When did the AFL start?

[teknodeejay]

lolwut? Formed?

No we were admitted into the AFL, but never "formed".

LOL - So please tell us when Port Adelaide Power was formed?

 

[simba_]

I've noticed West Coast supporters spread misinformation on this which of course directly ties in with their recent flags, and their desire to place themselves higher than traditional football clubs with suburban roots, like Essendon, Carlton, Collingwood (our most successful clubs).

Clearly the AFL is a re branding of the VFL which expanded over a long period of time, justifying said expansion of the name. We can all agree with that.

Well that's about all there is to it. I thought I was going to type a lot more but we can sum this up really easily. Don't listen to people from Perth!

 

[teknodeejay]

And that Geelong will be its inaugural premier, if they do the right thing this Saturday...

But Port supporters will still try to claim their 312531 SANFL flags should be included.

 

[Matt Slade]

If the name changes next week to, say, the ANFL, it won't mean the league started in 2011.

True.

Sydney Swans started in 1982. This was when the league first expanded outside VIC alone.

WCE and Brisbane both in 1987. Started to become national.

Name change in 1990.

Adelaide Crows started in 1991. South Australia joins the party as well.

Poeple could argue for any one of those years. But IMHO, it was 1987.

 

[teknodeejay]

I've noticed West Coast supporters spread misinformation on this which of course directly ties in with their recent flags, and their desire to place themselves higher than traditional football clubs with suburban roots, like Essendon, Carlton, Collingwood (our most successful clubs).

Clearly the AFL is a re branding of the VFL which expanded over a long period of time, justifying said expansion of the name. We can all agree with that.

Well that's about all there is to it. I thought I was going to type a lot more but we can sum this up really easily. Don't listen to people from perth!

You've made the most sense of anyone. Including listening to people from Perth.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

In Round 1.

 

[El_Scorcho]

This is a boring question.

The AFL evolved from the VFL which started in 1897.

The answer is 1897.

The interesting question is, when did the AFL become a national league? I'd argue 1987.

 

[TheLip]

I think Homo Sapiens as a species started in 1990!

 

[simba_]

as for us, teknodeejay, all Port supporters have wanted is a little respect for our situation which IS unique compared to the rest of the teams in our now 18 team system. The more people have learned about the Crows and Power and their ownership (two years ago: "don't the AFL own all the licenses?") the better, for us anyway, who have supported Port in its entire battle to enter the league we're now in. Some clubs have to work for an AFL birth... actually only we did?

 

[ChrisFooty]

AFL then is only 22 seasons old. So St.kilda, Melbourne, Fremantle, Richmond, Western Bulldogs have never won a flag in their history with the new competition that came in 1990.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

as for us, teknodeejay, all Port supporters have wanted is a little respect for our situation which IS unique compared to the rest of the teams in our now 18 team system. The more people have learned about the Crows and Power and their ownership (two years ago: "don't the AFL own all the licenses?") the better, for us anyway, who have supported Port in its entire battle to enter the league we're now in. Some clubs have to work for an AFL birth... actually only we did?

That’d be because Port is the only football club to be admitted since 1925.

The rest were new franchise entities put together by groups bidding for licenses.

 

[The Speaker]

1897 and 1987, depending on what it is you're looking for.

Either way, not 1990.

 

[Scotland]

I've noticed West Coast supporters spread misinformation on this which of course directly ties in with their recent flags, and their desire to place themselves higher than traditional football clubs with suburban roots, like Essendon, Carlton, Collingwood (our most successful clubs).

Clearly the AFL is a re branding of the VFL which expanded over a long period of time, justifying said expansion of the name. We can all agree with that.

Well that's about all there is to it. I thought I was going to type a lot more but we can sum this up really easily. Don't listen to people from Perth!

Misinformation is far from a one way street.

A lot of West Coast fans (and fans of other clubs I imagine) get fed up with the VFL-centric attitudes of many Victorians.

You can argue until you are blue in the face that 1990 is 'the' year or 1987 or 1982 or any other point in history, but the fact remains that this Saturday Collingwood or Geelong will crowned premiers of the national competition for Australian rules football, yet in 1953 the same two clubs competed in the 'same competition' for the honour of being that year's premier club in Victoria.

The VFL evolved to become a national competition, and there is still a sizeable contingent of Victorians who cannot and/or will not accept this fact.

 

[AndyLucimitis]

I say Hird's better than Buckley, and that they both have Voss covered.

Who do you think won out of the Judd/Kennedy trade ?

 

[handy point]

The AFL was formed as the VFL in 1897. In 1990 the name was changed from the VFL to the AFL.

/thread

6 /threads.

 

[Chewy]

Wouldn't it at least make sense to say that due to the name change, you can define the "AFL" as starting in 1990? Even though it was just a name change and it is a contiguous league since 1897. In light of the significant changes that occurred immediately prior to 1990 and further changes planned in the coming years (1991 Adelaide namely), the league decided to change its name to reflect this. Therefore, the AFL started in 1990. Even though, yes, it was just a name change.

I'm not saying any history prior is invalid or anything. The VFL/AFL history is still relevant, however the league itself calls it VFL/AFL history. Not AFL history.

Nah, it was only a fricken name change. Nothing more. I can remember this announcement raised barely a ripple of attention at the time. People were like "Oh, what this new logo bullshit?"

It makes me laugh to see young folks of today place such significance on the inconsequential name change which occurred in 1990. Was your mother, Mrs Greennick born the day she married Mr Greennick? No. She simply signed some legal papers and changed her surname. Mrs Geennick was born 20-30 years earlier.

