Talk:Australian Football League/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Hall of Fame

Just a quick note to bring to everyone's attention: The list of Hall of Fame Legends is just that. There are many others listed as members of the HoF (players, coaches, umpires, administrators, and media) but only a select few of them are officially Legends. Note that this does not include Gary Ablett Snr., Harry Vallence, or many other very good players. In the recent Hall of Fame presentation, Jock McHale was elevated to Legend status - it's just that Gary Ablett got all the media attention. See the links available at the AFL website for any further clarification.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Brain of Morbius (talk • contribs) 9 June 2005.

Gary Ablett wasnt in because of an alleged run in with drugs i think...na im not sure

Gary Ablett IS IN THE hall of Fame as of 2006 there was one incident involving ectasy in 1998 although it was considered irrelevant and thus he was added to the hall of fame as a great player, external problems aside —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrendanReed (talk • contribs) 11:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Past Player Statistics

I have been searching for past player statistics, in particular John Worsfold's of the West Coast Eagles and have been unable to find any. The statistics that I would be interested in are how many kicks, goals, hand balls, marks etc. Am I not looking in the right place or are they not available?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.165.152.57 (talk • contribs) 14 January 2006.

The only thing I can find is from the Eagles 2006 Year Book: John Worsfold: 209 Games, 38 Goals, 26 Behinds. 21 AFL Finals (1 goal). 3 Grand Finals (0 Goals). 17 Official Pre-season Games (8 Goals) 24 WAFL Games (4 Goals) Represented WA 5 Times (0 Goals).

Sorry - no kicks, marks, etc. BartBart 15:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[1] Again sorry no stats on this but WCE past player info. You should be able to get similar on the individual sites, since all bar Essendon's are run by the same people. BartBart 16:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Someone needs to reverse the edits of 202.164.199.138 which removed the former clubs of the VFL/AFL being the Brisbane Bears and South Melbourne Swans ... these are historical facts even though the clubs are not technically defunct, they are no longer part of the league in their previous form.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Biatch (talk • contribs) 05:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

2007 Season

Should that really be on the right? Until the end of the year, there is only going to be NAB Cup winners listed there. Everything else will be undecided. If we must have it, I think we should do what was done last year. Have the full previous season, and then the current season updated as it goes. Seth Cohen 07:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. If not to remove the entire 2007 section, could we not at least cut it back to showing just the NAB cup? Raider2044 ^{Bio • Talk • Contribs} 11:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Début/Games played

I notice that someone has edited Bryce Gibbs to show his début as the pre-season match against Essendon. Do we have a standard for this? Pretty much all the articles I can think of indicate the first Home/Away match as the début game. Countering this I am fairly certain the AFL include such pre-season matches in the players' official match tallies (unlike some other leagues). Pudgey 22:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

You often hear the phrase "official AFL games" which includes pre-season, state of origin and international rules, as well as premiership matches (h&a and finals). However, when talking about a debut, it is generally accepted that a player doesn't make his debut until the home and away season. Rookie listed players play in the NAB cup, but their debut in the record will still be n/a. Seth Cohen 12:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't use brackets...its confusing

AFL (The truth)

THE TRUTH

Hey I have supported AFL all my life and i have been browsing one perticular page (the AFL page) and even after i correct the mistakes made by other individuals the section VFL/AFL Records keeps having a false fact. The fact is that it says that Essendon Football Club are tied with Carlton Football club with the most premierships on 16 each but this is a false fact the real fact is that CArlton are up on 16 but essendon are only on 15. This is because 1 one essendons reported 16 premierships was not a premiership cup match but it was just a round robin competition. So that years competition should not have been counted. I know some people will disagree with me on this saying that a round robin should still be counted as a premiership. Well if this is you then you can still not say that it is 16 a piece between Essendon & Carlton. If you count a round robin as a premiership then it would actually Become Essendon 17 & Carlton 16 because the AFL/VFL didnt cound the first ever major round robin competition as a premiership in 1897 which was as you guessed was won by Esssendon. So no matter what your believe these facts prove that the AFL's most premiership IS NOT tied.

QUERIES

Well if you have any queries please dont hesitate to contact my at footy_lover21@hotmail.com

--The afl brain 06:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have already left the following message at your previous Anon Talk page (User talk:124.177.211.209) (and am about to leave it on your current Talk page).

== Essendon and "that" Premiership ==

I notice that you keep asserting in the article Australian Football League that Essendon have only won 15 VFL/AFL premierships. In your edit of 21 February 2007 you stated:

(Essendon are actually only on fiveteen since one of their premierships that makes up the 16 was not actually a Grand Final a.k.a Premiership it was mearly a round robin compettition just like the one they had one earlier in 1897)

The premiership concerned is of course the 1924 round robin finals where no grand final match was played (because Essendon already had an unassailable lead in the finals series).

