Australian National Football Council

Remove this Banner Ad

EssendonNick

EssendonNick

Team Captain
Veteran
May 14, 2008
505
407
Bendigo
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Leeds United AFC. Melb Victory FC.
Should an Australian National Football Council or something similar be reinstated as the keeper of the code of Australian Rules Football?
An independent council similar to the FA in English soccer.

"Although it does not run the day-to-day operations of the country's top league, the Premier League, it has veto power over the appointment of the League Chairman and Chief Executive and over any changes to league rules."

I like the sound of something similar in Australian rules. A voice of the people maybe even with the members voted by the people. Its a conflict of interest for the national league to be able to do whatever they want whenever they want and are accountable to noone. This could also give the state leagues more of a voice as well. They should be growing a game but the AFL are not, they are growing a league.

When Adrian Anderson makes up some of these stupid rule changes, The ANFC, AFA or whatever they would be called would say "woah woah, slow down mate, THAT is not happening bozo" or "Yeah, no worries AD, thats a good call" depending on the situation and take into account all sides especially the fans.

The AFL would still run the league but this council would oversee the whole code and hear the voices of other leagues and most importantly if done right could give the fans a voice. I know as a rule most official sporting bodies are hated by the public but if done right and everyone is given fair representation it could be for the best.

I know there was an ANFC before the AFL took over but being too young, I really don't know what people thought of it.

What do you think?
 
EssendonNick said:
Should an Australian National Football Council or something similar be reinstated as the keeper of the code of Australian Rules Football?
An independent council similar to the FA in English soccer.

"Although it does not run the day-to-day operations of the country's top league, the Premier League, it has veto power over the appointment of the League Chairman and Chief Executive and over any changes to league rules."

I like the sound of something similar in Australian rules. A voice of the people maybe even with the members voted by the people. Its a conflict of interest for the national league to be able to do whatever they want whenever they want and are accountable to noone. This could also give the state leagues more of a voice as well. They should be growing a game but the AFL are not, they are growing a league.

When Adrian Anderson makes up some of these stupid rule changes, The ANFC, AFA or whatever they would be called would say "woah woah, slow down mate, THAT is not happening bozo" or "Yeah, no worries AD, thats a good call" depending on the situation and take into account all sides especially the fans.

The AFL would still run the league but this council would oversee the whole code and hear the voices of other leagues and most importantly if done right could give the fans a voice. I know as a rule most official sporting bodies are hated by the public but if done right and everyone is given fair representation it could be for the best.

I know there was an ANFC before the AFL took over but being too young, I really don't know what people thought of it.

What do you think?
Click to expand...

We had one but it was sidelined by the VFL when they changed their name to the AFL. Its all about power & control when it comes to the AFL. The AFL wont allow the possibility of any power being lost, whether its 'for the good of the game' or not. Thats why they hate the SANFL because they at least try to stand up for themselves. I see that every other state organisation is called AFL.
The AFL only want a cheer squad, not anyone to voice an opinion, certainly not a dissenting voice.
Always remember that power corrupts, & that absolute power corrupts absolutely :eek:
 

Log in to remove this ad.

madmug said:
We had one but it was sidelined by the VFL when they changed their name to the AFL. Its all about power & control when it comes to the AFL. The AFL wont allow the possibility of any power being lost, whether its 'for the good of the game' or not. Thats why they hate the SANFL because they at least try to stand up for themselves. I see that every other state organisation is called AFL.
The AFL only want a cheer squad, not anyone to voice an opinion, certainly not a dissenting voice.
Always remember that power corrupts, & that absolute power corrupts absolutely :eek:
Click to expand...

The WAFL is independent and being screwed with as well.

It's interesting that the WAFL and SANFL have to be self suffcient, whilst developing players for the AFL.

The AFL commission is interested in the AFL and not the interests of the game.

In many cases the interests of the AFL and the game align so this is not always and issue, but in some cases they do not.
 
The Reaper said:
The AFL commission is interested in the AFL and not the interests of the game.

In many cases the interests of the AFL and the game align so this is not always and issue, but in some cases they do not.
Click to expand...
The commission hasn't had balls since Ron Evans left us (RIP).

Fitzpatrick sat on his hands while his mate Collins screwed clubs left right and centre, while SANFL/WAFL continue to ride their clubs into the ground.

Massive inequities (like you mention) with the funding & dev't- essentially the SA&WA clubs pay for both the Vic/NSW/NT/QLD dev't schemes & their local leagues.

It needs a pretty big re-think; and Fitzpatrick just doesn't seem interested.
 
Slattery_20 said:
The commission hasn't had balls since Ron Evans left us (RIP).

Fitzpatrick sat on his hands while his mate Collins screwed clubs left right and centre, while SANFL/WAFL continue to ride their clubs into the ground.

