Proposal to include premierships dating back to 1870 gathering pace

[threenewpadlocks]

This is exactly what Col is arguing for.

He does not want old VFA Premierships to be called VFL or AFL Premierships per se.

He just wants those VFA Premierships to be acknowledged in their equivalence to VFL/AFL Premierships, and thus, allow them to be counted as such in clubs official tallies.

I went to Col's book talk a couple of months ago and he made this point unequivocally.

He argues for a distinction between the eras, but also argues that none of the 3 eras is any less relevant or less important than any other.

I wasn't aware of any AFL directive that Geelong weren't allowed to count the fact that they themselves have won VFA flags. Is it part of the licensing agreement? Geelong can proudly claim that they were the champion Victorian team for a given year before 1897 and they can claim that they were the champion Victorian or Australian team after 1897 for a given year. Nobody wants to stop them doing that.

The AFL is under no obligation to recognise equivlance in premierships, because you open a whole can of worms if you're measuring vague concepts of being the "premier" of a given season irrespective of the fact that it is tied to a competition. Are the Footscray allowed to claim to be the premier team of 1924, for instance? Does this mean that Essendon cease to be the premier team of 1924, if, after all, all we are trying to do is measure the "equivalence" of VFL/AFL premiers?

The VFL lost the right to claim a different competition's history by virtue of the fact that they didn't want to continue to participate under the rules and regulations of that history.

You still have never answered the question about how we should treat Port Melbourne and Williamstown in all this - they were clubs that played against Geelong and others in the VFA in 1896, but were prevented by playing in the VFL, even though at the time of 1896-97, they had wanted to and had every intention to continue to play in the highest quality competition in Victoria. Geelong were one of the clubs that prevented them from being a VFL/AFL team.

 

[Sttew]

They formed a new league whose history is not tied to the VFA.

Of course it is Maybe not officially but in 1896 the 8 clubs were part of the VFA. The next year they were the VFL. How is there no tie?

Also 11 years of the VFA the premiership was decided by the press and only two years did they have a GF. The VFA also started in 1877 not 1870

That's why you separate VFA "premierships".

The VFL had its share of anomalies.

There were no grand finals in 1897 or 1924. Does anyone say Essendon (the premier team in both years) should be stripped of the titles because they didn't play off in a GF. Of course not.

Do we give AFL premierships a higher weighting or ranking because there were greater than 12 teams in the competition? Of course not.

At one stage if the 'minor premier' did not advance in the finals playoff it could challenge the winner of the finals play-off to be declared the league champion. 11 teams challenged in this fashion and ended up being declared Premiers even though they either bombed out of the finals or didn't qualify forb the GF. Do we disregard these 11 premierships? Of course not.

 

[peetoo]

But officially. I'm not sure why the VFL doesn't officially recognise the VFA success of those clubs who broke away to form the VFL. If that had never happened, there would probably never have been a VFL

It was shown somewhere that the record did indeed carry VFA records for a couple or so decades into the VFL, but then were no longer recorded…they grew up. By 1925 a quarter of the league was added since the breakaway

So coming up to 40 years since the name change 2030 seven of nineteen teams..over a third are new.

Cut the cord

 

[Bunk Moreland]

This is exactly what Col is arguing for.

He does not want old VFA Premierships to be called VFL or AFL Premierships per se.

He just wants those VFA Premierships to be acknowledged in their equivalence to VFL/AFL Premierships (as they were won in the Premier competition of the day with most of the same teams), and thus, allow them to be counted as such in clubs official tallies.

I went to Col's book talk a couple of months ago and he made this point unequivocally.

He argues for a distinction between the eras, but also argues that none of the 3 eras is any less relevant or less important than any other.

Did he wear his Cats jumper?

 

[Seedsfan]

Of course it is Maybe not officially but in 1896 the 8 clubs were part of the VFA. The next year they were the VFL. How is there no tie?

That's why you separate VFA "premierships".

The VFL had its share of anomalies.

There were no grand finals in 1897 or 1924. Does anyone say Essendon (the premier team in both years) should be stripped of the titles because they didn't play off in a GF. Of course not.

Do we give AFL premierships a higher weighting or ranking because there were greater than 12 teams in the competition? Of course not.

