Game Summary: Melbourne v. Essendon

[Dave]

Dan, you're not going to convince them any more than they'll convince you. Time to give this one up mate. All you're doing here is pissing them off.

 

[Jars458]

Originally posted by Dan25:

Ptw,

The AFL is not only legally the same as the VFL, but is logically the same too. It is blatantly obvious.
[This message has been edited by Dan25 (edited 30 April 2001).]

Dan

Did the way the VFL was run change at all????

Of course its a different competition, legitimised as National by the entracce of the Crows and then the Power.

The Commission and the CEO now run it for the benefit of all and not just for the benefit of Victoria and that is why Eddie Jack and Joe are always pissed off because they don't get it all their own way.

 

[ptw]

Dan

sorry...cannot agree

you have 1 arguement....that the team in the AFL does not look like Port Adelaide of old...and that the team in the SANFL does.

Well....I don't buy it.

What matters is the club...not the team (players) not the jumper, not the logo. Are the Western Bulldogs a different club from the 1980 Footscray Side ? Are Sydney a different club from South Melbourne ? No....they are the same. The Port Adelaide in the AFL are "The" Port Adelaide....they just changed competitions, jumpers and logo's. The proof of this is how they got into the AFL. The Port Adelaide Football Club...whilst playing in the SANFL bid for the right to play in the AFL...it was not some new organisation set up for that purpose it was THE Port Adelaide Football Club (est 1870). Legally (as you have conceded) this is fact. The issue is not the status of the Port Adelaide which plays in the AFL, the issue is the status of the Port Adelaide which plays in the SANFL.

There are 3 possible explainations for that club.....

1. It is a new club. Legally this is so, although they have done everything in their power to make themselves look and feel like the old Port Adelaide. This is not a contradiction and does not impact on the status of Port Adelaide in the AFL, it is simply sensible. Who else would they model themselves on, Sturt ? South (heaven forbid !) ? Under this explaination they have won 2 premierships as the Port Adelaide Magpies.

2. The Port Adelaide Football Club fields a side in 2 competitions. This is not altogether unusual. Under this scenario the PAFC would have won 36 flags in the SANFL and 1 Night Flag in the AFL. This is not so of course, but it would make sense, it is just not how it was done.

3. The PAFC and the PAMFC are 2 seperate entities although they share a common history pre 1997. Look in the Melways. How many Seperation Street's do you see ? Quite a few. These streets were named when the colony of Victoria was established. This is not in 1834 but rather around 1850 when it seperated from NSW (until then they were one colony). You now have 2 states, which share a common history from 1834 to 1850. Victoria's history did not start in 1850 it started in 1834 (or 1802 depending on where you want to begin). Two legally seperate entities who share a common history. Victoria is seen to be 166 years old....NSW is 212....it would appear that part of this period is counted twice, which does not make sense on the surface, but everyone accepts it nonetheless. PAFC and PAMFC share a common history from 1870 to 1996....at which time they became seperate entities through the formation of the PAMFC. If you were to ask the clubs this is how they would describe the situation. Again this leads to the PAFC having won 34 premierships (SANFL) and the PAMFC 36...of course 34 of these are shared.

Now....I would like to think that Port Adelaide has won 36 premierships, although I am comfortable if we want to segregate it as 34+2 in the SANFL and 0 in the AFL, I really don't mind because I do not see what I lose in the equation (it still adds up to 36 !). Regardless, the only debate is around the status of the PAMFC not the PAFC in the AFL. Their status is clear....nothing changed to the club in 1997 apart from the competition in which it played.

Let me ask you a question.....if Essendon actually formed a seperate club to play in the VFL (I assume the club playing their now is the same legal club as the one in the AFL)....surely you could then count in the history of the Essendon Football Club in the VFL premierships won pre 1896 and Post 2002 (or whenever ?). Might actually be a different legal entity but it is the same club. Essendon could of course then win 2 premierships in the same year (1 in the AFL and 1 in the VFL). The Essendon which you know and love would be playing in the AFL though....they are the "club" to which you subscribe.

