AFL Commission considers proposal to backdate footy records to 1870

[Power Raid]

So Port Adelaide now have the most Premierships? Or we doing selective backdating?

AFL HQ just like to keep breaking things in the game, they're now searching back to 1870 to break some more.

1884 is probably the first year premierships should be counted

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Another excellent article that’s critical of Carter’s push... including noting that he’s not representing the historians properly when he says “they approve it”.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/sp...y/news-story/e66fa2755dabb34a75df59ac2f7fa643

 

[Dunger]

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.

I found Colin Carter's bigfooty account

 

[doppleganger]

So in a way their method of how they count their records is actually in line with what Colin Carter wants us to do.

Nup.
They count premierships from 1908 when the NSWRL started. They aren’t trying to count some random games prior to any actual officially governed competition like Carter is.

What Carter wants to do is pick a random date, 1870, which was before the VFA was even formed, just because there was a couple of tables in a football record.

Carlton claim an 1869 Challenge Cup premiership as part of its own history, in addition to their 1887 VFA premiership. Both are great parts of Carlton’s history, but have nothing to do with the VFL.

 

[Carringbush2010]

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?

We could go round and round in circles infinitum if you you want but that won't change the fact the the AFL/VFL is the same league as much as you don't want it to be.

You can live in your own little insular world if it pleases you and it protects you from the facts you don't like.

Don't bother replying you're just wasting time.

 

[King Cold]

Lols

For 31 years Hawthorn has been more successful despite Geelong competing in the VFL/AFL for 30 more seasons

I guess that’s why hawthorn has 80,000 members whilst the cats struggle to fill their jam tin

Why was it that in 2009 during their 150 year celebrations the cats didn’t even recognise their VFA premierships?

Pretty hard to take this proposal seriously (the same proposal year in year out) when the cats themselves don’t give a **** about their provincial flags

We have 65,000 members which is 15,000 less than Hawthorn, yet our attendances at games are higher than Hawthorn's.

I mean, Hawthorn could only draw 14,000 to play GWS at the MCG on a Sunday afternoon, even Melbourne drew 20,000 against GWS at the MCG on a Sunday afternoon, and Melbourne have statistically got the smallest base of all the Victorian teams according to Roy Morgan data.

You say we don't care about our flags which is far from the truth, we have all 16 premierships written on the premiership stand at our home ground, and inside the club walls we recognise all 16 premiership teams with team photos, the records etc all at the club.

 

[footyfan1978]

Nup.
They count premierships from 1908 when the NSWRL started. They aren’t trying to count some random games prior to any actual officially governed competition like Carter is..

Is the 1908 comp the same as the Super League comp. It seems a grey area for mine and why I wonder about it all and how both codes record their premier competition history down the years from the beginning until the present.

What Carter wants to do is pick a random date, 1870, which was before the VFA was even formed, just because there was a couple of tables in a football record..

I was quick to assume similar of Carter but having heard him now, not convinced it is some random Geelong person just trying to put Cats history in better light. He seems genuinely interested in the broader history of how we view the founding clubs and organized competition and it was news to me that a century ago the football community that followed the clubs that brought this great unique game into being viewed what they followed as a continuation of competition they had seen from season to season and counted it as such. The fact the Football Record of the time published it that way I am not so flippant about now I looked into it. It seems a grey area now of consensus when I think about how Super League was different comp to NSWRL or ARL but they seem to count NSWRL and Super League records into ARL in present day. It does seem a little similar to how those following football in turn of century back then just considered what they were following of founding clubs in 1899 is simple 3 more seasons of competition of those clubs from earlier in 1890's. At the very least it is interesting twist of how history records both games.


I think Carter is right about acknowledging the player records of all those clubs that simply continued to play in an organized comp as they had been since 1870 but I also believe the records are different leagues so must be seen as such. It is a bit like in cricket the ICC should have a place to properly record the World Series Cricket records as both first class cricket records and a level of cricket equal in standard or even above Test cricket level.

AFL publications should probably have the records from 1870 to 1896 in there but not with the league records of 1897 to 2019.
I would include sections for WAFL up to 1986 and SANFL to 1990 in it too so we are embracing all the major historical leagues that have played an important part in how the premier league is today.
WA major comp records to 1986
Vic major comp records to 1896
SA major comp records to 1990
and this league comp records from 1897 to now.

The Australian Football Hall of Fame night embracing them all. I do not agree with Carter trying to include records from 1870 to now as one league if that is what he is trying to do but having looked up some football publications of those important years I agree with his sentiment of gather the records of these historically very important seasons for our game and make sure they are not neglected.

