Nick Columb - Stay away from the Club, we don't want you.

[bornadog]

I just hope that this bloke isn't trying to get back on the board. He sold the club out back in 1989 when he voted to merge with Fitzroy. He basically gave up, had no solutions and thought the only way out was to merge.

Well Nick, if you are reading this, you have NOT been forgiven, please stay away from our beloved club, we don't need you in any capacity other than as a supporter in the outer.

[immortalmike]

I just hope that this bloke isn't trying to get back on the board. He sold the club out back in 1989 when he voted to merge with Fitzroy. He basically gave up, had no solutions and thought the only way out was to merge.

Well Nick, if you are reading this, you have NOT been forgiven, please stay away from our beloved club, we don't need you in any capacity other than as a supporter in the outer.

I don't even want him there as that. He can support from home.

[Rocco Jones]

Does he post on WOOF? :)

I am definitely not as strong as you and would be open minded if he could prove that he would add something to the club but boy does he start off from a dodgy position.

I was just a young boy back in 89 but having read a few things it seems like Columb had very little choice and if he didn't sign the papers we could have actually ended up in a 'worse' position with no control over our future. Is this right? Was it more about the time and circumstances than Columb?

Either way, signing off on a takeover dressed up as a merger isn't the greatest thing you can have on your CV when trying to get back on board (pardon the pun).

[bornadog]

Does he post on WOOF? :)

I am definitely not as strong as you and would be open minded if he could prove that he would add something to the club but boy does he start off from a dodgy position.

I was just a young boy back in 89 but having read a few things it seems like Columb had very little choice and if he didn't sign the papers we could have actually ended up in a 'worse' position with no control over our future. Is this right? Was it more about the time and circumstances than Columb?

Either way, signing off on a takeover dressed up as a merger isn't the greatest thing you can have on your CV when trying to get back on board (pardon the pun).

RJ, you always have a choice besides the members were never consulted.

[LostDoggy]

Rocco - Columb could have done what Galimberti did therefore had a choice.

[Greystache]

You certainly feel strongly about the issue BAD

http://www.woof.net.au/forum/showthread.php?t=3849

[bornadog]

You certainly feel strongly about the issue BAD

http://www.woof.net.au/forum/showthread.php?t=3849

oh yes, it was a terrible time in 1989, but thankfully it all worked out

[BulldogBelle]

Wasn't EJ kind of accepting the merger? Sure, from our point of view it would have been a disaster but I guess some others close to the club thought it was for the best.

[bornadog]

Wasn't EJ kind of accepting the merger? Sure, from our point of view it would have been a disaster but I guess some others close to the club thought it was for the best.

and how wrong they were.

[Doc26]

I just hope that this bloke isn't trying to get back on the board. He sold the club out back in 1989 when he voted to merge with Fitzroy. He basically gave up, had no solutions and thought the only way out was to merge.

Well Nick, if you are reading this, you have NOT been forgiven, please stay away from our beloved club, we don't need you in any capacity other than as a supporter in the outer.

A cheap shot on Nick and must say I'm very surprised this was initiated by you Bornadog as I respect your stance of taking to task the frequent uncalled for 'snipes' put up on this forum. In a twist I'm going to put your hat on and defend Nick here.

If for one moment you believe Nick, as a passionate Bulldog supporter like yourself, was not busting a gut to find a solution to retain the Club in it's own right then you are mistaken.

With severe pressure being placed on the Club by Oakley and his charges, the perilous state of our finances with the banks closing in on us and the lack of any significant commercial backing at the time, in pure balance sheet terms we were insolvent.

It was not through Nick or through any lack of effort or desire that lead to many within the hierarchy reluctantly agreeing to the merger proposal. It was what appeared to many the commercial reality at the time, a period that pre dated billion dollar media rights deals, a period where more than today we were very much on our own.

Yes it's fantastic that the period lead to an uprising of sorts, an awakening of the reality of our plight, that indifference was no longer going to keep our Club afloat.

Prior to this point there were many at the Club including Nick who were working every angle they knew through significant commercial pressure to save the Club from folding entirely.

