The biggest change is going professional as a result of the huge TV media rights entering the game.
All sporting leagues that have been around for 100+ years would be polls apart from what their competition originally was.
AFL Commission considers proposal to backdate footy records to 1870
- Thread starter fpm84
- Start date
- Tagged users None
All sporting leagues that have been around for 100+ years would be polls apart from what their competition originally was.
Woops, are you able to give the teams and the years missed and I can update................ not sure it'll make a lot of diff though.
The reality is though that the VFL by way of population had the strongest of the 3 big leagues. That doesn’t change that the WAFL andSANFL were not top tier because they were.
The WAFL and SANFL were very insular where as the VFL were proactive in spreading the word of their comp.
Not everyone but the vast majority went to Melbourne to play for money, if they could if got the same money in WA or SA most would not have gone. But they did go for money and hence made the VFL bigger and Bigger and the WA and SA leagues got left behind.
I have never liked how the AFL became what it is and would of done it much different but that needed the WA and SA football administrations to stand up and fight for their world and they didn’t. They made it very easy for the VFL.
Here we are today and while the concept of the AFL is ok the reality it is run by corporate muppets who on their watch have invented a new sport and made moneythe priority instead of the game.
I still feel the best solution would be for the AFL to set up a separate authority for the management of the game in general as opposed to the league in particular - we could re-establish the old ANFC, for example, and have AFL/VFL/VFA/SANFL/WAFL premierships recognised as "Tier 1 ANFC premierships" for the relevant date ranges where they were top-tier, and "Tier 2 premierships" when they weren't, et cetera. This would mean that premierships won by Port Magpies after 1996 would be Tier 2, not Tier 1, but it lets Port count their pre-96 SANFL and post-96 AFL premierships as ANFC premierships, and allows for the continuity of the VFL/AFL as the same competition.
Of course they won't do that because PowerForGood is absolutely right - they're acting selfishly in trying to take over the branding of the entire sport for themselves.
EDIT: For the record, Collingwood under this system would have 16 Tier 1 premierships: our 1 VFA premiership (1896), and our 15 VFL/AFL premierships.
Of course they won't do that because PowerForGood is absolutely right - they're acting selfishly in trying to take over the branding of the entire sport for themselves.
EDIT: For the record, Collingwood under this system would have 16 Tier 1 premierships: our 1 VFA premiership (1896), and our 15 VFL/AFL premierships.
The AFL Commission is the governing entity that took over from the Australian National Football Council in the 90s.
The Australian Football League is the same competition that was formed back in 1897; although along the journey new teams like Hawthorn and Adelaide and GWS have been added to the original 8 teams.
The history of Australian Rules Football is what Carter is waffling about, that isn’t the history of the AFL.
Upgrayedd
A Vote for Clive is a Vote for Justice
Do we count the years like 1888-1889 1897-88 ect. for when the SANFL teams beat the reigning vic teams, thus being the best teams in Australia?
Spot on mate.
Thatsmyname
Plausible deniability
- Apr 16, 2019
- 4,343
- 3,076
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- No 3peat (Ninth)mond Minnows
- Banned
- #659
You came to our pond so I can only assume yours just wasn't the mustard
And who on here is saying that? YOU!
You're the only one with an inferiority complex about a VFL cup being labelled as a national title.
Give it up mate! The AFL / VFL ARE the same comp. Us Collingwood fans couldn't give a flying about the comp being called the AFL because it had 3 non vic teams in it in 1990, all we cared about was we won our 14th cup in the comp.
Do you think Hawks fans give s*** about winning in 89?, do you think they care and say to one another "oh no our 89 flag is moot because it's called the VFL and pedro59 says it's moot" ? F*** no!
You seriously need to ditch the "we must be better than the vic's at any cost so I'm gonna pot shot the comp to suit my argument". It's petty and childish and screams of "wish we were as good as them".
Keep firing away with your straw clutch arguments if you like, those who are mature enough to accept the league for what is will only laugh at you.