 

[ConcreteWaters]

It's fine, just call them what they are- VFA, VFL, SANFL (if you're gonna include state league premierships Port deserve theirs) and AFL instead of lumping them into one.

 

[Hawkk]

We have 65,000 members which is 15,000 less than Hawthorn, yet our attendances at games are higher than Hawthorn's.

I mean, Hawthorn could only draw 14,000 to play GWS at the MCG on a Sunday afternoon, even Melbourne drew 20,000 against GWS at the MCG on a Sunday afternoon, and Melbourne have statistically got the smallest base of all the Victorian teams according to Roy Morgan data.

You say we don't care about our flags which is far from the truth, we have all 16 premierships written on the premiership stand at our home ground, and inside the club walls we recognise all 16 premiership teams with team photos, the records etc all at the club.

Cool story

You have higher attendances thanks squarely to the disparity in ground sizes (Aurora v Baytec Stadium), fixturing (how many Friday night games have you played vs Hawthorn’s Sunday fixtures) and being 11-1.

Geelong is a middle provincial, boutique club in the mould of St Kilda and Footscray and your middling VFL / AFL record reflects this

Did you know that Geelong hasn’t drawn 70,000 plus to any home and away game not featuring Hawthorn between the start of the 2013 season and round 1 2019. Your Friday Night blockbuster against the 100,000 Tigers also struggled to reach this mark and just topped the middling Hawks v Tigers in the maligned Sunday Twilight slot (65,213 v 64,956).

That’s peak Geelong vs probably the worst Hawthorn side since 2006

Go back to 2014 where Sydney was a higher draw for Hawthorn then Geelong during the home and away season (72,764 v 72,216)

Speaking of Roy Morgan, where do the Cats tank on that table? 8th out of 18, so I guess it makes sense that Colin Carter looks at the VFA to push the Cats out of the muck.

It’s why you always shift your home games against Hawthorn to our home ground and why your CEO has said on no less then 5 occasions (since 2015) that Geelong has a revenue problem and can’t afford to compete with Richmond, Hawthorn, Collingwood, Weat Coast etc without significantly changing your business model

This herein is on public record

Much like the failure and noteable absence of Geelong’s VFA triumphs against Hobson Bay and Albert Park as part your 1859-2009 club celebrations.

It seems strange that 2 years after that snub that Colin Carter developed this hobby horse?

 

[bmaurizio]

Don’t care about too much about the veracity of fastidious historical detail, as long as the put the Mighty Baggers at the very top of the premiership tally we we belong.

 

[King Cold]

Cool story

You have higher attendances thanks squarely to the disparity in ground sizes (Aurora v Baytec Stadium), fixturing (how many Friday night games have you played vs Hawthorn’s Sunday fixtures) and being 11-1.

Geelong is a middle provincial, boutique club in the mould of St Kilda and Footscray and your middling VFL / AFL record reflects this

Did you know that Geelong hasn’t drawn 70,000 plus to any home and away game not featuring Hawthorn between the start of the 2013 season and round 1 2019. Your Friday Night blockbuster against the 100,000 Tigers also struggled to reach this mark and just topped the middling Hawks v Tigers in the maligned Sunday Twilight slot (65,213 v 64,956).

That’s peak Geelong vs probably the worst Hawthorn side since 2006

Go back to 2014 where Sydney was a higher draw for Hawthorn then Geelong during the home and away season (72,764 v 72,216)

Speaking of Roy Morgan, where do the Cats tank on that table? 8th out of 18, so I guess it makes sense that Colin Carter looks at the VFA to push the Cats out of the muck.

It’s why you always shift your home games against Hawthorn to our home ground and why your CEO has said on no less then 5 occasions (since 2015) that Geelong has a revenue problem and can’t afford to compete with Richmond, Hawthorn, Collingwood, Weat Coast etc without significantly changing your business model

This herein is on public record

Much like the failure and noteable absence of Geelong’s VFA triumphs against Hobson Bay and Albert Park as part your 1859-2009 club celebrations.

It seems strange that 2 years after that snub that Colin Carter developed this hobby horse?

You do realise that your home ground is the MCG, ours is Kardinia Park yet our attendances are still higher than yours?

Don't blame us for the crowd against Richmond on Friday night, it was their home game and it's a pain for our supporters to get to Friday night games in Melbourne, that one is on Richmond. Where were Richmond's supposed 100,000 members?

Also, we are forced to play two home games at the MCG every year, we want to play all 11 home games at Kardinia Park, it just happens to be a combination of Collingwood, Hawthorn and Essendon who we'd love to play at Kardinia Park but we play two of them at the MCG as our 'home' games to fill the AFL's requirement of our two MCG home games.

