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