Proposal to include premierships dating back to 1870 gathering pace

[terrybull]

The VFL started in 1897, not before, not after - so 1897 is the only factually correct answer for when to count Premierships in this league.

The VFL were never called the VFA - the VFA was an entirely separate organisation from which a bunch of clubs broke away from after the end of the 1896 season to form the VFL as a brand new league (which later named themselves the AFL in 1990, but have otherwise continued, adding new clubs over the years since 1925 when 3 more defected from the rival VFA).

Thus, Premierships for the rival VFA organisation can’t possibly be included as VFL/AFL premierships..

Agee 100%

But I would not put it past it that AFL might re-write their history if they find it fit to do so.

 

[terrybull]

Ah, no. It's what's historically correct that counts. If the AFL came out and said "Actually, the competition currently known as the AFL was formed in 1990", then they'd be saying something that's demonstrably false.

That’s how history it is unfortunately.

Look at Roylion showing the truth about the Brisbane merger. Seems AFL and Brisbane consider it’s a true merger and Bears and Fitzroy no longer play in the AFL.

It’s happened before…

North Melbourne and West Melbourne merged in 1907, so technically a new club. Then they folded and a new North was founded in 1908, yet it’s still recognized as 1869.

Before the VFL/AFL used to include State games in players stats, now no more. Don’t agree? Well your argument will be defeated by the official stats.

Imagine if kids got an exam about the AFL and parents helping them?

When was AFL founded?
Kid looks up AFL’s official site and writes 1897 but dad says that’s wrong it’s 1990.

How many AFL Premierships have Carlton won.
Kid writes 16, but dad says 0 while mum says 0.

When was North Melbourne founded?
Kid looks it up, 1869. Granddad says it’s 1908.

And so on… anyway if the kid rely on others opinions (even if some can be historically correct), he’ll flunk at school.

Pluto a planet? Many thinks so, but now officially no.

I finally understood the meaning:
You have the power to change your future, present and past.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Collingwood finally draw level on 16 Flags and Nek minute there’s a proposal!

Oh the irony !

Not everything has to be about Collingwood. The proposal pre-dates last year's premiership. It's also not coming from Carlton or Essendon.

 

[Cubs2Lions]

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Carlton Football Club, on their magnificent achievement of 22 Premierships in the premier Australian Rules football competition

 

[rapidfire7]

Heard on SEN last week, that the club Presidents were about to meet (once again) to discuss (among other less important things) Carter's proposal to restore Australian football history.

Anyone hear about the outcome of the meeting/how it went?

Either way, it's only a matter of time until history is finally corrected.

 

[Blue1980]

This

Collingwood, blues and bombers fans wont like this. But its true.

Still the same competition. It’s not like we don’t count cricket or other sports stats from those times.

Sure if you’re an interstate side which has come in the last 37 years, just count what everyone has done since your side has been in the competition.

Also there are a lot of records and stats which just count AFL era 1990 onwards. I still think that’s a weird demarcation point, as nothing changed between 1989/90, the new sides came in 87, do we discount west coasts finals appearance in 88?

As for original premise of this thread, no pre 1897 flags don’t count, as the VFL was a new completion created breaking away from the VFA.

 

[Blue1980]

If they did that then Port would have genuine reason to claim theirs as well.

Fremantle should get both south and east Fremantle flags

 

[Blue1980]

Why wouldn’t we like it as Pies supporters. Gives us 3 flags and leaves the Bombers on 2 and the Blues languishing on 1.
Even better start it post COVID

Pies- 1
Cats- 1

Got to love the arbitrary starting points.

When did the VFL begin paying players?

 

[twiggy4PM]

Victoria needs to realise that it is now the AFL not the VFL plus a few other teams.

 

[Blue1980]

That’s how history it is unfortunately.

Look at Roylion showing the truth about the Brisbane merger. Seems AFL and Brisbane consider it’s a true merger and Bears and Fitzroy no longer play in the AFL.

It’s happened before…

North Melbourne and West Melbourne merged in 1907, so technically a new club. Then they folded and a new North was founded in 1908, yet it’s still recognized as 1869.

Before the VFL/AFL used to include State games in players stats, now no more. Don’t agree? Well your argument will be defeated by the official stats.

Imagine if kids got an exam about the AFL and parents helping them?

When was AFL founded?
Kid looks up AFL’s official site and writes 1897 but dad says that’s wrong it’s 1990.

How many AFL Premierships have Carlton won.
Kid writes 16, but dad says 0 while mum says 0.

When was North Melbourne founded?
Kid looks it up, 1869. Granddad says it’s 1908.

And so on… anyway if the kid rely on others opinions (even if some can be historically correct), he’ll flunk at school.

Pluto a planet? Many thinks so, but now officially no.