Once stage 5 of the Kardinia Park redevelopment is complete, no club will be able to compete with us financially. 40,000 Cats fans filling the stadium every week and the club makes more money per member than any other club, not to mention our stadium deal is clean, meaning that we keep all the money which will likely be close to $2m a game at a fully redeveloped Kardinia Park.

The proposal for the AFL to recognise VFA premierships will get the tick, thanks to Steve Hocking

 

[HTT]

You've missed the point again, the Bulldogs changed their name but didn't change anything about their team. Are you suggesting that likewise nothing changed about the VFL during the 80s and 90s? That the VFL was always a national comp?

Also the fact that the Bulldogs call themselves 'Western' when there are five other teams more western than them is a bit ridiculous, but I digress ...

Aside from the name, what was the difference between VFL 1989 and AFL 1990?

 

[Father Jack]

Aside from the name, what was the difference between VFL 1989 and AFL 1990?

What I am saying is that althoiugh the major changes occurred over the course of a decade and a half, they were specifically acknowledged with the name change in 1990, which makes that date a good one for recognising records in the modern, national era. The only reason why you would get hung up on comparing just the years 1989 and 1990 would be if you wanted to suggest that nothing changed between those years so therefore by extension the comp never fundamentally changed, which I do not believe is the case.

 

[doppleganger]

Is the 1908 comp the same as the Super League comp. It seems a grey area for mine and why I wonder about it all and how both codes record their premier competition history down the years from the beginning until the present.

There were 20 teams who competed for the 1996 ARL title.

In 1997, 12 remained and competed for the 1997 ARL title...but 8 defected to the SuperLeague competition for 1997.

Problem being having two competitions going concurrently was hurting both, so after 97 the two again joined under the single NRL banner.

The Super League was similar to VFL split, but the VFL didn’t go back and rejoin the VFA after a season. If the Super League was successful and became a big league, it would face similar issue that clubs had existed and been successful in the ARL competition that was still going. So a club like the Bulldogs who had won premierships in the old competition would still claim them as part of their history, but wouldn’t be able to refer to them as Super League premierships.

Sure when talking about the history of Australian Rules in Victoria all of the pre-1897 stuff is important.

But none of the titles won have anything to do with the VFL.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

What I am saying is that althoiugh the major changes occurred over the course of a decade and a half, they were specifically acknowledged with the name change in 1990, which makes that date a good one for recognising records in the modern, national era. The only reason why you would get hung up on comparing just the years 1989 and 1990 would be if you wanted to suggest that nothing changed between those years so therefore by extension the comp never fundamentally changed, which I do not believe is the case.

The VFL is the AFL. It’s the same league, that’s an indisputable fact. It just expanded outside the state border in 1982.

If people want to argue about different periods in history, regarding how strong the league was versus other leagues (the VFA, SANFL or WAFL) then that’s fine. They may well have a point.

But it doesn’t change the facts about the history of this particular league.

 

[twiggy4PM]

The VFL is the AFL. It’s the same league, that’s an indisputable fact. It just expanded outside the state border in 1982.

If people want to argue about different periods in history, regarding how strong the league was versus other leagues (the VFA, SANFL or WAFL) then that’s fine. They may well have a point.

But it doesn’t change the facts about the history of this particular league.

But the point is that it is a different league. If you are going to include VFA records then Norwood, who won the Best in Colony game by beating South Melbourne, should be on the list. Perhaps we should just count premierships since 1990 and leave the VFL records alone.

 

[footyfan1978]

There were 20 teams who competed for the 1996 ARL title.

In 1997, 12 remained and competed for the 1997 ARL title...but 8 defected to the SuperLeague competition for 1997.

Problem being having two competitions going concurrently was hurting both, so after 97 the two again joined under the single NRL banner.

The Super League was similar to VFL split, but the VFL didn’t go back and rejoin the VFA after a season. .

Yes, it just kept going and viewed it's league of 1897 just more seasons of competition those clubs had played to add onto from 1897 onwards.
1896 season 13 clubs were in the VFA. Majority of 8 just continued next season as League clubs and 5 as Association clubs. The VFA then added Brunswick to VFA in 1897 to at least have an even 6 clubs for 1897 season whilst the stronger clubs season continued as 8 clubs in the League season. It is clearly why in Football Record they listed the premierships that way as continuous club competition it had been recording properly since 1870. It then reeled in Richmond, Footscray, North and Hawthorn later on to continue the regular club season competition these founding clubs considered they had been doing as organised competition since 1870. . I can actually see their perspective now which is similar to how Rugby League comp view their continuous competition from season to season for their clubs.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

But the point is that it is a different league. If you are going to include VFA records then Norwood, who won the Best in Colony game by beating South Melbourne, should be on the list. Perhaps we should just count premierships since 1990 and leave the VFL records alone.

