Proposal to include premierships dating back to 1870 gathering pace

[Aristotle Pickett]

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?

Yes the article is saying that VFA should not be confused with VFL. Not sure about the rebuffing, maybe just by silence. No one seems to be taking it serously in the AFL.
I think it's just a case of Gil helping his mate to sell a book, to get some AFL interest in the offseason and to support the history of the game.
Carter could have just called it a history book instead of going on an impausible crusade against the facts.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

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.

You can measure success throughout different eras, sure. But it doesn't change the fact that Essendon and Carlton still have the most flags. You can say they aren't successful in the modern era, that's true - but it is also true they have the most amount of premierships in the competition.

An easy way around that is a "match ratio" system where you look at number of flags divided by number of years in the competition. Eagles will probably be up near the top of that one and it is also a true way of measuring success in the VFL/AFL. But in raw numbers the most flags have been won by the Blues and Bombers.

 

[ThatsjustDappa]

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?

Lerner a journalist - wowee, article reads like a columnist. He could do much better by actually reading the book first then making insightful commentary of.

 

[Father Jack]

You can measure success throughout different eras, sure. But it doesn't change the fact that Essendon and Carlton still have the most flags. You can say they aren't successful in the modern era, that's true - but it is also true they have the most amount of premierships in the competition.

An easy way around that is a "match ratio" system where you look at number of flags divided by number of years in the competition. Eagles will probably be up near the top of that one and it is also a true way of measuring success in the VFL/AFL. But in raw numbers the most flags have been won by the Blues and Bombers.

I'm more talking about how the competition is now fundamentally different after the massive changes it went through at the end of last century, of which the greater number of teams is a part.

If you really want to do a ratio there is no way you could count the suburban VFL flags as being equal to the national AFL ones. Of course it's debatable where you draw that line but the name change seems to me to be the most obvious and convenient point.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

Lerner a journalist - wowee, article reads like a columnist. He could do much better by actually reading the book first then making insightful commentary of.

Are you actually serious that you want 'premierships' from a different competition, played in very amateur times ,with no proper fixtures or teams, decided by any journalist who decided to pick a winner?
The main point being you want ' flags' , from an entirely different comp, tacked on to Vfl/Afl premierships , even though it was decided 150 years ago?

 

[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.

Decided to do a quick search and the Footy Records are available online from 1912 onwards.

*Pretty awesome that a player decided to play for Geelong because the Hotel bar was closer there than going to Melbourne

But there you have it, it lists out the 'League' premierships from 1870...

Also in the paras on the left talking about the probability of the league and association joining. Interesting times...

 

[Demonic Ascent]

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.

Many people are disputing the AFL competitions records (which commenced in 1897).

I agree the AFL as custodian of the game should do a better job of promoting the history of the game outside Victoria. But as far as pre iership tallies and other records go the only ones relevant to the AFL (competition) are those commencing in 1897.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

I'm more talking about how the competition is now fundamentally different after the massive changes it went through at the end of last century, of which the greater number of teams is a part.

If you really want to do a ratio there is no way you could count the suburban VFL flags as being equal to the national AFL ones. Of course it's debatable where you draw that line but the name change seems to me to be the most obvious and convenient point.

Whatever subjective merit you decide to apportion to each achievement is up to you.

But at the end of the day the record books will show one premier for each year since 1897 and a tally of those won by each club.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Decided to do a quick search and the Footy Records are available online from 1912 onwards.

*Pretty awesome that a player decided to play for Geelong because the Hotel bar was closer there than going to Melbourne

But there you have it, it lists out the 'League' premierships from 1870...

Also in the paras on the left talking about the probability of the league and association joining. Interesting times...

View attachment 1606230

It's back to front. At the bottom of the "League" list it states "In 1896 the Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon, Fitzroy, Geelong, Melbourne, St. Kilda and South Melbourne clubs seceded from the Association and formed the League."

So how can there be a tally of League premierships before the League was formed?

 

[Father Jack]

Whatever subjective merit you decide to apportion to each achievement is up to you.

But at the end of the day the record books will show one premier for each year since 1897 and a tally of those won by each club.

Sounds like we agree, there are VFL premierships and there are AFL premierships.

 

[footyfan1978]

It's back to front. At the bottom of the "League" list it states "In 1896 the Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon, Fitzroy, Geelong, Melbourne, St. Kilda and South Melbourne clubs seceded from the Association and formed the League."

So how can there be a tally of League premierships before the League was formed?