I finally understood the meaning:
You have the power to change your future, present and past.

I consider the Brisbane Lions a continuation of the Bears, as that is what they were. Same coach, staff, playing list aside from 8 Fitzroy guys coming on board for 97.

Brisbane Bears made a prelim in 96, though some seem to rewrite history and claim the Bears were always shit and didn’t get good until after the merger.

 

[sherb]

The AFL is not remotely the same competition as the VFL, the comp has changed markedly and 1990 is as good enough a year to separate it as any, if for no the reason than the name of the comp changed and it was around the middle of the time when it changed the most.

Saying that the comp today is even remotely the same as it was in 1980 is silly, which you can't say about the FA Cup.

Test cricket today is nothing like it was in 1877 either. But that's when Test records go back to.

Continuity of record keeping is a separate issue to the standard and/or nature of the competition.

 

[Father Jack]

Test cricket today is nothing like it was in 1877 either. But that's when Test records go back to.

Continuity of record keeping is a separate issue to the standard and/or nature of the competition.

No, that's not the comparison, the comparison would be if Test matches were played between counties and expanded to include international teams. Test cricket has always been played between nations, whereas the old VFL was a surburban comp that is now the AFL, which is national.

I'm merely suggesting we separate the surburban from the national, and not separating a comp having some teams to one having more teams like your example.

 

[Gone Critical]

What is the relevance of comparing Carlton's 22 premierships to the younger interstate teams?

I could show you data where a 100 year old man has been on more holidays than a 14 year old - How is that insightful in anyway? All it tells us is that a 100 year old man has had far more opportunities to travel overseas and otherwise it is all rather pointless.

Not a bad analogy except you might find often enough the 14 yo had already passed the 100yo for holidays. Esp os.

 

[Underarm]

Got to love the arbitrary starting points.

When did the VFL begin paying players?

1911 officially.

 

[Seeds]

Still the same competition. It’s not like we don’t count cricket or other sports stats from those times.

Sure if you’re an interstate side which has come in the last 37 years, just count what everyone has done since your side has been in the competition.

Also there are a lot of records and stats which just count AFL era 1990 onwards. I still think that’s a weird demarcation point, as nothing changed between 1989/90, the new sides came in 87, do we discount west coasts finals appearance in 88?

As for original premise of this thread, no pre 1897 flags don’t count, as the VFL was a new completion created breaking away from the VFA.

The afl is far far more different then the vfl than the vfl was from the pre 1896 vfa. Afl is fully professional, has drafts, and is played across the entire nation. If you think afl and vfl is the same then you must by all logic think that vfl and pre 1896 vfa is the same.

 

[MelbourneGWS]

The afl is far far more different then the vfl than the vfl was from the pre 1896 vfa. Afl is fully professional, has drafts, and is played across the entire nation. If you think afl and vfl is the same then you must by all logic think that vfl and pre 1896 vfa is the same.

But the VFL became the AFL? So they are the same competition and a premiership won in the VFL 1897 would still count in the official AFL records as a premiership won last year in the AFL?

Isn’t Carter’s main contention that pre 1897 VFL premierships, that is premierships won in the VFA, should also be officially counted premierships?

 

[Seeds]

But the VFL became the AFL? So they are the same competition and a premiership won in the VFL 1897 would still count in the official AFL records as a premiership won last year in the AFL?

Isn’t Carter’s main contention that pre 1897 VFL premierships, that is premierships won in the VFA, should also be officially counted premierships?

Its just a label dude. Its an imaginary construct that just determines who makes the profit.

What determines the essence of a competition is the rules, teams, professionalism of the comp and fans. And they have changed far more dramatically between the vfl and afl then the vfa and vfl.

 

[STPer18]

Go get 'em Colin.

 

[SC_Power]

Will changing the interpretation of the competition history…
A) Make the AFL seem more important that it was
B) Give Victorian teams a benefit in some form
C) Open up any more tiny revenue stream for the AFL?

3 yes’s. Computer says “yes”

 

[terrybull]

I consider the Brisbane Lions a continuation of the Bears, as that is what they were. Same coach, staff, playing list aside from 8 Fitzroy guys coming on board for 97.

Brisbane Bears made a prelim in 96, though some seem to rewrite history and claim the Bears were always shit and didn’t get good until after the merger.

The amazing thing is they re-branded themselves as Fitzroy all but name. Can’t see much of the Bears in the Brisbane Lions.

There is no way North or no other club would have done that.

 

[sherb]

No, that's not the comparison, the comparison would be if Test matches were played between counties and expanded to include international teams. Test cricket has always been played between nations, whereas the old VFL was a surburban comp that is now the AFL, which is national.

I'm merely suggesting we separate the surburban from the national, and not separating a comp having some teams to one having more teams like your example.

