- Moderator
- #26
In this you are absolutely right.
-
LIVE: Richmond v Melbourne - 7:25PM Wed
Squiggle tips Demons at 77% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
Australian National Football Council
- Thread starter EssendonNick
- Start date
- Tagged users None
In this you are absolutely right.
sherb
Hall of Famer
Cricket classifies its matches, and I agree, it could be done with football as well. As to how this grading would be done, well that's another discussion I guess. But you could have:
International Games
Interstate Games
AFL/VFL Games
State League Games - Including VFA
(All the above would be regarded as "first-class)
State League (Tier 2) Games (eg Sydney AFL, NT AFL)
Major Suburban/Country
Minor Suburban/Country
(That's just off the top of my head).
I have long argued that there is a major problem with the AFL being both the "keeper of the code" and also the body which runs the national competition. The lack of historical and statistical recognition for the game outside of the AFL competition is but one reason why there should be a separate body in place. The AFL simply isn't interested in recording the history of the game to any extent outside of its own competition.
Similar to me, though WAFL, SANFL, VFA should be downgraded to second tier after a certain cutoff point (1986 for WAFL, 1990 for SANFL, not sure for VFA).
One could also mount an arguement for the Goldfields Football League to be first class until WWI.
For example, Craig Bradley with 375 games for Carlton, 98 for Port Adelaide and 19 for South Australia should be considered the record holder for most 'First Class' games with 501.
If you read the AFL publications, Tuck has played more senior games of the sport than anyone in history.
The most disgraceful example is in the '100 years of Australian Football' where Mike Sheahan writes that Graham Farmer shouldn't be considered as possibly the greatest ruckman as he 'only played 5 years at the highest level'.
stmookeyj
Brownlow Medallist
Veteran
10k Posts
Western Bulldogs - Ed Richards Player Sponsor 2018
Western Bulldogs - Bailey Dale Player Sponsor 2018
Western Bulldogs - Nathan Mullenger-McHugh Player Sponsor 2018
Western Bulldogs - Mitch Honeychurch Player Sponsor 2017
Western Bulldogs - Josh Prudden Player Sponsor 2017
Western Bulldogs - Cordy, Honeychurch, Prudden, Dale Player Sponsor 2015
Not to mention the lip service paid to the real grass roots (a name of our club in microscopically small letters on a jumper of a meaningless team, PLEASE), having Victoria play against a meaningless team that was even more meaningless than the "State" of Origin team they created in the mid 90's, and the fact that the AFL acted as though it was their 150th anniversary when they celebrated their centenary season not more than 11 years prior.
And what, disband the commission?
It's not.
There's a commission which is meant to do that.
Rather than re-inventing the wheel... how about just getting the right balance of people (ie not AFL stooges, nor WAFL or SANFL zealots) on the commission ???
- Moderator
- #31
Therein lies the problem in the first place. The original VFL Commission (now the AFL Commission) was voted in by the VFL Clubs, and so the Commission is voted by the Clubs. Which means very few people outside the AFL system have a hope of getting onto the commission in the first place.
VFL money in the 70s and expansion in the 80s caused a lot of mistrust - especially with South Australia that has never, and will probably be that way forever, healed.
VFL money in the 70s and expansion in the 80s caused a lot of mistrust - especially with South Australia that has never, and will probably be that way forever, healed.
No. The AFL Commission would remain, with responsbility for running that one league only, its club interactions, tribunal etc. It would be voted in by the AFL clubs only and keep records of AFL premierships.
The ANFC commissison would be voted for by all member organisations and be responsible for the Laws of the Game, Australian Football Hall of Fame, Foxtel Cup and other inter-league competitions, rugby-territory and international development, etc.
It would keep all 'First Class' records, and would be the sport's equivalent of the ICC, FIFA, etc.
Because it makes it difficult to separate the AFL from Australian Football as a whole. Already we have the situation where NSW and Qld people are actively being encouraged to call the entire sport "AFL", which just leaves every other competition ever in the dust.
sherb
Hall of Famer
The problem is that the AFL as it stands currently will always devote the majority of its attention to the AFL competition, because that is where the money, publicity and prestige is. It is hopelessly compromised and conflicted in that regard. So its priorities are (1) AFL competition, (2) daylight and then (3) these other areas we are discussing (grass roots development, historical research and record keeping, international growth and so on).
