Remove this Banner Ad

Expansion The AFL is not the VFL thread

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

madmug said:
Because, as is the obvious point, the VFL was a state league, not a national league. You want to see it as the same thing, but it is a totally different situation. Its not the Melbourne + Geelong league any more.

You simply look through the situation with Vic-centric eyes. You argue every point with every excuse as to why the VFL records now somehow become 'national' records. You just dont want to see the blatantly obvious difference between a state league & a national league.

I'd expect that anyway. But it doesnt make it right.
Click to expand...

It's changed, but that doesn't mean it's not the same league.

I'm not saying VFL records are 'national', in the sense that the most goals in the VFL are the most in the country. I'm saying the LEAGUE records from the VFL continue on into the AFL records and they are one continuous set. Which is, BTW, what everyone involved in the game thinks/says.

BTW. If the difference between a state league and a national league is so blatantly obvious, why is there so much debate about when that change occurred? If it was so clear, then surely everyone could agree on the date.
 
telsor said:
It's changed, but that doesn't mean it's not the same league.

I'm not saying VFL records are 'national', in the sense that the most goals in the VFL are the most in the country. I'm saying the LEAGUE records from the VFL continue on into the AFL records and they are one continuous set. Which is, BTW, what everyone involved in the game thinks/says.

BTW. If the difference between a state league and a national league is so blatantly obvious, why is there so much debate about when that change occurred? If it was so clear, then surely everyone could agree on the date.
Click to expand...

Ask the League. According to Wookie, around the mid 80's when 'change' was mooted, the League said they were not a national competition. Then they said they were. It didn't appear to be a smooth change by any means. They are the ones playing silly buggers with League names & purposes & when all these occurred. Then we had the AFL 100th celebration, even though it didn't exist prior to the name change in the 80's.
 
madmug said:
Ask the League. According to Wookie, around the mid 80's when 'change' was mooted, the League said they were not a national competition. Then they said they were. It didn't appear to be a smooth change by any means. They are the ones playing silly buggers with League names & purposes & when all these occurred. Then we had the AFL 100th celebration, even though it didn't exist prior to the name change in the 80's.
Click to expand...

You mean the same league that says they're the same competition they've been for approaching 120 years?

Changing the name is a very small thing.
 
telsor said:
You mean the same league that says they're the same competition they've been for approaching 120 years?

Changing the name is a very small thing.
Click to expand...

But its not. One was a state based league. The AFL is a national league. Totally different organisations. One is the Self proclaimed keep of the game. The other was a state based league.

Get the idea. I know its easy to ignore the obvious difference. Its easy because it suits you to do so.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

madmug said:
But its not. One was a state based league. The AFL is a national league. Totally different organisations. One is the Self proclaimed keep of the game. The other was a state based league.

Get the idea. I know its easy to ignore the obvious difference. Its easy because it suits you to do so.
Click to expand...

So lets see if I've got this right...

When the AFL makes an idle comment about 'not being national', it's gospel truth, proof of your position and you keep repeating it ad nauseum.

But when the AFL repeatedly and in every way says they're the same competition they're full of it and it means nothing.



Talk about being selective in what you listen to. :rolleyes:

Sorry for interfering in your delusional fantasy world with all those nasty facts and reality.
 
madmug said:
But its not. One was a state based league. The AFL is a national league. Totally different organisations. One is the Self proclaimed keep of the game. The other was a state based league.

Get the idea. I know its easy to ignore the obvious difference. Its easy because it suits you to do so.
Click to expand...

It really is amazing what you push from the AFL from time to time. On the one hand, we cant believe them when they say one thing officially, on the other you can tout a media report that predated the expansion itself as the be all and end all. Its almost as amazing as the mountain of evidence you willfully ignore to continue this argument.
 
How is it hard to comprehend that the VFL expanded and changed its name to the AFL to better represent the fact that it had become a national competition. Therefore, all VFL records become AFL records. It is 100% fair to question whether records pre-AFL name change can be considered 'National' records, but the fact remains that the AFL was born out of the VFL and that they're the same competition.

