Rant RE: VFL/AFL

[The Speaker]

1990 was when the VFL changed name to AFL. So which is the correct answer :
A: The AFL was established to financially secure the long-term interests of the VFL and the use of the name AFL is simply a marketing furphy, or
B: The VFL actually decided that a national competition would be a progressive step but forgot to tell Victorians?

The name change didn't signify anything that hadn't already happened three years earlier.

 

[MightyHawks]

1990 was when the VFL changed name to AFL. So which is the correct answer :
A: The AFL was established to financially secure the long-term interests of the VFL and the use of the name AFL is simply a marketing furphy, or
B: The VFL actually decided that a national competition would be a progressive step but forgot to tell Victorians?

Both options A and B would suggest that the 1989 premiership still counts.

We already had a national competition in 1989.

Please explain to me why we had a national competition in 1990 but we didn't in 1989

 

[Ron The Bear]

Both options A and B would suggest that the 1989 premiership still counts.

We already had a national competition in 1989.

Please explain to me why we had a national competition in 1990 but we didn't in 1989

Because it was AFL and 1989 was VFL.

 

[MightyHawks]

Because it was AFL and 1989 was VFL.

How can you say we didn't have a National competition in 1987, 1988 and 1989... We had the National Panasonic Cup in those years

 

[Monkey King]

No, the VFL became the AFL.

No. The VFL is the AFL. It's the same comp. If you want, you can check what the VFL was 1989 and what the AFL was in 1990. Same comp mate. Same teams, same players pretty much, same coaches, same prize, same awards, same blokes running the comp, same sponsors; nothing changed other than one letter to reflect the growth of the league was making on the national stage. The league itself was exactly the same.

Prior to this, the VFL was not the AFL. It was the major competition in Victoria. Not the national competition. There was no national competition. A blatant distinction many Victorians refuse to acknowledge.

This is not true at all. Prior to the VFL changing the V to an A there were clubs involved from one end of Australia to the other. You talk about "refuse to acknowledge", but that sums up your blokes waffling perfectly IMO. Refuse to acknowledge nothing changed at the time of re-branding, refuse to acknowledge that being national or not has nothing to do with being the one continuous league, and most tellingly, you refuse to acknowledge official records.

If my brother marries a girl from China, has my family grown and become more international, or is it a completely new family? When my sister changes her last name through marriage, is she a new person? Can my brother in-law insist that our family didn't exist before he joined it? When I expand my company's operations beyond the state I founded it in, even internationally, does the company become a new company because it's servicing new markets?

Of course not. None of this makes any sense. Your beliefs are clearly a construct of the mind and the mind has a powerful ability to rationalise any stupid shit. That's why we have things like science, to test the wafflings of the mind. And that's why when your concept is tested across a range of analogies it fails almost every time.

 

[Tiger2709]

But it still only tells part of the story. Why should Essendons Premierships count but Port Adelaides not? what about Freo?

Please, why dont you get it, the VFL was renamed to the AFL the SAFA was renamed to the SANFL the WAFL was renamed WANFL then back to the WAFL and guess what all the teams in those competitions still count all of their flags because they are really in the same competition.

We do the same in the VFL/AFL, so really no one missed out, but dont try and tell me a WAFL or SANFL flag is any where near a VFL/AFL flag.

 

[Tiger2709]

thats because you follow a club based in victoria.

No, you refuse to understand what is blatantly obvious because you follow a franchise that didn't exist when the VFL was renamed to the AFL.

This is not a new competition no matter what you think, neither is the WAFL which has been renamed 2 or 3 times nor the SANFL which was originally known as the SAFA, all the clubs that played in these renamed competitions still count all their flags, so why should the VFL/AFL be any different?

 

[Dandy_GO]

No. The VFL is the AFL. It's the same comp. If you want, you can check what the VFL was 1989 and what the AFL was in 1990. Same comp mate. Same teams, same players pretty much, same coaches, same prize, same awards, same blokes running the comp, same sponsors; nothing changed other than one letter to reflect the growth of the league was making on the national stage. The league itself was exactly the same.



This is not true at all. Prior to the VFL changing the V to an A there were clubs involved from one end of Australia to the other. You talk about "refuse to acknowledge", but that sums up your blokes waffling perfectly IMO. Refuse to acknowledge nothing changed at the time of re-branding, refuse to acknowledge that being national or not has nothing to do with being the one continuous league, and most tellingly, you refuse to acknowledge official records.

If my brother marries a girl from China, has my family grown and become more international, or is it a completely new family? When my sister changes her last name through marriage, is she a new person? Can my brother in-law insist that our family didn't exist before he joined it? When I expand my company's operations beyond the state I founded it in, even internationally, does the company become a new company because it's servicing new markets?

