That’s a fair point. I hadn’t considered it from the VFA’s perspective.
However they are still club premierships and the individual clubs should be able to recognise them as such.
I’d argue that while Port still has a team in the SANFL they can’t include theirs. You can’t double-dip. Those flags either belong to the Power or the Magpies, not both.
But under a different governing body, the vfa continued and those premierships should be recognised in their history not the VFL/afl one
On the radio this morning Colin Carter (Geelong President) pointed out that there was not the same distinction made prior to the second world war, where the premierships were seen as continuous from the VFA to the VFL from 1877 (edit - see post below for explanation).
This 1909 list from the Football Follower (predecessor to the Football Record) reinforces this assertion:
Apparently the animosity between the VFL and the VFA increased in the 1940’s and the VFL erased the VFA part of their history away. I think if the erasing of this history is the result of a pig headed attitude change at one particular time, then it really should be changed back to a continuous history of what was the premier Australian Football competition of the time, and recognised that it matured to a well organised competition in 1877 (edit - see post below for explanation). This is a part of Essendon’s history and it shouldn’t be erased arbitrarily by a VFL stroke of a pen, 70 or so years ago.
How sh*te are St Kilda?
I count 6 carlton flags to our 4. So why were we pushing to say that if you include VFA we actually have more flags?
I actually believe we should start the proper tally from 89 or 94 either when WCE joined or when it became the "AFL", and go from there.Flame away.
Both of them are wrong.
It’s not the AFLs history though, it’s the clubs. Who cares what they think
And by the way, anyone who likes a post of mine and then directly argues against it is my kinda blitzer.Edit: Oops. Yossarian and Stuka have very similar avatars.
you’re a goose!
I actually believe we should start the proper tally from 89 or 94 either when WCE joined or when it became the "AFL", and go from there.Flame away.
Both of them are wrong.
I was born in 93, so I have no idea what the correct years are. Doesn’t change my point.
I actually believe we should start the proper tally from 89 or 94 either when WCE joined or when it became the "AFL", and go from there.Flame away.
Both of them are wrong.
I was born in 93, so I have no idea what the correct years are. Doesn’t change my point.
Competition didn’t change when they changed the name. Same number of clubs, same teams, same administration and same rules. Do the Bulldogs change their history and claim to have never won a flag because they changed from footscray to Western bulldogs? Do we lose our premierships when we changed from blood stained ■■■■■■■ to same olds and then to bombers?
And by the way, anyone who likes a post of mine and then directly argues against it is my kinda blitzer.Edit: Oops. Yossarian and Stuka have very similar avatars.
you’re a goose!
I count 6 carlton flags to our 4. So why were we pushing to say that if you include VFA we actually have more flags?
Good point Ross, the list in the photo includes the Challenge Cup period from 1870 to 1876, where there was no official association regulating the competition. This meant that Carlton was able to cheat by poaching players from other clubs mid season, so this period should definitely be disregarded, leaving Carlton with only 2 premierships from the period when the VFA was the premier football competition in the land and the one from which the VFL directly emerged from in 1897.
“The Victorian Football Association was established on 17 May 1877 to provide administration of the game in Victoria. Prior to 1877, the laws of the game had been agreed to at an annual meeting of club secretaries, however the clubs remained entirely independent and unaffiliated.
This meant that when a dispute existed between two clubs, there was no formal means of resolving it or enforcing a decision. Disputes in the 1870s were common and were often left unresolved for this reason: for example, in 1876, a rule existed to prevent any player from playing with more than one club during the season, but when Carlton broke the rule against Albert-park, there was no means of recourse against it, [1] and the result of a disputed match between Carlton and Melbourne was unresolved, with each club ultimately reporting a different score in its annual report and no central body existing to declare one score as official.[2] Also, the matter of whether or not Albert-park won the Challenge Cup in 1870 was never formally resolved.[3][4]”
Interestingly enough, the reason for the emergence of the VFL was that the six wealthiest clubs didn’t want to be subject to profit sharing agreement which was likely to be pushed through by the 7 less wealthy clubs.
… The Split: During the 1890s, there was an off-field power struggle within the VFA between the stronger and weaker clubs, as the stronger clubs sought greater administrative control commensurate with their relative financial contribution to the game. This came to a head in 1896 when it was proposed that gate profits, which were always lower in matches against the weaker clubs, be shared equally amongst the Association clubs; in response to the threat that this might be endorsed on the votes of the weaker clubs, six of the strongest clubs – Collingwood, Essendon, Fitzroy, Geelong, Melbourne and South Melbourne – seceded from the VFA, inviting Carlton and St Kilda to join them, to form the Victorian Football League (VFL), which became the leading senior football body in Victoria. The remaining VFA clubs – Footscray, North Melbourne, Port Melbourne, Richmond and Williamstown – were given the opportunity to compete as a junior competition under and without representation on the VFL’s administration, but rejected the offer and continued as an independent body.[10] The two new competitions competed in parallel from their respective 1897 seasons. …
So the only reason that the VFA became a lesser competition is because of the departure of the wealthier clubs, there is no argument that it wasn’t the valid premier competition of the time, and it did indeed include all the clubs that formed the VFL in 1897, in fact the VFA was a much larger and more inclusive competition.
I actually believe we should start the proper tally from 89 or 94 either when WCE joined or when it became the "AFL", and go from there.Flame away.
Both of them are wrong.
I was born in 93, so I have no idea what the correct years are. Doesn’t change my point.
Competition didn’t change when they changed the name. Same number of clubs, same teams, same administration and same rules. Do the Bulldogs change their history and claim to have never won a flag because they changed from footscray to Western bulldogs? Do we lose our premierships when we changed from blood stained ■■■■■■■ to same olds and then to bombers?
I realise that it wasn’t a monumental change, but it was a symbolic change in the comp from being a Victorian league to being the national league and the entrance of another side from another state relegated their state comp to being truly second grade as opposed to being a peppering of state leagues around the nation all hoping to be the best league irrespective of whether they were or could ever actually be.
I don’t feel that strongly about it, but I do think it would be good to create a sort of “modern era” which a) appreciates the difference between our flag in 93 and one from say the 20s and b) levels the playing field by recognising said “modern era” (ie “we start from here, everyone has a fair go within reason of being the best”) where say WCE have their 3 flags, or to use a better example, Port with their 1, evenly counted against our 2. I certainly don’t expect to get much support on this forum on this topic haha
So Ports top of the list? Sounds about the way it should be.
So Ports top of the list? Sounds about the way it should be.
In an inferior competition, sounds about right.