Proposal to include premierships dating back to 1870 gathering pace

[rapidfire7]

Wc had their first in 92.

Thanks for the reminder

 

[iameviljez]

It always amuses me how people care so much about flag numbers, especially when the majority of them won were 100+ years ago.

It's like bragging about how Robert the Bruce kicked the arse of the English a decade or so after Wallace's death

Truly bizarre.

Completely agree. It's such a false equivalency and it's not really relevant.

Feels like the arguments about My Dad vs Your Dad in the playground, it's a pissing contest over very very little.

 

[terrybull]

University more flags than freo

and equal to the Saints

 

[bzparkes]

Probs not the best example as Braveheart is a masterpiece

I vote for whatever is worse for Geelong

Oh, Braveheart's my favourite movie of all time. Merely making the point that it was so long ago, it's pointless to argue over who won.

 

[terrybull]

Oh, Braveheart's my favourite movie of all time. Merely making the point that it was so long ago, it's pointless to argue over who won.

 

[Linda Lovelace]

No it's not the correct understanding of Aussie Rules history.

The VFA back in the 1800s was the Premier Comp in the Nation.

Aussie Rules "flags" for current AFL teams should only be counted if they were won in the Nations Premier Comp at the whatever point in the games history.

So SANFL, WAFL, VFA 1900s etc. "flags" don't meet the requirements as they were not the nations premier comp. They are not equivalent to Flags won in the best comp in various periods of Aussie rules history.

Original VFA flags count.
VFL flags from 1898 onwards to 1990 count.
AFL flags from 1990 - ..... count.

Premier comp...whose winners lost multiple championship games not just to interstate sides but even managed to lose them to the VFA.

The VFL may have had the most elite players on balance, but given the top talent was split not just across the states but also even within Victoria for a good chunk of history, it's a massive stretch to call it the 'Premier comp' as if this is some official status, when there's years it didn't even have the best team. Top national talent was way too dispersed.

It would be like watching an Italian club win the Champion's league and then going 'yeah, nah I reckon La Liga has the most elite players out of all European leagues so therefore we don't count Champion's League, or Serie A or Premier League titles'

It's an extremely dumb argument.

 

[MelbourneGWS]

If it was the same competition, it would still be called the VFL.

But South Melbourne and Sydney Swans are the same club despite the name change to Sydney? Sydney claims all the history of South Melbourne

 

[rapidfire7]

The English Premier League is a good point of comparison for this stupid idea. It was founded in 1992 when all 22 of the existing Football League First Division decided to break away into a different competition, unlike the VFL where only certain clubs moved from the VFA on its establishment.

There is, rightly, no recognition in the English Premier League table for titles won in the previous top flight league prior to the EPL's establishment, because it was a different league entirely (despite having the exact same teams the year prior).

Individual clubs can still happily claim titles won in any other league they have competed in, but they aren't shown in EPL records for obvious reasons.

With respect, I'm not sure this is a great example you have put forth, as the old English 1st division & Premier League records are very often combined when counting clubs total number of titles in England. Very often.

If anything, the way in which the EPL is so inclusive of prior league records seems to only add more weight to Colin's ideas for me.

 

[big_e]

With respect, I'm not sure this is a great example you have put forth, as the old English 1st division & Premier League records are very often combined when counting clubs total number of titles in England. Very often.

If anything, the way in which the EPL is so inclusive of prior league records seems to only add more weight to Colin's ideas for me.

View attachment 2132165

The Premier League's website only refers to titles won from 92/3 onwards.

Premier League Season Reviews, Historical Stats

Read about every Premier League season since 1992-93, including top goalscorers and most clean sheets. Watch video footage and view photo galleries. Visit the official website of the Premier League for more details.

www.premierleague.com

Clubs refer to titles won in either first division or premier league. Go to Man United's website, for instance, and they say 20 titles, which includes both, but click through and there are separate sections for First Division and Premier League.

Man Utd Trophy Room | Club Honours Board, Silverware & Trophies

Read more about Man United's major silverware triumphs.

www.manutd.com

Clubs can record history however they like, but the league should stick to it's own history only.