At one stage if the 'minor premier' did not advance in the finals playoff it could challenge the winner of the finals play-off to be declared the league champion. 11 teams challenged in this fashion and ended up being declared Premiers even though they either bombed out of the finals or didn't qualify forb the GF. Do we disregard these 11 premierships? Of course not.

lol apples and oranges.

There is no tie as it is a completely seperate and independent league. The history of the VFA is separate and will never be apart of the VFL’s history.

Pre 1877 the records are even more dubious. Why pick 1870 when that predates the VFA by 7 years?

 

[rapidfire7]

Did he wear his Cats jumper?

View attachment 2135096

Not all heroes wear capes (or Geelong jumpers). Not always anyway.

Would love for you to come with me to the next one. New dates will be announced soon.

The man is fighting to get you another 4 flags .

 

[Partridge]

No issues with counting all flags in your history, but when talking about flags they need to be differentiated based on the league not joint e.g.

Carlton have won 22 flags
6 VFA Premierships
15 VFL Premierships
1 AFL Premiership

Port Adelaide have won 36 flags
35 SANFL Premierships
1 AFL Premiership

That's exactly it. I'd be happy to combine VFL and AFL as that really was just a name change.

So for Geelong it would be:
17 flags
7 VFA Premierships
10 VFL/AFL Premierships

 

[Partridge]

You still have never answered the question about how we should treat Port Melbourne and Williamstown in all this - they were clubs that played against Geelong and others in the VFA in 1896, but were prevented by playing in the VFL, even though at the time of 1896-97, they had wanted to and had every intention to continue to play in the highest quality competition in Victoria. Geelong were one of the clubs that prevented them from being a VFL/AFL team.

Forget Port and Williamstown - what about Footscray and North? They won plenty of VFA flags between 1897 and 1924 (15 between them) - do they get included?

EDIT: The answer is - no. The Doggie have won 9 VFA flags, but in the VFL/AFL, they've won 2.

 

[rapidfire7]

The AFL is under no obligation to recognise equivlance in premierships, because you open a whole can of worms if you're measuring vague concepts of being the "premier" of a given season irrespective of the fact that it is tied to a competition. Are the Footscray allowed to claim to be the premier team of 1924, for instance? Does this mean that Essendon cease to be the premier team of 1924, if, after all, all we are trying to do is measure the "equivalence" of VFL/AFL premiers?

It comes back to the Col's point (which you obviously don't agree with) that the pre-VFL VFA premierships are essentially equivalent to VFL/AFL flags because they were won in the Premier competition of the day with most of the same teams which would go on to form the VFL in 1897. I don't think there is anything vague there.

You still have never answered the question about how we should treat Port Melbourne and Williamstown in all this - they were clubs that played against Geelong and others in the VFA in 1896, but were prevented by playing in the VFL, even though at the time of 1896-97, they had wanted to and had every intention to continue to play in the highest quality competition in Victoria. Geelong were one of the clubs that prevented them from being a VFL/AFL team.

I'm not really sure what you are asking me about Port Melbourne & Williamstown. How should we treat them in what regard exactly?

 

[threenewpadlocks]

It comes back to the Col's point (which you obviously don't agree with) that the pre-VFL VFA premierships are essentially equivalent to VFL/AFL flags because they were won in the Premier competition of the day with most of the same teams which would go on to form the VFL in 1897. I don't think there is anything vague there.

I agree with the statement that the pre-VFL VFA premierships were won in the Premier competition of the day with most of the same teams that would go on to form the VFL in 1897.

I disagree what you believe is that the conclusion of such an above statement is to consider the premierships equivalent.

The most obvious one of this is because the hollowed-out VFA continued a competition in 1897 and maintained the same rules, regulations and legal obligations of the previous competition.

The VFL of 1897 were explicit in the fact that they were succeeding and creating a new compeition.

E.g. https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/9154901 https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/...85/1897/03/19/page/10111083/article/103237821

Given those above facts, I can (and most people) can disagree with the conclusion of "essentially equivalent".

I'm not really sure what you are asking me about Port Melbourne & Williamstown. How should we treat them in what regard exactly?

As an example, how would you treat Port Melbourne's 2011 premiership, as it was won by Port Melbourne in the most premier competition that other teams allowed them to play, given that they once played in the premier competition in Victoria? What's not to say that that they were not given the opportunity, that they were not the premier team in the country or

 

[rapidfire7]

I agree with the statement that the pre-VFL VFA premierships were won in the Premier competition of the day with most of the same teams that would go on to form the VFL in 1897.

