One of the main reasons given supporting the idea to adopt Western Bulldogs was a little known to the rank and file marketing survey. Evidently those canvassed supported the move away from the name Footscray to Western Bulldogs. The survey even sought and gathered responses from the western suburbs of SYDNEY!

This survey appears to be a crucial part of the anti- Footscray campaigners desire to inflict their change on the club. Everyone should understand this, surveys and polls are not a great measuring tool or barometer of widespread opinion. They are often wrong and can be easily manipulated to obtain the answers to questions that the proposers desire. All polls for the 1999 Victorian State election pointed to the Kennett Liberal Government being returned. As we know this did not happen and the ALP opposition won that election. Many polls anticipated that the 2004 federal poll would be close or that the ALP would win. The Labour Party did not win and it also was not close.

With manipulating polls and surveys, below is an excellent example of how the desired result can be obtained. This comes from an episode from that brilliant British Comedy (or was it a documentary as well?) Yes Minister.

Sir Humphrey Appleby played by the late Nigel Hawthorne is explaining to Bernard Woolley (Derek Fowlds) the ways and means to get the result you want. He is instructing Bernard on the issue of re-introducing National Service.

Sir Humphrey

“You know what happens: nice young lady comes up to you. Obviously you want to create a good impression, you don’t want to look a fool, do you? So she starts asking you some questions: Mr Woolley, are you worried about the number of young people without jobs?”

Bernard Woolley

“Yes”

Sir Humphrey

“Are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?”

Bernard Woolley

“Yes”

Sir Humphrey

“Do you think there is a lack of discipline in our Comprehensive schools?”

Bernard Woolley

“Yes”

Sir Humphrey

“Do you think young people welcome some authority and leadership in their lives?”

Bernard Woolley

“Yes”

Sir Humphrey

“Do you think they respond to a challenge?”

Bernard Woolley

“Yes”

Sir Humphrey

“Would you be in favour of re-introducing National Service?”

Bernard Woolley

“Oh well, I suppose I might be“

Sir Humphrey

“Yes or no?”

Bernard Woolley

“Yes”

Sir Humphrey

“Of course you would, Bernard. After all you told, you can’t say no to that. So they don’t publish the first five questions and they publish the last one.”

Bernard Woolley

“Is that really what they do?”

Sir Humphrey

“Well, not the reputable ones no, but there aren’t many of those. So alternatively the young lady can get the opposite result.”

Bernard Woolley

“How?”

Sir Humphrey

“Mr Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?”

Bernard Woolley

“Yes”

Sir Humphrey

“Are you worried about the growth of armaments?”

Bernard Woolley

“Yes”

Sir Humphrey

“Do you think there is a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?”

Bernard Woolley

“Yes”

Sir Humphrey

“Do you think it is wrong to force people to take up arms against their will?”

Bernard Woolley

“Yes”

Sir Humphrey

“Would you oppose the re-introduction of National Service?”

Bernard Woolley

“Yes”

Sir Humphrey

“There you are. You see Bernard. The perfect balanced sample.”

That example applies to all surveys on any given topic. Similar indeed to the tried and trusted- ‘Never organise an enquiry unless you know what the result will be’.

Therefore we need to be given a genuine bona fide vote on this matter, where all the evidence is presented from both camps- the pro-Footscray and the Pro-Western people. A date could be organised in advance giving both sides time to campaign for what they believe and to table their ideals and all facts are figures are there for everyone to see. Democracy has then been served and the supporters can make their own minds up. You are selecting the name, not someone else telling you what it will be. If you think Western is the way forward then you can vote on it and for it.

If this legitimate vote is held and the pro-Western side wins, then pro-Footscray people like me would just have to accept it or tolerate it. I would be most annoyed with the outcome of this hypothetical referendum, I would walk around making comments like most election losers do.

# Intelligence tests for voting should be a pre-requisite to cast a vote.
# It seems the majority of Bulldogs supporters are either stupid, ignorant or both.

However I can’t come to that conclusion because:

(1)A vote may go the way of the pro-Footscray people (of which I am assured it would).
(2) As this vote hasn’t occurred, I can’t accuse any person or a collective group of being simpletons, because as no-one has ever voted we don’t know whether they are stupid or not. I would at least like to be given the knowledge of having any doubt removed of what the clubs supporters want.

The Pro Western Anti Footscray lobby doesn’t want a vote/referendum on this issue or it seems to appear that way. I am yet to meet or hear from a PWAF person that would agree to a vote on the name of the club. This is primarily due to the fact that there are so few of them. How many people who follow the Bulldogs were overjoyed that the name was changed in 1996 and are still rejoicing about that today in 2005? It is only those involved in changing the name (and Optus Oval, Sons of the Scray / West and the Guernsey design) that appear to love the banishment of Footscray and have great satisfaction that Footscray is no more. I often hear people say I wish we were still Footscray but what good will it do changing it back now? Responses to that argument and others can be found in the COUNTERING THE APOLOGISTS chapter. The PWAF people need these apologists/defeatists/mediocrity accepters to bolster their ranks and nullify the real true believers. I would have more time for a PWAF person if they came out and said something along the lines of- ‘Right we want the members to decide on this issue and we are just as keen on a legitimate vote as the Pro –Footscray group. We want to present our case that we are right –Footscray was no good and Western is wonderful. Bring on the vote.

