Proposal to include premierships dating back to 1870 gathering pace

[Demonic Ascent]

The problem is that is the 1913 premiership really worth that much considering it was completely amateur and not really above what a random bush league team would be today in terms of professionalism and even skill. How can the 1913 premiership be worth the same amount as the 2013 premiership.

Because they were both won in the same competition. All it is is a record of premierships won in this competition which began in 1897. What worth you or anyone else places on them is subjective but the facts are the premiership in 1913 was awarded to the premier team of the competition that year and is counted towards their tally of VFL/AFL premierships. That's all. Whether you think it's "worth" the same or not is irrelevant, it's in the history books.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

If anyone can be bothered I’d be interested to see a ‘ratio’ of flags. Years in the VFL/AFL divided by flags.

For example, Geelong would be:
125/10 = 12.5

Richmond:
114/13 = 8.77

Eagles:
35/4 = 8.7

Pies:
125/15 = 8.33

Fitzroy:
99/8 = 12.38 (marginally better strike rate than Cats)

And so on.




Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Geelong went into recess during WW1 and WW2 for a few seasons so you have to deduct those seasons. I think they were the only team to do so during WW2 but during WW1 6 teams ultimately went into recess (leading to the infamous Wooden Spoon/Flag double by Fitzroy in 1916) with University never returning.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Oh, so a bit like the way the Norm Smith medal is decided?

At least they actually watch the game. It's not like they had Fox Footy in 1870 so the journos could watch every game and make an informed decision on who was the premier team.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

The AFL is the VFL renamed, obviously. You can read about that here: History of Football - AFL.com.au. Why can't AFL records include premierships won in the same league?

Did you also know that the WAFL history books still include premierships won when they called the competition 'Westar Rules' for a 4 year period? Or do you think they should be excluded because the name was different?

SANFL started off as SAFA, then SAFL before settling on SANFL. The WAFL has rebranded as the WAFA, then WANFL, WASFL and Westar Rules at various times. Are they all separate competitions with separate premiership lists/honour rolls? No and neither is the VFL/AFL which is one continuous competition commencing in 1897.

 

[crows dude]

You mean 1 VFA, 15 VFL/AFL. The VFL is the same competition as the AFL.

And why is that?

Because the VFl clubs were going broke. They needed West Coast and then Adelaide to save the comp. This quote here is perfect

the first underlying principle of the AFL's first 5 year plan: "... we take a national view of football, simply not an expanded VFL view.

Why did the VFL admit interstate teams and expand?​

Despite the success of the VFL, many teams were suffering financially by the 1980s. Much of this is blamed on "cheque-book recruiting", clubs attempting to buy successful players from other clubs in the VFL or in other states. This led to many clubs being technically bankrupt, with some being investigated by the Department of Corporate Affairs. In addition, crowds were falling, as were club memberships. Transfer fees were excessive and the competition was operating at a loss, while ground facilities were falling into disrepair. The new teams provided income to save the failing Victorian clubs by firstly paying substantial license fees to join the competition, and secondly by providing increased income from television rights. The money from these two areas helped refinance the VFL and its clubs.

Why did the VFL change its name to the AFL?​

In admitting the interstate clubs, the view of the direction of the VFL changed. This is best summed up in the first underlying principle of the AFL's first 5 year plan: "... we take a national view of football, simply not an expanded VFL view. The AFL emerged from the VFL and a Victorian focus was inevitable given the beginning. This plan, however, is based on the view that football followers throughout Australia are of equal importance." Hence the VFL became the AFL to reflect the change in focus from just Victoria, to Australia as a whole.

​

 

[Demonic Ascent]

And why is that?

Because the VFl clubs were going broke. They needed West Coast and then Adelaide to save the comp.

