Branding
AFL Commission considers proposal to backdate footy records to 1870
- Thread starter fpm84
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Branding
- Feb 21, 2006
- 20,735
- 19,581
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Turtles, NYJets, Celtics, Tottenham
You are entitled to your own opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.
- Feb 21, 2006
- 20,735
- 19,581
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Turtles, NYJets, Celtics, Tottenham
The fairest way to determine "success" although you have to adjust the years for some clubs who didn't participate due to the Wars
It is the same league, that is the point.
It is the same league that started in 1897 with 8 teams.
That league added some new teams in 1908, then added some more in 1925.
The league relocated a team in 1982, then added a couple more in 1987, added another few and merged clubs in the 90s, and then in the 2010s further expanded with another couple of new teams.
Along the way they have changed competition rules, changed finals formats, changed how substitutes/interchanges work, changed days and times games are played, changed zoning rules, father sons, salary caps, drafts etc.
The league has been constantly evolving, competition landscape always changing...but it is the same league.
If in 10 years or so they add a New Zealand team, and decide to rebrand as the Australasian Football League to reflect the addition of a NZ team, it will still be the same league that started back in 1897.
If they make a rule change that means that only 16 players are allowed on field, it changes the landscape of the competition...but it is still the same league.
That really shouldn’t be hard to follow.
The AFL wasn’t some new league that was formed, it was just the VFL expanding...as it had done previously in 1908 and 1925, and has continued to do post the 1990 rebranding.
There was absolutely no change to the league from 1989 to 1990, apart from the rebranding from VFL to AFL.
I am fairly sure there were no grand finals before this league started in 1897. I think it is one of the things the breakaway league from 8 VFA clubs to form this league brought into being soon after the league started. Finals!!! I maybe wrong but think VFA flags were based on the best performed team from home and away season before the VFL made them a thing and VFA probably adopted similar thing soon after to compete with community interest. Might have to follow this up with a history read.
I think the first season of the league had round robin type finals series and Essendon were awarded the first flag without a grand final taking place. The only other season without a grand final was 1924 when Essendon also won the flag. Their 16 premierships in league history means they only won 14 grand finals.
Good try
To summarise my anology arguments:
An adult 100meters swimming title is not the same as a 100 meters title won by the same person when they were a kid
A state judo title is not the same as a national title won by the same person
A frog is no longer a tadpole even though they are the same entity
Just because an organisation started a comp for only one state it can’t later expand into a national comp and pretend that it’s old state comp was a national title
Who were the interstate competitors for the national flag in 1903?
Whattt None ?
If there were none how can it be a national title
What was written on the flag in 1903?
How can a flag be called an AFL flag 100 years before the name AFL was invented? Was it a claravoient cup?
No one denies the one state only VFL expanded into a great National Comp
But to try and label them as national titles now is absurd.
As I previously posted if a person can now identify as a different gender.... I suppose a One state title can now identify as a national title
Last edited:
Thatsmyname
Plausible deniability
- Apr 16, 2019
- 4,343
- 3,076
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- No 3peat (Ninth)mond Minnows
- Banned
- #607
Word
You can call them whatever you like. They’re VFL/AFL flags, won in the same competition that started in 1897, and there’ll be another one awarded this year.
KermitJagger
Professional Thread Derailer
- May 17, 2017
- 13,971
- 43,433
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
I mean, who cares really? The Premierships Won argument is just a dick measuring contest between fans of different clubs.
This really should be titled "AFL Commission considers proposal to make Port Adelaide supporters the most angry people in Australia"
This really should be titled "AFL Commission considers proposal to make Port Adelaide supporters the most angry people in Australia"
bh90210fan
Norm Smith Medallist
- Sep 4, 2017
- 9,623
- 11,111
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Banned
- #611
Rebranding. Why the need if something hadn’t changed?
The competition was renamed because it wasn’t the Victorian Football League anymore, it became something much different and the name change reflects this as should the official afl records. Vfl flags should be recognised for what they are for when teams competed in the Vfl
Of course it changed. The league evolved and more clubs were added.
If you want to feel that the 1989 flag was “much different” to the 1990 flag then that’s up to you. But it doesn’t change the fact that it was the same trophy won in the same competition against the same clubs.
Same organisation different events
I get that the VFL grew into the AFL
All titles should be recognised
There is probably a compromise in the nomenclature for those in charge available ( but not on BF haha)
I am not against all flags being recognised ....maybe as you wrote VFL/AFL for state only and AFL for National titles
As long as there is a clear delineation of such.
Thatsmyname
Plausible deniability
- Apr 16, 2019
- 4,343
- 3,076
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- No 3peat (Ninth)mond Minnows
- Banned
- #614
If they were worth recognizing I doubt it would have taken over a century to work it out
What’s it got to do with Port specifically?
KermitJagger
Professional Thread Derailer
- May 17, 2017
- 13,971
- 43,433
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
There were 5 teams in the comp in the early years and it had a different name. We should start wiping their flags.
Not its not. EPL titles only go back to 1992. They're not the same.
Even the EPL doesn't try and pretend that they're the same thing.
Seriously .. how come the eagles have continuously change their jumper design since they entered the comp? ... yet you have to ask why there's need to rebrand? What do you call that then?
But... as you disengeniously already know ...
None of those State titles of Port’s are pretending to be a National title
The VFL became the AFL and it has been one continuous comp. I don't see any Victorians denying that the flag won in 1956 was just for the best football team in Victoria but it changes nothing that it was in this continuous comp.
Any normal football historian knows that the winner of the VFL/SANFL/WAFL in 1956 was simply the best team in that state in that year, but as the WAFL and SANFL were never part of this one continuous comp we now call the AFL it is not counted in this leagues premiership tables.
It doesn't diminish those flags in those comps or enhance the ones won in the VFL at that time, they were all first tier premierships. The VFL/AFL are not going to recognize them though in this leagues records and neither should they.
The clubs recognize them and they should be proud of them as all flags are hard to win.
I know my club West Perth has won 15 top tier premierships and I am mighty proud of that, I also know they can never win another one as they no longer play in a top tier league.
No point getting worried about these things or upset. It is one continuous league the VFL/AFL and the flags no matter what they stood for or are worth in peoples view are still counted.
Any normal football historian knows that the winner of the VFL/SANFL/WAFL in 1956 was simply the best team in that state in that year, but as the WAFL and SANFL were never part of this one continuous comp we now call the AFL it is not counted in this leagues premiership tables.
It doesn't diminish those flags in those comps or enhance the ones won in the VFL at that time, they were all first tier premierships. The VFL/AFL are not going to recognize them though in this leagues records and neither should they.
The clubs recognize them and they should be proud of them as all flags are hard to win.
I know my club West Perth has won 15 top tier premierships and I am mighty proud of that, I also know they can never win another one as they no longer play in a top tier league.
No point getting worried about these things or upset. It is one continuous league the VFL/AFL and the flags no matter what they stood for or are worth in peoples view are still counted.
Big car
Big dog
Keys rattling off the belt
Carrying air footballs under the armpits
The need to recognise a state title as a National title
Hmmmm
Big dog
Keys rattling off the belt
Carrying air footballs under the armpits
The need to recognise a state title as a National title
Hmmmm
In which case, the records should start in 1987 or 1991, not 1990.
They are the same.
Just because you rebrand the top division another name doesn't mean the end result isn't exactly the same.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_football_champions
They don't start again at 1 when the EPL became a thing. They group them all together in totals.
Because the Football League clubs broke away and formed a new league, the EPL.
Exactly the same as the the VFA clubs broke away in 1897, and formed a new league.
Similar threads