As Peter Gordon has re-entered the fold I would welcome Nick, his work ethic and business acumen, back to the Club to provide commercial support and guidance to the few commercial resources we have at our disposal. Hopefully all this can be achieved in a consolidated manner rather than through division as it might appear.

[LostDoggy]

Perhaps we can have Ross Oakley as president, we could change he bumper stickers to "Upwards with Oakley". Sorry but I can not view it in any other way than Nick sold OUR club out, not HIS club. I have no doubt he tried his best, but in MY opinion his best was not good enough.

[Doc26]

I see it as unfair and not in our best interest that the prevailing sentiment from the supporter base is one of contempt for those that during the mid to late 80s were working under insurmountable odds to keep the Club alive.

As unpalatable as the 'merger' option was and is, when the banks were seeking foreclosure and the VFL wouldn't back us, when one of few major financial backers was Nick himself our survival until the 'awakening' was more than bleak, bleak to the point that the merger did have the support of EJ and Charlie.

1996 again saw a similar scenario. Should we hold Peter Gordon in such disregard as well for the very real threat of having to hand the keys in, I don't think so. These are great supporters of our Club who put their hands up where most wouldnt and where the odds are stacked against them and where failure in the eyes of the supporters means they should be banished as some form of penance.

[bornadog]

A cheap shot on Nick and must say I'm very surprised this was initiated by you Bornadog .

Doc26 - I cannot agree with you, I don't believe Nick tried his hardest or exhausted every possible avenue. Why didn't he ask the supporters to help, why didn't he tell us what was going on. The first I knew the club was insolvent was when I heard on the radio we were being taken over, not merged taken over.

PS: Please don't accuse me of a cheap shot, because its not, many supporters from that era will agree with me.


Perhaps we can have Ross Oakley as president, we could change he bumper stickers to "Upwards with Oakley". Sorry but I can not view it in any other way than Nick sold OUR club out, not HIS club. I have no doubt he tried his best, but in MY opinion his best was not good enough.

Totally agree OldBulldog.

[Doc26]

PS: Please don't accuse me of a cheap shot, because its not, many supporters from that era will agree with me.

Doesn't make it right. Many supporters believe Akermanis was hardly done by.

[bornadog]

Doesn't make it right. Many supporters believe Akermanis was hardly done by.

Bit different to Aker shooting his mouth off, we are talking about the demise of the club.

I for one will never ever forgive that man, it was a miracle the club survived in the end. A court injunction allowed the supporters to pay the debt. You can try and convince me all you want, but at the end of the day, no matter what pressure from the AFL, Nick should have stood up like Peter Gordon did. Nick was (or is) a so called businessman and he couldn't work it out, yet Peter a 30 year old lawyer, with virtually no business skllis, but a passionate bulldog man, fought it out.

Thank you Peter Gordon.

[BulldogBelle]

I see it as unfair and not in our best interest that the prevailing sentiment from the supporter base is one of contempt for those that during the mid to late 80s were working under insurmountable odds to keep the Club alive.

As unpalatable as the 'merger' option was and is, when the banks were seeking foreclosure and the VFL wouldn't back us, when one of few major financial backers was Nick himself our survival until the 'awakening' was more than bleak, bleak to the point that the merger did have the support of EJ and Charlie.

1996 again saw a similar scenario. Should we hold Peter Gordon in such disregard as well for the very real threat of having to hand the keys in, I don't think so. These are great supporters of our Club who put their hands up where most wouldnt and where the odds are stacked against them and where failure in the eyes of the supporters means they should be banished as some form of penance.

I'm with you Doc - you seem to have quite an insight into the situation back then?????

Pretty hard to make rational decisions with a gun to your head. Forgive but not forget.

[LostDoggy]

Rather than be the man who signed the death of the dogs why didn't he just resign and/or blow the whistle?

[bornadog]

Rather than be the man who signed the death of the dogs why didn't he just resign and/or blow the whistle?

Exactly that is my point, he had a choice but sold out.

[LongWait]

The Directors of the company were being told at the time that they may be held personally accountable for the clubs liabilities if they continued to trade and the club subsequently was judged to have been insolvent. The AFL was placing lots of personal pressure on the Directors by suggesting the likelihood of dire personal consequences if they did not accept the 'lifeline' being offered.