Massive inequities (like you mention) with the funding & dev't- essentially the SA&WA clubs pay for both the Vic/NSW/NT/QLD dev't schemes & their local leagues.

It needs a pretty big re-think; and Fitzpatrick just doesn't seem interested.
Click to expand...

Nothing will happen. The war was won by the VFL in the late 1980's. They get write the rules and dictate history. Just shits me that everything about footy is now just a VFL perspective. I have no love for the SANFL and it's treatment of my own club, but I do applaud their maintainence of the once great leagues history. But you know the VFLisation of the country is complete when you hear Adelaide radio sports hosts who should actually know better talk about VFL players from the 60's and 70's like they were actually relevent to South Australians now or at the time. When I ask my father who were the greatest player he ever saw, he names Robran, Ebert and Bagshaw, not Matthews, Hart or Bartlett.
 
Yeah and that's certainly sad; but I think that's kinda inevitable and very, very hard to solve - unless we have a league of 40 odd clubs with all the SA, VFL, and WAFL clubs in it.
I don't think it's all that relevant, either - and that kind of 'us against them' war mentality has had too much say in how SANFL has dealt with the AFL.

Surely there is enough money to ensure the SANFL, WAFL, VFL, and NEAFL are run to a decent level and most of the clubs can survive.

There are actual, real, day-to-day problems that need real, actual solutions; to put all the clubs on the same footing, and really sort out where the power, clubs, money & numbers should reside; not the hotch-potch that is the status quo.

I believe the commission has the power to do a lot more, to that end.
 
Even the government is accountable to the governor general.

I once heard Demetriou say that the AFL gets bigger crowds than the English PL which yes is true.
But look at this which i find interesting and have posted on here before:

Last season average attendance stats
*English Football Championship (2nd tier in English soccer) - 17,457
*League 1 (3rd tier) - 7,645
*League 2 (4th tier) - 4,254
*Conference National (5th tier) - 1,868
*Conference National North and South (6th tier) - 576

Obviously national leagues, higher populations and promotion/relegation help England but just the arrogance in which AD said it.
AFL is doing well but Australian Rules really isn't and the AFL commission really don't care as long as the AFL is bringing in the $$$.
 
What ticked me off was the celebration of 150 years of Football a few years ago and a lack of credit given to the VFA where most of the current AFL clubs started.
 
EssendonNick said:
Should an Australian National Football Council or something similar be reinstated as the keeper of the code of Australian Rules Football?
An independent council similar to the FA in English soccer.

"Although it does not run the day-to-day operations of the country's top league, the Premier League, it has veto power over the appointment of the League Chairman and Chief Executive and over any changes to league rules."

I like the sound of something similar in Australian rules. A voice of the people maybe even with the members voted by the people. Its a conflict of interest for the national league to be able to do whatever they want whenever they want and are accountable to noone. This could also give the state leagues more of a voice as well. They should be growing a game but the AFL are not, they are growing a league.

When Adrian Anderson makes up some of these stupid rule changes, The ANFC, AFA or whatever they would be called would say "woah woah, slow down mate, THAT is not happening bozo" or "Yeah, no worries AD, thats a good call" depending on the situation and take into account all sides especially the fans.

The AFL would still run the league but this council would oversee the whole code and hear the voices of other leagues and most importantly if done right could give the fans a voice. I know as a rule most official sporting bodies are hated by the public but if done right and everyone is given fair representation it could be for the best.

I know there was an ANFC before the AFL took over but being too young, I really don't know what people thought of it.

What do you think?
Click to expand...

Even if there was a national council, the AFL would ignore it. Why would it not continue to do what it believes is in the best interests of the AFL with all the money and resources it has to boot?

It would be another football body holding its hand out to the AFL Commission for money.

The WAFL is self sufficient, but still takes millions from the AFL, the SANFL is independent until it wants cash for stadium upgrades or anything else it can get money for, and while junior clubs are the responsibility of state leagues, the National Auskick program is wholly funded by the AFL and its sponsors. Its not a one way street.

As for the AFL bleeding the WA and SA clubs to feed the others, TV viewing audiences are massively weighted toward victoria. gate receipts go the same way. dont try to claim they bankroll victoria because thats a flatout falsehood.

Every other state body is AFL branded because its AFL funded, after many of them went broke and the AFL had to come up with a management plan for them. Which is why AFLQ and AFL NSW/ACT finances are reported in the AFL annual report
 
CrowdedHouse said:
What ticked me off was the celebration of 150 years of Football a few years ago and a lack of credit given to the VFA where most of the current AFL clubs started.
Click to expand...

ALL the Victorian clubs started in the VFA from 1877 onwards.

Its a bit like denying you never had a mother!
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

finders said:
ALL the Victorian clubs started in the VFA from 1877 onwards.

Its a bit like denying you never had a mother!
Click to expand...

Actually this is patently untrue.