So...call it 34, 36 or 34+2 it doesn't really matter. The one thing which is clear is the status of the club in the AFL...it is the Port Adelaide Football Club est 1870. There is not 1 piece of evidence to the contrary.

ptw

 

[ptw]

Originally posted by Dan25:

Ptw,

It is completely differentto the VFL-AFL thing. Firstly, the current SANFL Magpies, look like Port, play like Port, have the fans as port. Logically (not legally) they ARE Port.

The VFL is obviously legally the same as the AFL, but is is logically the same too. Like any competiton, new teams get added as time goes by. Hawthorn, Footscray and North arrived in 1925, Richmond joined in 1908. In 1987, West Coat and Brisbane joined. They joined an already existing competiton. The competiton was now national, but it was still the same competiton. There was no new competiton. You don't just start up a brand new comp every time a new tems joins.

In fact, when the name change to "AFL" took place in 1990, the teams in the competiton were exactly the same as they were in 1989. The competiton is now of a higher standard, but that is irrelevant, because it is still the same "competiton"

The AFL is not only legally the same as the VFL, but is logically the same too. It is blatantly obvious. This argument with Port is different. The Power are legally the same as the 1996 Magpies, but "logically" they are different.

You can't compare the two arguments. They are about different things.


[This message has been edited by Dan25 (edited 30 April 2001).]

Dan

this is not a debate on the AFL / VFL thingy. I was simply pointing out to you the contradiction in your 2 arguements....

1. PAFC v PAMFC....the legal entity does not matter....it is the look and the feel which matters in determining the status of something.

2. AFL v VFL....they are the same competiton...nothing changed in 1987 except for a few new teams. The competition is continuous and therefore is unaffected by the change. In your view it has the same look and feel, in my view it is completely different from the old suburban VFL competition...to the point where it is almost unrecognisable. Now we are viewing the same thing from different perspectives, so we can of course both be right....however....if you accept that the competition (AFL) LOOKS entirely different TO ME....then by applying your logic re PAFC v PAMFC it must be a seperate compeition.

ptw

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by ptw:
in my view it is completely different from the old suburban VFL competition...to the point where it is almost unrecognisable.

I don't want to turn this to a debate about the AFL in the Port board, but I will comment breifly.

It is totally irrelevant whetehr it looks different to what it did in 1897. The fact is, it is the same comp. So what if it looks different? An 80 year old man looks different to when he was an infant.

It is the same comp, so the 104 year old records continue. This is un-arguable, and is a fact. If some clubs left the VFL and joined a brand new comp, then you would have a point. This didn't happenn, so you are wrong.

New clubs join all the time. Teams from outside Victoria joined an already existing competiton. Those words in bold are the 3 key words. You people really need to understand this blatnatly obvious point. There is no argument, it is a fact. Legally and logically. Like I said, if there some of the teams left the comp to join a bardn new one, you would have a point. It doesn;t matter that it looks different. it is irrelevant. All that matters is that is the same competiton.

The fact that the como, is now of a higher standard is irrelevant too. Everything is relative. Because players are competing against plyers of the same ability, whetehr it be in the AFL or in the amateurs, premeirsjips are just as dificult to win. That is why all the VFL clubs count their history in thayt comp from 1897. Look at the facts. Everything is counted from that date, because that is the date when the current comp began. To think that you can just join an already existing competiton, and then "claim" that it is a brand new one, is the height of arrogance.

 

[ptw]

Dan

let me spell it out to you....

Port Adelaide Power look entirely different to the Port Adelaide Magpies in the SANFL.....

"It is totally irrelevant whetehr it looks different to what it did in 1897 (read 1996). The fact is, it is the same comp (club). So what if it looks different? An 80 year old man looks different to when he was an infant."

"It is the same comp (club), so the 104 (130) year old records continue. This is un-arguable, and is a fact. If some clubs left the VFL and joined a brand new comp, then you would have a point. This didn't happenn, so you are wrong.(if the club folded and started again you would have a point....this didn't happen so you are wrong.)