This is a situation which confronts many organisations with serious financial issues and Directors are placed in a very stressful and confronting position. Perhaps Columb was thinking of his fellow Directors in seeking a way to protect the Directors personal assets, whilst trying to preserve what they could of the club. It is easy to make Columb the fall guy here but there is a good chance there was much more to the situation than we will ever know.

[LostDoggy]

I don't think he should be banished, but I would never vote him onto the board. We have enough chips on our shoulders from the past as it is.

[LongWait]

I don't think he should be banished, but I would never vote him onto the board. We have enough chips on our shoulders from the past as it is.

I agree wholeheartedly with this.

[LostDoggy]

I'm no legal expert but I would have thought any idea of holding directors accountable was removed by the court injunction and basically winning the case(know it was called off). At the very least Columb could have shown some more ticker and not given up so meekly. Why were others able to risk just much to save the club?
It stinks his name is being mentioned in the possibility of a Dimmatina presidency and helping his cause.

[immortalmike]

I'm no legal expert but I would have thought any idea of holding directors accountable was removed by the court injunction and basically winning the case(know it was called off). At the very least Columb could have shown some more ticker and not given up so meekly. Why were others able to risk just much to save the club?
It stinks his name is being mentioned in the possibility of a Dimmatina presidency and helping his cause.

Not only that but a simple cursory notification of the club's situation to its members would have made a huge difference. Instead secret meetings were held and Columb looked after himself and his mates, members and supporters be damned. He sold us out without even having the fortitude to tell the real owners of the club first.

I can forgive Terry Wallace. I can forgive Nathan Brown. Hell, I could even forgive Jason Akermanis (if he'd ever shut up). But this I cannot forgive.

Nick can be a supporter but no more.

[LongWait]

Not only that but a simple cursory notification of the club's situation to its members would have made a huge difference. Instead secret meetings were held and Columb looked after himself and his mates, members and supporters be damned. He sold us out without even having the fortitude to tell the real owners of the club first.

I can forgive Terry Wallace. I can forgive Nathan Brown. Hell, I could even forgive Jason Akermanis (if he'd ever shut up). But this I cannot forgive.

Nick can be a supporter but no more.

I think we all seem to be in agreement with that. Nobody on here seems to be advocating for him to join the Board.

[SydneyD]

They were different times back then -alot of clubs were insolvent .Look at Hawthorn -a powerhouse -they won all those premierships in the eighties -as easy as picking ripe fruit off a tree-then they came so mighty close to becoming the Melbourne Hawks -with about 5% brown and gold in the jumper -the allmighty hawks being taken over by a rabble like Melbourne-how belittling could that be . Allan Jeans got up at their vote meeting and said the merger was their only hope ! like the old sayig goes-theres 3 sides to any story -yours theirs and the Truth -and the truth with Nick could be that he put plenty of his own dosh in -before it really hit the fan -who knows ?

[ledge]

Im not really fathomed about what he did was wrong or right but do we revisit the previous?
Malthouse has even come up as coaching here again.
Which would create a bit of a giggle if he did , seems so many supporters hate him with a passion, I wonder what those supporters response would be if he came back and won us a flag?

I just dont know about re employing people who have been there before, is it a backward step or is it knowing what they had is a plus.

I am a huge fan of David and Rodney but at what stage do we need new blood, no matter what happens David and Rodney will still be respected for the things they did achieve and hopefully not condemned by supporters for one bad season on the field.

When they go I hope its with applause, respect and a little bit of saddness for the era they were involved in was a huge lift in this club financially and football world respect.

[ledge]

Dimmattina and Nick coming on the board isnt a bad idea age wise, mix the young with the old, means fresh ideas and a man who has had experience in the role.
I am all for Dimma but only as a board member at this stage, we dont need change we need new ideas and David is open to it.
My ideal scenario... Dimma talks to David, they agree on ideas, he comes on the board and they start to implement, if things go well then Dimma runs for president when Davids tenure is over and David fully endorses Dimmas card.
That would be the best way as Dimma would know exactly where the club is at and has things already going for his tenure.

