Expansion The AFL is not the VFL thread

[telsor]

I understand the role of GWS as a development strategy. Putting a false argument as to what Tasmania has to achieve which has never been applied to any other club, shows the Vic bias of a so called 'national' competition.

You don't think a similar measure was considered for WCE, Freo, Adelaide & Port?

They weren't marginal on such a measure, so there wouldn't have been much discussion over it, but I have little doubt the AFL (or VFL at the time) did consider it they would add to the financial strength of the league.

I'd also note that these supposedly biased Vics you keep referring to still allowed those clubs in...Are you sure your issue isn't that the AFL doesn't follow your anti-Vic bias?

 

[madmug]

You don't think a similar measure was considered for WCE, Freo, Adelaide & Port?

They weren't marginal on such a measure, so there wouldn't have been much discussion over it, but I have little doubt the AFL (or VFL at the time) did consider it they would add to the financial strength of the league.

I'd also note that these supposedly biased Vics you keep referring to still allowed those clubs in...Are you sure your issue isn't that the AFL doesn't follow your anti-Vic bias?

The move to the AFL was a political & financial necessity. The VFL was in financial strife & surely wanted to keep control of any move to a national competition.

If it were done any other way then the League would most probably have been made up of the strongest clubs from the big 3 state leagues & then bring in other areas through Sydney, Brisbane & yes, Tasmania.

Im only anti Vic via the churlish & often ignorant anti anything but Victoria that gets put on BF. One cant even discuss putting clubs in their state league where they would be better suited, where they play in their community. That gets misrepresented as 'killing' a club. What shyte. Its ok to bleed other places, but dont upset the vic cabal whatever the real cost to the game thats actually called Australian rules football.

 

[The_Wookie]

The move to the AFL was a political & financial necessity. The VFL was in financial strife & surely wanted to keep control of any move to a national competition.

And still required bribing Fitzroy to get the votes needed. The irony being Fitzroy would be the first team - and so far only team - sacrificed on the altar of nationalisation.

If it were done any other way then the League would most probably have been made up of the strongest clubs from the big 3 state leagues & then bring in other areas through Sydney, Brisbane & yes, Tasmania.

There was one proposal that featured a Tasmanian side, put forward by North Melbourne in 1984.

• 1984 – June 6. North Melbourne proposes a revamped 16 team competition in six states to a VFL task force.

The VFL itself never considered any proposal with Tasmania in it, and ruled it in the early 80s on financial grounds.

The NFL report in 1985 was taken much more seriously and did not include a Tasmanian side.

• 1985, November 7. The NFL releases its own play for a national compeition, with a 12 team structure featuring 9 teams from Melbourne and one each from Sydney, Perth and Adelaide. It also proposed an independent form of administration rather than the VFL’s Melbourne centrered power base”. The WAFL supports the NFL option, going so far as to send its CEO to talk to Macquarie Bank in Sydney about getting $100 million to float a competition, with six Melbourne clubs saying they’d break away. (Behind the Play pg 198)

ITs worth noting that SANFL and WAFL proposals all involved combined teams, not the top teams in each league. And its worth noting that the VFL refused to have any part in the NFL idea.

Im only anti Vic via the churlish & often ignorant anti anything but Victoria that gets put on BF. One cant even discuss putting clubs in their state league where they would be better suited, where they play in their community. That gets misrepresented as 'killing' a club. What shyte. Its ok to bleed other places, but dont upset the vic cabal whatever the real cost to the game thats actually called Australian rules football.

You can - and have at length - discuss moving teams to a state league - but have not once suggested a viable means for doing so that doesnt contravene league or club rules and consitutional obligations. As we've said any number of times, the only reason Fitzroy is gone is because the club fell to an administrator who connived with the AFL. So I guess you're waiting for another club to go into recievership.

And did they really bleed places though? Or did players simply go to where the money was, as they would have in any other industry - people go where the work is. Tasmania knows that as well as anywhere else, and its hardly a phenoma limited to football.

The game will go on regardless of what the AFL does.

 

[madmug]

Contravene League rules? So clubs can be as profligate as they like & the league is stuck with them? Really.

History is usually written by the victors. A bit like the AFL claiming its own history back to 1896!

I was told by an old politician that the state gument here was definitely asked to support a club in a national league in 1982/3 They declined as he said they didnt think it was a role for Gument at that time.

How things have changed.

 

[doona]

Victorians dont need the AFL to be the VFL/AFL - certainly nowhere near as much as West and South Aussies insist it must be. The VFL is the AFL. History says so and the AFL says so. No amount of minimalisation and denial will change that.

