Proposal to include premierships dating back to 1870 gathering pace

[Cyclops]

I would bet my bottom dollar that you haven't even read his book. You get so angry just thinking about Col. You'd start tearing it up on the first page..I'm truly worried how you will take it when his proposal goes through..

No i was given a copy by a mate, he wanted a second opinion and I have a history degree.

I didn't need to check his sources to see his book was doddering emotional tripe, but for the sake of the exercise I did. No surprises he misrepresented the intent and meaning of the few sources he cited.

As mentioned above there's two stupid lies in the books front cover. "Forgotten Years: Claiming the AFLs earliest era: 1870-1896"

Who forgot them? I knew we won a flag in the VFA, many people interested in their club know the history before the VFL started.

Col does makes some really stupid claims, so that bit I true, but 1870-1896 isn't an AFL era. It isn't even a VFL era.

Nor is it the earliest Australian Rules era. Every historians of the game sees the roots of Aussie rules in the myriad football traditions, both indigenous and imported. The current game traces directly back to the first match officially played in the 1850s. Everyone, from Geoffrey Blainey to the AFL's own history of the game state this unequivocally.

Col is entirely on his own in his stupid, error ridden, unsourced or poorly sourced and incompetently argued position.

If you had read it and checked his sources, and had read actual histories by actual historians (such as Blainey's This Game of Ours), you'd know this too.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

No i was given a copy by a mate, he wanted a second opinion and I have a history degree.

I didn't need to check his sources to see his book was doddering emotional tripe, but for the sake of the exercise I did. No surprises he misrepresented the intent and meaning of the few sources he cited.

As mentioned above there's two stupid lies in the books front cover. "Forgotten Years: Claiming the AFLs earliest era: 1870-1896"

Who forgot them? I knew we won a flag in the VFA, many people interested in their club know the history before the VFL started.

Col does makes some really stupid claims, so that bit I true, but 1870-1896 isn't an AFL era. It isn't even a VFL era.

Nor is it the earliest Australian Rules era. Every historians of the game sees the roots of Aussie rules in the myriad football traditions, both indigenous and imported. The current game traces directly back to the first match officially played in the 1850s. Everyone, from Geoffrey Blainey to the AFL's own history of the game state this unequivocally.

Col is entirely on his own in his stupid, error ridden, unsourced or poorly sourced and incompetently argued position.

If you had read it and checked his sources, and had read actual histories by actual historians (such as Blainey's This Game of Ours), you'd know this too.

Precisely. The only reason that 1870 is used as a start date is that, people decades later, looking at the game retrospectively, saw that as the first year where the game had developed enough and enough games were played that they could say with reasonable confidence who was the best team that year.

But it doesn't mean that the game was significantly more developed than in earlier years, as teams like Melbourne won competitions such as Challenge Cups playing similar number of games (5-10ish) against other similarly messy classifications of "senior", "junior", "provincial" etc. clubs.

If you go back to 1870, Melbourne have every claim to more flags in the 1860s.

 

[terrybull]

It was a cup competition essentially.

Like 1869

Way has everyone forgot about 1869????

 

[Partridge]

Grand Final history? There were no grand finals until at least 1888

If he didn't think Geelong had something to gain he wouldn't have interest in pushing this

Correct. Even later - 1898 in the VFL was the first.

The only thing close to a Grand final (and it wasn't called that) was the 1896 "play off" between Collingwood and South Melbourne at East Melbourne. As both sides finished equal on top. It was the second "play off" in the pre-VFL VFA, the other being in 1878. But no Grand finals. Zero. None. Carter might as well pretend they existed, they'd be just as valid as his other claims.

Your final point is spot on - and all his obsession is about. He can't handle our premiership tally doesn't sit near the top so he's trying to artificially inflate it (with a handful of equally insecure posters to parrot it). Believe me, he does NOT speak for all Geelong fans, most of us aren't so insecure about it. Our history is pretty damn impressive without his embarrassing efforts.

 

[SC_Power]

I’m starting to warm to the idea.

I mean, if the AFLW records can be measured against AFL records (NM now with record successive wins), then who cares which competitions can be cobbled together to reflect history.

 

[WilloTree]

Excellent idea.