BringBackTorps
Club Legend
- Jan 5, 2017
- 2,963
- 1,827
- AFL Club
- GWS
Until the 1920's VFL clubs counted their 1877-1897 Premierships, & Champions of the Colony Titles 1870-1877- all as one figure.
Because of the strong rivalry between the VFL & the VFA, from c. 1920, the VFL began to "ignore" the VFA era by not counting these pre 1897 premierships etc.
We must respect & celebrate all the heroes & Clubs who created the game of AF pre -1897, so we should count these pre-1897 titles.
Due to the much greater population of Victoria then, it had the preeminent AF competition in Australia (Notwithstanding that some SA club teams sometimes defeated Vic. teams in one-off games for Champions Of Australia in the pre 1910 period). Thus, there is a continuum from 1870-2019.
The WAFL & SANFL should also celebrate strongly their heroes & premierships prior to the AFL being formed- but their titles (pre AFL) should be recorded separately to AFL titles, due to the smaller populations of WA & SA. Ditto, Tas., NSW, ACT & Qld. comps.
As Colin Carter states, re pre 1897 "...a period which is absolutely where our clubs were born, and embrace it as in fact the VFL founders did themselves".
https://www.sen.com.au/news/2019/06...it-why-carter-wants-vfa-premierships-counted/
Any sport would salivate at having the proud boast of having formal club competitions for 150 years:1870-2020. The celebration will be a big boost for AF, & it should be widely recognised & promoted.
Last edited:
God what an emotional rant
Stop trying to make things up and read again what really was said without being so triggered and offended
Keep it simple for you:
No one has ever had a prob with same comp thing ..... as long as there is a delineation between State era flags and Natiional flags .
......an asterisk * or a / may work ....
Thatsmyname
Plausible deniability
- Apr 16, 2019
- 4,343
- 3,076
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- No 3peat (Ninth)mond Minnows
- Banned
- #663
Yeah blah blah you still came to our comp, not yours, not the VFA, but ours... and you did it for the same reason everyone else did
The NSWRL had already rebranded itself as ARL in the 90s as it had expanded and introduced clubs like Canberra, Brisbane, Western Reds, Gold Coast in the 80s and early 90s....sounds familiar!
There used to be a strong Brisbane Rugby League...but it lost lustre in 60-70s as the NSWRL had more money. When the NSWRL expanded and introduced the Brisbane Broncos in the 80s, the BRL collapsed as the entire city got behind the Broncos...just like WAFL being killed by the Eagles.
Mid 90s was when Super League wars kicked off, and in 1997 there were two competing competitions.
8 ARL teams split off and joined Super League, with Broncos winning the Super League title.
Meanwhile the ARL kept going with 12 teams, and Newcastle were ARL premiers in 97.
After realising things where a mess, the ARL and News Limited came back together and a single competition NRL kicked off in 98 with 20 teams (a couple of financially battling clubs were killed off.
So it went NSWRL - ARL - NRL.
The Super League tried a VFL style 1897 split from the existing competition, but they all reformed after one season!!
NRL is a rebranded NSWRL, just as AFL is rebranded VFL.
The most successful NRL side is South Sydney with 21 titles.
I assume somewhere there is a nuffie fan of the Broncos who grew up supporting fortitude valley in the BRL ranting on a rugby league forum that South Sydney shouldn’t be able to say they have won 21 titles as they weren’t ‘national titles’!
And coming up with inane analogies like tadpoles and frogs aren’t the same.
No. South Melbourne went b2b
Well, yeah. “Top tier” in their respective states I guess. But all states weren’t and aren’t equal.
https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Appendix C - Urban growth.pdf
Melbourne has always been bigger than Adelaide and Perth combined. That’s what it comes down to, basically.
At the end of the day, states borders are just imaginary lines. A population map is far more prescriptive than a geographic map when it comes to human endeavours such as sport.
Emotional rant? The only emotion is everyone laughing at you.
I'll keep it simple for you, call your SA mate Gil and ask him what he thinks of your asterisk idea....... even he will laugh at you.
The obsession with an AFL title is somehow a "National" title is also hysterical and you're the only one that wants it gone even though it was never there to begin with.