It was indeed a premiership to Essendon that year and the AFL acknowledge as much. The article at Did the 1924 Bombers throw their last game? confirms that Essendon were premiers and also makes for interesting reading about the whole end of that season (especially with betting a topical issue in the AFL at present). Please stop reverting the number of premierships. Pudgey 08:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I repeat, please stop reverting the number of premierships.

And no, we won't be corresponding to an email address. If you have queries then the Talk page is the place to resolve them. Pudgey 10:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes well in fact if the afl acknowledge the 1924 round robin competition as a premiership why are they/ you not counting the first one in 1897???

--The afl brain 08:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Essendon Premiership years are 1897, 1901, 1911, 1912, 1923, 1924, 1942, 1946, 1949, 1950, 1962, 1965, 1984, 1985, 1993, 2000. To my count that is 16 premierships. Is there one other you feel they should be awarded?

You could also look at Full Points Footy where the tally is at the bottom of the page; or Essendon club site where they list all 16 premiership sides. But perhaps even more convincing would be the AFL Club summary where the Carlton entry says:

"Carlton — the Blues

Joining the League in 1897, Carlton shares the tag as the most successful club in the history of the VFL/AFL, with 16 premierships, with arch-rival Essendon."

What I cannot find anywhere is anyone to support your contention. By the way, "grand finals" is not synonymous with "premierships", although under the current finals system a team has to win the grand final to be premiers.

I believe we can now consider this matter closed and move on to some constructive editing with our time. I certainly intend doing so. Pudgey 10:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Pudgey is correct. To summarise, as I said on your talk page already, Essendon have won 14 Grand Finals, not 15, and 16 Premierships, as the premiership does not have to be decided by a Grand Final. (As an interesting side note, if Essendon had not won that round robin competition in 1924, then as the minor premiers they would have played a Grand Final against the round robin winners to decide the premiership.) JPD (talk) 10:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Former grounds etc

Seem to be missing quite a few former grounds - Glenferrie Oval, Corio Oval, Lake Oval, East Melbourne Cricket Ground spring to mind

Also why are Fitzroy and University from their detailed suburbs rather than 'Melbourne' like the rest of the Melbourne clubs?

The membership numbers list is also out of whack and needs fixing up. (those tables are a bit beyond me)

Mustard Pot 00:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that they are actually relevant to this article...so I'm going to be bold and remove the list. There are 37 grounds where AFL or VFL premiership footy has been played[2], 10 I'd call very minor (single season or not that many games), 11 current and 16 former grounds. Alberton has NEVER been an AFL or VFL ground. We aren't listing VFA grounds that Richmond, Footscray, Hawthorn etc played at before they joined the VFL, so we don't list SANFL grounds that Port played at, nor training grounds of any teams. The-Pope 03:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Port/AFL/VFL edits

Firstly, Mr 211.whatever, please login so we can debate this without confusion about who is who. Secondly, the article is titled Australian Football League, the timeline is therefore about that league. It does not consider Richmonds performance in the VFA prior to 1908, nor the Dogs/Hawks/Roos before 1925. It can therefore NOT consider Port's existance before 1997. If you had looked properly, I DID change the title to be Performance of Clubs in the AFL/VFL. Please take off your anti-VFL/pro-SANFL/PAFC bias before you edit again. The-Pope 06:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I suspect "Mr 211"/Tonkatonka (who both share the same zeal, if not the same online persona) has little interest in debating the points they seem insistent on raising by repeatedly reverting the article to their view. Nonetheless, let's start with some basic geography and see if that generates discussion rather than a revert-war.

Port Adelaide is a suburb of Adelaide the city, as is Alberton. Alberton is about 1-1½ Kms south of Port Adelaide and contains the delightful Alberton Oval. Alberton Oval is the training ground and headquarters of Port Adelaide Power and the Home ground for Port Adelaide Magpies in the SANFL. It is not an AFL venue nor has it ever been. All Port Adelaide Power Home matches are played at Football Park (aka AAMI Stadium). If someone wants to change the location of Port Adelaide Power from "Adelaide" to "Port Adelaide" then it is patently incorrect as Port Adelaide Power have no facilities in Port Adelaide the suburb. If it was to be changed at all it would have to read either Alberton or West Lakes (the suburb in which AAMI Stadium is to be found). I do not advocate this change as it does not clarify location to any casual readers of the article and has previously led to enthusiastic editors including the original suburban locations for the Melbourne based clubs as their "location" when most have moved to new venues over the last two decades.