The VFL probably should've changed their name to the AFL in 1987. Then there would be no argument. Instead they preferred to change things slowly, bit by bit, so the football public would be more accepting of these massive changes. Most Victorians deeply resented the addition of WA and Qld teams. It was quite a shock when they went ahead and did it. This was probably the beginning of "our game" being taken away from us. I'm sure diehard WA footy fans would've felt the same way about their beloved WAFL suddenly paling into insignificance in 1987.

 

[Jade]

This is a boring question.

The AFL evolved from the VFL which started in 1897.

The answer is 1897.

The interesting question is, when did the AFL become a national league? I'd argue 1987.

Yeah, I'd say the ten years between 1987 and 1996 truly established the league as a national entity.

 

[damochandler]

1986 when the commission was formed

 

[TheLip]

Misinformation is far from a one way street.

A lot of West Coast fans (and fans of other clubs I imagine) get fed up with the VFL-centric attitudes of many Victorians.

You can argue until you are blue in the face that 1990 is 'the' year or 1987 or 1982 or any other point in history, but the fact remains that this Saturday Collingwood or Geelong will crowned premiers of the national competition for Australian rules football, yet in 1953 the same two clubs competed in the 'same competition' for the honour of being that year's premier club in Victoria.

The VFL evolved to become a national competition, and there is still a sizeable contingent of Victorians who cannot and/or will not accept this fact.

The problem is that this is not what the argument is about and I would argue conversely that some interstate supporters simply refuse to acknowledge that they joined the VFL and did so because it was the premier competition in the country.

Of course I certainly understand that they don't like to acknowledge that the histories of the VFL clubs are relevant in the AFL while the history of their club (if it had one pre-VFL/AFL) is not. It's not unreasonable or even surprising that they feel that way but it seems some of them need to understand that they will never convince any Victorian club supporter that they should agree. It's a pointless argument IMO that will never be resolved so I would have thought it would make more sense for those supporters to satisfy themselves that they are happy to believe what they do and stop bashing their heads against brick walls!

 

[finders]

I actually did a survey on this very issue down at the AFL's marketing department... and the consensus of opinion there is that AFL began in 1858.

Australian Football NOT the AFL started to evolve in 1858 the first properly organised comp in Victoria was the VFA formed in May 1877!

The VFL broke away from the VFA in 1896 and played their first matches in 1897.

 

[Monkey King]

Wouldn't it at least make sense to say that due to the name change, you can define the "AFL" as starting in 1990?

But that wouldn't be a very accurate reflection of reality. The AFL started to take on a national flavour as much as 30 years earlier. This increased to the point of new team's inclusion in Sydney and Port Adelaide sniffing around in the early 80's, with more teams included by the late 80's; by which stage the VFL had virtually become a national competition. In 1990, there was no change in league operations, no new teams, nothing to make it more national that previously; just a name change to reflect the competitions expanded coverage and representation.

It would be like thinking people didn't live in Australia prior to Federation, or that Australia will only "start" when we declare ourselves a republic and that before this, people were living in some other country.

 

[Monkey King]

as for us, teknodeejay, all Port supporters have wanted is a little respect for our situation ...

Which is quite ironic when you consider Port fans have generally fought for recognition of their club's previous state-based history under a different name, while simultaneously insisting the VFL and AFL are not the same competition.

 

[simba_]

Which is quite ironic when you consider Port fans have generally fought for recognition of their club's previous state-based history under a different name, while simultaneously insisting the VFL and AFL are not the same competition.

really, is this what "generally" has gone down? how many Port supporters have you ever met or heard of that have this pinpoint view, insisting that the VFL and AFL are completely different but fighting for this 'One Port' view? being a Port fan and knowing many I can say that most of us acknowledge the true history of the VFL/AFL and its clubs, as we ourselves want to be acknowledged for our own place in it.... hell, most are so old that we still have our 'VFL team' as a 'second team', based on the days of the state leagues...

 

[00Stinger]

as for us, teknodeejay, all Port supporters have wanted is a little respect for our situation which IS unique compared to the rest of the teams in our now 18 team system. The more people have learned about the Crows and Power and their ownership (two years ago: "don't the AFL own all the licenses?") the better, for us anyway, who have supported Port in its entire battle to enter the league we're now in. Some clubs have to work for an AFL birth... actually only we did?

Fair point since PA were admitted to the league, not a formed franchise

AFL then is only 22 seasons old. So St.kilda, Melbourne, Fremantle, Richmond, Western Bulldogs have never won a flag in their history with the new competition that came in 1990.

Either way Freo have still never won a premiership

Misinformation is far from a one way street.

A lot of West Coast fans (and fans of other clubs I imagine) get fed up with the VFL-centric attitudes of many Victorians.

You can argue until you are blue in the face that 1990 is 'the' year or 1987 or 1982 or any other point in history, but the fact remains that this Saturday Collingwood or Geelong will crowned premiers of the national competition for Australian rules football, yet in 1953 the same two clubs competed in the 'same competition' for the honour of being that year's premier club in Victoria.

The VFL evolved to become a national competition, and there is still a sizeable contingent of Victorians who cannot and/or will not accept this fact.

If the shoe was on the other foot would you count your WAFL's teams premierships?

 

[greennick]

If the name changes next week to, say, the ANFL, it won't mean the league started in 2011.

The ANFL, yes. Then we can call them VFL/AFL/ANFL flags. Provided it was just a name change and not a continuation of this league under a different name.