Melbourne (1859) Geelong (1859)
Carlton (1864)
North Melbourne (1869)
Essendon (1873),St Kilda (1873)
South Melbourne (1874)

All existed before the VFA was formed in 1877.
 
What I would do if I wanted to retain the megalomania is:

I would rename the AFL to the ANFC.
But keep the league named the AFL.

First-tier members of the ANFC would be subject to an agreement with that body as well as notability requirements (ones that I'm thinking only the AFL, VFA, SANFL and WAFL would meet right now) but in return would have their records and premierships counted as part of ANFC records. The AFL's records would comprise the VFL 1897-1989 and AFL 1990- and that's all.

This would additionally solve the whole Port Adelaide bleating by allowing them to say they had thirty-whatever ANFC premierships.

Carlton and Essendon (and hopefully Collingwood in a couple of weeks :p) would in turn still be allowed to claim that they had the most AFL premierships.

As more leagues meet notability requirements they too would be incorporated into ANFC records.
 
The_Wookie said:
Actually this is patently untrue.

Melbourne (1859) Geelong (1859)
Carlton (1864)
North Melbourne (1869)
Essendon (1873),St Kilda (1873)
South Melbourne (1874)

All existed before the VFA was formed in 1877.
Click to expand...

So did Port Melb and Williamstown.
 
The_Wookie said:
Actually this is patently untrue.

Melbourne (1859) Geelong (1859)
Carlton (1864)
North Melbourne (1869)
Essendon (1873),St Kilda (1873)
South Melbourne (1874)

All existed before the VFA was formed in 1877.
Click to expand...

But there was no formal competition till the VFA was formed in May 1877 just after the SAFA was founded with clubs like West Melbourne and Albert Park and most of the current Victorian AFL clubs and the Sydney Swans.

From Full Points Footy

1877: Victorian Football Association (VFA) established with eight senior clubs: Albert Park, Carlton, East Melbourne, Essendon, Geelong, Hotham, Melbourne and St Kilda.

First premiers - Carlton.

South Australian Football Association (SAFA) formed, also with eight senior clubs: Adelaide, Bankers, Kensington, Port Adelaide, South Adelaide, South Park, Victorian and Woodville. Inaugural premiership won jointly by South Adelaide and Victorian.
 
The_Wookie said:
Actually this is patently untrue.

Melbourne (1859) Geelong (1859)
Carlton (1864)
North Melbourne (1869)
Essendon (1873),St Kilda (1873)
South Melbourne (1874)

All existed before the VFA was formed in 1877.
Click to expand...

Agree, then you can go back to Tom Wills (+ Marngrook etc etc), and if hadn't been for the MCC which wouldn't exist if hadn't been for cricket, which wouldn't have existed in Australia but for British Colonisation etc etc and so on and so on. So the point is that the whole process is on going and the game is always changing....the AFL will continue to change as well. Don't fall for the good old days of the VFL/SANFL/WAFL/ANFC...that was only one point in time which had to inevitably change...That's footy...that's life!!
 
finders said:
But there was no formal competition till the VFA was formed in May 1877 just after the SAFA was founded with clubs like West Melbourne and Albert Park and most of the current Victorian AFL clubs and the Sydney Swans.

From Full Points Footy

1877: Victorian Football Association (VFA) established with eight senior clubs: Albert Park, Carlton, East Melbourne, Essendon, Geelong, Hotham, Melbourne and St Kilda.

First premiers - Carlton.

South Australian Football Association (SAFA) formed, also with eight senior clubs: Adelaide, Bankers, Kensington, Port Adelaide, South Adelaide, South Park, Victorian and Woodville. Inaugural premiership won jointly by South Adelaide and Victorian.
Click to expand...

There was a 'Caledonian Challenge Cup' which was played from around 1860-1876.

Melbourne and Carlton were the strongest teams, but Geelong and Essendon also competed. University who played in the VFL briefly were also involved.
A team from Ballarat (possibly the same same Ballarat team that playes in the Ballarat Football League) also competed.

gree, then you can go back to Tom Wills (+ Marngrook etc etc), and if hadn't been for the MCC which wouldn't exist if hadn't been for cricket, which wouldn't have existed in Australia but for British Colonisation etc etc and so on and so on. So the point is that the whole process is on going and the game is always changing....the AFL will continue to change as well. Don't fall for the good old days of the VFL/SANFL/WAFL/ANFC...that was only one point in time which had to inevitably change...That's footy...that's life!!
Click to expand...

Nobody is debating that times change, but there should be due recognition to the history of the game, which has sadly being ignored by several official histories which almost imply that the first and only recognised league of the game was founded in 1897, with very brief mentionings of the VFA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Seedsfan
National Reserves Comp
Replies
13
Views
1K
Breretonisahood
B
The_Wookie
AFL announces major increase in community football investment
Replies
3
Views
547
Kwality
K

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top