Are all of Port's flags in the SANFL national? No one's arguing that it is as it would be foolish to do so! Again you're showing your insecurity, the funny bit is that you shouldn't have any insecurity about your state / club but you stick out like a sore thumb with your ridiculous arguments.
The simple fact is, the VFL and the AFL share a continuous history. The SANFL and the AFL, and the WAFL and the AFL, do not. As the sensible people here seem to be agreeing on from all sides, the real problem is the AFL's megalomania trying to encompass the entire history of footy and eclipse the other leagues.
I stand by my travel comments by the way. As late as WW2, Geelong had to go into recess because wartime travel restrictions made it impossible for them to regularly get a team into Melbourne. And getting to Perth? Forget about it! The rail didn't get to Perth until 1917, and even that left from Sydney. There was no road until 1941 (not completely sealed until 1976), and no flights until 1948. A Melbourne team trying to schedule fortnightly games in Perth in the 1890s may as well have tried to schedule fortnightly games on the moon. The better idea was to invite the best players from other states to come and play with their teams, which is what happened, and which was so prevalent by 1970 that the interstate carnivals had to institute State of Origin rules to stop the VFL (under the guise of Victoria) from winning every single time.
I stand by my travel comments by the way. As late as WW2, Geelong had to go into recess because wartime travel restrictions made it impossible for them to regularly get a team into Melbourne. And getting to Perth? Forget about it! The rail didn't get to Perth until 1917, and even that left from Sydney. There was no road until 1941 (not completely sealed until 1976), and no flights until 1948. A Melbourne team trying to schedule fortnightly games in Perth in the 1890s may as well have tried to schedule fortnightly games on the moon. The better idea was to invite the best players from other states to come and play with their teams, which is what happened, and which was so prevalent by 1970 that the interstate carnivals had to institute State of Origin rules to stop the VFL (under the guise of Victoria) from winning every single time.
So in a way their method of how they count their records is actually in line with what Colin Carter wants us to do.
I just assumed NRL only counted records since when they existed but sounds like they have re-written history to pretend Super League never happened as was the same league as ARL. Maybe it is a merged league so I guess it makes sense. All very confusing. Should I been counting Brisbane Lions on 11 league flags or 3 league flags based on historically the AFL have it seen as Fitzroy and Brisbane Bears merged to become Brisbane Lions? Personally I count it as 11 knowing 8 come via Fitzroy and 3 via Beisbane Lions. Equally I understand those that count it as Fitzroy won 8 in the league and they see Brisbane Lions as not a merged club and have won 3 as a football club and Brisbane Bears history just died off as the Bears at end of 1996. It is all a cluster * of getting consensus.
If it was cricket admin Super League seasons would be not counted in their present league records if it was not a merger of leagues.
Bit like how World Series Cricket from 1977 to 79 is simply records on their own and not counted in first class stats or Test stats for those players. WSC was probably the highest level of cricket played. The SuperTests they had were higher standard than Test matches but Test matches historically are valued more.
Last edited:
It is true that next year formal club competition for some of our clubs in this league have happened for that long but this league itself will still only be in 124th season next season so our league records rightly only count the games records, scoring records and league titles of this league from 1897 to present. However it is interesting for people that lived in the period of late 1890's and into the new century for first few decades of the new league they included the records of formal club competition prior to league starting in 1897. I guess those people saw the league as a continuation of formal club competition they had been following in late 1800's and into the new century. I kind of get it too as all the founding clubs of the game itself and majority of clubs in the formal club competition left the association to continue their formal club competition on their own and leave behind the weaker clubs of the time to fend for themselves in the VFA as the founding clubs of the game no longer agreed with how the Association was being run. Carter just wants us to embrace the mindset of people from that time but it is not going to happen. It is interesting history nevertheless and I do agree with him about embracing the history of the clubs that got our game started but that does not mean we pretend this league has been running 150 years next season as it is just not right. Formal club competition has. Not this league itself.
How old are you?
English Football Champions was always a thing when I was growing up. So not just a "wiki" thing.