I disagree what you believe is that the conclusion of such an above statement is to consider the premierships equivalent.

The most obvious one of this is because the hollowed-out VFA continued a competition in 1897 and maintained the same rules, regulations and legal obligations of the previous competition.

The VFL of 1897 were explicit in the fact that they were succeeding and creating a new compeition.

E.g. https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/9154901 https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/103237821?browse=ndp:browse/title/N/title/385/1897/03/19/page/10111083/article/103237821

Given those above facts, I can (and most people) can disagree with the conclusion of "essentially equivalent".

You seem quite caught up about the semantics of the word equivalent which I used. Whether it is the most appropriate term or not (probably not, now that I think about it), I was just trying to make the point that pre-VFL VFA premierships are the same as VFL/AFL flags in the sense that they were both won in the Premier comp of the time (in my view anyway). That's it. My bad for not making it clear.

As an example, how would you treat Port Melbourne's 2011 premiership, as it was won by Port Melbourne in the most premier competition that other teams allowed them to play, given that they once played in the premier competition in Victoria? What's not to say that that they were not given the opportunity, that they were not the premier team in the country or

What's to say that a lot of things may have happened/may be if things had been different? Story of my life actually.

 

[MelbourneGWS]

But officially. I'm not sure why the VFL doesn't officially recognise the VFA success of those clubs who broke away to form the VFL. If that had never happened, there would probably never have been a VFL

A fair point - one of Carter’s arguments is that by only counting the VFL premierships from 1897, we are ignoring the premierships the break away VFL clubs won when they were in the VFA.

 

[darcytiger]

Anything pre 1960 is pretty Mickey Mouse with an argument that even anything pre 1990 too.

Pre 1900 can get in the bin

 

[BF Tiger]

Has this happened yet?

 

[Partridge]

I agree with the statement that the pre-VFL VFA premierships were won in the Premier competition of the day with most of the same teams that would go on to form the VFL in 1897.

I disagree what you believe is that the conclusion of such an above statement is to consider the premierships equivalent.

The most obvious one of this is because the hollowed-out VFA continued a competition in 1897 and maintained the same rules, regulations and legal obligations of the previous competition.

Same. There's no way premierships were equivalent when you dig deeper and look at some of the aspects of this "competition" that weren't fixed until very, very late in the pre-1897 VFA era.

It wasn't until 1888 that there was a proper ladder with premiership points, with 4 points for a win and 2 for a draw. That's absolutely essential and basic for any kind of competition. The fact it wasn't there for the first 11 seasons of the VFA says a lot. Even later, it wasn't until 1894 where there was a set fixture with every team played the same amount of games.

The understandable reality is the rules of the game, and how a competition was properly structured were still being ironed out almost until the 8 founder VFL teams walked. The early VFL certainly was far from perfect, but at least it had a ladder, a fixture, four quarters (changed much later than you'd think), and so on. That can't be said for a big chunk of the early VFA.

 

[Seeds]

Anything pre 1960 is pretty Mickey Mouse with an argument that even anything pre 1990 too.

Pre 1900 can get in the bin

Pre 1990 can go in the bin. Or pre 1960.

 

[Freddy Swift]

Can anyone explain to me why a handful of clubs who were unhappy or pissed off with the league they were in, and decided to break away and form another league, should get to take any ‘flags’ previously won with them?

They decided to leave that former league behind so anything won there stays there. Why should they be rewarded because they stamped their feet and walked out?

Colin Carter is only pushing this because in his mind it’s beneficial for Geelong. You can bet he wouldn’t be bothering with it if it meant no extra flags for them.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Partridge]

Can anyone explain to me why a handful of clubs who were unhappy or pissed off with the league they were in, and decided to break away and form another league, should get to take any ‘flags’ previously won with them?

They decided to leave that former league behind so anything won there stays there. Why should they be rewarded because they stamped their feet and walked out?

Colin Carter is only pushing this because in his mind it’s beneficial for Geelong. You can bet he wouldn’t be bothering with it if it meant no extra flags for them.

Hard not to draw that conclusion. Especially as he doesn't address at all the glaring flaws in the structure of the competition prior to the VFL getting started. The fact that Essendon would not only have 4 extra premierships, but become the FIRST team to win 4 flags in a row, and haven't bothered to agitate for it speaks volumes. South Melbourne would gain a fair number of flags as well but you don't see Sydney club bosses howling for it.