 

[rapidfire7]

Clubs refer to titles won in either first division or premier league. Go to Man United's website, for instance, and they say 20 titles, which includes both, but click through and there are separate sections for First Division and Premier League.

Yes, it is broadly acknowledged and spoken of that Man Utd has won 20 titles in England. No one seems to diminish the worthiness of the ones they won prior to the formation of the EPL.

Why are Carlton's 22 Premierships (inclusive of 6 from the VFA era) not viewed in the same light by the vast majority of the football public? Why shouldn't their VFA flags be viewed similarly to Man United's first division titles?

 

[peetoo]

North England accent LOL

 

[peetoo]

The Premier League's website only refers to titles won from 92/3 onwards.

Premier League Season Reviews, Historical Stats

Read about every Premier League season since 1992-93, including top goalscorers and most clean sheets. Watch video footage and view photo galleries. Visit the official website of the Premier League for more details.

www.premierleague.com

Clubs refer to titles won in either first division or premier league. Go to Man United's website, for instance, and they say 20 titles, which includes both, but click through and there are separate sections for First Division and Premier League.

Man Utd Trophy Room | Club Honours Board, Silverware & Trophies

Read more about Man United's major silverware triumphs.

www.manutd.com

Clubs can record history however they like, but the league should stick to it's own history only.

Was going to say the EPL official records least support that argument. They usually refer to EPL titles only, and the AFL came a few seasons before that

 

[Sentinel]

With respect, I'm not sure this is a great example you have put forth, as the old English 1st division & Premier League records are very often combined when counting clubs total number of titles in England. Very often.

If anything, the way in which the EPL is so inclusive of prior league records seems to only add more weight to Colin's ideas for me.

View attachment 2132165

Carter's argument is about amending the official AFL record book, not what a random news outlet or broadcaster might show as a combined record.

In the EPL's case you can view it on their official website here: https://www.premierleague.com/stats/records


If the EPL were to be consistent with Carter's idea as you claim, they would include titles prior to the early 90s. But they don't.

 

[rapidfire7]

Carter's argument is about amending the official AFL record book, not what a random news outlet or broadcaster might show as a combined record.

In the EPL's case you can view it on their official website here: https://www.premierleague.com/stats/records

View attachment 2132267
If the EPL were to be consistent with Carter's idea as you claim, they would include titles prior to the early 90s. But they don't.

Of course the Premier Legaue website is only going to only list titles won in that era. No one has ever argued that first division titles should come under the banner of Premier League titles (not that I'm aware of anyway).

The point is that when referring to how many Titles/Premierships a side has won in English football, they do not discount the first division era (like we do regarding the VFA era for some reason).

Most people would say that Man Utd has won 20 titles, including 13 in the EPL era, but if someone says Essendon have won 20 Premierships they would get laughed at at best.

Why do we not treat old VFA Prernieships in the same way as First Division football titles? How are they different in this regard?

Premier League all-time winners 2024 | Statista

Which team has won the Premier League the most times? As of 2024, Manchester United had won the English top tier on 20 occasions.

www.statista.com

 

[Cyclops]

Yes, it is broadly acknowledged and spoken of that Man Utd has won 20 titles in England. No one seems to diminish the worthiness of the ones they won prior to the formation of the EPL.

Why are Carlton's 22 Premierships (inclusive of 6 from the VFA era) not viewed in the same light by the vast majority of the football public? Why shouldn't their VFA flags be viewed similarly to Man United's first division titles?

How anyone views anything is a matter of personal opinion. These are windy rhetorical questions.

Jumping from "why should some premierships count?" doesn't get you to "Geelong won 5 VFLAFL flags on the 1880s".

Carters argument is a dungheap of rhetorical questions and factual error. "People forgot" "the AFLs earliest era" these are factually incorrect statements.

There were no premierships contested in the VFA in the period Col wants the VFL/AFL to retrospectively create.

Geelong can count these journalist-awarded faux flags if they like, it would be tragic copium if they did.

It's would be incorrect for the VFL/AFL (whose identity changes in Cols argument with illogical ease) to acknowledge in the VFL/AFL flags won in another comp.

The weaseling about "premier comp" is made up garbage, where's the official crown worn by a footy comp that makes it the "premier league"? Or is that awarded decades later by journalists too?