Dimma has said he doesnt want a bloodbath and I think Davids response the other day in the media was more a go at the media for trying to make out something that isnt there as far as a takeover is concerned.
Does anyone here have any inside knowledge on if there is an actual card building to kick David out?

[LostDoggy]

Old ideas like merge the club?

[Curly5]

I am a huge fan of David and Rodney but at what stage do we need new blood, no matter what happens David and Rodney will still be respected for the things they did achieve and hopefully not condemned by supporters for one bad season on the field.


This is going to be Smorgon's last term anyway. How come these people didn't pop up a few months ago, before Smorgon was voted back in unopposed? Is it only because we're doing badly on-field and they think they are catching the club under siege?



My ideal scenario... Dimma talks to David, they agree on ideas, he comes on the board and they start to implement, if things go well then Dimma runs for president when Davids tenure is over and David fully endorses Dimmas card.
That would be the best way as Dimma would know exactly where the club is at and has things already going for his tenure.

Does anyone here have any inside knowledge on if there is an actual card building to kick David out?

So Dimma gets the position and the presidency, just because he wants it? Are his "ideas" likely to be more implementable than those of any other current board member? I'm sure there are more experienced, more deserving candidates that Smorgon will be more likely to endorse, for one, Susan Alberti.

As to your last question, there's a suggestion that Simon Beasley is behind all this and Dimma is the mouthpiece - how do you feel about him getting onto the board/becoming president?

[ledge]

This is going to be Smorgon's last term anyway. How come these people didn't pop up a few months ago, before Smorgon was voted back in unopposed? Is it only because we're doing badly on-field and they think they are catching the club under siege?



So Dimma gets the position and the presidency, just because he wants it? Are his "ideas" likely to be more implementable than those of any other current board member? I'm sure there are more experienced, more deserving candidates that Smorgon will be more likely to endorse, for one, Susan Alberti.

As to your last question, there's a suggestion that Simon Beasley is behind all this and Dimma is the mouthpiece - how do you feel about him getting onto the board/becoming president?

Did you conveniently miss the bit where i said if all goes well?

You mention Susan Aberti, well she didnt put up her hand in the last election either.

Simon isnt a candidate I would prefer and he has said he is not interested.

We know its Davids last term its why we need to be open to all candidates and we have the opportunity to look at these candidates and look at the best one for the job, I know its a voting system but I am sure David will go a long way into letting the voters know who is best.

On that point where has Dimma said he wants to be president? from memory he wants to be on the board.
The media is putting a lot of words in mouth.

[ledge]

Old ideas like merge the club?

I am not a fan of Nick but i am sure it wasnt an idea Nick came up with, the AFL were the ones with the agenda not Nick.
Nicks mistake was (and we all make mistakes) he didnt think we had the fans or sponsors to get us out of the hole we were in.
Hindsight is easy isnt it.

[bornadog]

I am not a fan of Nick but i am sure it wasnt an idea Nick came up with, the AFL were the ones with the agenda not Nick.
Nicks mistake was (and we all make mistakes) he didnt think we had the fans or sponsors to get us out of the hole we were in.
Hindsight is easy isnt it.

Ledge, the man sold us out, its not hindsight. He had a choice, the whole board did and that was to let the members know what was going on and then resign and let a new board come in like the Save the Dogs Committee. But no, he had to sign the club to a takeover.

If he tries to get on the board, I will personally launch a campaign to keep him out.

[Bulldog4life]

Ledge, the man sold us out, its not hindsight. He had a choice, the whole board did and that was to let the members know what was going on and then resign and let a new board come in like the Save the Dogs Committee. But no, he had to sign the club to a takeover.If he tries to get on the board, I will personally launch a campaign to keep him out.

Now that's the key word. The VFL and the Boards of the Fitzroy and Footscray Football Clubs stated it was going to be a merger. It never was going to be a merger...or a "fair" merger.