While everything falls under the AFL umbrella, I can't see things changing. I am still of the view that that AFL needs to administer the competition and a separate body should be established to oversee the growth, development and historical recording of the game. Having one body doing it all simply isn't working anywhere near as well as it should.
The best interests of the AFL clubs are not always in agreement with the best interets of the code.
For instance none of the AFL clubs have any responsibilty for the development of junior players due to the existance of the draft.
The WAFL clubs are responsible for developing juniors which are drafted by every club in the AFL. These clubs only receive money from two AFL clubs- Fremantle and West Coast. This money isn't given from Fremantle/WCE charity but because they are owned by the WAFC- Freo and WCE don't care for junior football anymore or anyless than the other teams.
Because the WAFC runs football in WA and not the WAFL, the WAFC can make sure that the money is used for colts instead of increasing the WAFL salary cap.
The SANFL on the other hand, has a similar system to the WAFC in regards to the AFL teams. However since the SANFL itself runs football in the state, the clubs use money to increase the salary cap.
For instance none of the AFL clubs have any responsibilty for the development of junior players due to the existance of the draft.
The WAFL clubs are responsible for developing juniors which are drafted by every club in the AFL. These clubs only receive money from two AFL clubs- Fremantle and West Coast. This money isn't given from Fremantle/WCE charity but because they are owned by the WAFC- Freo and WCE don't care for junior football anymore or anyless than the other teams.
Because the WAFC runs football in WA and not the WAFL, the WAFC can make sure that the money is used for colts instead of increasing the WAFL salary cap.
The SANFL on the other hand, has a similar system to the WAFC in regards to the AFL teams. However since the SANFL itself runs football in the state, the clubs use money to increase the salary cap.
Rubbish.
Try finding out how much more international, outback, juniors, and grass-roots devt the current AFL bodies do, vs any other sport in the country.
Is there a Clontarf cricket academy? Has the NRL sent development officers to Fiji, PNG, Israel etc etc?
You'll find it's about a million to one, there's AFL development officers everywhere.
And having two administrative bureaucracies to do the same job, instead of one, will be a much better solution???
Not a duplication of work, responsibilities etc at all?
Far out.
Are you a public servant, by any chance?
So, essentially, incorporating the current commission back into the AFL and creating a new body to do exactly what it is currently meant to do.
Are you a public servant?
I can see how that's destroying your life, and wreaking havoc on the actual running of the sport.
Clontarf wasn't founded by the AFL though?
The AFL had nothing to do with the foundation of Clontarf apart from the fact that Gerard Neesham is a former coach.
Founded, maybe - I thought they got a fair whack of AFL funding?
Could be wrong.
I think they do receive some help from the AFL, but most of the fundings comes from Government (which is fair enough).
sherb
Hall of Famer
Motivation for this is a key point here. The AFL's decision making process is driven by what benefits the AFL competition first and foremost. That is not fulfilling its role as keeper of the code.
The only reason any development work occurs is for the betterment of the AFL competition, not for the betterment of the game of a whole. It is the same as junior development in Sydney - the reason that is done is to (1) get elite players into the AFL and (2) develop supporters of the game. The AFL couldn't give a stuff if those players went on to play the game at a local level.
Even if I were to acknowledge the international work being done (which I would still argue is done in the self-interest of the AFL competition), tell me how well the history of the game outside of the AFL is being acknowledged/recorded by the AFL. Also, tell me how well grass roots senior footy is supported by the AFL. Both are criminally ignored because they don't warrant any great attention on the AFL's part - they don't benefiit the national competition. Look at local football in Tassie (any number of teams/competitions have dropped off the radar over the years) as a perfect example of what I am talking about.
Throw the word rubbish at me all you like. I'm not fussed. The AFL as it currently operates is hopelessly compromised and is not fulfilling its role as keeper of the code anywhere near as well as it should be.
- Moderator
- #41
Its not the governing bodies job to keep the records of the lower tiers in ANY organisation. Seriously. The ACB doesnt keep the records for the states, they do. Lets not even get into the fractured nature of the rugby codes, and soccer is highly territorial.
Clubs arent folding due to lack of AFL support, they usually fold for economic reasons not related to the AFL at all. Especially in the country. Entire state organisations collapsed - especially in Tasmania - due to infighting and mismanagement, causing the AFL to bankroll NT, NSW, QLD and Tasmania entirely. Not to mention Victoria.