Fremantle (Unions) - 56 Premierships

 

[sherb]

Like 1869

Way has everyone forgot about 1869????

The most overlooked year in VFL/AFL history imo.

 

[sherb]

Your final point is spot on - and all his obsession is about. He can't handle our premiership tally doesn't sit near the top so he's trying to artificially inflate it (with a handful of equally insecure posters to parrot it). Believe me, he does NOT speak for all Geelong fans, most of us aren't so insecure about it. Our history is pretty damn impressive without his embarrassing efforts.

Carlton would go to outright lead in the premiership tally if we adopted Carter's proposal I believe.

But that's not enough to make this particular Carlton supporter embrace his craziness.

It's good to see that common sense (and understanding how recording history works) overrides club allegiance for most people.

it's all very easy to understand, I'm sure I've posted this before:

*A competition acknowledges all premierships won by each club over the course of its history, in this case the VFL/AFL counts flags from 1897 onwards.

*A club, on the other hand, acknowledges all premierships it has won across all competitions in which it has competed since the club's inception. So in the case of Geelong and Carlton for example, each clubs internal premiership tally includes flags won prior to 1897 in a different competition.

It's actually a pretty uncomplicated and straightforward principle, which Carter (likely for reasons which you outline) is seeking to unnecessarily complicate and muddy.

 

[rapidfire7]

Carlton would go to outright lead in the premiership tally if we adopted Carter's proposal I believe.

But that's not enough to make this particular Carlton supporter embrace his craziness.

It's good to see that common sense (and understanding how recording history works) overrides club allegiance for most people.

it's all very easy to understand, I'm sure I've posted this before:

*A competition acknowledges all premierships won by each club over the course of its history, in this case the VFL/AFL counts flags from 1897 onwards.

*A club, on the other hand, acknowledges all premierships it has won across all competitions in which it has competed since the club's inception. So in the case of Geelong and Carlton for example, each clubs internal premiership tally includes flags won prior to 1897 in a different competition.

It's actually a pretty uncomplicated and straightforward principle, which Carter (likely for reasons which you outline) is seeking to unnecessarily complicate and muddy.

English football did not bury its past when the game was recast with the “Premier League” on February 20, 1992. Manchester United and Manchester City did not change the record books to have them recognise only the matches played from 1992.

American football did not discard the records from the once opposing National Football League (1920) and American Football League (1960) before the merger that created the first Super Bowl in 1969. The New York Giants still acknowledge all their trophies from 1925.

Col and I just want you to have what is rightfully yours, and for it to be properly recognised for what it is. All 22 cups were won in the Premier division of the time, which also contained many of the same sides still competing in the AFL today.

You should be very proud of what your club has achieved and that you are the outright leaders. A truly awesome achievement .

 

[Sentinel]

English football did not bury its past when the game was recast with the “Premier League” on February 20, 1992. Manchester United and Manchester City did not change the record books to have them recognise only the matches played from 1992.

American football did not discard the records from the once opposing National Football League (1920) and American Football League (1960) before the merger that created the first Super Bowl in 1969. The New York Giants still acknowledge all their trophies from 1925.

Col and I just want you to have what is rightfully yours, and for it to be properly recognised for what it is. All 22 cups were won in the Premier division of the time, which also contained many of the same sides still competing in the AFL today.

You should be very proud of what your club has achieved and that you are the outright leaders. A truly awesome achievement .

View attachment 2468613

Funny you say this because whilst Man Utd and Man City retain their pre-1992 results in their club records, those same results are rightly not included in the Premier League history book. What a perfect argument against your mate Col

See:

• https://www.premierleague.com/en/news/59001
• https://ir.manutd.com/company-information/history.aspx

 

[rapidfire7]

Funny you say this because whilst Man Utd and Man City retain their pre-1992 results in their club records, those same results are rightly not included in the Premier League history book. What a perfect argument against your mate Col

See:

• https://www.premierleague.com/en/news/59001
• https://ir.manutd.com/company-information/history.aspx

Very, very often they are included as one total like this Chief, and you know it .

 

[Sentinel]

Very, very often they are included as one total like this Chief, and you know it .

View attachment 2468641

By the EPL?

 

[rapidfire7]

By the EPL?

