, and that Brisbane Bears Football Club is listed in ASIC registration information as being a "former name" of Brisbane Bears-Fitzroy Football Club (trading as Brisbane Lions).
Further verification that Brisbane Bears and Brisbane Lions are one and the same thing. JayBee00 (talk) 16:12, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm still intending to explore these avenues to resolve that situation, but feeling a need to slightly step back & have a bit more time to relax after the last month. JayBee00 (talk) 07:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Roylion68 - More on the details of the Deed of Arrangement, i.e. the legal document that describes exactly what happened with Fitzroy and with Brisbane Bears in 1996, referring you to this from page 10 of the Deed, as made available by the Victorian Lions Supporters Group on their website:

"6. BRISBANE BEARS’ CHANGE OF NAME

Brisbane Bears shall arrange for a general meeting to be held at which a special resolution will be proposed to change the company name of Brisbane Bears to Brisbane Bears-Fitzroy Football Club Limited and Brisbane Bears shall use its best endeavours to obtain such approval." -> https://viclions.wordpress.com/news/the-deed/

So Brisbane Bears were not "dissolved" as such, there was no "new club" formed. A name change occurred, as voted on by Brisbane Bears members towards the end of 1996, after Fitzroy's AFL operations were merged with Brisbane Bears, and in accordance with the terms of that Deed, Brisbane Bears became Brisbane Bears-Fitzroy Football Club (trading as Brisbane Lions).