Of course not. None of this makes any sense. Your beliefs are clearly a construct of the mind and the mind has a powerful ability to rationalise any stupid shit. That's why we have things like science, to test the wafflings of the mind. And that's why when your concept is tested across a range of analogies it fails almost every time.

I think you'll find if you read my other post, just a couple of posts above that one you quoted, I disagree with the OPs idea. I agree fully that VFL records should be acknowledged. Carlton is still the same Carlton that it was before.
However, to say that the AFL is the same is it was, completely ignores that it is promoting itself as THE national competition. That is a clear and blatant point of difference. It has become the body in charge of both the highest level of the sport, and the history of the game. It runs the hall of fame, it has begun strong-arming the state leagues, it has "Australian" in the title.
My argument isn't that we should stop acknowledging VFL flags (though I think we should make more of an effort to specify what was in the VFL era, over the AFL era) but stop downplaying other leagues which existed in parallell with the VFL for over a century prior to there being a national league at all.

I'm not sure why I'm bothering to argue with you, as you've shown time and time again that you're not at all willing to listen to reason - particularly with how you've argued the Port Adelaide point, but there you go.

If you can't acknowledge that a shift rhetoric between VICTORIAN football league to AUSTRALIAN football league signals a significant point of difference, then this argument isn't going to go anywhere.

The fact that it happened in a largely otherwise unimportant year is irrelevant. It's annoying that the shift towards a national game is as murky as it is, but, unlike the OP, I don't think we need a cutoff date. Just more respect for the other leagues, the clubs that made them up, and the player records. I used the AFL hall of fame as an example. Barrie Robran has been in there since it was first founded, so for that to be the case, then there is a clear acknowledgement that the entity exists to celebrate footballers from all of Australia, rather than just the VFL/AFL, as Barrie Robran never played, or wanted to play, in the VFL. Yet representation by footballers from beyond the VFL/AFL in the HoF is disproportionately tiny. This is just one example of how our contribution to the sport has been downplayed for years by an entity claiming to be the national caretaker of the national game. You find the OP's suggestion disrespectful, whereas we have to live with similar disrespect constantly. As long as this disrespect continues, you're going to get people like the OP trying to find solutions - some of which you will find offensive yourself.

If the AFL is to be the keeper of the sport, and in charge of the history of the game, while simultaneously claiming it as the NATIONAL league, then making more of an effort to celebrate the contribution of other states is the least they could do.
Otherwise, call it the VFL again.

 

[Dandy_GO]

No. The VFL is the AFL.

I will put it more simply for you. To borrow a metaphor that an earlier Victorian poster used - A caterpillar becomes a butterfly. Same individual creature, but a butterfly is NOT a caterpillar. A change has occurred.
The VFL has become the national league. Therefore, the VFL has BECOME the AFL, but the AFL is NOT the VFL. If the AFL is the VFL then why are we calling it the AFL?
It is a very significant point of difference you're intent on refusing to acknowledge.

 

[Lord Nicholson]

I will put it more simply for you. To borrow a metaphor that an earlier Victorian poster used - A caterpillar becomes a butterfly. Same individual creature, but a butterfly is NOT a caterpillar. A change has occurred.
The VFL has become the national league. Therefore, the VFL has BECOME the AFL, but the AFL is NOT the VFL. If the AFL is the VFL then why are we calling it the AFL?
It is a very significant point of difference you're intent on refusing to acknowledge.

Brian Harris became Brian Lake.

What an amazing transformation! Two different people!

 

[Dandy_GO]

Brian Harris became Brian Lake.

What an amazing transformation! Two different people!

Brian Harris also started claiming at that point that the the Lake name encompassed the history of the Harris, Jones, Smith, and Brown families and was the most important name amongst them. I guess he's just the same old Brian.

 

[Dandy_GO]

Brian Harris became Brian Lake.

What an amazing transformation! Two different people!

You know what, the name change means nothing. Have it your way.
The AFL is still the VFL. They are exactly the same. One and the same.
That's been pretty ****ing obvious for a long time now anyway for anyone outside of Victoria.

 

[Ron The Bear]

However, to say that the AFL is the same is it was, completely ignores that it is promoting itself as THE national competition. That is a clear and blatant point of difference. It has become the body in charge of both the highest level of the sport, and the history of the game. It runs the hall of fame, it has begun strong-arming the state leagues, it has "Australian" in the title.
My argument isn't that we should stop acknowledging VFL flags (though I think we should make more of an effort to specify what was in the VFL era, over the AFL era) but stop downplaying other leagues which existed in parallell with the VFL for over a century prior to there being a national league at all.