Clearly the league officials at the time, just considered it a continuation of competition for premierships between their clubs that had already been over four decades old by that stage. Clearly they did not care it was called a league now and not the association. It was just more seasons for their clubs from 1897 and they treated the five remaining clubs left in the VFA as outcasts. Mind you, by 1912 it was down to four as Richmond had also left VFA by then for the VFL.
Interestingly North also tried to join then with a proposed merger of them and West Melbourne at the time. VFA were pissed at North for trying to defect an disbanded them and West Melbourne but somehow in off season North reformed and tried to take on part of the Wests red colours too and University took the spot in the VFL then as they had the lease on the ground West Melbourne were kicked off. North dropped the West colours a season later. It is interesting North have been in a lot of near mergers or takeovers in their history.

In 1919 they started to do both sets of tallies.
"The First Four Since The League's Inception"
and the top three placings from 1870 to 1918

By mid 1920's they only would list the "Since The League's Inception"
and the book cannot pin-point why exactly it changed in that period but it likely football politics at time because the two admin bodies had an agreement about player clearances for some period but after First World War was over the VFL let it lapse and there was no agreement between the two boards.
Should also be noted at end of 1924 Footscray, North and Hawks were admitted to the VFL from VFA so the two bodies could not be further apart by mid 1920's. It is interesting in VFA Football publication around that time would not list anything before 1897 in their lists which is the one thing the book showed me that I never knew before. So both sets of admins did not want to acknowledge seasons before the split at end of 1896 for different political motivations it would seem.

 

[footyfan1978]

Decided to do a quick search and the Footy Records are available online from 1912 onwards.

*Pretty awesome that a player decided to play for Geelong because the Hotel bar was closer there than going to Melbourne

But there you have it, it lists out the 'League' premierships from 1870...

Also in the paras on the left talking about the probability of the league and association joining. Interesting times...

View attachment 1606230

Yes, the part about Association proposed to becoming basically division two was really interesting when I first saw it from those online copies a couple of years back. So in 1912 the two admins were closer to some re-union than at any time. That is also something the book never really answered for me on why it did not happen.

 

[FourthTimeAround]

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.

Objective for the competition, yes.
But not in comparison to other competitions, no.

These threads go round and round and round, with both ”sides” making the same points over and over. Their respective points are ironically both correct, however “ne’er the two shall meet” because we refuse to accept that the others’ point of view is valid.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

Objective for the competition, yes.
But not in comparison to other competitions, no.

These threads go round and round and round, with both ”sides” making the same points over and over. Their respective points are ironically both correct, however “ne’er the two shall meet” because we refuse to accept that the others’ point of view is valid.

The flags being added are not valid because the VFA was an entirely different competition. The VFL merged into the AFL so those are the same competition.

 

[ThatsjustDappa]

Yes, the part about Association proposed to becoming basically division two was really interesting when I first saw it from those online copies a couple of years back. So in 1912 the two admins were closer to some re-union than at any time. That is also something the book never really answered for me on why it did not happen.

Certainly no love lost between the League and Association reading through the Record publications. Money the most likely driver, players had to get council permission to move, Regionals vs Metro players, VFA threatening to kick clubs out who wanted to leave the VFA as you mentioned and a subsequent agreement to not punish clubs who did register an interest to move. Interesting times, possibly the newspapers at the time would shed better light on the machinations going on. If only we had some AI engine in order to scrape the archives and investigate this for us!

 

[footyfan1978]

Certainly no love lost between the League and Association reading through the Record publications. Money the most likely driver, players had to get council permission to move, Regionals vs Metro players, VFA threatening to kick clubs out who wanted to leave the VFA as you mentioned and a subsequent agreement to not punish clubs who did register an interest to move. Interesting times, possibly the newspapers at the time would shed better light on the machinations going on. If only we had some AI engine in order to scrape the archives and investigate this for us!

Yeah, I think we will dig up more stuff from old newspapers in time as more is put online that can shed more light.
I just did a random search on something totally unrelated about my Uncle and see he was playing at Wimbledon at one point which never knew but found it on trove in some article from decades ago. Online newspapers wealth of info when more old stuff put online.

 

[ThatsjustDappa]

Clearly the league officials at the time, just considered it a continuation of competition for premierships between their clubs that had already been over four decades old by that stage. Clearly they did not care it was called a league now and not the association. It was just more seasons for their clubs from 1897 and they treated the five remaining clubs left in the VFA as outcasts. Mind you, by 1912 it was down to four as Richmond had also left VFA by then for the VFL.
Interestingly North also tried to join then with a proposed merger of them and West Melbourne at the time. VFA were pissed at North for trying to defect an disbanded them and West Melbourne but somehow in off season North reformed and tried to take on part of the Wests red colours too and University took the spot in the VFL then as they had the lease on the ground West Melbourne were kicked off. North dropped the West colours a season later. It is interesting North have been in a lot of near mergers or takeovers in their history.