The main thing that gets on my nerve is the claim that any VFL records prior to the name change shouldn't count to AFL history, or that if they do, all other state leagues should also. Perplexing. Records in VFA, SANFL, WAFL, or whatever other state comp you want do not count to AFL history, but rather Australian Football History. Just like the Goulburn Valley League or VAFA in Melbourne. It's all Australian Football History. Not AFL history. Port Adelaide Football Club have won 37 premierships. 1 of those is an AFL premiership. We simply cannot compare the standard of each state league premiership from times way before our own, we don't know if Port Adelaide's 1962 SANFL premiership team would've beaten Essendon's 1962 VFL premiership team.

Too many people let their anti-Victorian bias get in the way of fact and logic.
 
workhorse said:
How is it hard to comprehend that the VFL expanded and changed its name to the AFL to better represent the fact that it had become a national competition. Therefore, all VFL records become AFL records. It is 100% fair to question whether records pre-AFL name change can be considered 'National' records, but the fact remains that the AFL was born out of the VFL and that they're the same competition.

The main thing that gets on my nerve is the claim that any VFL records prior to the name change shouldn't count to AFL history, or that if they do, all other state leagues should also. Perplexing. Records in VFA, SANFL, WAFL, or whatever other state comp you want do not count to AFL history, but rather Australian Football History. Just like the Goulburn Valley League or VAFA in Melbourne. It's all Australian Football History. Not AFL history. Port Adelaide Football Club have won 37 premierships. 1 of those is an AFL premiership. We simply cannot compare the standard of each state league premiership from times way before our own, we don't know if Port Adelaide's 1962 SANFL premiership team would've beaten Essendon's 1962 VFL premiership team.

Too many people let their anti-Victorian bias get in the way of fact and logic.
Click to expand...

Its all very factual & logical if it suits you. Its clear to me that the national records should count from when the League decided it was national. They control everything now. Its just a pity they choose to make it seem the AFL started over a century ago. If they put in AFL/VFL on their records, then at least that is being honest. However they seem intent to ignore the facts & make it seem the AFL is over a century old. Its not. They are being deceptive & dishonest.

Why is questioning the AFLs version of events so 'Anti-Victorian'. Surely Im being anti AFL as an organisation & pro the real community history of the VFL & the other leagues. I think these are reasonable points to make. I love the real history of the game. I love the history & community effects of all the Leagues. The VFA, VFL, WAFL, SANFL as the bigger historic competitions, Also the lesser leagues, yes like the TFL, NTFA & NWFU with their major effect on Tasmania. I dont like the insinuation of one set of events on everyone else. Allowing it to dominate does a disservice to the amazing history of our game, their communities. That applies to the big leagues as much as the minor ones.
 
workhorse said:
How is it hard to comprehend that the VFL expanded and changed its name to the AFL to better represent the fact that it had become a national competition. Therefore, all VFL records become AFL records. It is 100% fair to question whether records pre-AFL name change can be considered 'National' records, but the fact remains that the AFL was born out of the VFL and that they're the same competition.

The main thing that gets on my nerve is the claim that any VFL records prior to the name change shouldn't count to AFL history, or that if they do, all other state leagues should also. Perplexing. Records in VFA, SANFL, WAFL, or whatever other state comp you want do not count to AFL history, but rather Australian Football History. Just like the Goulburn Valley League or VAFA in Melbourne. It's all Australian Football History. Not AFL history. Port Adelaide Football Club have won 37 premierships. 1 of those is an AFL premiership. We simply cannot compare the standard of each state league premiership from times way before our own, we don't know if Port Adelaide's 1962 SANFL premiership team would've beaten Essendon's 1962 VFL premiership team.

Too many people let their anti-Victorian bias get in the way of fact and logic.
Click to expand...

I don't know if anyone is even arguing what you just said, from what I have read on here everyone agrees it is one continuous comp.
What has been said is that the VFL in 1962 was a state League comp and not a national title. It is of course counted as it is a continuous comp but the change did occur over the years from being a Victorian State League to a national comp which we now have.
When it happened I will leave to others to choose the date but it did happen.

You said we don't know if Port would of beaten Essendon in 1962? It does seem to be an assumption that there was no chance of that however. Why assume if you don't know?

Port as you say have won 36 State League titles and 1 AFL title, Carlton have won 15 VFL titles and 1 AFL title. The fact that Carlton have not changed comp and that the VFL morphed into the AFL does not change the fact that 15 were State league cups.

