Proposal to include premierships dating back to 1870 gathering pace

[Engimal v3]

Surely no one is really pushing for this? The VFL/AFL was a breakaway competition from the VFA. We count VFL flags because the AFL was the VFL.

 

[jim boy]

It's called fairness Jim, if you are going to claim irrelevant stuff then others deserve the same treatment.

For the record no I don't think Port should get theirs added in, the SANFL and the VFA are different competitions to the VFL/AFL. That's where this argument should end, with common sense.

Real clubs (not cheap franchises) histories dont start and end with the VFL/AFL

 

[Engimal v3]

I remember a story from when Goldstein was newly drafted to North and how he was falling asleep in team meetings. His coach got annoyed about that before finding out Goldstein was working a second job to make ends meet. Now North got Goldstein a better job but to me that is not professional. If you need to work a second job that is not a professional league. It is only fully professional when all players are able to spend 100% of their work time actually working on being the best player they can be.

While I do believe that you heard this story, aren't draftees on like $90k a year?

 

[kane249]

Real clubs (not cheap franchises) histories dont start and end with the VFL/AFL

Speaking of insecurities

But if you are that insecure just do your merch as 17 flags, similar to what Port do, and let your fans lap it up.

Meanwhile in the real world the history books will say Geelong 10 VFL/AFL flags, Port 1 AFL flag.

You can then go down to the VFA archives or wherever they are now (since they continued to operate until 1975) and reminisce about your 7 flags there from a different league.

 

[Sentinel]

Real clubs (not cheap franchises) histories dont start and end with the VFL/AFL

No one is denying individual clubs their own history of winning premierships since their own foundation. Geelong has won 17 premierships in their existence, good for them.

The fact that someone (a former Geelong president with new 7 flags up his sleeve, of course) now wants to include in VFL/AFL league records premierships which were won in an entirely different league, is what is laughably up for debate.

 

[My Tilly]

Dumb idea. Most of those "premierships" happened when the competition was entirely amateur.

Premierships should really only be counted from 1990 onwards, and even then I am not sure as the game was not really professional then either since a lot of players needed second jobs to make a living.

A premiership in 1934 where every player trained once a week and got drunk before the games is hardly worth the same as a modern professional premiership.

One could ask the very same question about the women's league. Do we acknowledge premierships won to this point in time?

 

[WillHayward]

An under 16's team would beat both the 1909 Carlton and South Melbourne sides. I mean the skills are awful.

That is absolutely awesome footage.

 

[btdg]

'Include' in what?

In the official history of clubs that played ina different league? Sure. I am pretty certain those clubs already do that, but fine.

In the official history of the VFL/AFL? What a stupid suggestion. Why would premierships won in a different competition (and one that ran concurrently with this one for over 100 years) be part of the history of this league.

It's the same argument as Port SANFL premierships imo. Part of a different league. They are a part of club history, but they aren't included in VFL/AFL history for bleedingly obvious reasons.

 

[Sentinel]

'Include' in what?

In the official history of clubs that played ina different league? Sure. I am pretty certain those clubs already do that, but fine.

In the official history of the VFL/AFL? What a stupid suggestion. Why would premierships won in a different competition (and one that ran concurrently with this one for over 100 years) be part of the history of this league.

It's the same argument as Port SANFL premierships imo. Part of a different league. They are a part of club history, but they aren't included in VFL/AFL history for bleedingly obvious reasons.

It's completely ridiculous that this is even up for discussion.

 

[RUNVS]

While I do believe that you heard this story, aren't draftees on like $90k a year?

They are now but I think they were on a lot less at the time Goldstein was drafted.

 

[Strange Cat]

Although I don’t support Port Adelaide, I would imagine they will be happy with the counting of pre-VFL premierships, as long as their SANFL premierships are included too?

It’s not the same club

 

[Roylion]

I find it on one hand comical how it's like a batman style 'Roylion signal'

Guarantee everytime I open a thread on this sort of topic, or let say topics like 'relocation to the Gold Coast', "too many clubs in Melbourne", "relocation to Tasmania" or "how many clubs should the AFL have" or "X (club) is worse than Y (usually Fitzroy)", lo and behold... guess what's mentioned. Not hard to come across.