Yes, fair enough, but that's why I mentioned the nature of the competition as well as the standard, as an afterthought in my post admittedly.

A better example may have been the modern Olympics. Not only has the standard changed, so has the nature - it has gone from where individuals competed as such, to very much now a nation based event. But the records date back to the first Olympics in 1896.

With this, I'm coming from a record keeping point of view. I have a strong personal history and involvement in that area. And, regardless of the changes in structure, nature and standard, what now is the AFL has nevertheless been one single, continuous competition since 1897. So that's when the record keeping starts and dates from.

I find that logical, and what makes that so straightforward is that it gives you a clear, unequivocal starting date. 1897. The "transition from suburban to national" argument doesn't. Is it when a non-Victorian based team first started competing? (1982). Is it when multiple non-Victorian teams first started competing? (1987). Is it when the VFL changed its name? (1990) Is it when all mainland states had a competing team? (1991). Hell, I could even make an argument that it won't be a "national" competition until Tassie finally gets its side.

If the VFL had wound itself up and set up a brand new, national AFL competition I would agree with your stance. VFL records stop and AFL records start. But it was a gradual evolution of the one competition, which involves continuity of records.

By the way, my stance isn't based on being a supporter of a Victorian club, which resultantly makes me emotionally connected to the VFL. I'm not a Victorian myself and I would be making exactly the same argument if the AFL had evolved from the WAFL or the SANFL or even the Sydney AFL.

 

[kaiserchief13]

What a laughable concept. They are that insecure that they want to add premierships won when there was 4 teams in the league?

 

[Partridge]

Its just a label dude. Its an imaginary construct that just determines who makes the profit.

What determines the essence of a competition is the rules, teams, professionalism of the comp and fans. And they have changed far more dramatically between the vfl and afl then the vfa and vfl.

No they haven't.

From 1989 to 1990 all that changed was the name - VFL to AFL. Same teams. With the same coaches and the same players. All in the same fixture. All played the same amount of home and away games. All playing at the same grounds. All had the chance to qualify for a finals series, with a Grand final. Absolutely zero difference in all but name.

From the original (pre 1897) VFA to the VFL the differences were much bigger:

• It wasn't until 1894 that all teams played the same amount of games during the home and away season.
• There wasn't even a proper ladder until 1888.
• It wasn't until 1887 that only senior results were counted - up to then it included matches against country and junior clubs.
• It wasn't until 1886 (that's nearly 10 years after it started in 1877) that the game was played over four quarters. It was actually two halves until then.
• There were neither Grand finals nor even a finals series; the closest was one playoff match in 1878 (Melbourne and Geelong) and one in the last full VFA season of 1896 (Collingwood and South).
• Premierships were awarded by press consensus.

Apart from the last point, I can't recall anyone bothering to mention these things. It's not any kind of serious competition if one team plays 15 matches and another plays 22 (and that happened), or if a team's home and away results included matches against junior and country clubs (and that happened too).

It's genuine history, it's an important part of the legacies of those clubs, but everyone with a functioning brain (so not Colin Carter) knows the competition as we all know and have grown up with started in 1897.

 

[Flogwater]

No they haven't.

From 1989 to 1990 all that changed was the name - VFL to AFL. Same teams. With the same coaches and the same players. All in the same fixture. All played the same amount of home and away games. All playing at the same grounds. All had the chance to qualify for a finals series, with a Grand final. Absolutely zero difference in all but name.

From the original (pre 1897) VFA to the VFL the differences were much bigger:

• It wasn't until 1894 that all teams played the same amount of games during the home and away season.
• There wasn't even a proper ladder until 1888.
• It wasn't until 1887 that only senior results were counted - up to then it included matches against country and junior clubs.
• It wasn't until 1886 (that's nearly 10 years after it started in 1877) that the game was played over four quarters. It was actually two halves until then.
• There were neither Grand finals nor even a finals series; the closest was one playoff match in 1878 (Melbourne and Geelong) and one in the last full VFA season of 1896 (Collingwood and South).
• Premierships were awarded by press consensus.

Apart from the last point, I can't recall anyone bothering to mention these things. It's not any kind of serious competition if one team plays 15 matches and another plays 22 (and that happened), or if a team's home and away results included matches against junior and country clubs (and that happened too).

It's genuine history, it's an important part of the legacies of those clubs, but everyone with a functioning brain (so not Colin Carter) knows the competition as we all know and have grown up with started in 1897.

This push to add pre-1897 premierships is tiresome and founded on weak arguments.

Col'n needs to have a lie down and just take the L on this.

 

[South of the Yarra]

The Wurundjeri won 15 flags playing Marngrook on their Home ground at Dights Falls. That is next to Victoria Park. Those 15 flags have to be attributed to Collingwood.