When did the AFL start?

[Monkey King]

... 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.

There you go mate. You've hit the nail on the head probably without even realising it. It's the same competition, offering up the same premiership cup as its prize. Much like the Olympics. An Olympic medal is an Olympic medal, despite country participation rates soaring and events competed for having markedly expanding recently compared to say the 1956 Melbourne Games.

For those who have followed the league continuously, this is patently obvious, but as the OP stated, not a lot of non-Vic's paid serious attention to this comp until you achieved representation, so it's probably less obvious.

 

[greennick]

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 ironic thing with your example is my mother never changed her name as she didn't want her history in acadamia to be lessened by her changing her name. Anyway, I don't see how this is relevant as it was not was I was arguing.

I'm not arguing that it was anything other than a name change anyway, that is exactly what I said. I am just saying 1990 was when the VFL changed its name to the AFL. Anything before then was the VFL. Anything after the AFL. Anything over both periods, the VFL/AFL. Then you can refer to either period respectively by VFL or AFL. For example, the 1989 VFL flag was won by Hawthorn over Geelong. The 1991 AFL flag was won by Hawthorn over West Coast.

Is anything I am saying incorrect?? I think we all agree on this and I don't see how hard it is to understand.

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.

I am not going to get too far in to this old chestnut, however it is safe to say the introduction of West Coast ruffled a few feathers over here too who didn't want to see the WAFL become a secondary competition in the state.

 

[greennick]

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.

Yes. Australia only became Australia when we went through federation. Prior to that it was a Brittish colony. I don't understand the reference though.

Again, I am not arguing anything other than it was a name change. This is why the AFL calls them VFL/AFL flags. Not just AFL flags. Before then, what were they called?? VFL flags! Therefore, I can refer to any post-1990 flag simply as an AFL flag and any pre-1990 flag as a VFL flag.

 

[greennick]

There you go mate. You've hit the nail on the head probably without even realising it. It's the same competition, offering up the same premiership cup as its prize. Much like the Olympics. An Olympic medal is an Olympic medal, despite country participation rates soaring and events competed for having markedly expanding recently compared to say the 1956 Melbourne Games.

For those who have followed the league continuously, this is patently obvious, but as the OP stated, not a lot of non-Vic's paid serious attention to this comp until you achieved representation, so it's probably less obvious.

I don't think anyone is saying it isn't the same competition/league.

An Olympic medal is still an Olympic medal. Till we call it the World Games, then it would be a World Game medal, even if they are run by the same IOC. Even if the records are considered the same, you won't go back adjusting all Olympic medals and calling them World Games medals.

 

[Monkey King]

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?

I can't be arsed searching through the dozens of other VFL/AFL threads, but they have previously had their fair share of Port posters making this very claim. The SAFA/SANFL/AFL premiership lists have generally been a consistent feature.

 

[General Soreness]

The AFL started when the clubs of the VFL increased its market share through its financial clout to consistently and routinely take players away from other state leagues to the detriment those state leagues' finances, talent pools, and audiences.

 

[Monkey King]

Yes. Australia only became Australia when we went through federation. Prior to that it was a Brittish colony. I don't understand the reference though.

Not around for the The Australian Bicentennial celebrations I take it? I think the British Colonies of Australia and the Commonwealth of Australia has you confused somewhat, but why have you ignored the Republic of Australia aspect? You're probably thinking Bombay and Mumbai are different cities too right?

Again, I am not arguing anything other than it was a name change. This is why the AFL calls them VFL/AFL flags. Not just AFL flags. Before then, what were they called?? VFL flags! Therefore, I can refer to any post-1990 flag simply as an AFL flag and any pre-1990 flag as a VFL flag.

Okay then, I completely agree it was just a name change. The premiership distinctions relate only to the era in which they were won, according to the name the league was operating under at the time they were won.

If I were to refer to such a flag as an AFL flag won in the VFL era, would I be incorrect? If it's just a name change, it should be perfect acceptable; if you deem it not acceptable, then you're actually suggesting something else. So?

 

[Monkey King]

An Olympic medal is still an Olympic medal. Till we call it the World Games, then it would be a World Game medal, even if they are run by the same IOC. Even if the records are considered the same, you won't go back adjusting all Olympic medals and calling them World Games medals.

Hmmm ... all you're talking about here is what things are called, whereas the Olympic medal reference relates only to the concept that VFL and AFL flags represent vastly different prizes.

Olympic medals from different eras really are different prizes too if assessing by the same criteria, but an Olympic medal is still an Olympic medal; the top award offered up by that competition.

Same with this football competition - the same award that's been offered up for over 100 years is on offer next weekend. The value of this prize is a personal consideration, not something signified by the competitions name change. From my perspective, there have been some VFL era flags more worthy than some AFL era flags; a great example being the 1989-1990 changeover.


Re Bolded - I wouldn't be too sure about that. You don't reckon all previous Olympic records would quickly be referred to as World Games records?

 

[Flinch]

The AFL started when the clubs of the VFL increased its market share through its financial clout to consistently and routinely take players away from other state leagues to the detriment those state leagues' finances, talent pools, and audiences.

This

 

[Ashb23]

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.

Interesting you say that. Geelong released a piece of memorabilia to commemorate its 150th year in 2009. The thing is, they only include the 7 premiership cups we'd won in the AFL/VFL. There was no mention of the ones we won in the VFA (against the same clubs that formed the AFL).

Not that I expect these premierships to count in any AFL.VFL discussion, but interesting the club hardly counted them as part of their 150 year history.