Also, the Supreme Court of Victoria in 2010 confirmed the validity of the details of the Deed and what that meant, incl. that this was not a merger of two clubs as such, during the case brought by Fitzroy to ensure continued use of the Fitzroy lion logo by Brisbane. The Brisbane Lions' QC even argued the same, regarding whether Fitzroy and Brisbane were separate entities, during that case. JayBee00 (talk) 10:58, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is clear NPOV evidence from a reliable source. It is not anyone's opinion, it is not a forum post or an opinion piece of any kind, it is a legal document, it describes the factual record of what took place between Fitzroy and Brisbane Bears in 1996. Furthermore, WP is an encyclopedia, it is not an anarchy or forum for anyone's opinion, simply gainsaying NPOV reliable information on a WP article and replacing with WP:OR information is not appropriate. Roylion68 - I should warn again about overwriting WP:NPOV info which comes from Wikipedia:Reliable Sources and replacing with content based on personal opinion, i.e. WP:OR content. I would have to seek some form of dispute resolution at a higher level if this situation continued, Also reminding about WP policy about WP:EDITWAR and WP:Editing policy. JayBee00 (talk) 06:59, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, these are links to ABR and ASIC details for Fitzroy Football Club, being a separate entity, with ASIC registration dating back to 1981:
ASIC page for Fitzroy Football Club - https://connectonline.asic.gov.au/RegistrySearch/faces/landing/panelSearch.jspx?searchText=005881201&searchType=OrgAndBusNm&_adf.ctrl-state=8y9p4xbpx_32 ;
CreditorWatch page - https://creditorwatch.com.au/credit/profile/20005881201/fitzroy-football-club-limited
And links to ABR and ASIC details for Brisbane Bears-Fitzroy Football Club (trading as Brisbane Lions), with ASIC registration beginning in 1991:
ASIC page for Brisbane Bears-Fitzroy Football Club (trading as Brisbane Lions) - https://connectonline.asic.gov.au/RegistrySearch/faces/landing/panelSearch.jspx?searchText=054263473&searchType=OrgAndBusNm&_adf.ctrl-state=8y9p4xbpx_15 ;
CreditorWatch page - https://creditorwatch.com.au/credit/profile/43054263473/BRISBANE-BEARS-FITZROY-FOOTBALL-CLUB-LIMITED
Roylion68 - ASIC also lists Brisbane Bears Football Club as a "former name" of Brisbane Bears-Fitzroy Football Club, as anyone here can see by clicking on that "connectonline.asic.gov.au" link. This also proves again, beyond any doubt, that Brisbane Bears was not "dissolved", and that Brisbane Bears-Fitzroy Football Club (trading as Brisbane Lions) was never a "new club", but is Brisbane Bears renamed. JayBee00 (talk) 11:57, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Roylion68 - thinking that we should take this discussion into Talk here before any further editing if further editing is needed. As you said on BigFooty in 2011 I think, legally, Brisbane Lions as a club was formed in 1987. And there is NPOV sourcing to back that statement also. I don't think it invalidates anything to do with Fitzroy's history or Brisbane's, or the details of merging of Fitzroy's playing operations with Brisbane. JayBee00 (talk) 02:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It definitely does invalidate it. The modern club's starting date on it's website and almost all information available on it turns up a search result of 1996.
The Brisbane Bears wikipedia page even has the club's history ending at the Merger and ceasing to exist beyond that. Roylion68 (talk) 02:54, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An example is in the NRL. Western Suburbs merged their top tier operations with Balmain to be the West Tigers, but they still have a team in lower leagues. Their foundation date is not Balmain's as a result of them still fielding their own team as well as the merged entity.
The Brisbane Lions situation in regards to Fitzroy is the same. Roylion68 (talk) 02:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I definitely want to find a reasonable way to work this out Roylion68 - thank you for coming here, and can we please continue to discuss this here before removing NPOV content, find a way to ensure a proper outcome. JayBee00 (talk) 03:03, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Roylion68 - WP rules say the content cited by NPOV sourcing takes priority. The appropriate resolution is to work out a content outcome which doesn't violate WP:NPOV rules, please stop undoing that content while we are discussing this. JayBee00 (talk) 03:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're undoing content that is correct by all the club records.
As I have stated earlier, the founding date is not 1987 and no information available online cites the Brisbane Lions as being founded then. Please stop choosing your own historical POV that is different to that of the organisation we are writing about. Roylion68 (talk) 03:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am very happy to send as much information as possible to back this up. It's readily available. Roylion68 (talk) 03:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Roylion68 - I would welcome that. And if an outcome is achieved which upholds WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, then that is as it should be. The appropriate step here is to continue discussion now to find the best way to ensure that can be done, and you should certainly provide any such content here for us to work this out. JayBee00 (talk) 03:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Happy to.
Firstly here's the club itself talking about it's foundation date: https://www.lions.com.au/club/history
The Fitzroy club article mentions the joint entity being formed in 1996: https://www.fitzroyfc.com.au/lions
The Bris Lions historical society references a starting date of 1996: https://www.lions.com.au/club/history/historical-society Roylion68 (talk) 03:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Roylion68 - Thank you again for continuing to engage. I figure we should each provide as much relevant content to this issue here as possible, and then between us work out the best possible resolution for the page. I'm sure this is doable between us JayBee00 (talk) 03:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And the AFL'S club chronology has the Brisbane Lions starting in 1996: https://www.afl.com.au/about-afl/chronology Roylion68 (talk) 03:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Roylion68 - have also just found an article on the ABC website and another on the State Library of Victoria website, which describe what occurred as a rebranding subsequent to merging of Fitzroy's AFL operations/properties with Brisbane -> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-22/brisbane-bears-and-how-afl-came-to-the-gold-coast/11769818 ; https://guides.slv.vic.gov.au/australianfootball/leagues JayBee00 (talk) 03:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those are definitely not NPOV articles. They are based purely on opinion.