The man's arguments are a sad joke. It's worrying such a person was in a position of authority. Sloppy, dishonourable and shonky garbage.

 

[rapidfire7]

Carter's argument is about amending the official AFL record book, not what a random news outlet or broadcaster might show as a combined record.

In the EPL's case you can view it on their official website here: https://www.premierleague.com/stats/records

View attachment 2132267
If the EPL were to be consistent with Carter's idea as you claim, they would include titles prior to the early 90s. But they don't.

Col doesn't want to turn old VFA Premierships into VFL or AFL ones. He just wants them to be formally recognised as Premierships by the AFL, and thus, added to the official tallies of Premierships won by the clubs. Like is the case with English Football Titles.

 

[rapidfire7]

Not sure why it’s so hard to leave it as it is.

Not sure why it's so hard to change it if doesn't doesn't really matter? Restoring history does matter for some of us, even if we are in the minority.

 

[Cleansweep17]

Not sure why it's so hard to change it if doesn't doesn't really matter? Restoring history does matter for some of us, even if we are in the minority.

They are already there as you said you wanted them as VFA flags.

You just want to add them to the tally for your selfishness of moving up the flag tally leaderboard and boast about it to people.

Let’s be frank about this and call it as it is. You don’t actually give a shit about 1870’s flags. I bet you don’t even know a name of one of those premiership players.

 

[oak79]

No it's not the correct understanding of Aussie Rules history.

The VFA back in the 1800s was the Premier Comp in the Nation.

Aussie Rules "flags" for current AFL teams should only be counted if they were won in the Nations Premier Comp at the whatever point in the games history.

So SANFL, WAFL, VFA 1900s etc. "flags" don't meet the requirements as they were not the nations premier comp. They are not equivalent to Flags won in the best comp in various periods of Aussie rules history.

Original VFA flags count.
VFL flags from 1898 onwards to 1990 count.
AFL flags from 1990 - ..... count.

What a load of rubbish.

The VFA and the VFL were not the "nations" Premier comp - they were state based ametuer competitions.

On any given year, and on average, yes VFL may have been better. But as shown repeatedly WAFL and SANFL teams could - and did beat - VFL teams. And even if they didn't, it wouldnt change the fact VFA/VFL were not national competitions.

All of the league's I mentioned were premier STATE based comps. That's all they were.

 

[oak79]

So virtually all your flags count. I see what you did there.

All flags count - in the competition they were won in.

Cats are free to combine VFA, VFL & AFL flags in their combined tally - but that does not make them all AFL flags.

 

[rapidfire7]

They are already there as you said you wanted them as VFA flags.

You just want to add them to the tally for your selfishness of moving up the flag tally leaderboard and boast about it to people.

Let’s be frank about this and call it as it is. You don’t actually give a shit about 1870’s flags. I bet you don’t even know a name of one of those premiership players.

They aren't included in the official league Premiership tallies, so they aren't there as some of us would like. Not sure why you're getting so worked up about it.

 

[Sentinel]

Col doesn't want to turn old VFA Premierships into VFL or AFL ones. He just wants them to be formally recognised as Premierships by the AFL, and thus, added to the official tallies of Premierships won by the clubs. Like is the case with English Football Titles.

I have no idea what you're even trying to say here. They're either VFL/AFL premierships or they're not. As is the case with EPL titles.

There is no such thing as an official combined tally in either Australian rules football or English association football, besides for individual club records.

 

[sherb]

Clubs can record history however they like, but the league should stick to it's own history only.

Exactly. It really is as simple as that.

 

[MelbourneGWS]

All flags count - in the competition they were won in.

Cats are free to combine VFA, VFL & AFL flags in their combined tally - but that does not make them all AFL flags.

But the AFL counts VFL premierships officially to the number of flags won by AFL clubs. Colin’s argument is that VFA flags won before the start of the VFL in 1897 should also be officially added?

 

[Cyclops]

Col doesn't want to turn old VFA Premierships into VFL or AFL ones. He just wants them to be formally recognised as Premierships by the AFL, and thus, added to the official tallies of Premierships won by the clubs. Like is the case with English Football Titles.