In summary I intend changing (again) Port Adelaide Power's location in the article back to Adelaide unless someone can offer a cogent reason why it should stay at the incorrect "Port Adelaide". Pudgey 10:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Pudgey, you say that Port Adelaide Power has no facilities in Port Adelaide. Guess what is located at Brougham Place, Alberton? Yep, the Port Adelaide Football Club, so you are incorrect. I actually wasn't going to respond to your rambling, but I have now decided to because I think I have a clearer line of thought on this. You obviously don't believe that the club should be recognised prior to 1997 even though it is one of the oldest football clubs in the AFL (refer PAFC's website). You are putting faith in your belief that the graph interprets when clubs joined the VFL or AFL, rather than when the clus were formed. Ok, if that's the way it is to be interpreted, then I would question why we have an entry for Sydney dating back to 1897. In fact the Sydney Football Club and South Melb Football Club are separate legal entities (did ACN searches on them last night and am happy to share the results with you). Yes, they shared the colours, players (I think) etc but that is where the continuity starts and stops. The SMFC ceased to exist even though that is obviously not how SM fans would prefer to remember this. If you want the graph to reflect when clubs joined or exited the AFL, then would you agree that the Sydney timeline should start in the 80's (and therefore end the SMFC entry at the same time)? If we have a consensus on that then it would make sense to limit PAFCs date at 1997. If we so have consensus then I would also propose some clarification to the graph to reflect that it records when clubs entered / exited the VFL / AFL rather than record when the clubs started or stopped (the word "club" in the heading currently implies club existence). I also utterly reject The Popes accusations of bias. I'm a Victorian and have thoughts on PAFC I won't share with here - but we ought not mould the entry just to make the VFL look like the be all and end all. Unfortunately it is already that way but why make it worse? Tonkatonka 11:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not attribute things to me that I have not said ("You obviously don't believe that the club should be recognised prior to 1997 even though it is one of the oldest football clubs in the AFL (refer PAFC's website). "}. I have never said that, nor have I commented on the history of any of the VFA clubs that joined the VFL/AFL. I am sorry that you feel that my discussion of your geography issues was "rambling". I await your clarification of the reason for the Location shift you have made as you obviously have a passion for the issue. At the moment you have said "what is located at Brougham Place, Alberton? Yep, the Port Adelaide Football Club". That doesn't particularly sway me from the view that PAP are not "located" at Port Adelaide the suburb. The rest of your response deals with history of clubs which was not my point. I will leave that to others to debate with you, but you seem to be plotting a lonely course at present. Pudgey 13:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Tonkatonka, I think you are missing the point that this article is about the competition which started as the VFL in 1897 and became the AFL, not about the clubs that are now in the competition. So, for the sake of this article, the VFL is the be all and end all until 1989. (Of course, the other competitions can be and are mentioned to give some context to the history, but they are not the subject of the article.) I happen to agree that it is not a particularly good thing that our national competition is simply an expanded VFL, but that is the reality, and it is correct for the article to reflect that. The timeline does not imply anything about when the clubs were created - it clearly states it is about performance in the VFL/AFL and most of the clubs were created before they appear on the timeline. If Port Adelaide's premierships from the SANFL are to be included in timelines, then premierships won by most of the other clubs in the VFA would also need to be included. Information about clubs in general (like the number of premierships PA have won) might be more relevant at a more general article such as Australian rules football.

Your points about the Swans are also completely irrelevant. The question there is not from which date they should be included on the timeline (by your PA logic, the correct date would be 1874!), but whether the "South Melbourne" and "Sydney" should count as the same club. You make an interesting claim for why they should be treated separately, but I think you will find that legal entities and ACNs aren't the be all and end all of whether a club is considered to be the same club. On top of that, your reference supporting the notion that the Lions are the Bears, if it can be at all considered relevant (ABNs didn't exist when the merger occurred!), actually suggests the opposite. JPD (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

JPD, you are being nostalgic about this and it is not helping resolve the factual content of this discussion. I'll wait for The Pope and Pudgey to respond but if we are to ignore the inconsistency re Sydney and focus on the VFL being the all and end all, then that is not going to help. We have an opportunity to clarify a few things here but you don't seem interested. I agree that it would have been an nonesense to include all of PA's cups but the graph was about the 'clubs' rather than the competition. If Pope and Pudgey can come up with something then that will end this tit for tat that you seem to want to continue - and the graphic for Sydney will be split to reflect what actually happened.Tonkatonka 01:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what I am meant to respond to. I have raised factual points, you don't even know when the VFL became the AFL or anything about the South Melbourne relocation and subsequent renaming. ACNs/ABNs etc are pretty much irrelevant as the team did move lock stock and barrel to Sydney. They are not separate teams, they retained all records, history, players etc. It remains that this is an article about the AFL and the timeline shows each club's performance in the AFL, or the VFL as it was known. PAFC's long SANFL history is irrelevant to this timeline - make up a similar timeline for the PAFC article. South Melbourne's is relevant. I think you need to go off and read some football history books and come back in a few months when you understand what really happened. Start with Pascoe's "The Winter Game", then maybe have a read of a few more listed here. The-Pope 04:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that you guys haven't focussed on the intent about the page being about the competition rather than the clubs. The most recent issue has been about whether the Melbourne Swans or whatever they were called, still play in the AFL. Was it just a name change that occurred? No. Did they simply relocate elsewhere? No - although I assume this is where you disagree with me which is fine. However as I said, the SMFC doesn't actually exist any more so but those on nostalgic trips here have outvoted me but that does not make it right. Fact is, SMFC doesn't exist anymore so why can't this be reflected in the graph? As JPD said: "this article is about the competition which started as the VFL in 1897 and became the AFL, not about the clubs that are now in the competition". Although his comment was made for another reason, I trust we are agreed that the AFL page is about the competition, not the clubs - so the case about the name of the graph is now closed. Tonkatonka 06:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Tonkatonka, your comments to me in particular have been utter nonsense. I have not made a single nostalgic statement, and if I have not addressed any particular factual aspect of this discussion, it has been because someone else has already addressed it. The graph was always clearly about the history of the clubs in this particular competition. Some people may not have understood this, if they ignored the context and only looked at the title, but now it has been made even more clear. That is an improvement - trying to make some strange point by extending the PA bar was not. I don't know why you think I want to continue some sort of "tit for tat" - I have simply undone your addition of completely irrelevant material concerning Port Adelaide.