In 1919 they started to do both sets of tallies.
"The First Four Since The League's Inception"
and the top three placings from 1870 to 1918

By mid 1920's they only would list the "Since The League's Inception"
and the book cannot pin-point why exactly it changed in that period but it likely football politics at time because the two admin bodies had an agreement about player clearances for some period but after First World War was over the VFL let it lapse and there was no agreement between the two boards.
Should also be noted at end of 1924 Footscray, North and Hawks were admitted to the VFL from VFA so the two bodies could not be further apart by mid 1920's. It is interesting in VFA Football publication around that time would not list anything before 1897 in their lists which is the one thing the book showed me that I never knew before. So both sets of admins did not want to acknowledge seasons before the split at end of 1896 for different political motivations it would seem.

Kind of bizarre the Association disowned pre-1897, is that circa 1920s or from 1897 onwards?

 

[footyfan1978]

Kind of bizarre the Association disowned pre-1897, is that circa 1920s or from 1897 onwards?

Apparently the only time they listed the 1877 to 1896 stuff was in 1958 for some reason.
The VFA equivalent to the Football Record was called The Association Recorder.
I've not looked them up but according to Colin Carter's book "Recorder listing have been seen in the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and 1970s and all start the VFA premierships lists in 1897" He shows a photocopy of Sept 22, 1968 of it where I can see" V.F.A. Placings from 1897" on page 82 of his book that shows a typical VFA listing he refers to.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Sounds like we agree, there are VFL premierships and there are AFL premierships.

No, the tally runs from 1897 to current day.

Here is a link to explain it for you to prevent you looking foolish in future;

AFL Premiership Winners - AFL.com.au

In complete chronological order, view the full list of Toyota AFL premiership winners from 1897 to present.

www.afl.com.au

 

[ThatsjustDappa]

Apparently the only time they listed the 1877 to 1896 stuff was in 1958 for some reason.
The VFA equivalent to the Football Record was called The Association Recorder.
I've not looked them up but according to Colin Carter's book "Recorder listing have been seen in the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and 1970s and all start the VFA premierships lists in 1897" He shows a photocopy of Sept 22, 1968 of it where I can see" V.F.A. Placings from 1897" on page 82 of his book that shows a typical VFA listing he refers to.

Reading through some old newspapers at the time the 8 clubs seceded from the Association. Wasn't pretty, the 8 clubs did it in secret from the Association and they only found out through the press. The League and Association had a meeting at Young & Jackons and there was argy bargy about assets and money and that the 8 seceding clubs were 'simply dissolving partnership'. Seems like the clubs were just cutting a better deal for themselves. By the end of the meeting, surely they were several pints in as well i reckon....

 

[Demonic Ascent]

It was just more seasons for their clubs from 1897 and they treated the five remaining clubs left in the VFA as outcasts. Mind you, by 1912 it was down to four as Richmond had also left VFA by then for the VFL.

That is simply not true. There were 10 clubs competing in the VFA in 1912.

1912 VFA season - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

6 clubs competed in 1897 increasing to 8 by 1899 and 10 by 1903.

 

[Father Jack]

No, the tally runs from 1897 to current day.

Here is a link to explain it for you to prevent you looking foolish in future;

AFL Premiership Winners - AFL.com.au

In complete chronological order, view the full list of Toyota AFL premiership winners from 1897 to present.

www.afl.com.au

I'm not sure how I look foolish, as there definitely are VFL premierships and there definitely are AFL premierships and that link doesn't state anything different.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

I'm not sure how I look foolish, as there definitely are VFL premierships and there definitely are AFL premierships and that link doesn't state anything different.

It states that all premierships since 1897 are counted in the record books of the AFL. There is no distinction between VFL or AFL premierships, they are all part of the same competition.

 

[Sentinel]

Objective for the competition, yes.
But not in comparison to other competitions, no.

These threads go round and round and round, with both ”sides” making the same points over and over. Their respective points are ironically both correct, however “ne’er the two shall meet” because we refuse to accept that the others’ point of view is valid.

Why do we need any comparison to other competitions? What's the relevance here?

We're talking about VFL/AFL history, not the history of Australian rules football, and in any case ranking 'success' of various clubs is not the aim. At the end of the day there will always be debates about that.

The aim is to clarify when the history of the VFL/AFL competition should start (which itself is a very dumb exercise only discussed due to one person's self-serving crusade), it matters not what different people think about the so called worth of a premiership was 100 years ago compared to now, nor does it matter if someone thinks the SANFL was a better competition in the 1940s or whatever.

 

[footyfan1978]

That is simply not true. There were 10 clubs competing in the VFA in 1912.

No, You simply misunderstood what I meant by four left in 1912.
13 clubs of 1896 in VFA and in 1912 , nine of them are over in the VFL which leaves only 4 left from 1896 seasons in VFA , that not moved over to the VFL at that point. I did not mean the VFA was only playing a four team league in 1912.