100% agree. I think most people get confused in regards to the current "VFL" competition.

 

[The_Wookie]

Contravene League rules? So clubs can be as profligate as they like & the league is stuck with them? Really.

History is usually written by the victors. A bit like the AFL claiming its own history back to 1896!

Claiming? Theres an unbroken line in its history going back to its founding in 1897.

 

[madmug]

Claiming? Theres an unbroken line in its history going back to its founding in 1897.

Yes the victors write the history. It was a regional league until it became a national competition with theadvent of clubs from other states. That wasnt 100 years ago.

 

[The_Wookie]

Yes the victors write the history. It was a regional league until it became a national competition with theadvent of clubs from other states. That wasnt 100 years ago.

It was formed as the VFL in 1897. It had a name change in 1991. Teams were added to an existing competition in 1908, 1925, 1987, 1991, 1994, 1997, 2011 and 2012 and thats the official AFL position. Its branding and nothing more, no matter how much people wish it was otherwise.

 

[madmug]

I dont wish it was anything. It was a state based comp for 100 years. It claims that state heritage as the only national heritage in a national competition which started late 20th century.

As l said, the victors write their own history. The facts of course, are another matter.

 

[Roylion]

I dont wish it was anything. It was a state based comp for 100 years. It claims that state heritage as the only national heritage in a national competition which started late 20th century.

As l said, the victors write their own history. The facts of course, are another matter.

I don't really understand what you're suggesting by your use of the term "facts". The current national competition indeed used to be a competition that existed within the confines of an individual state. At what point that state competition evolved into a national competition by the addition of teams outside the state of Victoria is debatable. 1982, 1987, 1990, 1991, 1995 or 1997 are all candidates. However there doesn't appear to be a point where we can definitively say the state competition became a new National competition. As far as I'm aware the AFL makes no claim to have been any sort of national competition before the 1980s.

 

[The_Wookie]

I don't really understand what you're suggesting by your use of the term "facts". The current national competition indeed used to be a competition that existed within the confines of an individual state. At what point that state competition evolved into a national competition by the addition of teams outside the state of Victoria is debatable. 1982, 1987, 1990, 1991, 1995 or 1997 are all candidates. However there doesn't appear to be a point where we can definitively say the state competition became a new National competition. As far as I'm aware the AFL makes no claim to have been any sort of national competition before the 1980s.

In fact the VFL was reported on 1985, October 30 as not wanting to be a national league when The Age reported that ‘the VFL was at great pains to say it is proposing an expansion of the existing competition to include interstate teams and not a national league’. (Behind the Play pg 198)

 

[madmug]

In fact the VFL was reported on 1985, October 30 as not wanting to be a national league when The Age reported that ‘the VFL was at great pains to say it is proposing an expansion of the existing competition to include interstate teams and not a national league’. (Behind the Play pg 198)

Well thats just plain silly. The AFL clearly claim they are a national competition. They clearly were not prior to around that time. But claiming the now national AFL has over 100 years of history is ridiculous. It makes no sense.

 

[The_Wookie]

Well thats just plain silly. The AFL clearly claim they are a national competition. They clearly were not prior to around that time. But claiming the now national AFL has over 100 years of history is ridiculous. It makes no sense.

The AFL and the VFL are literally the same organisation with a few additons. Thats the documented history. its also fact.

 

[telsor]

Well thats just plain silly. The AFL clearly claim they are a national competition. They clearly were not prior to around that time. But claiming the now national AFL has over 100 years of history is ridiculous. It makes no sense.

Where have they said their 100+ years of history was all national?

 

[Roylion]

Well thats just plain silly. The AFL clearly claim they are a national competition. They clearly were not prior to around that time. But claiming the now national AFL has over 100 years of history is ridiculous. It makes no sense.

The only claim that I've seen is that the current AFL national competition had its origins as a state based competition that commenced in 1897 with eight clubs, seven of whom still play in the same competition. Is that incorrect?

 

[madmug]

Instead of a location, just go demographics. Market themselves as the 'peoples club', as opposed to the other two who lock people out, etc.

Of course, it'd be more that they have fewer fans, but it's not like marketing ever has a close tie to the truth.

Marketing, Yes like the League calling itself 'Australian' Ha, what a joke.

 

[telsor]

Marketing, Yes like the League calling itself 'Australian' Ha, what a joke.

How so?