Why did the VFL admit interstate teams and expand?​

Despite the success of the VFL, many teams were suffering financially by the 1980s. Much of this is blamed on "cheque-book recruiting", clubs attempting to buy successful players from other clubs in the VFL or in other states. This led to many clubs being technically bankrupt, with some being investigated by the Department of Corporate Affairs. In addition, crowds were falling, as were club memberships. Transfer fees were excessive and the competition was operating at a loss, while ground facilities were falling into disrepair. The new teams provided income to save the failing Victorian clubs by firstly paying substantial license fees to join the competition, and secondly by providing increased income from television rights. The money from these two areas helped refinance the VFL and its clubs.

Why did the VFL change its name to the AFL?​

In admitting the interstate clubs, the view of the direction of the VFL changed. This is best summed up in the first underlying principle of the AFL's first 5 year plan: "... we take a national view of football, simply not an expanded VFL view. The AFL emerged from the VFL and a Victorian focus was inevitable given the beginning. This plan, however, is based on the view that football followers throughout Australia are of equal importance." Hence the VFL became the AFL to reflect the change in focus from just Victoria, to Australia as a whole.

None of that changes the fact the VFL/AFL is one continuous competition that commenced in 1897 with all premierships won in that competition counting towards the official tally.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

And why is that?

Because the VFl clubs were going broke. They needed West Coast and then Adelaide to save the comp. This quote here is perfect

the first underlying principle of the AFL's first 5 year plan: "... we take a national view of football, simply not an expanded VFL view.

Why did the VFL admit interstate teams and expand?​

Despite the success of the VFL, many teams were suffering financially by the 1980s. Much of this is blamed on "cheque-book recruiting", clubs attempting to buy successful players from other clubs in the VFL or in other states. This led to many clubs being technically bankrupt, with some being investigated by the Department of Corporate Affairs. In addition, crowds were falling, as were club memberships. Transfer fees were excessive and the competition was operating at a loss, while ground facilities were falling into disrepair. The new teams provided income to save the failing Victorian clubs by firstly paying substantial license fees to join the competition, and secondly by providing increased income from television rights. The money from these two areas helped refinance the VFL and its clubs.

Why did the VFL change its name to the AFL?​

In admitting the interstate clubs, the view of the direction of the VFL changed. This is best summed up in the first underlying principle of the AFL's first 5 year plan: "... we take a national view of football, simply not an expanded VFL view. The AFL emerged from the VFL and a Victorian focus was inevitable given the beginning. This plan, however, is based on the view that football followers throughout Australia are of equal importance." Hence the VFL became the AFL to reflect the change in focus from just Victoria, to Australia as a whole.

​

There’s no doubt at all that Brisbane, West Coast and Adelaide were brought in to save the Vic clubs’ bacon (except Essendon of course, the only Vic club to never face serious financial trouble ).

The “why” doesn’t really change the facts however.

 

[Cubs2Lions]

There’s no doubt at all that Brisbane, West Coast and Adelaide were brought in to save the Vic clubs’ bacon (except Essendon of course, the only Vic club to never face serious financial trouble ).

The “why” doesn’t really change the facts however.

It would have been interested to see what the AFL competition would have looked like, if most VFL teams (besides Essendon) cease to exist today due to their bankruptcy issues in the past

 

[footyfan1978]

It would have been interested to see what the AFL competition would have looked like, if most VFL teams (besides Essendon) cease to exist today due to their bankruptcy issues in the past

Probably Carlton , Essendon, Hawks and Cats would be playing a four team league each season. Cats i believed fixed most of their finances when they basically sold their coach, Greg Williams, Bernard Toohey and Bolton to Sydney Swans for 1986. Not sure if Sydney survive after the Edelston years in that alternative reality.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

It would have been interested to see what the AFL competition would have looked like, if most VFL teams (besides Essendon) cease to exist today due to their bankruptcy issues in the past

I doubt they would have disappeared. If you look overseas, banks are often hesitant to shut down major sporting clubs that will have a cultural impact - as they can get a lot of bad PR. Unless the money involved it serious enough.