It was a takeover. The team would have been the Fitzroy Bulldogs, they would have played in Fitzroy colours, would have had the Fitzroy coach at the time Rod Austin coaching the new team, Fitzroy's Assistant Coach would have been appointed, all their current Administration would have stayed and they would have had a casting vote at the Committee table with Leon Wiegard having the casting vote. A Board of 9 directors with 4 from Footscray 4 from Fitzroy and then Weigard. The "Bulldogs" name could have disappeared at the whim of the Board.
All home games would have been played at Princes Park.
To sign off a so called merger on the above terms shows Columb was at the very least derelect in his duty as President of our Club as well as a hopeless negoiator.

[Happy Days]

So I just went and saw the new Fightback documentary which screened a couple of times at the Sun, which had a Q&A with Dennis Galimberti at the end.

He didn't go so far to outright say it but speculated that Nick Columb wanted to be a Eddie McGuire/John Elliot type figure, and only thought he could do it as the president of a successful club. So he sought out the merger with the hopes of making a super team, with a handshake agreement to become president of the club after its first year. Apparently he also had undertaken a personal financial guarantee for the club's debts, and saw the merger as a way to make sure he didn't lose any money.

Kinda wish this stuff made it into the actual doco but was still an interesting watch. I don't know a ton about the merger on account of not being alive, but was left thinking that Columb was every bit as much of a prick as Oakley or anyone else at the AFL. Reading this thread back I'm not certain that's the case, but not certain it's not either.

[jeemak]

So I just went and saw the new Fightback documentary which screened a couple of times at the Sun, which had a Q&A with Dennis Galimberti at the end.

He didn't go so far to outright say it but speculated that Nick Columb wanted to be a Eddie McGuire/John Elliot type figure, and only thought he could do it as the president of a successful club. So he sought out the merger with the hopes of making a super team, with a handshake agreement to become president of the club after its first year. Apparently he also had undertaken a personal financial guarantee for the club's debts, and saw the merger as a way to make sure he didn't lose any money.

Kinda wish this stuff made it into the actual doco but was still an interesting watch. I don't know a ton about the merger on account of not being alive, but was left thinking that Columb was every bit as much of a prick as Oakley or anyone else at the AFL. Reading this thread back I'm not certain that's the case, but not certain it's not either.

Pretty poor excuse mate.

[jazzadogs]

Thanks for bumping this thread, interesting thread and insights from Galimberti!

What did you think of the actual doco? A friend met the director recently, and that was the only reason I even knew it existed. Not endorsed by the AFL so minimal advertising and couldn't include any official footage from the time?

[jeemak]

Yeah thanks for bumping. I love reading the pre-2016 threads, the tone is somewhat different. Less expectation driven, which isn't necessarily good or bad, just something to observe.

Like you HD I didn't really feel the merger as much as others, even though I was ten years old I was living in the south eastern suburbs near VFL Park. Not a lot of tin rattling out there, and from what I can gather my parents shielded me from it a bit. Even though I copped some mild teasing at school, it wouldn't have been anything compared to the climate over the bridge for all ages of supporters.

[Happy Days]

Thanks for bumping this thread, interesting thread and insights from Galimberti!

What did you think of the actual doco? A friend met the director recently, and that was the only reason I even knew it existed. Not endorsed by the AFL so minimal advertising and couldn't include any official footage from the time?

Yeah they couldn’t include anything archival at all, I assume it was made on a shoestring so understandable, they got by with a series of recreations but was talking heads for the most part.

I really liked it and assume everyone on here would too. He got a ton out of everyone he interviewed and some of Galimberti’s segments were seriously stirring. Could have been a bit more probing into what the merger would’ve looked like had it happened or why the AFL was so determined to make it happen, and maybe a few extra interview subjects, but was still very interesting stuff.

[azabob]

Yeah they couldn’t include anything archival at all, I assume it was made on a shoestring so understandable, they got by with a series of recreations but was talking heads for the most part.

I really liked it and assume everyone on here would too. He got a ton out of everyone he interviewed and some of Galimberti’s segments were seriously stirring. Could have been a bit more probing into what the merger would’ve looked like had it happened or why the AFL was so determined to make it happen, and maybe a few extra interview subjects, but was still very interesting stuff.

Thanks for the “review”.

I saw the preview and thought it looked average but I am now keen to see it.