It's the same as it always has been. Interesting, if not fascinating history for all of those clubs, and a valid part of those clubs' histories (and the VFA's). But it isn't part of the VFL/AFL and should never be thought of as such. It was a breakaway competition for a reason.

 

[Roylion]

We differ. We aren't talking about a club moving from one league to another, as frequently happens in regional leagues. We are talking about 8 of 13 clubs breaking away from the VFA to form a new competition called the VFL in 1896.

So they left one league and entered another. Whether it was newly formed is irrelevant.

 

[Pistol Night]

Pre 1990 can go in the bin. Or pre 1960.

Shit we're back to 2

 

[Seeds]

Shit we're back to 2

Well no you would be 3.

Bombers 2. Blues 1.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Well no you would be 3.

Bombers 2. Blues 1.

As much as I hate to hand Carlton anything, my logical side must rule. If we’re going down that road, it’s clear the era started in 1987 and not 1990 which was just a bloody name change. Carlton have 2.

 

[Cyclops]

I'm going to start a petition to recognise that Geelong FC ceased to exist around the 1970s, and were replaced by the Geelong Handbaggers, a new club that in turn were replaced by the Geelong Danks in 2006-2010. Finally a new Geelong side playing out of GBH stadium joined the league.

Thus will be based on evidence of Bigfooty posts (ok many were deleted but i remember them trust me bro), and Bigfooty journalists will be called on to award (or expunge) any flags they see fit. For a start we can subtract the two Dank flags so that club has 0 (zero) flags.

The current Cats are on two, a great effort from a brash young side, even if they are a bit phony and lacking in tradition.

 

[GC2015]

As much as I hate to hand Carlton anything, my logical side must rule. If we’re going down that road, it’s clear the era started in 1987 and not 1990 which was just a bloody name change. Carlton have 2.

You could just make it easy by saying every flag won before 1990 was a VFL flag and every flag won after 1990 is an AFL flag. Then you just use the words VFL and AFL to differentiate between a state league and a national league. I get that West Coast and Brisbane were competing for four years between 1987-90, but the league still hadn't fully embraced the national aspect of expansion in those years and it forced West Coast to host a "home" final against Melbourne at Waverley Park in the first week of the 1988 finals, which they of course lost. For the record, West Coast beat the Dees by 44 points at Subiaco in round 18 of the 1988 season so it was definitely a huge disadvantage that they were forced to host a final in Melbourne. The same thing happened in 1990 when the Eagles were forced to host another final in Melbourne.

From 1991 onward, everything seemed to be done correctly in terms of a national league (hosting finals outside Victoria) and the Crows were added into the league so you had all major capital cities represented. 1991 also happened to be the year when it all started to change in terms of non-Victorian teams going deep in the finals and winning premierships. Then we saw 10 of the next 16 premierships won by non-Vic teams and the league really did feel national during that period.

tl;dr - Virtually every premiership won before 1990 can be looked as a state title. Every premiership after 1990 can be looked as a national title.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

You could just make it easy by saying every flag won before 1990 was a VFL flag and every flag won after 1990 is an AFL flag. Then you just use the words VFL and AFL to differentiate between a state league and a national league. I get that West Coast and Brisbane were competing for four years between 1987-90, but the league still hadn't fully embraced the national aspect of expansion in those years and it forced West Coast to host a "home" final against Melbourne at Waverley Park in the first week of the 1988 finals, which they of course lost. For the record, West Coast beat the Dees by 44 points at Subiaco in round 18 of the 1988 season so it was definitely a huge disadvantage that they were forced to host a final in Melbourne. The same thing happened in 1990 when the Eagles were forced to host another final in Melbourne.

From 1991 onward, everything seemed to be done correctly in terms of a national league (hosting finals outside Victoria) and the Crows were added into the league so you had all major capital cities represented. 1991 also happened to be the year when it all started to change in terms of non-Victorian teams going deep in the finals and winning premierships. Then we saw 10 of the next 16 premierships won by non-Vic teams and the league really did feel national during that period.

tl;dr - Virtually every premiership won before 1990 can be looked as a state title. Every premiership after 1990 can be looked as a national title.

I think you’re backfitting it all to fit the name change. The hosting finals in Vic thing wasn’t fixed until the mid 90s. There really was no big change in 1990. It was just a name change. 1987 was the big change.