VFA records should absolutely not be counted as VFL/AFL records. IMO.

It’s a rich tapestry of different leagues that can be embraced, but confusion shouldn’t be added. The history is what it is and can be explained.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

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.

You may know the answers to these questions given you have historical books and nobody has answered them so far.

What was the name of the competition between 1870-76? How organised was the comp? Which teams played, in that comp? Did the original 8 VFL teams play on that comp? How many games were played in each season? Did everyone play home and away games? Given it was a league system and only goals counted what happened if 2 teams finished with the same amount of "premiership points"? How did they separate the teams to find the comp flag winner?

 

[Bunk Moreland]

You may know the answers to these questions given you have historical books and nobody has the answered them so far.

What was the name of the competition between 1870-76? How organised was the comp? Which teams played, in that comp? Did the original 8 VFL teams play on that comp? How many games were played in each season? Did everyone play home and away games? Given it was a league system and only goals counted what happened if 2 teams finished with the same amount of "premiership points"? How did they separate the teams to find the comp flag winner?

Go to the first VFA season and click forward through the first decade or so, and answer those questions:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1877_VFA_season

And that was affiliated season. It was even more hotchpotch before that.

 

[footyfan1978]

You may know the answers to these questions given you have historical books and nobody has the answered them so far.

What was the name of the competition between 1870-76? How organised was the comp? Which teams played, in that comp? Did the original 8 VFL teams play on that comp? How many games were played in each season? Did everyone play home and away games? Given it was a league system and only goals counted what happened if 2 teams finished with the same amount of "premiership points"? How did they separate the teams to find the comp flag winner?

Great questions. Not all can answer off top of my head as I go out. Some I can. They played for the Challenge Cup trophy between 1870 and 76 but there were others before that but no real consensus of premier team each time like there was from 1870 to 76 from what I read. Most of stuff I read online. There is stuff from libraries able to read from those times like The Footballer publication I read most of info from published in 1875. Cannot recall where I found it online but read it couple of days ago. The Argus newspaper articles cover the end of seasons in depth too. If two team finished with same premiership points and goal differences from what I remember reading they played a play off. Not all the original VFL teams played in that comp. Some clubs were not even formed yet. Carlton and Melbourne featured in all and seem to be the strongest clubs in 1870's. Geelong played in some, South and St.Kilda under different club names of time may have been involved but Melbourne and Carlton were fairly dominated in those years in the seasons I read up about. The other clubs considered not strong enough of the time would not take part.

 

[mdavideedee_man64]

lol go for it, who cares about the sanfl, wafl, ntfl, vfa, nswfl and the ntfl lol, nrl dont care about the nswrl or the qrl and other state leagues so yeah go for it, add the history in lol, the vfl/afl dont care about port adelaide magpies 34 flags anyways, only the fans of that club do lol

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Go to the first VFA season and click forward through the first decade or so, and answer those questions:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1877_VFA_season

And that was affiliated season. It was even more hotchpotch before that.

So 1870-76 was a dogs breakfast if the wiki pages for those seasons are correct.

 

[TheGhostOfJohnBelushi]

It's fine, just call them what they are- VFA, VFL, SANFL (if you're gonna include state league premierships Port deserve theirs) and AFL instead of lumping them into one.

You don't belong here. Stop making sense.

 

[mdavideedee_man64]

Yes, it just kept going and viewed it's league of 1897 just more seasons of competition those clubs had played to add onto from 1897 onwards.
1896 season 13 clubs were in the VFA. Majority of 8 just continued next season as League clubs and 5 as Association clubs. The VFA then added Brunswick to VFA in 1897 to at least have an even 6 clubs for 1897 season whilst the stronger clubs season continued as 8 clubs in the League season. It is clearly why in Football Record they listed the premierships that way as continuous club competition it had been recording properly since 1870. It then reeled in Richmond, Footscray, North and Hawthorn later on to continue the regular club season competition these founding clubs considered they had been doing as organised competition since 1870. . I can actually see their perspective now which is similar to how Rugby League comp view their continuous competition from season to season for their clubs.

eddie mcguire is right that if vfa 1870 to 1896 in included into the vfl/afl records, it would completely erase the vfa history from 1897 to 1995 off the history books