If the club as an organisation has 1996 as the date and so does the AFL then that is as objective as the information can be and needs to be what we go off. Roylion68 (talk) 03:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also both still acknowledge 1996 as a merger date. Roylion68 (talk) 03:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Roylion68 - I will seek to verify the initial statement by The Frederick about the Lions' official history stating founding date as 1987 as well. About to head out for lunch but promise I will return to this discussion with you later today. Thank you again. JayBee00 (talk) 03:35, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No worries mate. It's worth having a look through the club website as the Fredericks initial comment is incorrect as far as I know. Roylion68 (talk) 03:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Roylion68 - before I head off for the moment, just wanted to say, I'll also research as much as possible to find the evidence for your statement on BigFooty back in 2011 about Brisbane Lions legally being established as a club in 1987. And would appreciate any information you might be able to provide about that specifically too mate. JayBee00 (talk) 03:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That wasn't me mate. However as the current records indicate on official club and AFL channels the establishment date is definitely 1996. Roylion68 (talk) 04:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We shouldn't be going off forums such as Bigfooty for information. That is pure conjecture as it's a public forum.
The only referred articles in this case should be what I have put forward which are official club and AFL articles. Roylion68 (talk) 04:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Coming back to this for a moment before I continue with lunch and a couple of other jobs that need doing. We already agreed that Fitzroy FC's official content describing what happened in 1996 with Fitzroy's club operations at AFL level being merged with Brisbane Bears was valid and should be incorporated in the article, so I would hope that version of the article as is will continue to exist without more undoing, while we discuss this 1987 issue. I don't think there's any grounds to argue that this Fitzroy FC content should somehow be removed, the club's statements about the formation of Brisbane Lions shouldn't be overwritten on this article and substituted with WP:OR content. Debating OR vs NOR about the 1987 issue is fair enough, but the legitimate sourced information is very clear about the "merger" issue as are WP:NOR and WP:NPOV rules. JayBee00 (talk) 04:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Roylion68 - Further information here, while I'm in the process of finding the key ASIC data about when Brisbane Lions was in fact formed and registered, it's necessary to also point out what the Deed of Arrangement, which together with the ASIC records, are the key factual evidence on this issue, actually states. The Deed says the following:
"“Merged Club” means Brisbane Bears" (not Fitzroy Football Club and Brisbane Bears, or Brisbane Lions as any kind of new entity)
"“Merger” means the merger of the Club Operations of Fitzroy and the Club Operations of the Brisbane Bears in accordance with the terms of this Deed and “Merge” has a corresponding meaning;"
It never meant a "merger" where Fitzroy and Brisbane somehow combined to become any joint entity. It means Fitzroy's AFL operations, its club operations at the time, were absorbed by/"merged with" Brisbane Bears, without any change in the status of Brisbane as a result.
As far as I can see, that validates what The Frederick said also.
-> https://viclions.wordpress.com/news/the-deed/ JayBee00 (talk) 01:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This says nothing. You are looking at an article and reinterpreting it to suit your opinion not display facts. Roylion68 (talk) 03:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Roylion68, it is literally a copy of the Deed of Arrangement, it is the specific legal definition of what took place, the text is clear and not open to interpretation as far as I can see.
"Merged club" means Brisbane Bears. "Merger" means AFL club operations of Fitzroy were merged with Brisbane Bears. And of course the official account on the Fitzroy website reiterates this also. JayBee00 (talk) 03:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What are you trying to achieve? You are clearly expressing your own opinion and have been told by myself and one other user that the AFL and club's website stating that it is a merged club is what to go off. NOT your reinterpretation of the merger document based on a discussion from a highly subjective forum. Stop this nonsense now. It's disrespectful and frankly I will be overwriting your edits until this stops. Roylion68 (talk) 00:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Roylion68 - the Deed of Arrangement between Brisbane Bears and Fitzroy is not anyone's "opinion", and the Victorian Lions Supporters Group website is not a "highly subjective forum". Simply gainsaying clear WP:NPOV reliable information, without any legitimate basis to justify that, and automatically reverting, clearly contradicts WP policy, that is not what Wikipedia is about, it is an encyclopedia, not an anarchy or opinion forum. I think I'd have to initiate dispute resolution processes at a higher level if you continued to do the same. I think I've done everything I can to warn you about removing WP:NPOV content from Wikipedia:Reliable Sources and replacing with WP:OR content, and to inform you about WP policy about WP:EDITWAR and WP:Editing policy. JayBee00 (talk) 06:42, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would welcome it if you were to take it further. You're cherry picking parts of articles and using them to prove your point that the merger is somehow not a merger. I have given you a similar example of how West Tigers in the NRL are a merger but Western Suburbs still exist and it's still a merger but you've flat out ignored it. The fact that it took myself and one other user to make you even recognize that the foundation date of the Brisbane Lions is 1996 demonstrates that you are trying to prove your own point at the expense of readily known fact. Roylion68 (talk) 08:08, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That reply is just another form of WP:OR. The facts are as described in the Deed of Arrangement, and it is sufficiently reliable as a document that it was upheld by the Supreme Court. There is no "merged entity" that includes Fitzroy Football Club.
Ignoring that and claiming without evidence that the Deed is somehow "opinion", somehow not factual, is not a valid response in any way. And claiming West Tigers & Western Suburbs as some kind of example is pure false equivalence.
Western Suburbs are literally part of a 50/50 joint venture in 'West Tigers'. Fitzroy Football Club is a completely separate club, there is no "joint venture", and the Deed of Arrangement makes this very clear. JayBee00 (talk) 08:19, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Roylion68 - I have shown you the legal document which proves beyond doubt that Fitzroy Football Club is a separate club.
Proving that there is no "merged entity" which contains Fitzroy and Brisbane as clubs.
And proving that there was a vote by Brisbane Bears members whereby Brisbane Bears' name was changed to "Brisbane Bears-Fitzroy Football Club", that there was no "new club" formed, that Brisbane Bears-Fitzroy Football Club is a renaming/reincarnation of Brisbane Bears.