As for the "most recent issue" concerning South Melbourne/Sydney, as I said earlier, this is a completely separate matter. Whether teams playing in this competition before and after 1982 were the same club cannot be linked with whether PA results in another competition before 1997 should be included. The question in the Swans case is whether the move to Sydney is best represented as it is now, by a bar on the timeline for a single club, or by including the Sydney and South Melbourne as separate clubs. There may indeed be a coherent argument for a change, but you have not made it, only referred to irrelevancies like ACNs. The fact is that most sources treate them as the same club, and some even spell out that the SMFC was renamed "Sydney Swans Limited" in 1983, after they had started playing home games in Sydney in 1982 as "The Swans". What exactly are you trying to argue? JPD (talk) 17:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

JPD. You are right in one sense. My comments re nostalgic should not have been directed to you, but Pudgey and The Pope who weren't interested in discussing the matters head on (but failing to demonstrate a knowledge of even where the PAFC is located). Sorry about that being ill-directed but they made targets of themselves and I note they seem to have fallen quiet (perhaps taking their own advice and reading books?). However you are right in your last comment that it would not add value if we were to split the timeline up (even if technically correct to do so) now that the graphs title clarifies the matter - I hope. The relevance to the PAFC issue is one of consistency as it is fundamentally wrong (convenient so) to imply the club didn't exist prior to 97. Fortunately the simple change to the graph has (I think) dispensed with that issue. By the way, I used to be a trainer for the Swans so I should have actually been arguing the opposite.Tonkatonka 03:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, lets finish this... I never got involved in the location arguement, only removed Alberton from the list of AFL grounds. I also never implied they didn't exist prior to 97... but they (and their performance) were basically irrelevant to the AFL before then. I discussed the matter head on by raising the only truely relevant comparison, Rich, Hawthorn, Roos etc in the VFA, whilst you muddied the waters with the Swans move and ABNs, which was all completely irrelevant. I also edited the title to add VFL/AFL Performance, which, as it also shows the wooden spoons, is a better title than the current VFL/AFL premierships. I also, remember was the one who started this discussion here, rather than your rampant editing. I'm going on holiday. See you all in a month. Hopefully the AFL page will continue to improve in correctness, relevant references and structure. Sorry for any direct attacks... lets just make sure we make wikiAFL as good as it can be. The-Pope 03:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No worries Pope. Hope your trip to the Vatican went well. I don't believe I was rampant. I achieved recognition of the "VFL club" history actually being about the VFL / AFL competition. Unfortunately the listening here was selective (dare I say nostalgic again?) but not beyond reason after considerable convincing. Not worried about the attacks. I had my own as well but all in the same jockular (spelling?) vein.Tonkatonka 15:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This article should not include information on Footscray, Fitzroy, or South Melbourne prior to the time the AFL was offically defined, and nor should it include any data of any club prior to the official definition of "AFL". Encyclopedic description of these clubs have their proper entry under "VFL," or in the case of Port Adelaide, "SANFL". The "AFL" was created the day the official announcement was made, not before, and it is from that point that this article should take it's historical cue, despite what commentators and others might want to submit or infer. An encyclopedia entry must be more precise than a game commentator or game fan.

The title of this Wiki entry is Australian Football League - not "AFL/VFL" - if you want to have such an entry as "AFL/VFL" submit it, but "Australian Football League" is not the entry for this muddled VFL companion.