I actually don't even get why Victorians can't admit their comp was a state league once, It is not as if it demeans anything. Its the factual truth.

Maybe it is different because I am not Victorian but if I was asked I would say we have won 16 Flags in this comp, only one since it went national though.
 
greatwhiteshark said:
I actually don't even get why Victorians can't admit their comp was a state league once, It is not as if it demeans anything. Its the factual truth.
Click to expand...

Where does any Victorian not admit this?

Yes, the AFL was once a state league, called the VFL. I don't think anybody (in Vic) denies that.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

The Swert said:
Do you think the Brits have the same arguments?

They have a similar complex history.

Unification of England - ~973AD
Norman Invasion - 1066AD
Royal union of England & Scotland - 1606 AD
Renaming as Great Britain - 1707 AD
Union of Great Britain and Ireland as United Kingdom - 1801 AD

When did the UK begin?
The royalty follow a continuous succession but they have accepted new realms and renamed their nation twice.

Does the history of England/GB/UK go back 200 years? 1000 years or more?
Click to expand...
The 'Brits' most certainly do have the same argument - and people in Scotland and Wales have been working hard in recent times to recognize history in those locales before unions with England. In the last decade or so organisations like the BBC have come on board, and BBC Wales and BBC Scotland in particular have produced far more top line documentaries about the history of each nation in the Union. Go back to the 1970s and these were pretty much non existent.
 
greatwhiteshark said:
Big Footy, maybe a poor example but it is what it is.
Click to expand...

So it should be easy to link to this overwhelming number of Vics who think the VFL/AFL was national over 35 years ago (I pick that date because before then there was no question).
 
The_Wookie said:
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.
Click to expand...
This would have been by far the best outcome for a quality & fairness.

Bring in the cream of SA & WA , 12 teams , 22 rounds perfect !!

Instead we keep adding teams diluting the product.

The fixture is the biggest disgrace in professional sport in the world !!
 
Gigantor said:
Any thread harking back to the Norman Conquest is terrific in my book.

The greatest failure of the Norman Conquest is that it allowed the language of the peasants to become the most important language on Earth 1,000 years later.
Click to expand...

You'd prefer Norman French?
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Football Pope said:
Nah..the national comp started in 1990 anything prior to that is irrelevant..regardless of where it derived or grew from...As for travel, the comp is too long as it is. Simple solution play each side once and even up the comp by scheduling games at venues outside of Victoria after all it is a national comp..
Click to expand...
National competition began in 1987 when West Coast and Bears came into the comp.
 
Football Pope said:
Nah..the national comp started in 1990 anything prior to that is irrelevant..regardless of where it derived or grew from...As for travel, the comp is too long as it is. Simple solution play each side once and even up the comp by scheduling games at venues outside of Victoria after all it is a national comp..
Click to expand...

Started in 1990 according to who? Certainly not according to the AFL itself.


As for scheduling games outside of Vic, just how would that work to even up travel? (ideally without creating an even bigger problem with some clubs getting a far greater home ground advantage).
 
Football Pope said:
Your sister is irrelevant in this ..Officially she ceased to be a miss but a mrs ..the competition ceased to be a Victorian competition
Click to expand...

So tell me a body that changed it's name and then became 'new'?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Expansion The AFL is not the VFL thread

Similar threads

The_Wookie
YouGov Poll: AFL one of the most improved sporting league brands in the world, QLD clubs lead the AFL ranks.
2 3 4
Replies
88
Views
3K
The_Wookie
The_Wookie
The_Wookie
The AFL has released the Total Player Payments for 2024, with the Total Player Payment limit set at $15.8m per club, up from $15.0m in 2023.
Replies
4
Views
1K
The Educator
T
Bjo187
Play Nice The Reach is King thread
2 3
Replies
73
Views
8K
The Educator
T
The_Wookie
The AFL is set to spend $1 billion across the next decade in an effort to fast-track more people signing up to play footy.
Replies
15
Views
2K
Macca180
Macca180
H
State of AFLW
2 3
Replies
50
Views
4K
Bjo187
Bjo187
The_Wookie
Release: AFL Announces three year radio deal extension
Replies
1
Views
637
Billy ray
Billy ray
1972championsofaust
AFL strong arms YouTube Content Creators!
Replies
5
Views
2K
errant bounce
errant bounce

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top