I won't go on....but surely you see your own folly....every argument you put that although the AFL looks and feels different to the VFL but it is still the same thing, I can apply to that Port Adelaide (AFL) looks and feels different to the Port Adelaide (SANFL, pre 1997) but it is still the same thing.

Which arguement do you want to win more Dan, because I think it is time to concede one of them ?!!

 

[Dan26]

Ptw,

I'm not arguing the facts with you. I agree that legally, the Power are the same as the pre-1996 Magpies. But from a common-sense and logical point of view, they shouldn't be. It's dumb (my opinion)

As for the VFL-AFL, legally they are the same, and logically they are too. You want an example of a new comp, where records start from scratch? Have a look at "Super League" in Rugby League. Teams joined a completely separate competiton. New reords begin. The AFL is an already existing competiton that was "called" the VFL, but is now called the AFL to reflect that some of the "new" teams that have joined this already existing competiton are from outside Victoria. No new comp. Records continue for that comp, for obvious reasons.

As for Port. If there was NO Magpie team in the SANFL, I think we could all see your (and PA1870's) point. We could see that Port moved into a new comp. But the fact that there is a Port in black and white currently running around in the SANFL makes everythign so illogical and silly. If this teams wasn't part of the equation, it would make things more logical. I'm not debating the facts with you. I just think that, the legal matter of Port Adelaide is far too pedantic and un-common-sensical. Hopefully, they will realsie that 95% of Australians think, and consider that the current SANFL Port is the same olf Port that has been there for 130 years. It may not be "official" or "legal" (I'm not debating that), but try telling that to your average footy fan (Port supporter or not)

 

[Macca19]

Dan...you are the only person i know that has a problem with the current situation. Something that shouldnt affect you at all.

The PAFC in 1990 bid for the afl, they failed. In 1994 the PAFC bid for the AFL and won. It was not the PAMFC that bid, it was the PAFC. In 1996 we got told that we couldnt have both, they would have to create a new club that could run like the old magpies.

Now the PAMFC is nowhere near the old PAFC. They are not allowed to train at Alberton, they have no offices at Alberton, they have a different name. They are only allowed to play at alberton there home games.
It is recognised as the same club to stop confusion that you so want to bring up every three weeks.

It is a different club, get over it. I dont see why it hsould bother you anyway

 

[Macca19]

Originally posted by Dan25:
It is totally irrelevant whetehr it looks different to what it did in 1897. The fact is, it is the same comp. So what if it looks different? An 80 year old man looks different to when he was an infant.

You know you can say that about PAFC too. It is irrelevant that it looks differen to what it did in 1995, it is the same team. So what if it looks different?

 

[Macca19]

Originally posted by Dan25:
Ptw,

I'm not arguing the facts with you. I agree that legally, the Power are the same as the pre-1996 Magpies. But from a common-sense and logical point of view, they shouldn't be. It's dumb (my opinion)

Im not arguing the facts with you. I agree that legally the AFL are the same league as the pre-1990 VFL. But from common-sense and logical point of view, they shouldnt be.

It is the SAME thing dan.

 

[Dan26]

Macca,

No, it different. Different arguments.

When the name change to AFL took place in 1990, the teams in the comp were the same as they were in 1989. Nothing changed. No one moved to a new comp. It was the same comp, with new teams added from all over the country.

It would be like my team, Essendon, leaving the AFL and joining the SANFL. It would be like me arguing that the SANFL records should start from scratch and that it is a new comp. There is now a Victorian team in the comp, so all the teams are in a new compettion. So, if Norwood won the flag it wouldn't be their 28th. It would be their first in the new comp.

Now obviously that is stupid. Obviously, the records for that comp would continue. Obviously if Essendon joined and Norwood won the flag, it would be Norwoods 28th flag.

The AFL is the same. it is legally, obviously, and LOGICALLY the same.

The difference with the Port thing, I reckon, is that they are legally different clubs, but LOGICALLY the Magpies are the same. I say this because all the commentators in 1997-98 treated it as their 35th and 36th premierships. Everyone ignored the legal aspect and treated the Magpies as logically the same club as has always been in the SANFL. So, I'm not arguing the legal aspect. I'm just arguing the common-sense of it all. The average supporter treats them as the same old Magpies. It is stupid that they are legally different.