Yet it should also be stated that the PWAF mob are not the only ones that believe a vote should not happen. There are many Pro –Footscray people who aren’t interested in a vote either. From that group some will argue- just delete Western Bulldogs now and re- install Footscray, no vote just do it. In exactly the same unceremonious way Footscray was deleted for Western Bulldogs in 1996. I tend to lean towards this viewpoint myself, though for those who would like it done democratically, I would accept that too.

One excuse used by the four man ‘Bulldogs Taskforce’ back in October 1996 why we needed to change our name from Footscray to Western Bulldogs- was that Footscray was a restriction on ‘growing the brand’. Our football club is apparently a ‘brand’ similar to dish washing liquid, fly spray or dog food, rather than a deep personal and family attachment passed down from generation to generation.

This was what the Western Bulldogs President of 13 years – David Smorgon was quoted saying in 2008 from the –

What’s In a Name? Plenty:

AGE article from Tuesday 8th June 2008

Here directly below between the unbroken lines is the exact quote from the Peter Hanlon story. The entire article is here as a separate chapter in this website

If so then why is the Western in Western Bulldogs, 90% of the time an invisible faceless word? Western is hardly ever used and only in conjunction with ‘Bulldogs’ following it. Is there anywhere that Western is used singularly without the Bulldogs? – North Melbourne is usually abbreviated to North and South Melbourne was just South. The Melbourne part only ever followed the North and South – which was justifiable as there is already a team named Melbourne.

The Footscray situation is different because Western is supposedly the magnet to increasing our support. Melbourne alone was not the cornerstone of North (Melbourne) and South (Melbourne) – they are and were individual identities with the emphasis on them being North Melbourne and South Melbourne. So why is the ‘Bulldogs’ word used every single time and Western never used independently from Bulldogs? ‘Western’ is to the Western Bulldogs what the North and South are and was to both North Melbourne and South Melbourne. The direction (North and South) is what defines them both, opposed to our case (Western) where our direction is a ‘third rate loser’

THE TWO STAND UP COMEDIANS.

THE COMIC & HIS/HER DEAD PAN ASSISTANT- OURS ARE AROUND THE WRONG WAY!

Footscray as a club now described in two guises

(1) Western Bulldogs
(2) Bulldogs

It is never called just ‘Western’- nowhere will anyone ever see –

(a) Geelong v Western, Collingwood v Western, Essendon v Western etc
(b) Western v Hawthorn, Western v Carlton, Western v St Kilda etc

And when abbreviated the name appears in these formats –

• W.Bulldogs
• The Bulldogs
• Dogs
• Doggies
• W.B.
• The Dogs

And to a much lesser degree as

• W.Bullies

Never is the club presented in an abbreviated mode as

• Western B.
• Western Dogs
• Western Bull
• Western Bulls
• Western Bullies
• West B
• West D.
• West Bull
• West Bulls
• West Dogs

Let alone plain Western on its own

So the logic of changing the name from Footscray to Western Bulldogs is not about consolidating a connection with the west. What it stands for is the cause of being Anti- Footscray. It is not about being Pro- Western suburbs or Pro-Western Region or Pro -western ‘whatever’ It is at pure bigotry towards Footscray. If Footscray was a race, religion, nationality, ethnic group, gender, etc it would be considered discrimination, but as Footscray is ‘just a suburb’- there is no crime of ‘suburb phobia’ as there is with racism, and religious bigotry etc. Footscrayphobia isn’t documented like other phobias- but it could be argued that there is definitely a place for that affliction to be medically recorded.

Western is supposed to be the comedian- the bulldogs should be the dead pan side kick. However we have it the wrong way around as Western is the side kick, bulldogs takes the top billing

Brad Johnson article in ‘THE BULLDOG’ magazine

The club’s official publication – ‘the Third Quarter’ edition of ‘THE BULLDOG’ magazine has an article from page 8 about Brad Johnson, celebrating him gaining the great honour of having played the most number of games for the team. The opening paragraph of this article on page 9 begins in this way as shown below –

Why is it written that way? One team is being recorded by its nickname and their opponents described by their real name.

The correct or consistent way would be to start that paragraph as either of the following –

The reasons for those two above examples being correct are

✓ Correctness: The fact was that Footscray was our official name, back then in July 1994 not ‘The Bulldogs.’ It was Footscray v Collingwood, not The Bulldogs v Collingwood

✓ Consistancy: It is either the real name or the nickname for both teams. If we need to be referred to by our nickname, then so should the other team. The Bulldogs v The Magpies- although trivialising both clubs when used as the introduction of both is childish- it is at least consistent. There is another chapter on FNWB about the club being trivialised by the over use of the bulldog(s)

Back to ‘The Bulldog’ magazine. Why doesn’t the club call it ‘The Western’ or ‘The Westerner’? That may be a matter of semantics- but this is the emphasis again on the bulldog part of the name rather than the western. If the target audience is the western suburbs/region- it certainly isn’t obvious because all the emphasis is given to the bulldog(s) Western is superfluous.

Western does not justify its existence; or rather it has no opportunity to present its case, because it sits in the basement while bulldogs receive the top billing and neon lights. Western may as well be discarded from the name- because what is the purpose of it? The club could be just the ‘BULLDOGS’ in the same way that North Melbourne was from seasons 1999 to the end of season 2007 just ‘KANGAROOS’. (and without the ‘THE’ in front of Kangaroos).I wouldn’t support that- we must return to being Footscray- being just BULLDOGS is equally wrong as WESTERN BULLDOGS; however the club would at least move up the list alphabetically as below with both the current alphabetical listing and then a revised one should Western be thrown to the doghouse, as these two tables below show.