 

[Papa G]

Interesting you say that. Geelong released a piece of memorabilia to commemorate its 150th year in 2009. The thing is, they only include the 7 premiership cups we'd won in the AFL/VFL. There was no mention of the ones we won in the VFA (against the same clubs that formed the AFL).

Not that I expect these premierships to count in any AFL.VFL discussion, but interesting the club hardly counted them as part of their 150 year history.

That is interesting. Maybe the AFL didn't allow it? They do have a preoccupation with discounting or ignoring anything that happened outside of the VFL/AFL.

 

[The Goon]

FFS this is perfectly simple.

The AFL as a specific brand started in 1990. No ifs, not buts.
The AFL is exactly the same competition that was once called the VFL. No ifs, no buts.

Therefore the premierships that have been won by the teams that participate in this particular continuous competition are (from the competition's point of view) ALL EQUAL.

Was it easier to win a premiership in 1947 (whether VFL, SANFL or WAFL)? Of course. Does that mean the AFL is not the same competition as the VFL? Of course not.

Supporters of teams that joined after the founding of the competition, whether it be Richmond, West Coast or GWS should be happy to measure their success against the time they have been in the competition. Trying to denigrate or downgrade the accomplishments of teams that were in the competition before you, simply because you were not in the competition, is self-centered crap.

/rant

 

[greennick]

Okay then, I completely agree it was just a name change. The premiership distinctions relate only to the era in which they were won, according to the name the league was operating under at the time they were won.

If I were to refer to such a flag as an AFL flag won in the VFL era, would I be incorrect? If it's just a name change, it should be perfect acceptable; if you deem it not acceptable, then you're actually suggesting something else. So?

I would say it is totally incorrect. What I am saying is you could call it an AFL/VFL flag won in the VFL era.

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

1990 - 1999
The decade begins a new era in the game, the Victorian Football League becomes the Australian Football League, acknowledging the national expansion, with clubs now in Sydney, Queensland & Perth, and the league adopts the much more national official name.


1980 - 1989
This decade would prove to be arguably the most influential, controversial & changing decade in the games history. Richmond begins the decade thrashing Collingwood in the 1980 Grand Final, the first time runners up medallions are presented to the losing team on the ground following the game. This would quickly prove an unpopular practice and only occur once more the following season before ceasing.

From the AFL website

Also why not mention Brisbane instead of Queensland?

http://www.afl.com.au/development/aflexplained/history/tabid/10296/default.aspx

Not saying I agree or disagree with the AFLs timeline/explaination - just putting it out there as how the AFL views itself

 

[greennick]

Same with this football competition - the same award that's been offered up for over 100 years is on offer next weekend. The value of this prize is a personal consideration, not something signified by the competitions name change. From my perspective, there have been some VFL era flags more worthy than some AFL era flags; a great example being the 1989-1990 changeover.

The prize is the same in regards to this continuous VFL/AFL competition, however the value of what the prize means is totally different. The winner now gets the title of the best team in the country. Prior to that, it wasn't even clearly the best team in Victoria. This is far too subjective of an argument for me.

I'm not arguing anything other than in 1990 the name of the league and its award changed. Therefore you can't refer to a 1980 flag as an AFL flag or a 1996 flag as a VFL flag. Similarly, someone can't say they have 16 AFL flags, as they have 16 VFL/AFL flags. Or 16 AFL/VFL flags. Either way is fine.

 

[Monkey King]

I would say it is totally incorrect. What I am saying is you could call it an AFL/VFL flag won in the VFL era.

So would it be an AFL/VFL flag won in the AFL era then, or just an AFL flag? lol

All this gives a fair indication that you're inferring more than just a name change, despite claiming that's all you're suggesting. The name AFL refers to the competition in question (as it is now known) not an era. The VFL reference would determine what era of the comp the flag was won.

 

[Monkey King]

The prize is the same in regards to this continuous VFL/AFL competition, however the value of what the prize means is totally different.

Sure, but that is a personal and subjective assessment, not something determined by the era in which the flag was won, or the name by which the competition operated under at the time.

An AFL flag, as you understand it, doesn't automatically have a precedence of worthiness over a VFL era flag. Sure, you may now declare yourself the best team in the country, but it was considered that by many well before the name change. To get an idea of this in real terms, just ask a Hawk player if their 91' flag meant something different to their 89' flag. They'd laugh at you!

Similarly, someone can't say they have 16 AFL flags.

AFL is simply what this single, continuous competition is presently referred to. Of course someone can say their club has 16 AFL flags, that is the current name of the competition under which the premierships were won.

If I have been to Bombay twice prior to its name change and once after it became Mumbai, is it wrong to say I've been to Mumbai three times? Of course not! You would only say I've been to Bombay twice and Mumbai once if they were different places.

It's just another example of how the impact you claim deviates from being "just a name change".

 

[Feerits Elf]

Each year this conversation goes on between people outside of Victoria and inside Victoria

Then why not post in one of the plethora of existing threads rather than start a new thread?

 

[One PAFC]

Big deal if the VFL "evolved" into the national competition. Fact is the AFL started in 1990.

 

[Feerits Elf]

Big deal if the AFL "started" in 1990. Fact is the VFL evolved into the national competition.

 

[BluesMan]

I dont care what you call them, we still have 16 PREMIERSHIPS

 

[Monkey King]

Big deal if the VFL "evolved" into the national competition. Fact is the AFL started in 1990.

Just like Port Adelaide Power started in 1997 right?

 

[Chism]

Thread topic has been answered accurately and this topic has been done to death and is a recipe for nothing but petty bickering.

Closed.