It's totally different to the VFL-AFL which is logically, obviously, and legally the same. You can't start competiton records from scratch as if it were a new comp just because you joined a comp late. If you joined late, then bad luck. Centrlas joined in the 1960s, right? It's not as if the SANFL became a brand new comp when they joined.

 

[ptw]

*sigh*

So.....Dan......

are the Port Adelaide now playing in the AFL the same Port Adelaide who were playing in the SANFL pre 1997 ?

ptw

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by ptw:
*sigh*

So.....Dan......

are the Port Adelaide now playing in the AFL the same Port Adelaide who were playing in the SANFL pre 1997 ?

ptw

Yes they are, but I don't think they should be. I think the Power "should" be a separate branch of Port Adelaide, while the Magpies continue to play in the SANFL and "should" be the same as they have always been. For all intents and purposes it's that way now, right? (take not the words for all intents and purposes)

 

[ptw]

that could be so Dan, but it is not (as you have stated)

I still cannot reconcile your view on Port in the AFL with your views on the AFL/VFL debate.

On the one side you have Port (AFL). Legally the same club, but with a different look and feel. So although they are the same (nothing happended to them when they changed competitions, as a club that is), you feel as though they should be a new entity and start their history again.

The VFL has changed so that it has a completely new look and feel to the way it was. It is legally the same and nothing magical happened in 1987 or 1991 or whenever but it has a completely different feel and a different reason for being. You will howvever defend to the death that the AFL is actually the VFL and should never have to contemplate a change regardless of how much sense that change makes, simply becasue it is the same competition. Well Port Adelaide are the same club but you seem to think that because they have a different look and feel that they should start afresh ?!

ptw

[This message has been edited by ptw (edited 02 May 2001).]

 

[Blues_Brat]

"LOGIC" goes out the window when it comes to footy. Emotional responses are the order of the day.

Port are Port regardless of the legalities.

This argument has gone around in circles as it has been since 1997.

It's almost as futile as being a Glenelg supporter and buying tickets to their premiership celebration dinner in advance

 

[Port01]

Port Adelaide now is the same Port Adelaide I've always supported, I don't really care about the argument or what anyone else thinks, if people don't want to respect our club and it's history, then they do so at their own peril, not mine.

 

[Port Adelaide 1870]

WOW !!!!!! a WHEW !!!!

What has to be remebered here is Port supporters have not stopped supporting the PAFC since 1870, regardless of comp, Nickname ,colours or logo.
Their seems to be an argument of
"PUBLIC PERCEPTION" put forward by Dan..i.e
" It is the way I perceive it, so even if you engineered it so , you will believe what I perceive, not what you have made "

'WE' the Port supporters voted Port out of the SANFL into the AFL, however and it is here where you are finding it difficult DAN, The SANFL wanted a Port Clone to be a part of the SANFL so as not to have a drop in crowd numbers greater than what was expected..a Port entity in the SANFL was crucial in the long term survival of the SANFL.

The PAMFC are not the PAFC..all memorabilia , records, honour rolls, stats, cups, trophies, medals, pennants etc, record the winners as The Port Adelaide Football Club the Honour board in the main hall of the club does not miss a beat in its years from 1996 to 1997 where the CEO , President, Coach etc are recorded in line exactly as they were since 1870, the only alteration is finish spot and a a small addendum...Joined AFL 1997.

Ther is also a section on the PAFC honour roll that acknowledges the formation of the PAMFC and lists its CEO, President, Coach, etc...all different people to the corresponding personel at the PAFC from 1996.

It is not about Your percetion, though the Admission of the PAMFC to the SANFL in 1996 was meant to be seamless and without hiccup,

It is not even about the barrackers of the club...who may have a " Perception "

It is about the Supporters, And paid up members of the club that determine where and when it will play.... We as officials, members and supporters determined Port would play in the AFL as of 1997,

If that threw a stick in the mud to OUTSIDERS or Port Barrackers that didnt want it to happen...Well the answer was simple..Join the club as a member and prevent history from occuring.