So many people have wacky ideas about how things went down, and you arrive and deliver the irrefutable facts on every point possible. If only everyone took it in.

Its tiresome at times. But I'll bet other supporters would correct any misconceptions about their own club. There's just not a great many of us Roys left.

 

[CrazyJoeFevola]

One could ask the very same question about the women's league. Do we acknowledge premierships won to this point in time?

Personally, a local flag in for example the Northern Footy League, I'd consider more of an achievement than an AFLW flag. Be it Div 1, 2 or 3 the standard of footy is higher and probably always will be. My local cricket side would knock off the Australian women's side. Faster bowlers and our better batsmen would flog spinners bowling 50k an hour loopers, while our spinners rip it pretty hard at 75 clicks an hour. Our player budget is 15k tops, while the base rate for an inferior women's state player alone is around 60k. I'm talking about a local league. All off the back of cash men bringing in the cash. No Women's sporting league in the world brings in enough revenue alone to stand on their own 2 feet, it's all subsidized by the product that generates the revenue, the men.

Women's footy or cricket wouldn't be televised if the AFL/CA didn't take a hit to their broadcast deal for it to happen. If the product was good enough to generate this revenue on it's own, fair enough but it ain't. Opening bowlers hovering around 100 km and spinners bowling moon balls for batswomen to hit to a 40 meter boundary should not be televised. Women's cricket has had years to develop as a product and it has not gotten much better. Why would the AFLW improve? Even in the very early years of footy you had blokes taking hangers, today, any level of local footy, you see hangers. Doesn't happen in the AFLW (Unless you want to call a half leap a hanger, then go for it) The physical capability of men will always win out and be better to watch. Look at the Matildas losing by an embarassing amount to an u/15 boys rep team 7-0 in a much less physical sport.

Netball is the only sport I can think of that stands on it's own 2 feet as a women's sport, and they still get paid donuts.

 

[Hawksboy72]

So do we add the night competition/pre-season titles as well??...which takes Hawthorn into the 20's.

 

[kane249]

So do we add the night competition/pre-season titles as well??...which takes Hawthorn into the 20's.

Still more relevant than a VFA premiership

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

Colin Carter is on his own in a very ridiculous world, an attention seeker.

 

[Altum Volantes]

Fully in support of this.

Assuming of course we can lump all of those state based premierships together, from 1870 to 1989 as ‘VFL/VFA Premierships’ and then count the premierships won in the national competition (1990 onwards), as a separate achievement.

Keeps all those state based flags together - hell we can even include Port’s ones - and focus on the more relevant achievements of the competition.

 

[Back One Out]

So do we add the night competition/pre-season titles as well??...which takes Hawthorn into the 20's.

Hawthorn beat Essendon, Carlton, Collingwood and Port Adelaide (in Adelaide) to win the 1985 Night Premiership

I'd argue this was more noteworthy than Geelong playing every game at home in 1878 and defeating juggernaut powerhouses like Barwon, Chilwell, Hotham, Warrigal (NSW), University and the Geelong schoolboys

 

[Irish BlueBagger]

Discussed in a news article today.

https://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/new-book-aims-to-change-the-start-date-of-the-afl-to-include-vfa/news-story/427eecb163534721b6e8f6338a969b02

Interesting to see the premiership tally with premierships dating back to 1870 included.

Carlton - 22 premierships
Essendon - 20 premierships
Geelong - 17 premierships
Collingwood - 16 premierships
Melbourne - 16 premierships
Hawthorn - 13 premierships
Richmond - 13 premierships
Sydney - 10 premierships
Fitzroy - 9 premierships
North Melbourne - 4 premierships
Brisbane - 3 premierships
West Coast - 4 premierships
Adelaide - 2 premierships
Western Bulldogs - 2 premierships
St Kilda - 1 premiership
Port Adelaide - 1 premiership
Fremantle - 0 premierships
Gold Coast - 0 premierships
GWS - 0 premierships
University - 0 premierships

The main thing for me is this means we were the first club to win 4 premierships in a row but on the flip side it means Carlton have won more premierships than us.