Yet you still try to claim that this is somehow "cherrypicking", somehow not factual evidence and/or just my personal opinion?
You are literally denying clear recorded legal fact and wanting this article to reflect your denial of that information. This is not what Wikipedia is about. JayBee00 (talk) 08:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're referring to the Lions Roar page who have multiple articles calling the Brisbane Lions a merged club, having it's foundation date as 1996, and acknowledging it as the AFL/VFL continuation of Fitzroy while the rest of Fitzroy's playing operations exist in the VAFA. They've read the same document as you and refer to it as a merged club. Are they missing something you have somehow picked up here? Is every single person who supports the Brisbane Lions or has something to do with them via Fitzroy somehow getting it all wrong? Roylion68 (talk) 00:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
.Local Potentate has stated it - all sources say 1996 so wikipedia has to reflect that. If all sources say merger then wikipedia ALSO has to reflect that. Roylion68 (talk) 00:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I'm clearly not referring to the Lions Roar page, I am referring to the Deed of Arrangement between Fitzroy Football Club and Brisbane Bears, published on the Victorian Lions Supporters Group website, as is obvious to anyone reading this discussion, and repeating that claim multiple times doesn't somehow change this. I don't know why you continue to repeat that "Lions Roar page" claim, or other claims such as the "all sources say merger" claim, these statements are clearly not true, proven beyond doubt not to be. I've never mentioned anything to do with this Lions Roar website at all, you're the only one talking about it. You yourself can easily see by clicking on the link to the Deed, which site that is on, i.e. the Victorian Lions Supporters Group. Have you gone to the link I've given you and read the Deed? Or the excerpts I've shown you directly?
And which site posted the Deed isn't even relevant. The Deed is the legal document describing what happened with this deal between Fitzroy and Brisbane, and it has been upheld by the Supreme Court of Victoria. As has the fact that there is no "merger" between Fitzroy Football Club and Brisbane as clubs, the fact Fitzroy Football Club continues to exist as an independent club in its own right.
And personal opinion from any user is not relevant to this, that's why Wikipedia has a clear WP:NPOV and WP:NOR policy. Factual information from NPOV reliable sourcing is what matters.
Claiming that somehow "every single person who supports the Brisbane Lions or has something to do with them via Fitzroy" supposedly agrees with you - based on no evidence I'm aware of and certainly none that you've provided - is not a factual statement of any kind either, it's just an empty rhetorical trick. In point of fact, Fitzroy Football Club directors have spoken publicly refuting that "merger" myth on multiple occasions.
Denying the existence of the Deed of Arrangement between Fitzroy and Brisbane Bears as a source is not a valid response either. Clearly the Deed exists, and you have been shown a copy of it. (PS - you have now also been shown a copy of the ASIC and ABR details for Fitzroy Football Club, and also for Brisbane Bears-Fitzroy Football Club (trading as Brisbane Lions), proving again beyond doubt that they are separate entities, and that Brisbane Bears-Fitzroy Football Club is Brisbane Bears renamed). JayBee00 (talk) 05:46, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All sources say 1996, that's what Wikipedia has to reflect. Otherwise, it's just a form of OR.Local Potentate (talk) 04:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Exactly. Roylion68 (talk) 04:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've fixed the dates on the page thus far. Roylion68 (talk) 04:42, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Roylion68 - coming back to this, I've recently also become aware of ASIC records confirming Brisbane Lions-Fitzroy Football Club Limited was formed as a company well before 1996. Not seeking any edit at present, but I'm investigating that further, to pin down that information. JayBee00 (talk) 01:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Stop trying to find excuses to change the date. Every other club page goes off the club affirmed date for foundation. I have never heard of such a record and how a company being formed before the merger happened can affect it's foundation date is nonsense. Roylion68 (talk) 03:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Roylion68 - I'm sorry Roylion, but... seriously? ASIC data about the registration date of Brisbane Lions-Fitzroy Football Club Ltd is somehow an "excuse"?
No, it would be a verified fact, if I find the direct link to that documentation. And there is also no verified factual evidence that Brisbane Bears ceased to exist as an entity, and that Brisbane Lions was somehow formed as a separate entity. Coupled with the fact the Deed of Arrangement also says otherwise. JayBee00 (talk) 03:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
“Merger Date” means 1 November 1996 or such other date as Fitzroy, the Administrator, Brisbane Bears and AFL may agree" - off that article. End of story.
Now stop changing the foundation date. You've been warned multiple times. Roylion68 (talk) 03:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I haven't changed the foundation date, Roylion68. I am saying that I'm aware of evidence that appears to contradict it. I'm looking at a screenshot of that ASIC data right now, just trying to find a way to upload it here in "Talk". JayBee00 (talk) 03:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As i've said earlier: if the club has 1996, the AFL has 1996, and even Fitzroy has 1996, then it's 1996 end of story. Roylion68 (talk) 03:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's not tenable though. If ASIC data says Brisbane Bears-Fitzroy Football Club (trading as Brisbane Lions), was created before 1996, then it was created before 1996.
As far as I'm aware, club-affirmed dates for the forming of other clubs correspond to the relevant documentation about their corporate registration. Though I'll also be checking up on that to see if I might be wrong about this, however it seems unlikely.
As I say, I'm not seeking to make any edit on this subject at this point, but I'm continuing to research to find that specific documentation. JayBee00 (talk) 03:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, in point of fact, nobody has warned me about anything to do with this, at all. My editing here and on any other article I've edited has been in good faith and substantiated by NPOV sourcing, as it will continue to be. JayBee00 (talk) 03:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great but in this case, you're not doing any of that. You are trying to find facts that prove opinion not fact. Roylion68 (talk) 03:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Roylion68 - I'm seeking the factual evidence mate. As always, as per WP rules/protocol, if I can't find that explicit NPOV sourcing for this, I won't do anything. JayBee00 (talk) 03:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