Dan, one question...

If The Essendon Football club wanted to join the NFL in the USA ( because they were courted for their history and supporter base ) the Club must add a new colour to its guernsey and change its nickname from Bombers to " StrikeForce ", at the AGM all paid up members voted..YES we will leave the AFL and join the NFL so you do, with your current coacj Kevin Sheedy, CCEO,President, training staff etc and remain at Windy Hill, you must recruit new players for the NFL, most of your AFL players are allowed to remain in the AFL and play with the Essendon Bombers Football club under new coach Simmon Madden,however the AFL still want an Essendon presence in the AFL.

what occurs is anew team is registered for the AFL it is called the" Essendon Bombers football club"
it has a new CEO, New Coach, new offices, new training personell, new president, buys coburg oval and sets up training rooms and equipment, trains out of there, but is allowed to play at Windy Hill.. The EFC kindly allow the EBFC to retain their old colours and logo..

This is the position Port Adelaide are in........

Given the above scenario, the Essendon Football club would not be playing AFL anymore, However for all intents and purposes and ostensibly, anyone the runs out in the guernsey the next season would be perceived to be....The Essendon Football Club...the winners are....

The AFL, no drop in crowd numbers...The NFL,because they now Have the real Essendon and the mebers of Essendon because they have moved upward and onward in the development of their club.....

The PAFC no longer play SANFL..we left and joined the AFL..Perception in barrackers eyesultimately is not the issue, the issue are the members of that club.


I belong to a local amatuer league club..say there are hundreds of closet supporters of the club out there in footy land, say we have forty members and one night the members decide to join the SANFL at their invite..we vote and get a majority to leave amatuer and join SANFL....however we cant join as the Tigers, because Glenelg already play...so we add green to our guernsey and change to "the marauders ".. from the South beach F.C.

The Amatuer league see we are going to affect their crowds somewhat and ask for a club to be put in our place for the next season wearing our old colours and logo called the South beach tigers F.C., New president, new ceo, new trainers, New ground, new training facilities, most of our old players can remain with the new club as they cant make the SANFL.


The "closet" barrackers come out next season...none the wiser, one of them happens to be Dan 25....when he finds out what has happenned..he begins the " ostensibly" an for all "intents and purposes" ...argument

But for " all intents and purposes" because he wasnt a member that had a vote, just a life long " Viewer " he had no real say...except for " his " perception and those of the barrackers around him that found their club no longer played SAAFL, but for asll intents and purposes " it " did as he was on the hill watching them in the new season and the South Beach Tigers Football Club were still claiming 18 premierships with th support of his fellow barrackers and the SAAFL.

the South Beach Football Club [ formerly the tigers ) now Marauders est 1904 are now however in the SANFL and carry the history..


The argument of intents and purposes and ostensibly begins...between the club holders and essentially owners..Their members...

and the general public, onlookers, football followers, agrieved, non South beach supporters and SANFL league club supporters...into trying to determine who..this new SANFL club are ? and how they can berate, belittle and change the perception of the club...in its members eyes...

The test in all this Dan..is whether or not the Port Adelaide Football club and 'ITS' members and supporters can hold our line and maintain our dignity, history and tradition in the face of incredible opposition, much like the English at rourkes drift against the Zulus or the starship troopers against the bugs..something our History has taught us is inevitable...something we revel in...For we ...are ...The Port Adelaide Football Club{/b} est. 1870.

PA1870

 

[Macca19]

Originally posted by Dan25:
Yes they are, but I don't think they should be. I think the Power "should" be a separate branch of Port Adelaide, while the Magpies continue to play in the SANFL and "should" be the same as they have always been. For all intents and purposes it's that way now, right? (take not the words for all intents and purposes)

Dan, The Port Adelaide Football Club bid for THEMSELVES to be in the AFL, not a seperate branch of the PAFC, but they bid for themselves. Its quite easy to understand and its quite logical if you take an unbias view of things.