Clubs arent folding due to lack of AFL support, they usually fold for economic reasons not related to the AFL at all. Especially in the country. Entire state organisations collapsed - especially in Tasmania - due to infighting and mismanagement, causing the AFL to bankroll NT, NSW, QLD and Tasmania entirely. Not to mention Victoria.
This annoys me too but it's really just ignorance. 80%+ of Victorian sport fans would call Rugby Leage 'Rugby', if you point out to them this is wrong they will no doubt reply with 'same s**t' or some equally dismissive retort.
Much like if you explain to someone in NSW/QLD that AFL and 'Australian Football' are not the same thing you will get pretty much the exact same response.
At least AFL and Australian Football are talking about the same sport.
That's another problem, that same 80% of Victorian sport fans call our game 'Aussie Rules, or Australian Rules Football' this is just as wrong and as ignorant as the other examples.
Even AFL players refer to the sport as AFL half the bloody time in the media.
Most people just don't care enough to get it right.
The AFL has a standing offer to the WAFL . Change the league name to AFLWA and we will up your funding. The WAFL has said no thus far.
I think an ANFC should be formed and have a commision formed by One rep from each league/state. Plus an AFL Rep.
The ANFC should be given to safeguard;
Rules of the Game
History
Hall Of Fame etc
Financial Control of development money
No way would the AFL want that, but with the AFL being a not for profit organisation its the way to go
I think an ANFC should be formed and have a commision formed by One rep from each league/state. Plus an AFL Rep.
The ANFC should be given to safeguard;
Rules of the Game
History
Hall Of Fame etc
Financial Control of development money
No way would the AFL want that, but with the AFL being a not for profit organisation its the way to go
- Moderator
- #44
lol you want the AFL to give up the millions it spends on development to another body that wont serve its interests? The clubs would sack the commission.
I want it to happen and it should, yet it wont ever. With the player payment furore at the moment AD is constantly telling us that the AFL is not for profit and does everything in the best interests of the game.
The ICC seem to let the MCC run the rules of cricket
League? Or commission?
Which is exactly my point:
The commission is there.
It has it's charter, to do exactly what you say.
It is not doing that.
It needs a shake-up.
Changing the name won't necessarily help.
They'll argue otherwise.
I certainly don't think people are chucked away, or ignored, as soon as they're not up to the top grades.
see point 1: League, or commission?
I appreciate the commission has it's faults, I'm agreeing with you there.
I'm just not sure what difference disbanding it, then putting a 'council' with a basically identical charter in it's place, makes.
The easier, more sensible option is to change the make-up, and slightly alter the charter of, the commission.
It is too close to the current administration.
Far more money goes OUT of Tasmania to the AFL system than comes in. With Hawthorn & North now sucking on the financial teat. Many people are members of other AFL clubs. The AFL soaks up media attention & sponsorship that use to support local footy across the country. The dominance of the AFL has caused the current gross imbalance between the professional & community levels of the sport. So dont put up the AFL white knight bull s**t. They put just enough money in to support the elite streams in each state produce draft players. Most local clubs struggle along with volunteers & pay their way to play in the various competitions.
- Moderator
- #49
Dont try the innocent "woe is me" tripe on either.
Not everything is the AFLs fault. WHEN did the Tasmanian government sponsor 20 million to Tasmanian football if ever? Ive never heard of it happeneing and christ knows they could have used it . Why couldnt the Hobart council find hundreds of thousands for local teams?
The problems and tribal issues that infest tasmanian football are well known to all but the most ignorant of football people.
The dominance of one league only arises if the others lie down and do nothing. Which is exactly what started happening in the 80s, and 90s.
Not everything is the AFLs fault. WHEN did the Tasmanian government sponsor 20 million to Tasmanian football if ever? Ive never heard of it happeneing and christ knows they could have used it . Why couldnt the Hobart council find hundreds of thousands for local teams?
The problems and tribal issues that infest tasmanian football are well known to all but the most ignorant of football people.
The dominance of one league only arises if the others lie down and do nothing. Which is exactly what started happening in the 80s, and 90s.
I'd argue that the VFL ended up dominant over the SANFL and the WAFL due to the higher population of Melbourne in regards to Adelaide and Perth, and the presence of more money.
If the mining boom had happened 20 years earlier, we would have had a more equal league.