That's just your perception. Ours is that nothing has changed, other than some interstate clubs being randomly tacked on. They were added to the existing competition, but their existence does not make it a new league.

 

[Dandy_GO]

That's just your perception. Ours is that nothing has changed, other than some interstate clubs being randomly tacked on. They were added to the existing competition, but their existence does not make it a new league.

Yet my perception is supported in much of the rhetoric the AFL releases on a daily basis, the name of the organisation, and the fact that games are now played at home grounds all across Australia. Again, I point to the AFL Hall of Fame. Why the inconsistency here? If the AFL is the VFL, then the SANFL is irrelevant to the AFL Hall of Fame. Barrie Robran played all of his senior football in the SANFL, yet is a legend in the AFL Hall of Fame. I am just using this as a single example of a wider point (there are many more examples in the HoF alone,) but it is one nobody has even attempted to address.

 

[Simple Jack]

Yet my perception is supported in much of the rhetoric the AFL releases on a daily basis, the name of the organisation, and the fact that games are now played at home grounds all across Australia. Again, I point to the AFL Hall of Fame. Why the inconsistency here? If the AFL is the VFL, then the SANFL is irrelevant to the AFL Hall of Fame. Barrie Robran played all of his senior football in the SANFL, yet is a legend in the AFL Hall of Fame. I am just using this as a single example of a wider point (there are many more examples in the HoF alone,) but it is one nobody has even attempted to address.

If it was called the AFL Hall of Fame you would be 100% correct.

However, it is called the Australian Football Hall of Fame. And considering your obsession with names, I thought you would know that.

 

[Dandy_GO]

If it was called the AFL Hall of Fame you would be 100% correct.

However, it is called the Australian Football Hall of Fame. And considering your obsession with names, I thought you would know that.

Who is the caretaker of that hall of fame?
Whose logo is on it?
According to the website, it is apparently titled "AFL Australian Football Hall of Fame"
Edit: That website, to clarify, is it's official website, and exists under the afl.com.au domain.
Exactly what does your post change, Jack?

 

[Ron The Bear]

Yet my perception is supported in much of the rhetoric the AFL releases on a daily basis, the name of the organisation, and the fact that games are now played at home grounds all across Australia. Again, I point to the AFL Hall of Fame. Why the inconsistency here? If the AFL is the VFL, then the SANFL is irrelevant to the AFL Hall of Fame. Barrie Robran played all of his senior football in the SANFL, yet is a legend in the AFL Hall of Fame. I am just using this as a single example of a wider point (there are many more examples in the HoF alone,) but it is one nobody has even attempted to address.

Is it actually called the "AFL Hall of Fame"? Or is it the "Australian Football Hall of Fame", run under the auspices of the AFL?

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Yet my perception is supported in much of the rhetoric the AFL releases on a daily basis, the name of the organisation, and the fact that games are now played at home grounds all across Australia. Again, I point to the AFL Hall of Fame. Why the inconsistency here? If the AFL is the VFL, then the SANFL is irrelevant to the AFL Hall of Fame. Barrie Robran played all of his senior football in the SANFL, yet is a legend in the AFL Hall of Fame. I am just using this as a single example of a wider point (there are many more examples in the HoF alone,) but it is one nobody has even attempted to address.

It’s not the AFL Hall of Fame. It’s the Australian Football Hall of Fame. See for yourself...

http://www.afl.com.au/AFLHQ/Awards/HallofFame/WhatistheAFLHallofFame/tabid/16287/Default.aspx

 

[Simple Jack]

Who is the caretaker of that hall of fame?
Whose logo is on it?
According to the website, it is apparently titled "AFL Australian Football Hall of Fame"

The administrator of Australian Football, the AFL. Not the league, the AFL.

Once again, a situation complicated by the AFL's wearing of two hats.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

According to the website, it is apparently titled "AFL Australian Football Hall of Fame"

Stop making things up


What is the Australian Football Hall of Fame?