VFL to AFL was a name change, not a new league. SANFL and AFL do not have the same connection. Davo499 (talk) 05:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Locations, again

I changed PA's location from Port Adelaide back to Adelaide at the same time as I changed the Melbourne clubs from Hawthorn, St Kilda, etc. back to Melbourne. There may be an argument for more specific locations, but let's at least be consistent. PAFC may be in the suburb of Alberton, the City of Port Adelaide Enfield (is that what you meant in the strange discussion above?), but it is also in the city (not City) of Adelaide. If the table says Alberton for PA, shouldn't it say Moore Park for Sydney, North Carlton for Carlton, Footscray West for the Dogs, Subiaco for WC, Moorabbin for St Kilda, and so on? JPD (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

(Keep in mind that this article is intended for an international audience who may have no idea of where Alberton is. The aim of the Location column is not to be picky about suburb boundaries and exact locations, but to give readers a general idea of how the teams are placed around the country. JPD (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC))

JPD - point taken - I hadn't noticed what locations were used for the other clubs (even if technically incorrect). I will change it back. It was obviously a follow-on point from the above discussion.Tonkatonka 09:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It has been discussed/changed on several occasions in the distant past, but this seems to be the accepted solution. I think you're pushing it to call it "technically incorrect". As a postal address, "Adelaide" may refer to the area bounded by North Terrace, West Terrace, South Terrace and Hutt St, but in many other contexts, the name refers to the city described in the article Adelaide as having a population of over 1 million. It's quite normal for city names to have meanings dependent on the context in this way. JPD (talk) 11:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Team of the Century - Clubs

It notes under the AFL team of the century that since the naminng of the side, most clubs have nominated their own teams of the century. Is it worth noting that this was started by Collingwood because they had no representatives in the AFL team of the Century (despite being the second most successful club, in terms of premierships)? I just remember the lack of Collingwood players being controversial and the announcement of the Collingwood team of the century was like a 'bugger you' to the AFL. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dgen (talk • contribs) 03:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

Second most successful club in the AFL? That would be West Coast Eagles or Adelaide Crows, if the Brisbane Lions are considered first. Collingwood's only won 1 premiership since the commencement of the AFL.

Even though football had been around for over 100 years, the AFL had only been around for about 6 years when this team was named. The only players to have actually participated in the AFL competition were Stephen Silvagni, Gary Ablett Snr and Greg Williams. This team is irrelevent to the AFL, regardless of its history, as that the majority of the named persons didn't even participate in the national competition. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chobies (talk • contribs) 21:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC).

Fair use rationale for Image:2007AFLToyota.png

Image:2007AFLToyota.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 23:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Seven AFL Live

Channel Seven does not not show the game live in Melbourne. Is this because AFL prevents Seven from live screening?

I'm fairly certain Seven would choose to broadcast the games live into Melbourne if the AFL allowed them to. The Sunday AFL starting time of 3:00 is rather strange isn't it?

I know Seven can screen AFL games live from interstate but can anyone clarrify whether Seven can screen games live into Melbourne. Thanks.

only on sell out events, such as Grand Final, Anzac Day, Queens B'day, which weren't on 7 this year because of a rotating agreement with 10

Although its a known fact that Seven don't like live games as it means they can't run as many ads between goals, and therefore can't get as much advertising revenue. Righter than rain 04:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcashm (talk • contribs)

Brisbane Bears

Could we put put the Bears and Lions into one record please? They are the same club, as the Lions name was picked up after Fitzroy folded in 1996.

Technically, the Brisbane Lions are a joint venture. JPD (talk) 10:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Bears and Lions should be in one record. Fans see them as one team. AFL statistics show them as one team. "technically the Brisbane Lions are a joint venture" is a ridiculous comment and it is irrelevant to the point made by the first poster.

Agreed. Bears and Brissie Lions are the same club. As are South Melbourne and Sydney. There is also no need for these to be listed as Former clubs. Davo499 (talk) 05:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Apples and oranges though. The Swans are the SMFC moved lock, stock and barrel to Sydney. The Lions are a club formed by the merger between two clubs. The BLAFC's policy is that it is a new club formed at the end of the 1996 season. Some fans may see them as one team, but others see them as separate entities. My personal view is that the status quo is fine. --The Brain of Morbius (talk) 05:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:OldAFL.png

Image:OldAFL.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:VFLLogo.png

Image:VFLLogo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:StKildaDesign.svg

Image:StKildaDesign.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 15:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Present teams

The map showing the location of the Melbourne clubs is rather silly isnt it? Given most of the clubs have no actually connection to the suburb where they are supposedly based...

--ElZilcho 01:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Disagree, because it is the heritage of the club, and the suburb/town it represents. --Johnson26 19/12/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnson 26 (talk • contribs) 08:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:2007AFLToyota.png

Image:2007AFLToyota.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 22:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

External links

I was going to revert this edit but thought I would just point it out so that the stats section of the external links can be cleaned out by someone more familiar with them - no need for 3 different sites! -- Chuq (talk) 06:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AdelaideDesign.png

Image:AdelaideDesign.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:GeelongDesign.png

Image:GeelongDesign.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:StKildaDesign.png

Image:StKildaDesign.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WestCoastDesign.png

Image:WestCoastDesign.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:PortAdelaideDesign.png

Image:PortAdelaideDesign.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:RichmondDesign.jpg

Image:RichmondDesign.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SydneyDesign.jpg

Image:SydneyDesign.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SydneyDesign.png