The PAFC bid for the right to be in the competition, so that they PAFC could play in the AFL. Not the Port Power Football Club, they hadnt even thought of the name yet dan. THE PAFC did it all, and they are the ones who are in the competition



[This message has been edited by Macca19 (edited 02 May 2001).]

 

[Jars458]

Originally posted by Port Adelaide 1870:
WOW !!!!!! a WHEW !!!!

What has to be remebered here is Port supporters have not stopped supporting the PAFC since 1870, regardless of comp, Nickname ,colours or logo.

What about when Port split and the Port Natives were born???

Which is the real Port?????

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by ptw:

The VFL has changed so that it has a completely new look and feel to the way it was.

Rubbish!

11 of the original 12 clubs still remain. The one that doesn;t (Fitzroy), "half" remains, so to speak. The only difference is that some new clubs have been added. But tis happens in all competitons, including the SANFL. It doesn't matter where these clubs come from, or whether they are from Victoria or interstate. It's irrelevant.

By the end of round 7, Essendon will have played 6 matches against teams who they have been playing agaisnt since 1897. Hardly the "feel" of a new comp. it is obviously an old comp with a lot of tradition, given that 11 of the original 12 clubs are still there. Even if they weren't it wouldn't matter. It is legally, thre same comp, but it is logically, and obviously the same too. Its now national, yes.....but it's still the same.

Completely different argument to the Port thing. Port look different. The AFL looks, more or less the same, with the exception of 5 new teams. About 75% of AFL matches have the traditional 11 clubs playing agaisnt each other, because they make up the majority of the comp.

I agree that the comp is now a higher standard, but that is irrelevant when discussing whether it is the same comp or not. Yes, it's now national, but that doesn't automatically make it a separate competiton. No way in hell! it's the same comp.

If someone was in a coma for 30 years and they woke up in 2001 and they saw the AFL, they would instantly be able to see that is the same comp as the VFL. It is obvious to see. Anyone who was in a coma and woke up, could easily see it. It is obviously (and legally) the same comp. Logically. That's why the AFL celebrated it's centenary in 1996.

See?

 

[Dan26]

PA1870,

If Essendon legally joined the NFL and "moved" to that comp, and a team in the AFL was formed called the "Essendon Bombers Football club", I would support the AFL team.

The AFL team, even though, legally it would be a new team, wouold still be, to me, Essendon. Who cares about the legalities? Who cares? If they wear red and black and are called Essendon, I will barrack for them.

In that situation, you are suggesting that the "EBFC" would be brand new club. Legally it would, but who cares? It looks the same, had the same players, so "really" it is the same old club, if you take out the legal mumb-jumbo crap. etc etc.

Supporters don't care about all that legal crap. They just want to go to the footy and waych their team. That's why Port fans still go and watch the Magpies. They couldn't give a f*ck if they are officially a separate team. Those fans just want to keep watching their team. The Port Magpies, while not legally, are obviously, "their" team. Their supporters support the Magpies no different to how they did pre 1997.

If the "Essendon Bombers football club" was to win the Grand Final, I would treat it as our 17th AFL-VFL flag. Who cares about the legalities? Especially in this case where the legalities are just a bunch of illogical spin-doctoring.

Everything you have told me I already knew. You keep on telling, me they are separate clubs. For God's sake man,I KNOW. I'm just saying, it is stupid and illogical, that's all.

The crowds that the Port Magpies get prove my point. They still draw huge crowds, because everyone treats them as the same club! If all their fams treated them as a different club, no one would watch the PAMFC, would they? But, that's not the case. Heaps of people go and watch the PAMFC, because they are treated as the same old Port Adelaide (legally or not). Conversely, the Power are 'treated' as a brand new club, which logically (not legally, or officailly) they are.

[This message has been edited by Dan25 (edited 02 May 2001).]

 

[Macca19]

Originally posted by Dan25:
Rubbish!

If someone was in a coma for 30 years and they woke up in 2001 and they saw the AFL, they would instantly be able to see that is the same comp as the VFL. It is obvious to see. Anyone who was in a coma and woke up, could easily see it. It is obviously (and legally) the same comp. Logically. That's why the AFL celebrated it's centenary in 1996.