I remember reading about Alan McAlistair going to a meeting at the bank one afternoon and him thinking there was a better than even chance that the club would be wound up. The bank decided to tip in and keep them solvent and he reckons it’s was only the Collingwood brand and stature in the community that saved them - if it’d been any regular business it’d have been gone.

In any case, the support base wasn’t going anywhere, so you’d think phoenix clubs would’ve been set up very quickly.

 

[Pistol Night]

We’d probably still find a way to lose a retrospectively awarded flag

 

[footyfan1978]

This is true...

 

[FreddyTwoShoes]

At least they actually watch the game. It's not like they had Fox Footy in 1870 so the journos could watch every game and make an informed decision on who was the premier team.

True, they watch the game ...and then either go with the stats sheet, or with whoever the commentators have been squawking about all day.

But I take your point.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Probably Carlton , Essendon, Hawks and Cats would be playing a four team league each season. Cats i believed fixed most of their finances when they basically sold their coach, Greg Williams, Bernard Toohey and Bolton to Sydney Swans for 1986. Not sure if Sydney survive after the Edelston years in that alternative reality.

Cats were in a perilous state in the late 90s/2000. As were the Hawks in early 90s despite their run of flags since the late 70s (hence the merger proposal in 96).

 

[ThatsjustDappa]

Still not have all the answers I want from what I read of book so far but it certainly makes me want to know more and more about the period of first quarter of century of the 1900's which as time goes on will be harder to get first hand information on because none of the people from the period are still alive. What the book has revealed that I never knew until now was it really does appear that from the split at end of 1896 season, the VFA does not seem to want to acknowledge the history before 1897 because they been made to feel inferior and football outcasts by the 8 clubs that left to create the VFL from 1897 onwards. As all the premierships before 1897 were won from those 8 clubs that left, it only would highlight the clubs that left were above them, so to speak, and therefore the VFL above the VFA. Mind you at end of 1897 it seems they did actually ask to return to the fold with the other 8 clubs as a division two but the VFL board at time rejected it. Then the VFA had to dust themselves off again and move on for 1898 season to try to make the VFA compete with the VFL in the footy community.

Now at the same time the VFL was simply listing the premierships each season in their own publications and press as just more seasons for their clubs that had been playing together for premierships for decades already. I already knew before looking at book that if you go back to weekly Football Records magazine for each round, (can be found online from state library), in the period leading up to 1920's you would see they listed the premierships, runners up and third each season from 1870 to their present VFL season in either last edition of the season or first round edition. But this changed as 1920's moves on and the book does suggest this is due to bitter politics of the VFA and VFL in this period. I suspected that but still wanted the book to shed some further light on. It not added more definitive events that triggered this change but it certainly enhanced my curiosity more on what happened back then for both the league and the association to both try to ignore the pre-1897 stuff from mid 1920's onwards. Certainly 1925 when three VFA clubs left to join the VFL would have been an incredible blow to the VFA after already losing Richmnd in 1908.
The VFL probably was pissed off the VFA that was left just did not roll over and die so by no longer listing the 1870 to 1896 premierships in their publications they did not have to respect the VFA of their time that was pushing on even after a break for a few seasons in first world war. It just makes me wonder about the whole atmosphere of the times those people lived in and what effect that could have on their thinking in those times. The book makes no mention of the wider world politics but I wonder if the rise of Socialism and Communism and paranoia of those times had some kind of subconscious effect on the VFL board at time to look down on the VFA like they some type of Communist football body in their view.
With first world war and Russian Revolution of the Bolsheviks and then become the Communist in the Soviet Union as 1920's developed it just seems a very interesting period to be a fly on the wall at time in the football clubs and boards of these times.

Have about sixty more pages to read so I hope a few more answers show up that I really want answered.

Great summary FF78, thank you for taking the time to do.

The circa 25 years of acknowledging pre-1897 premierships every year until the mid 1920s is a pretty significant duration. Decades of showing it then just not - just wants one to ask questions that may never be answered unfortunately.