True, some states are over represented, like Vic and Tasmania, but games are played in every state (and NT) and in cities representing probably about 2/3 of the national population.

 

[madmug]

How so?

True, some states are over represented, like Vic and Tasmania, but games are played in every state (and NT) and in cities representing probably about 2/3 of the national population.

Well Wookie #121 tells us the VFL wasnt a national league.. so why use 'Australian' if its not national?
Playing FIFO games is hardly a right to call it national. Thats just a money making venture.

 

[The_Wookie]

Well Wookie #121 tells us the VFL wasnt a national league.. so why use 'Australian' if its not national?
Playing FIFO games is hardly a right to call it national. Thats just a money making venture.

Actually ive never said that. I said that the league didnt consider itself a national competition, but the VFL did obviously consider itself a national competition by 1991 when it changed its branding to AFL from VFL. however it was a brand change and nothing more and done for marketing as much as to reflect the teams added to the existing compeition.

 

[madmug]

Actually ive never said that. I said that the league didnt consider itself a national competition, but the VFL did obviously consider itself a national competition by 1991 when it changed its branding to AFL from VFL. however it was a brand change and nothing more and done for marketing as much as to reflect thes added to the existing compeition.

So they didnt consider themselves a national competition, but then changed their 'branding' to 'Australian', but they are same competition!

Righto! That sounds so logical ,)

 

[The_Wookie]

So they didnt consider themselves a national competition, but then changed their 'branding' to 'Australian', but they are same competition!

Righto! That sounds so logical ,)

if you paid any attention at all, youll note the data of the entry that the VFL said they werent a national competition was some years before the rebrand. A lot happens in 5 years.

And a rebrand STILL doesnt make it a new competition. The AFL STILL counts all the brownlow winners going right back to the first one in 1924 - the Brownlow of course being a VFL award. See also the Mclelland trophy (1951), Norm Smith Medal (1979), Coleman Medal (1981, but backdated to 1955 to include all VFL leading goalkicker winners - that backdating took place in 2004 btw), the AFLs official list of premiership winners, and for all the marbles - The AFL celebrated its centenary in 1996.

How this doesnt close the case for you people is beyond me. The AFl annual report for 1996 indicates it was a centenary celebration and additional sponsorship was received because of it.

 

[madmug]

if you paid any attention at all, youll note the data of the entry that the VFL said they werent a national competition was some years before the rebrand. A lot happens in 5 years.

And a rebrand STILL doesnt make it a new competition. The AFL STILL counts all the brownlow winners going right back to the first one in 1924 - the Brownlow of course being a VFL award. See also the Mclelland trophy (1951), Norm Smith Medal (1979), Coleman Medal (1981, but backdated to 1955 to include all VFL leading goalkicker winners - that backdating took place in 2004 btw), the AFLs official list of premiership winners, and for all the marbles - The AFL celebrated its centenary in 1996.

How this doesnt close the case for you people is beyond me. The AFl annual report for 1996 indicates it was a centenary celebration and additional sponsorship was received because of it.

You are kidding aren't you!

It is so, because they say 'it is so'.

Thats your argument?

I dont know what you do for a job, but lawyer you are not.

 

[telsor]

Well Wookie #121 tells us the VFL wasnt a national league.. so why use 'Australian' if its not national?

Wookie #152 says you're wrong about that...

Playing FIFO games is hardly a right to call it national. Thats just a money making venture.

FIFO games service markets that are too small to warrant their own team. If you think they shouldn't happen, then what do you think should happen in places like Darwin and Cairns?

I would have thought that being in a regional center, you'd appreciate them looking beyond the big cities.

 

[telsor]

You are kidding aren't you!

It is so, because they say 'it is so'.

Thats your argument?

I dont know what you do for a job, but lawyer you are not.

I'm sure a lawyer would say they're the same entity as well.

Do you think the VFL's creditors stopped asking them to pay their bills because they changed their name, and the VFL 'disappeared'?

If BP changed it's legal name tomorrow, would they no longer need to pay the fines/cleanup for the gulf of Mexico spill?

Pretty sure the lawyers would have a good laugh at anyone trying that on.

 

[The_Wookie]

You are kidding aren't you!

It is so, because they say 'it is so'.

Thats your argument?

I dont know what you do for a job, but lawyer you are not.

lawyer i may not be, but whatever you do for a living obviously doesnt require any kind of reading comprehension.

Well besides the leagues own literature and official history, theres also the ASIC records. pay real close attention to the highlighted parts.

The defense rests.