3O Response: Third opinion request declined. There are already more than 2 editors involved. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good morning. I've had a read of most of the background of your dispute and offer my opinion. I think the description of the merger as presently written in the lead is a good one: it's written simply enough that the average reader will easily understand the layman's version of events (i.e. that there was a merger between Fitzroy and BB), but precisely enough to distinguish the legal aspects of the merger from the football aspects.

The typical AFL club article is and should be about 90% about its onfield activities and football operations, 10% about corporate and legal matters. It is without doubt that the onfield/football history of the Brisbane Lions is considered to commence in 1996 and is considered distinct from that of Fitzroy or the Bears – all of Roylion68's references demonstrate this and I could provide many more to the same effect. It is also without doubt that the legal entity which operates the Brisbane Lions is the same as the entity which operated the Brisbane Bears, and JayBee00 has demonstrated this clearly. You're both correct and working from valid NPOV references, and both versions can co-exist.

The solution should be that JayBee00's precise legal description of the situation be confined to the 'Merger' and 'Relationship with the Fitzroy Football Club' subsections. The rest of the article (except for the lead) should: treat 1996 as the team/club's foundation date; freely use the term 'merge/merger' to describe what happened (since once you're into the main article body, it should reasonably be assumed that in the context of this article 'merger' refers to the contents of the article's 'Merger' subsection, rather than a stand-alone legal definition of a merger); and where possible, use the words "the team" or "the Lions" instead of "the club" in cases where it would represents a imprecise reflection of the legal history – as was done in the lead. In the infobox, I support using 1996 as the sole listed foundation date to retain the 90% football/10% legal emphasis of the article, and letting the rest of the article handle the specifics. Aspirex (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with this entirely. Roylion68 (talk) 02:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Roylion68 - on a different issue though, are you disputing the fact that Fitzroy reps on Brisbane's board don't have any official role with Fitzroy while serving with Brisbane? That's been a stated fact which has been included within the Fitzroy Football Club article for at least 11 years now. If you disagree with that info, can you please reply and show why. It seems pretty reasonable to me to have factual consistency about that across the two pages, and logical to copy across that text. JayBee00 (talk) 09:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not that I necessarily agree with all the bickering and back-and-forth going on in this discussion, but it's worth putting forward the AFL Record Guide to Season 2023 as a primary source – the AFL has, for at least the past decade or so (probably longer), considered the statistical history of the Brisbane Bears and Brisbane Lions one and the same. The statistical records for 'Brisbane' begin in 1987 and continue through to the present day, whereas Fitzroy has its own section that concludes in 1996. If anything, this indicates that the league themselves considers the merger more of a takeover than anything. Gibbsyspin 11:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I agree with these points Gibbsy, except of course that as the Deed of Arrangement shows and publicly available & linked ASIC documentation + other evidence reinforces, it was Fitzroy's AFL properties taken over by Brisbane rather than the Fitzroy Football Club itself, obviously.
Hypothetically, I think there would be solid grounds for someone to seek a merge between the Brisbane Bears and Brisbane Lions WP pages on this basis, the AFL evidence, ASIC evidence, the Deed of Arrangement and other information, though I'm not seeking a merge of those pages myself as such. As long as both the two Brisbane WP pages reflect the essential proven facts here, that this was a name change by Brisbane and takeover - "merging" - of Fitzroy's AFL operations, rather than any actual merger of the two clubs, that Brisbane Bears was never "dissolved", but in fact became Brisbane Lions, that Brisbane Lions was not a "new club" somehow formed in 1996, that's good enough for me. JayBee00 (talk) 17:12, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
https://www.afl.com.au/about-afl/chronology this article by the AFL has the Lions foundation date as 1996.
I think there's enough conflicting info from the league on the date that you're right in not seeking a page merge. Roylion68 (talk) 03:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can we bring back the theme songs?[edit]