Image:SydneyDesign.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:UniversityDesign.jpg

Image:UniversityDesign.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BrisbaneBearsDesign.png

Image:BrisbaneBearsDesign.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BrisbaneLionsDesign.png

Image:BrisbaneLionsDesign.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CarltonDesign.png

Image:CarltonDesign.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:EssendonDesign.jpg

Image:EssendonDesign.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:EssendonDesign.png

Image:EssendonDesign.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CollingwoodDesign.jpg

Image:CollingwoodDesign.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:FitzroyDesign.jpg

Image:FitzroyDesign.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CollingwoodDesign.png

Image:CollingwoodDesign.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:HawthornDesign.jpg

Image:HawthornDesign.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:HawthornDesign.png

Image:HawthornDesign.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Future section

I understand the need to update the future section now that older plans seem to have bitten the dust and new proposals are being mentioned, but shouldn't it still include details of teams playing in places where there is no current team - this is spreading/cementing the influence of the League, even if there are no specific plans for a permanent team there. JPD (talk) 03:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MelbourneDesign.jpg

Image:MelbourneDesign.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MelbourneDesign.png

Image:MelbourneDesign.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

AFL games in the UK

A few years back there was a tradition of playing 1 game of the season in the UK (at Surrey County Cricket Ground) but that seems to have stopped in 2006. Anyone know if this is likely to return? Cheers brob (talk) 02:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

One exhibition match between AFL clubs was played at The Oval after the normal season for quite a few years, but never premiership matches. It depends on how willing clubs are to go and play there after the regular season. JPD (talk) 00:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately this practice seems to have ceased as of 2006. Shame. brob (talk) 23:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:BrisbaneLionsDesign.jpg

The image Image:BrisbaneLionsDesign.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:Gold Coast Football Club logo.png
• File:FitzroyLogo.png
• File:Brisbane Bears.png
• File:2006 AFL Port Adelaide.png

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Two tier future?

It seems clear now that we can expect an 18 team competition in a few years should no clubs merge or relocate to form a second Sydney club and a Gold Coast side. The AFL has also stated that in the long term future they would like to see third west coast, south australian and Sydney sides as well as a second qld side and a northern territory based primarily Indigenous side. About the only area that the AFL has stated they have no interest in placing a team is Tasmania despite have a half million people and good facilities. The question arises then; does the AFL have a hidden plan to one day have a two tier competition? Such a competition already runs in other codes around the whole world. Given the increase in television revenue a two tier competition with 12 clubs in each tier might not be that far away. Just before you all launch into the 'were too small' argument dont forget that many nations smaller than us already run this competition and with the incorporation of a 'play everyone home and away' the rounds would not be decreased whatsoever. (12 teams playing each other twice would be 22 matches - no change). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.214.179 (talk) 05:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC) It would certainly pay for itself if the major media corporations could only bid for one of the tiers. As both would be televising their would be major investment available to the AFL instantly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.214.179 (talk) 06:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Australia has the population to support a 2-tier national league. Australian Rules Football already has regional, state, local and interstate leagues such as the ESDL, VFL, SANFL, WAFL, etc, etc and these can remain healthy and sustainable leagues. The nationalisation of the VFL was a mistake in the beginning, it'd be like nationalising the SANFL or the WAFL, the heart and soul, the history and majority supporter base, would always remain with the region/state/city of origin. These things are more important to the long term sustainability and short term support of any sporting league than financial or commercial matters could ever be. The solution in Australia is to support regional/state leagues (VFL, SANFL, WAFL, etc) and the winners of these state premierships should then go into a national finals series to determine the national champion. This way you retain the history, supporter bases, the heart and soul, the localisation and community support of state/regional football leagues. This will in turn prove to be without doubt socially sustainable, but also economically sustainable. The current AFL plans for expansion are destined to fail in the long term, or lead to a compromised, unhealthy shadow of a football league. Localisation is the answer, long term social and economic sustainability is the goal. Nick carson (talk) 05:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Team Colours

I note the recent deletion of the small illustrations showing the AFL team colours on a map of Australia. It appears that these have been deleted under an interpretation of the "fair use" directive.

I believe this is taking things to extremes. How can a team's colours fall under this restriction? I can understand the use of the club's logo not being allowed as that illustration is copyright.

I refer people to the recent Australian Federal Court ruling that Cadbury chocolate did not "own" the colour purple. [3] I believe this indicates that identifying colours are in the public domain, and the reproduction of a team's colours would generally be considered by the average person in the street as fair use.