Bri_BriTheCAT
Draftee
I'm a cats fan and we would stand to gain the most out of this but I don't agree it should go ahead. Not to denigrate history of the VFA etc...but we are in silly town right now. We cannot say something played by farmers in front of a few hundred people with no behind posts and many other stark differences can be called equal value to a modern afl cup. However, whilst I accept the vfl became the afl I don't think we can say the 1897 vfl flag is worth much more. Essendon get a premiership and there was no grand final? That's happened twice for the dons again in 1924. They should get a premiership cup for those 2 when they didn't play in a premiership? They won the minor prem and that's all, so they have 14 flags not 16 imo. All this just proves that we shouldn't scoff at the idea that the 'national' comp started in 1990 and although we should be pround of vfl cups as fans and clubs, we shouldn't hold them in the same esteem. So hawthorn, west coast and geelong are the most sucessful clubs in the modern AFL but it's a tight comp and all but 4 clubs haven't won it yet. This is the way I look at it and I think those clinging to the idea their clubs' 1901 or 1934 flag is of equal value are being equally silly as those calling for VFA recognition.we compromise and say all that happened and it was marvelous but the true national clock started in 1990, we draw that line accept it and we cannot ever argue about it again until tokyo, LA and Dunedin join the new IAFL.
Interestingly when I look back at the original Football Records people purchased at the footy, it had both the League and Association fixtures in it.
There was a small article in 1912 round one of probability of one being called Section A and the other Section B.
There is a page in it that has two tables of premierships. It lists LEAGUE PREMIERS from 1870 to 1911 in one table and another table has ASSOCIATION PREMIERS from 1897 to 1911.
So in that day they just considered it almost like one competition branched off into two directions and they were not even listing the 1870 to 1896 premiers under the ASSOCIATION table in the Football Record then. It is certainly fascinating history to look up. I guess a political football war of some kind happened in mid 1920's, I suspect when the league allowed Footscray, North and Hawks clubs to join them, the relative peace between Association and League erupted in some sense and Association claimed the pre-1897 stuff as their own history and League not list it as a continuation of organised club competition that had existed from the 1870's. Really got me interested to read up on this 1920's period and the infighting of Victorian club football that still had some feeling to it even when I first started following football. The league encroached on the Sunday domain of football that Association still virtually had for their own until early 1980's. A decade later Association football virtually killed off.
There was a small article in 1912 round one of probability of one being called Section A and the other Section B.
There is a page in it that has two tables of premierships. It lists LEAGUE PREMIERS from 1870 to 1911 in one table and another table has ASSOCIATION PREMIERS from 1897 to 1911.
So in that day they just considered it almost like one competition branched off into two directions and they were not even listing the 1870 to 1896 premiers under the ASSOCIATION table in the Football Record then. It is certainly fascinating history to look up. I guess a political football war of some kind happened in mid 1920's, I suspect when the league allowed Footscray, North and Hawks clubs to join them, the relative peace between Association and League erupted in some sense and Association claimed the pre-1897 stuff as their own history and League not list it as a continuation of organised club competition that had existed from the 1870's. Really got me interested to read up on this 1920's period and the infighting of Victorian club football that still had some feeling to it even when I first started following football. The league encroached on the Sunday domain of football that Association still virtually had for their own until early 1980's. A decade later Association football virtually killed off.
Still making things up I see....
But let's check...
1). Um ask Gil and you will find there already is a delineation. / To show the difference Bzzzrt wrong
2) I have never heard anyone including myself say an AFL flag isn't a National title Bzzzzrt wrong again
( Bizzare arguments if you think it not a National flag now)
3) No one wants the AFL as a national title gone including me. Bzzzzrt wrong again
4) I have never heard a Port supporter or the club say one of our state titles is a national title Bzzzzzrt wrong again
And as far as your comment that I am the only one who accepts the genesis of this great Comp and wishes for all clubs to record their various flags won .... but simply wishes for a delineation on the records between Natuonal and State flags........ er just look at the post two posts above this one.... Bzzzrt wrong again
We have a WINNER. for most times wrong in one post ....but . mate that's what happens when you just make things up as I initially posted..... just argue with some facts instead of so incoherently ok?
Last edited:
Similar threads