we need to bring back the theme songs or the clubs as Wikipedia is the only site I can find on the internet that HAD the theme songs for the 16 AFL teams. now only Adeleaide has a song. When you click on the theme song, you are redirected to the clubs main article. Aflumpire 07:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As good as that would be, it's not possible due to copyright issues.--The Brain of Morbius 23:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright issues? What about all the other songs on wikipedia. All it is is words, nothing else. Its not like we are adding a link to the sung version. please consider this. Aflumpire 01:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

which is better?[edit]

Which is it then, Brisbane Lions or Fitzroy Lions?


Include the histories of both the Brisbane Bears and the Fitzroy Lions as seperate clubs before the merger
Absolutely. Questions - 1) Would the same history stance have been adopted if Fitzroy had merged with North, or the Hawks with Melbourne? 2)The Bears had a 17-11-6 record against Fitzroy. If this was incorporated into the Lions stats, it would mean that at one stage in its history, the Brisbane Lions would technically have played themselves for premiership points!

The Lions' Fab Five[edit]

I'm removing the following entry from Fab Five. Deal with it as you please.

* Five football players for the Brisbane Lions: Michael Voss, Nigel Lappin, Simon Black, Jason Akermanis and Luke Power.

?[edit]

http://www.ausport.gov.au/fulltext/2004/abc/s1100551.asp{{subst:image source|Image:2003AFLGrandFinal.png)) Betacommand (talkcontribsBot) 23:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC) {{missing rationale|Image:2003AFLGrandFinal.pngReply[reply]


2007 Results[edit]

Please do not update the results of the round until the end of the round because I keep having to correct the position as that is not decided until the end of the round.


Merging team song[edit]

I think that "Pride of Brisbane Town" should remain seperate as an article. Other sporting songs have their own pages I believe. Cls14 10:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually in line with previous AfD's the song should be deleted. As should the only other AFL club song currently on here.Garrie 22:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bears? Fitzroy?[edit]

Should the records of these 2 clubs be excluded from the "Club List" section? Specifically prior premierships etc? ROxBo 22:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

POV - April 2008[edit]

To say Brisbane only lost 2004 Grand Final due to an extra 2 days supposed rest for Port Adelaide is completely rubbish and biased. True Port had 24 hours difference in game time but hardly a reason to conclusively prove for encyclopedia article that caused the loss —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.183.131 (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Too much detail?[edit]

The season summaries are getting much too detailed. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a complete archive of information or blog. Think how this page will look in 5, 10, 20 years time. We need to be much more concise and erudite with the way this page is put together. Please try to keep the standard of English high as well. This page should be something we are proud of, just like our club. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBrownDog (talkcontribs) 07:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Average crowd[edit]