If the colour illustrations go then surely we need to look at just about everything else in this article - even the mention of the colours in combination.--Perry Middlemiss (talk) 02:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not so much that it IS a copyright violation, it's that the license template used by the uploader wasn't completed correctly or in full. If it's the logo one, then everyone gets very nervous and wants to only use it on the team page. If you make up your own little colour block with stripes then it is OK in copyright terms but it can look tacky and people get annoyed as it is purely decorative. And logos with more than just plain shapes such as Carlton's monogram or even Freo's anchor could infringe copyright, even if they are derivative works(home made in paint). So if you are going to upload an image make sure you do EVERYTHING required by the nonfree image rules, or do plain colour blocks and licence them appropriately.The-Pope (talk) 02:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought these were just block colours, which were intended to be purely indicative, rather than a true representation. They certainly didn't look like they had been filched from any official or copyright material.--Perry Middlemiss (talk) 02:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The point is that most of them weren't simply colours, but were representations of the guernseys. The design itself has copyright, so to some extent it doesn't matter whether the images were filched. The use of (low-quality) representations in this situation may or may not infringe the copyright legally, but it probably doesn't meet Wikipedia's own non-free content criteria. JPD (talk) 02:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Players Pictures

Hey, can someone use pictures from the afl website or club websites (www.afl.com.au), as there is head shots and they would be perfect to see what players look like!--kicka (talk) 10:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

No. The copyright in those images are owned by the AFL and are not allowed on Wikipedia. --The Brain of Morbius (talk) 05:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sydney Swans/South Melbourne

why is it that south melbourne is cosidered a former team in the table of former teams. on the sydney swans page they are the same club and that south melbourne relocated to sydney while in this table south melbourne is a former team and sydney is current why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.215.68 (talk) 14:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Corect. Sydney/South Melbourne are the same club, it should be changed CtrlDPredator (talk) 14:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It is also NOT the Sydney Swans Australian Football Club, but the Sydney Football Club CtrlDPredator (talk) 14:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you know? AFL=Australian Football League

Did you know? BL stands for Brisbane Lions

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.128.16 (talk)

The AFL team is reqistered as Sydney Swans Limited - formerly known as Sydney Australian Football Club. The entity currently registered as Sydney Football Club plays with a round ball... Hack (talk) 05:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Grand Final photograph

One photo in the article is described as 'The VFL Grand Final in 1945 from the stands of the Melbourne Cricket Ground'. Perhaps the correct game/year could be inserted here by someone in the know, as the Grand Final of 1945, known as the Bloodbath Grand Final, was played at Princes Park, not the MCG --GregP 165.228.7.54 (talk) 08:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I have no idea what the MCG and Princes Park looked like at the time (although I think it's fair to discount the 1944 GF at Junction Oval), but both teams appear to be wearing darker coloured uniforms, which would imply that neither is South Melbourne. I think (although it's hard to tell) that the team with white shorts has a bright-ish sash (Richmond?). The 'home' team also appears to have a dull sash (Essendon perhaps). If it is Essendon playing Richmond then it would be 1942 or 1943 at Princes Park.

But, looking at a picture of the MCG from the 1956 Olympics, the roofing looks similar, so, in summing up...I have no idea except that it's not 1945.Morstar (talk) 11:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely the MCG; the southern stands didn't change much before the 1980s. It's too big to be Princes Park. I'd lay odds that one of the sides depicted is Richmond. Is there any evidence to support this being a picture of a grand final? The Brain of Morbius (talk) 06:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Brain of Morbius is right. Definitely MCG, without question. Old Southern Stand is clearly identifiable. One club, in white shorts, does look like Richmond. If it's a Grand Final, given the time-frame, the only one that fits is Melbourne v Richmond, 1940. Others that Richmond were in around that time, as have been pointed out, were not played at the MCG, owing to it being used for military purposes later in WWII. Richmond did not play in a grand final again at the MCG until 1967, and the lack of team-dedicated wraparound strip-banners displayed across the width of the Southern Stand between tiers means that this shot is way before that, and couldn't be after 1967 either.

The only other grand finals Richmond played in near that time were in 1933 and 1934 against South Melbourne, and the other team clearly isn't wearing South Melbourne gear, which was predominantly white. I suppose 1932's grand final against Carlton is a remote possibility, but the time-frame starts to seem way out, if the picture is purportedly from the 1940s.

If it's not a picture from a grand final, it's anyone's guess. Could have been another final, or a regular home-and-away game against Melbourne. All you could possibly work out, is which years it COULDN'T have been, by researching which years the MCG was unavailable for football, due to being used as an armed forces camp/marshalling point, or whatever the use was.

Leapso (talk) 10:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

AFL branding of 'game name'?

Since 2000, through the commission, the AFL has pushed for all affiliated leagues and bodies to co-brand with the league as well as refer to the sport as "AFL" in preference to its official name of "Australian Football".

I'd like to question the second assertion of the above quoted material.

No where, but No where can I find an official document from the AFL that recommends that the game itself should be called 'AFL' or 'AFL Football'.

The naming of the game as 'AFL' came about, as best I can ascertain from a general ignorance of Australian Football, and a possible bias to the Rugby Football codes on the part of the Sydno-centric media.