The Public Records Office in Nth Melbourne may contain some interesting info from the era (nice place been a few times), though I assume the book is well researched and may have dug in to these areas already.

 

[Father Jack]

Carlton and Melbourne have been two of the worst clubs in the history of the AFL (and you can maybe include Essendon in that too, I mean we've been laughing at them for nearly 20 years after all), add in some horse-and-cart flags or ones you can only see in black and white though, and they're suddenly up there with the best! No wonder they're so desperate to pretend that nothing changed in the late 80s.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Carlton and Melbourne have been two of the worst clubs in the history of the AFL (and you can maybe include Essendon in that too, I mean we've been laughing at them for nearly 20 years after all), add in some horse-and-cart flags or ones you can only see in black and white though, and they're suddenly up there with the best! No wonder they're so desperate to pretend that nothing changed in the late 80s

Of course there was change. It's called evolution. Doesn't mean it is a different competition though which is why the AFL records commence in 1897 when the competition was founded.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

Good article here which sums things up nicely. It was never going to be taken seriously.


"Carter needs to give his misguided premiership crusade a rest

Colin Carter is at it again.

The former Geelong president, and ex-AFL commissioner, is determined to re-write history and trample all over the formative years of the VFA – the competition which in 1897 spawned the VFL which, nine decades later, became the AFL.
And in an Orwellian (some might say cynical) twist, he is claiming he is not out to re-write history at all, but instead to correct it – correct something that doesn't need correcting.

At the launch of his new book Football's Forgotten Years last week, Carter passionately reiterated his argument that the premierships won by clubs in the VFA, before breaking away to form the VFL, should be added to their respective premiership tallies.

Sorry. What?

It almost beggars belief, so I'll allow you to read that paragraph again.

Done? OK. Good. Yes, that's right. Carter believes premierships won in a completely different competition should be combined with those won in another completely different competition.

There's a lot to unpack here.

Thankfully, the AFL has continued to rebuff Carter's campaign."

Carter needs to give his misguided premiership crusade a rest

The former Geelong president claims he is not out to re-write history, but correct it.

www.zerohanger.com

 

[Father Jack]

Of course there was change. It's called evolution. Doesn't mean it is a different competition though which is why the AFL records commence in 1897 when the competition was founded.

Yes it evolved, and it is a clearly very different competition now. They changed the name in 1990 to reflect this, so that's a good time measuring success in the modern, national league. Unless you genuinely think that the likes of Carlton and Essendon are more successful AFL teams than Hawthorn and Geelong.

 

[FourthTimeAround]

None of that changes the fact the VFL/AFL is one continuous competition that commenced in 1897 with all premierships won in that competition counting towards the official tally.

No one is disputing the AFL competitions records

But the crux of the matter is the AFL as a Custodian of the Game as they are seen, and want to be seen.

The issue continues to be if they are then equating VFL premierships won in 1897 with premierships won in a National Competition and thereby elevating them in quality above other state premierships.
By doing so, they are succeeding in their duty to the competition, and simultaneously failing in their duty to the history of the game.

 

[Sentinel]

Yes it evolved, and it is a clearly very different competition now. They changed the name in 1990 to reflect this, so that's a good time measuring success in the modern, national league. Unless you genuinely think that the likes of Carlton and Essendon are more successful AFL teams than Hawthorn and Geelong.

It's still the same competition.

It does not matter if a premiership was won in 1897 or 2022, both are equal when it comes to this specific measure of 'premierships won'. Any measurement of individual premiership 'worth' or how 'successful' a club has been across the history of the single competition, 1897-today, is subjective only (unless you are taking the simplest measurent of success as total premierships won, in which case Carlton and Essendon are the equal most successful). Records are objective.

 

[Father Jack]

It's still the same competition.