An average is the sum of the crowds over the number of crowds. Just because there has only been one game it doesn't mean there isn't an average. This should not be removed just because you do not like the stat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.76.170.68 (talk) 13:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please read and understand the concept of Statistical significance and then you'll understand that the significance of 1 match is not enough to draw any conclusions. If I plan to roll a pair of dice 11 times and get double 1s on the first roll, should I declare that the average score from this pair of dice is 2? No, it means the significance of the deviation of the sample average from the true mean is not significant based on that sample size. Be careful who you call Einstein. The-Pope (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No conclusions are drawn in the table. The state is shown. Please stop vandalising this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.171.93.29 (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guess you were right Shaggy. It is too early to put the crowd in. I have decided to follow your wise lead on this one. Cheers, mate. Brisbane Lions Fan #1! 02:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brisbanelionsfan1 (talkcontribs)

Controversy[edit]

the following was removed with a comment that it should be on a player page -

In an off the field controversy three Lions players were accused of gang raping a 20 year old woman.[1]

It is a part of the club history, and is relevant. It is sourced. It should not be removed for reasons which are not reflected in the comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.76.170.68 (talk) 02:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have replied to your message in the history board. Not isignificant. Not needed. --Shaggy9872004 (talk) 04:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When the club captain is guilty of an assault, it is significant. When up to five players in the team are accused of a sexual assault, it is siginificant. Do not vandalised this page by removing unfavourable references to the team. You threaten the neutrality of the page by turning it into a pro-Lions mouthpiece. that is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia, and you know it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brisbanelionsfan1 (talkcontribs) 05:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First of all, giving a fair argument in removing information is not considered vandalism. Second of all, I see nothing about the club captain being involved and there are only two or three sentences on the other players of the club and no action was taken against them. Besides that point, Adam Heuskes only played 37 games with the club proving to having little impact and being insignificant to the club. If anythoing, this should be put on the Port and Swans pages as well. Last of all, this is only a small controversy in front of the other millions of controversies associated with the AFL so it is insiginificant. I see nothing on this issue on the Michael O'Loughlin or Peter Burgoyne's pages and only one sentencing not even directly referring to this incident on Adam Heuskes' page. Once again, not significant and not needed. Oh yeah and one more thing, that section is meant to reference the playing and significant history of the club (i.e. the merging of the the Lions and Bears) not for controversies.--Shaggy9872004 (talk) 11:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
P.S. We don't need to list all the controversies the Lions have had. Look at West Coast Eagles' page (nothing on the Ben Cousins' issue except on e tiny sentence and that's way more siginificant than this). And that's not how you put references down. Look below when editting.--Shaggy9872004 (talk) 11:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. It should be on the other pages too. However, by removing anything that sounds detrimental to the Lions you are removing the neutrality of this article. Indeed, it is becoming obvious that you wish it to be a "pro-Lions" page. This is unacceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brisbanelionsfan1 (talkcontribs) 11:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Furthermore, the section is "Club history" and includes off the field descriptions such as these "Lions utility player Shaun Hart won the Norm Smith Medal as best on ground in the Grand Final. On the morning after winning the flag, the club took the premiership cup to the Brunswick Street Oval in Fitzroy, the original home of the Fitzroy Football Club. It was an important way of connecting with Melbourne-based Lions fans, many of whom had previously supported Fitzroy, and of winning over disaffected Fitzroy fans who had not started supporting the Brisbane Lions post-merger by honouring the history of the club. The Premiership Cup then made its historic first trip to Brisbane, a traditionally rugby league focused city." You are very clearly trying to only remove information that is detrimental to what you think people will think of the Lions. Thus, it appears that you are vandalising sourced, accurate information. Please stop now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brisbanelionsfan1 (talkcontribs) 11:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First of all, that is significant to club hisytory because it connects to Fitzroy. Second of all, I didn't write that nor did I notice that in the first place (I noticed yous' because it was a new edit). Lastly, "appering" that I have vandalised a page doesn't prove I have vandalised a page. You have no evidence, and thus it should not be considered vandalism. Please leave the page uneditted until this dispute is sorted. I will now revert your edit and we should discuss this civillly before deciding/agreeing on what to do next.--Shaggy9872004 (talk) 11:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Civil discussion[edit]