What do footy fans think about this? Ye or neigh?

It sounds like a great idea to me. Neither Collingwood or Richmond are in contention for top spot either. That sounds all good with me tbh!

 

[terrybull]

Discussed in a news article today.

https://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/new-book-aims-to-change-the-start-date-of-the-afl-to-include-vfa/news-story/427eecb163534721b6e8f6338a969b02

Interesting to see the premiership tally with premierships dating back to 1870 included.

Carlton - 22 premierships
Essendon - 20 premierships
Geelong - 17 premierships
Collingwood - 16 premierships
Melbourne - 16 premierships
Hawthorn - 13 premierships
Richmond - 13 premierships
Sydney - 10 premierships
Fitzroy - 9 premierships
North Melbourne - 4 premierships
Brisbane - 3 premierships
West Coast - 4 premierships
Adelaide - 2 premierships
Western Bulldogs - 2 premierships
St Kilda - 1 premiership
Port Adelaide - 1 premiership
Fremantle - 0 premierships
Gold Coast - 0 premierships
GWS - 0 premierships
University - 0 premierships

The main thing for me is this means we were the first club to win 4 premierships in a row but on the flip side it means Carlton have won more premierships than us.

What do footy fans think about this? Ye or neigh?

There were no Premierships from 1870-1876 and arguably a few years in the VFA.
Teams did not play the same number of games and it was newspapers that agreed who should be champions. Not much to go on. Clubs should probably promote their own success more before joining VFL/AFL but the League should only count from when it started in 1897.

 

[terrybull]

Why aren't they including Port's premierships then? Both vfa and sanfl were different comps.

This was even before the VFA. There was no competition, just teams playing against each other. I think many years later some newspaper ranked each year from 1870 to 1876 a ladder what they thought was appropriate.

But for argument sake. The topic is between 1870-1896. So Port Adelaide would only get two of their SANFL Premierships on their list.

What happened before 1877 in SA I have not looked on, and maybe there was no newspaper rating the teams in South Australia as they did in Victoria (many years later I believe).

I don’t think anyone at the time cheered Carlton as 1870 Premiers (they probably did not know it themselves).

 

[terrybull]

Daily Mail wrote an article about this as well.

Carlton could have more premierships than Essendon with radical change

The former AFL commissioner and Geelong president argues the start date of the then-VFL should be moved to include the Victorian Football Association years back to 1870.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Interesting to see they list Fitzroy and Brisbane premierships together. I've always seen Fitzroy and Brisbane as two clubs with two histories including two separate premiership tallies.

They are seperate - for now.

But history is always re-written and changed despite the truth. And they may be seen as a single entity in the future…

 

[terrybull]

It in theory has no less merit than the current system. I'm not just saying this because it puts Carlton clear on top. Premier club of the strongest state comp simply changed hands from the VFA winner to the VFL winner in 86-87. But as a realist, it undermines the bedrock claim that the VFL/AFL transition means all premierships are considered equal as it was one continuous competition. Which as a byeline makes me laugh when people say 'oh, only flags from 1990 onward count as that was when it became the AFL. Nothing material changed. Same clubs as 89, different moniker.

The big material change if you really want to claim 'national league flags' was in 1987 when the Eagles and Bears were added to the existing 12 clubs. That was when the national competition was born. Yes South moved north in 1982 but no new clubs were added.

Then why start in 1870?
What happened in 1869 and prior?
We should then start in 1858 and Melbourne being Premiers as they were the only team

The first Australian Football Leagues started in 1877, first SANFL followed by the VFA.

Before that Clubs just played each other and argued which rules they should follow…

So how can you be Premiers when there is no League?

 

[Registered User]

Col's been at it for a while. It was knocked back last time in 2016

Geelong Advertiser

No Cookies

www.geelongadvertiser.com.au

 

[Colonial]

It’s ridiculous.

Why is it so difficult to just divide the premierships up per comp.

Eg
Collingwood 1 VFA, 13 VFL, 2 AFL

That would be common sense.