It does not matter if a premiership was won in 1897 or 2022, both are equal when it comes to this specific measure of 'premierships won'. Any measurement of individual premiership 'worth' or how 'successful' a club has been across the history of the single competition, 1897-today, is subjective only (unless you are taking the simplest measurent of success as total premierships won, in which case Carlton and Essendon are the equal most successful). Records are objective.

At the moment it does, and I am simply pointing out that this is ridiculous and pretty much useless as a stat for measuring success. We could be talking about Geelong challenging Hawthorn for the most AFL flags, with several other clubs in the hunt, but instead only Essendon, Carlton and Collingwood are in that conversation and that's due to flags won in a radically different comp when it was much easier due to being a suburban comp with fewer teams, not to mention the lack of equalisation measures meaning certain clubs were favoured, or better at using the rules to their advantage in a way that isn't possible today.

No one is suggesting that the VFL clubs can't continue to celebrate and be proud of their VFL premierships, just that clearly (imo) their AFL flags are worth more.

 

[Pistol Night]

At the moment it does, and I am simply pointing out that this is ridiculous and pretty much useless as a stat for measuring success. We could be talking about Geelong challenging Hawthorn for the most AFL flags, with several other clubs in the hunt, but instead only Essendon, Carlton and Collingwood are in that conversation and that's due to flags won in a radically different comp when it was much easier due to being a suburban comp with fewer teams, not to mention the lack of equalisation measures meaning certain clubs were favoured, or better at using the rules to their advantage in a way that isn't possible today.

No one is suggesting that the VFL clubs can't continue to celebrate and be proud of their VFL premierships, just that clearly (imo) their AFL flags are worth more.

I think the first AFL flag should be worth the most

 

[Sentinel]

At the moment it does, and I am simply pointing out that this is ridiculous and pretty much useless as a stat for measuring success. We could be talking about Geelong challenging Hawthorn for the most AFL flags, with several other clubs in the hunt, but instead only Essendon, Carlton and Collingwood are in that conversation and that's due to flags won in a radically different comp when it was much easier due to being a suburban comp with fewer teams, not to mention the lack of equalisation measures meaning certain clubs were favoured, or better at using the rules to their advantage in a way that isn't possible today.

No one is suggesting that the VFL clubs can't continue to celebrate and be proud of their VFL premierships, just that clearly (imo) their AFL flags are worth more.

In the context of this record, AFL flags are no different to VFL flags. The only difference is the year which they were won (either pre or post name change). The rest is irrelevant.

Regardless, a record doesn't need to be used to measure 'success', that's up to whoever is reading the record to determine. A record is nothing more than an objective historical document.

 

[MelbourneGWS]

Good article here which sums things up nicely. It was never going to be taken seriously.


"Carter needs to give his misguided premiership crusade a rest

Colin Carter is at it again.

The former Geelong president, and ex-AFL commissioner, is determined to re-write history and trample all over the formative years of the VFA – the competition which in 1897 spawned the VFL which, nine decades later, became the AFL.
And in an Orwellian (some might say cynical) twist, he is claiming he is not out to re-write history at all, but instead to correct it – correct something that doesn't need correcting.

At the launch of his new book Football's Forgotten Years last week, Carter passionately reiterated his argument that the premierships won by clubs in the VFA, before breaking away to form the VFL, should be added to their respective premiership tallies.

Sorry. What?

It almost beggars belief, so I'll allow you to read that paragraph again.

Done? OK. Good. Yes, that's right. Carter believes premierships won in a completely different competition should be combined with those won in another completely different competition.

There's a lot to unpack here.

Thankfully, the AFL has continued to rebuff Carter's campaign."

Thanks for the link which seems to be reflected by some of the posts in this thread here in Big Footy. I think though that Carter was stating that only the 1870-1896 premierships in Victoria and the VFA should be added- not the ones won after the VFL was established in 1897? Also not sure where the AFL has “continued to rebuff” Carter’s campaign- unless silence and not stating support for the proposal is the rebuff?