No one born and/or raised in the traditional Aussie Rules states would call the game 'AFL'. Van Dieman (talk) 08:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

That is because the document is not public. However it does exist. It was an internal memo circulated to all governing bodies affilated with the AFL back in the 2001 pre-season. You'll find that they all re-branded at exactly that time. Basically the gist is that if you don't carry the AFL logo and refer to the sport "AFL" on your websites and associated material, you do not receive development funding from the AFL. The media were also advised in a separate memo to do the same, however they don't have a noose around them like the affiliated leagues. The policy became public when the issue came to a head as the AFL aggressively pushed to takeover the VFL, SANFL and WAFL. I have added a reference to thisAFL wants SANFL name change. --Rulesfan (talk) 07:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Competition Timeline (premiers/last place)

This graphic is hard to read, as the blue and black lines are are difficult to tell apart. A similar version [4] of red and black lines (a few months ago) worked much better.

Another aspect of the graphic is whether it needs the 'last place' years marked at all. Certainly winning should be marked in, as there is a great difference between 1st and the rest of the field. Last place is only confusing the graphic, where comparing team's premierships is the main goal here. A different graphic should be used for 'last place' as it is in a different category to wins. The 'last place' is also a mere novelty to statisticians and not related enough to the 'wins' graphic. Czeese (talk) 10:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with you about the coloring - I don't know when it was changed or why but prefer it the other way. I will change it back and also make the South Melbourne moved to Sydney line more of a different color.

As for whether Last Place markings are unnecessary, I like seeing it as it is an indicator of a teams performance, but am open to other opinions also. Schem (talk) 05:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest keeping the Last Place markings.

It might be a foreign concept to non-Australians, but to know the winners of the wooden spoon has a long and important history for us Australians: It's almost as important to us, as knowing who won the flag, and definitely more so than who finished on top of the ladder at the end of the H&A rounds. --Van Dieman (talk) 08:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Your opinions wanted here

The soccer articles are trying to vote to change from association football (soccer) to just association football. It is being voted on here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football_(soccer)_in_Australia#User_60.224.0.121_and_football_.28soccer.29_edits. Please give your opinion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.2.159 (talk) 23:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Table not responding

The opening table does not seem to be responding. I have typed the BBcode in multiple times. I am trying to add "2008 Premiers= Hawthorn Football Club" but it does not seem to be appearing when looking at the article. The content is on the "edit this page" but does not show up on the "article". Any answers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bouklyloo (talk • contribs) 14:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

AFL Team of the Century

Many fo the Team of the Century played for more than just Victorian Clubs, Haydn Bunton Snr and Polly Farmer being two notable examples. SANFL AND WAFL clubs should be named as well as VFL clubs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.159.2.31 (talk) 02:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

If the Team of the Century was a standalone article then I'd agree, someone like Polly Farmer should certainly be recognised for his WAFL career for example. However as this is a subsection of the Australian Football League article, then only AFL clubs should be listed in my opinion. Jevansen (talk) 02:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Chicken wing tackle

I'm getting ready to add the chicken wing tackle to the food and drink project as a subset of buffalo wings. Would one of you gents care to take a look and see if it's accurate and can perhaps be expanded or improved with an additional cite or two? Thanks. Good on ya. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Her Majesty

In the article, it states that the Queen's football visit in 1970 was to the Geelong-Fitzroy game which opened VFL Park.

The year is correct, but to the best of my recollection, the game she turned up at was Richmond v Fitzroy at the MCG. I think the game might have been on a Sunday (unusual for a VFL game at that time), and may have been shown live on television (also unusual for that time). She was introduced to the players, who were all lined up, at half-time, I believe. I think she watched about a quarter, and then royally vamoosed, as it were. I remember that Fitzroy won, despite Richmond being the reigning Premier.

It seems extremely unlikely that she would have attended another game (eg Geelong v Fitzroy) as well on the one Royal visit, and I am all but certain this did not occur.

Any photographic evidence from the time would sort this out fairly easily.

Leapso (talk) 10:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I was at the Richmond v Fitzroy game where the Queen unfurled the 1969 premiership flag at half time. AlanRFC56 (talk) 12:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Season structure

I think that 3.1 would benefit from an explanation of how the season draw is made. There are 16 teams in the AFL but 22 rounds, so some of the teams have to play one another twice. How is this decided? As I understand it, some teams always play one another twice in a season, because they are higher profile contests and generate more TV revenue. Is this the case, and which match-ups occur twice? Paulmurphy77 (talk) 07:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Stadium naming convention

We simply can't continue to use the commercial names of stadia. They change too often and they conflict with WP policy. We need to take the same stance the ABC does with commercial naming. Football Park, Kardinia Park, The Glasshouse, Docklands Stadium, Stadium Australia, etc, are what we should be referring to these stadia as. Also from an organisational point of view, it makes no sense changing the names of stadia with the commings and goings of commercial naming rights. This was decided on a couple of years ago but somehow it's lazily been let slide. Nick carson (talk) 03:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)