Each year, a select few greats of the game are inducted as members of the Australian Football Hall of Fame.
The Hall of Fame Induction Dinner is one of football’s most prestigious events.
At the annual induction dinner, football ‘royalty’ gathers for the announcement of the game’s newest Hall of Fame members.
Their identities are always a hotly debated topic and a fiercely protected secret.
This year's Australian Football Hall of Fame induction dinner will be held at the Crown Palladium on Wednesday June 13, 2012.
It will mark the 17th anniversary since the Hall of Fame was originally created in 1996 when 136 football greats were inducted.
The subsequent addition of 97 inductees has increased the Australian Football Hall of Fame to 233.
Legends
Among this number are 23 Australian Football Hall of Fame Legends (there is a restriction that no more than 10 per cent of the inductees may be Legends).
Individuals are selected for Legend status if they have caused the game to change significantly for the better.
The Australian Football Hall of Fame seeks to recognise and enshrine players, coaches, umpires, administrators and media representatives who have made significant contributions to Australian Football - at any level - since the game's inception in 1858.
Eligibility
The committee considers candidates on the basis of record, ability, integrity, sportsmanship and character. The number of games played, coached or umpired or years of service is a consideration only and does not determine eligibility.
Players are eligible only after they have been retired from the game for at least three years. Coaches, umpires, administrators and media representatives are eligible only after retirement.
The committee considers candidates from all parts of Australia and from all competitions within Australia.
The Hall of Fame committee can select and enshrine up to six Hall of Fame members each year. Of those, at least two must have retired within 10 years of each induction ceremony. There must be at least one inductee selected from the category of administrator/umpire/media every two years.
The Hall of Fame selection committee is made up of:
· AFL chairman Mike Fitzpatrick (chair);
· Seven Network commentator Dennis Cometti;
· AFL Players' Association CEO Matt Finnis;
· Former sports editor and author Jim Main
· Four-time premiership coach David Parkin;
· Ten Network commentator Tim Lane;
· Former Victorian minister for sport and recreation Tom Reynolds;
· Executive commissioner of the SANFL Leigh Whicker; and
· AFL manager of research and football projects Shane McCurry (secretary).

 

[Dandy_GO]

If you'd all prefer, I'll happily edit my previous posts so that I refer to it as the "Australian Football Hall of Fame, run by the AFL, whose logo appears on its logo, and on whose website, AFL.com.au, its official website exists, on which it is refered to as the AFL Hall of Fame in multiple instances, including in press releases and on the freaking front page of the website."

How does that change the argument?

Christ.

The administrator of Australian Football, the AFL. Not the league, the AFL.

Once again, a situation complicated by the AFL's wearing of two hats.

Yes. That is pretty much the crux of it.

 

[neroblack]

I will put it more simply for you. To borrow a metaphor that an earlier Victorian poster used - A caterpillar becomes a butterfly. Same individual creature, but a butterfly is NOT a caterpillar. A change has occurred.
The VFL has become the national league. Therefore, the VFL has BECOME the AFL, but the AFL is NOT the VFL. If the AFL is the VFL then why are we calling it the AFL?
It is a very significant point of difference you're intent on refusing to acknowledge.

That's probably more an analogy, and an incorrect one at that. That process involves metamorphosis, which is not really what happened when the VFL became the AFL, which was more of an evolution, which involved a name change part way through to better reflect what the league was becoming (even prior to any SA clubs being involved).

Anywho, there's only one club that played in one of the other State Leagues that now plays in the AFL. Everyone knows their history, but only one of Port's flags has been won against the clubs that it now plays against. The history is not just ignored though.

 

[Dandy_GO]

That's probably more an analogy, and an incorrect one at that. That process involves metamorphosis, which is not really what happened when the VFL became the AFL, which was more of an evolution, which involved a name change part way through to better reflect what the league was becoming (even prior to any SA clubs being involved).
.

My point was that I can make false analogies too, given that Monkey King was so keen on his Chinese Marriage one.
Edit: (well, perhaps not my point, but I was well aware of that when making that analogy)

 

[neroblack]

My point was that I can make false analogies too, given that Monkey King was so keen on his Chinese Marriage one.

I'll take your word for it, as that doesn't sound like something worth scrolling through the previous pages of this thread for

 

[Simple Jack]

If you'd all prefer, I'll happily edit my previous posts so that I refer to it as the "Australian Football Hall of Fame, run by the AFL, whose logo appears on its logo, and on whose website, AFL.com.au, its official website exists, on which it is refered to as the AFL Hall of Fame in multiple instances, including in press releases and on the freaking front page of the website."

How does that change the argument?

Well in normal land, it would be an insignificant detail that has little to do with the discussion. However, in bitch and moan WA/SA land, a different name means a different entity so the distinction is important.

Yes. That is pretty much the crux of it.

And very few people, if anyone will disagree with that. Having a completely separate administrator for the actual sport of Australian Football would be fantastic, the rules wouldn't change every 15 minutes to try and make it a better spectacle and increase revenue amongst other things.

However, none of that would change the fact that the VFL/AFL is one competition, formed in 1897 when the break away league was created, that has had new teams added from time to time to feed some cash in. Either directly through the 'footy state' franchises, or indirectly (over time) through the expansion franchises.