If you check out Man Utd's Honours on Wikipedia, they are all combined together Chief. what does that tell you? Would you object if we did the same for Australian football dating back to 1870 to today on Wiki?

 

[rapidfire7]

By the EPL?

In fact, they are all included as one total even on Man Utd's official website .

 

[Sentinel]

In fact, they are all included as one total even on Man Utd's official website .

View attachment 2468679

More club records that are not league records, feel free to refer to my post above

 

[hawkman]

In fact, they are all included as one total even on Man Utd's official website .

View attachment 2468679

No one has a problem with Geelong recognising them themselves. They can do what they want there

 

[Sentinel]

If you check out Man Utd's Honours on Wikipedia, they are all combined together Chief. what does that tell you? Would you object if we did the same for Australian football dating back to 1870 to today on Wiki?

View attachment 2468672

I could give a **** how Wikipedia represents anything. In fact I could go on there myself and edit it right now if I cared to.

Anyway this trolling of yours is getting pretty boring and repetitive.

 

[sherb]

In fact, they all included as one total even on Man Utd's offical website .

View attachment 2468679

Exactly my point. Clubs count premierships across all competitions. As Man U has done here.

Whereas competitions themselves count only the premierships won in that particular competition.

So, how many Man U titles do the EPL recognize?

 

[sherb]

I'll answer the question for you rapidfire7, seeing as you have already kindly verified one of my points (ie that clubs recognize titles won in all competitions since their inception - in this case Man U).

Here is the official EPL website. It notes that Man U has won 13 titles, the first being in 92/93:

Premier League Club, Manager & Player Records

View records including most PL title wins, biggest wins and most appearances, on the official website of the Premier League.

www.premierleague.com

So, as you can see, the EPL only acknowledges titles won in its particular competition.

Thank you for bringing up the example of Man U and you're welcome.

 

[rapidfire7]

I'll answer the question for you rapidfire7, seeing as you have kindly verified one of my points (ie that clubs recognize titles won in all competitions since their inception, in this case Man U).

Here is the official EPL website. It notes that Man U has won 13 titles, the first being in 92/93:

Premier League Club, Manager & Player Records

View records including most PL title wins, biggest wins and most appearances, on the official website of the Premier League.

www.premierleague.com

So, as you can see, the EPL only acknowledges titles won in its particular competition.

Thank you for bringing up the example of Man U and you're welcome.

Interesting that even the offical EPL website acknowledges that titles prior to the EPL forming are to be combined with the EPL ones .

All come under top flight titles Chief, and that's all Col and I want too. Just a matter of time till common sense prevails I am sure .

 

[sherb]

Interesting that even the offical EPL website acknowledges that titles prior to the EPL forming are to be combined with the EPL ones .

All come under top flight titles Chief, and that's all Col and I want too. Just a matter of time till common sense prevails I am sure .

View attachment 2468683

Wonderful, we can get the pre-1897 VFL/AFL titles recognized on the EPL website then. Problem solved.

 

[big_e]

Interesting that even the offical EPL website acknowledges that titles prior to the EPL forming are to be combined with the EPL ones .

All come under top flight titles Chief, and that's all Col and I want too. Just a matter of time till common sense prevails I am sure .

View attachment 2468683

All of the stats on the Premier League website refer to it's commencement in 1992/93. This screenshot is from a news article written by a third-party.

 

[Hawkk]

All of the stats on the Premier League website refer to it's commencement in 1992/93. This screenshot is from a news article written by a third-party.

Like I said months ago, we simply need the old fool to either die off or toddle off to a nursing home. It’s now embarrassing.

 

[rapidfire7]

Like I said months ago, we simply need the old fool to either die off or toddle off to a nursing home. It’s now embarrassing.

If he does, I will take over and see this through in his honour .. and unfortunately for you, I'm not that old!

 

[SC_Power]

I’m starting to warm to the idea.

I mean, if the AFLW records can be measured against AFL records (NM now with record successive wins), then who cares which competitions can be cobbled together to reflect history.

Actually thinking a bit more about this, doesn’t this mean that we don’t have to listen to Geelongs record 23 game streak?

Brisbane adds a couple of flags, they move up closer to being the first to 17.

I like this.