See?

Dan, you really are a dickhead you know that. Are you ever wrong about anything??
If someone was in a coma in 1970 and woke up today they would NOT recognise it. There is 5 new teams, a Sydney (which was South Melbourne), and no fitzroy. They dont play at ANY home grounds anymore, there is only Colonial, MCG and Optus Oval. No Moorabin, Punt road, junction oval, arden st, waverly, nothing. There ar einterstate teams. First thing they would say is, "what is this AFL, and why is coburg and frankston in the VFL?"

They wouldnt have a clue whats going on.

 

[ptw]

I agree with you Macca

lets look at last week

Essendon v Collingwood - same
WCE v Richmond - who are WCE ?
Geelong v Port - who are Port ?
Fremantle v Brisbane - who are Fremantle, who are Brisbane ?
Western Bulldogs v Hawthorn - who are the Western Bulldogs ?
Adelaide v Kangaroos - who are Adelaide, who are the Kangaroos ?
Carlton v St Kilda -same
Sydney v Melbourne - who are Sydney ?

so...8 games, 6 of which involve an entity which would be completely unknown to someone 30 years ago.

The previous competition was to determine the best team in Melbounre...the AFL is to determine the best team in the country. We have Draft, the salary cap...loss of grounds. Is it any co-incidence Dan that both in this example andin general the team you support has probably been least touched by the AFL ? From your perspective things would be quite similar....from a Fitzroy supporter, or anyone from outside Victoria it is unbelievably different.

6 out of 8 games.....not much really

ptw

 

[Port Adelaide 1870]

Originally posted by Jars458:
What about when Port split and the Port Natives were born???

Which is the real Port?????

The Port Natives renamed themselves the West Torrens Football club and continued as such until 1990. The members that left to form Port Natives were disgruntled at the direction Port Adelaide were taking and a number of players were not getting the opportunity to play, these disgruntled members and players set off on their own.

Port were to win another premiership in the 1890's, 1897 to be exact..the last as the Magentas as they were affectionally known, 1902 saw Port take on a new logo and change their colours...to the now famous black and white, the last change up until AFL entry when they discarded the Magpie logo in favour of Power and the addition of teal to their uniform.

PA1870

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by Macca19:

Dan, you really are a dickhead you know that. Are you ever wrong about anything??
If someone was in a coma in 1970 and woke up today they would NOT recognise it. There is 5 new teams, a Sydney (which was South Melbourne), and no fitzroy. They dont play at ANY home grounds anymore, there is only Colonial, MCG and Optus Oval. No Moorabin, Punt road, junction oval, arden st, waverly, nothing. There ar einterstate teams. First thing they would say is, "what is this AFL, and why is coburg and frankston in the VFL?"

They wouldnt have a clue whats going on.

AAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!

Of course they would recognize it if they woke up from a coma after 30 years. Yes, there are 5 new teams admittedly, and they play at different grounds, but who cares about the grounds? It's the "clubs" that are important. There are 11 teams that are still competing in this comp, and have been since 1925, 8 of them since 1897. 11 of the original 12 still play. There hasn't been any major culling of teams like there has in the Rugby League. Any individual who has some sort of intelligence would be able to see that the AFL and the VFL are the same. We just have 5 new teams added to the remaining 11. It's not rocket science. The act that they lay at diffeent grounds is irrelevant since this started to change in the 1980's, when the VFL was still in vogue.

Are you trying to tell me that if you woke up in 2001 after going into a coma in 1971, that you wouldn't be able to tell that the AFL and the VFL are the same comp? Are you dumb? Whta about the presense of Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon, North Melbourne, Hawthorn, Bulldogs, St.Kilda, Melbourne etc etc,etc?

It is not like the NRL, where all the teams have changed, merged, gone extinct etc etc. The AFL "IS" the VFL competiton, that has expanded to become a thriving national competiton which we all love. But if you can't actually tell that it used to be the VFL you must have something wrong with you. Blind Freddy could see it. Just look at the composition of teams (i.e all the original teams are there) to see the obviousness that it's the same comp.