Palman Qui Meruit Ferat
Brisbane Lions maintain new logo doesn't breach agreement with Fitzroy
Lifelong Fitzroy supporters have provided documentation Brisbane Lions believe will scuttle a Supreme Court bid to ban the club's controversial new logo.
Fitzroy have launched legal action over the new logo claiming it breaches an agreement between the two clubs from when they merged in 1996.
But Brisbane have received photographic evidence from Fitzroy supporters who are opposed to the legal challenge showing old Fitzroy logos that are almost identical to the new Lions logo.
Brisbane's defence includes a photographic timeline that documents the various logos used by Fitzroy on jumpers, team blazers and supporters' merchandise over the club's 113-year history.
The Lions will lodge their defence against Fitzroy's legal assault with the Supreme Court this week.
They will also seek surety that battling Fitzroy can cover Brisbane's legal costs if their challenge is unsuccessful.
Fitzroy launched Supreme Court action in December to ban the new logo, a move that could cost Brisbane and the AFL up to $4 million if it is successful.
The Lions are adamant they have not breached the conditions of the merger agreement between the two clubs and are prepared to wage a costly legal battle to prove it.
Brisbane's new image has been dubbed the "Paddlepop Lion" by disgruntled Fitzroy supporters who say it is illegal under the agreement formed when Fitzroy and the Brisbane Bears merged to become the Brisbane Lions in 1996.
Their case rests on a clause in the merger contract stating that "the logo of the merged club will be the Fitzroy lion logo in perpetuity".
Brisbane will argue that the lion will always remain the club's logo but that the design could change.
Fitzroy is receiving free representation from sympathetic legal practitioners but the Lions have concerns they do not have the funds to cover Brisbane's legal costs if they lose. The Lions have engaged prominent Brisbane-based firm Hopgood and Gamin and it is believed the first move will be to ask the Supreme Court to order Fitzroy to provide cost surety.
The Lions fear a scenario where they win the case but are still left out of pocket because Fitzroy are incapable of covering their legal bills.
The Lions have expressed disappointment at Fitzroy's move, saying it had damaged positive momentum gained from a return to the finals and an aggressive recruiting campaign that has the club poised to compete for a premiership.
In December, Brisbane issued a statement of 19 points attempting to justify their legal right to switch logos, including the fact they had already once changed their logo since the merger - without any objection from Fitzroy.
They also said it was "normal commercial football practice" to change logos from time to time and the AFL had approved the switch.
Andrew Hamilton, Fox Sports February 09, 2010