Firstly, the "Go Lions" on your user page reveals your intention. Secondly, you are removing everything that doesn't agree with your POV about the Lions. The section will remain, and it can be assessed and discussed. I think it is far to convenient that you want to keep it in line with your POV and that simply will not be happening. Please do not vandalise this page by removing everything that doesn't agree with your POV. What is in the convtroversy section is a part of the club's history. It stays. You cannot rewrite that history.Brisbane Lions Fan #1! 12:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brisbanelionsfan1 (talkcontribs)

If simply by the message on my userpage that you determine my "true mask" on this issue then you are easily stepping yourself into a territory that you are in yourself "Brisbane Lions Fan #1!". Besides that fact, you were the person who made the initial edit so iy shoul;ld stay removed until further notice. I can easily say it is far more convenient that you want to keep i t in your POV. Not everything on that page/section is positive. We mention the losing and the ups and downs of the playing style and coaching of the club. The controversy section is just a nuisance that can easily be incorporated to those particular player's pages. Once again look at the West Coast Eagles ppage and their brief mention on the Ben Cousins issue. It is not neccessarilly part of the club so it should stay individual. --Shaggy9872004 (talk) 12:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed I am a fan, but I don't let that stand in the way of a balanced page. In what way is the section a nuisance? Because you don't think there should be anything bad on the page?Brisbane Lions Fan #1! 12:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brisbanelionsfan1 (talkcontribs)
Every club has off-field problems, is Brisbane any worse than the other AFL clubs? I'd hazard a guess that Collingwood have the longest list of off field breaches and West Coast the most serious offences. Brisbane wouldn't even be in my top six if I were making a list. Its a sports club, you'd be hard pressed to find a team from the NBA, MLB, EPL, NRL etc ... that haven't had issues with player behaviour off the field one time or another. To put it simply, it's just not notable.
Out of interest, I checked out the Bulldogs Rugby League Football Club article and it makes no mention of the Coffs Harbour gang rape allegations. If any off-field incident in Australian sport is notable, that would be it!
Now, let's face it, even a blindfolded Stevie Wonder can see that you have an agenda. All of your edits, bar three, have related to adding 'controversies' to this article and that of it's players. That, coupled with your clearly dishonest username, is an ingredient for a very short stay on wikipedia. It may already be too late for you but if you hold any ambition of remaining on this encyclopedia I'd suggest that you do not add any more controversies to this page until it is "assessed and discussed" here (you've already broken the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule)
For the record, I'm a Sydney Swans fan. You beat us this weekend so rest assured that I don't have any sort of pro-lions agenda. Jevansen (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually it's not the club that is having off field problems, it's the players. They happen to all be members of the club, but it's not the club that's doing it. Not relevant to the club, and definitely not to the Wikipedia article on the club. Canterbury Tail talk 15:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I note the argument that the Lion's problems are no worse than other clubs is used as a reason only to show a positive history. Using that argument it is no more notable to win a premiership and there should be a single List of AFL Premiers Page. Likewise, I note that Aker's Brownlow medal is listed. Using the other argument, this is a something the player achieved, not the club, and should not be included.Brisbane Lions Fan #1! 20:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brisbanelionsfan1 (talkcontribs)

As for three-reverts, I note that it is my addition that has been reverted three times. I will now ask you to stop, or you may find yourself on the wrong end oif it. Brisbane Lions Fan #1! 20:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

That's the whole point, you were the person who wanted to put the new information onto the page and you were the one that began the dispute. Therefore it is your responsibility to sort this out. I've already taken your responsibility upon my self to invite everyone to discuss this issue civilly. Besides that fact, I think everyone are already agreed on removing that information. Discussion finished.--Shaggy9872004 (talk) 23:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NPOV Check[edit]

I have added this tag to the top of the history section because only information that shows the Brisbane Lions in a positive light is kept in this section, with any other verifiable parts of their club history being removed.Brisbane Lions Fan #1! 11:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brisbanelionsfan1 (talkcontribs)

New jumper[edit]

I'm doing a svg of the new jumper but it might take some time. Bear with me. Saebhiar Adishatz 17:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2001 Lions reserves QAFL premiership[edit]

Can the Lions reserves 2001 AFLQ premiership get added to the page? Paul t81 (talk) 21:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Brisbane Lions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:17, 8 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brisbane Lions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]