Toast #BringBackTheBars - Our Heritage, Our History, Our Right! Part 2

[Contested Marx]

I acknowledge the designs are not identical, that much is obvious.

The key point of contention from Collingwood is that BOTH the colours (black and white) and key design element (vertical stripes) is the same on both jumpers.

This is not the case with any of the other teams mentioned or with Southport. No two clubs in the AFL share the same colour scheme and key design element which is part of what makes the league unique. The soccer comparison is completely irrelvant as the majority of teams in soccer leagues have a full block one-colour kit.

Just as Carlton and Geelong are too similar as they share the same elements just that Carlton has a very broad navy blue stripe

 

[Malibu#27]

Eddie seems to bat on about commerical reasons and Nike being guaranteed that Collingwood would be the only black and white side etc
Eddie has been known to 'add mayo' to a story all of his career..... and he generally does this when he considers peiople aren't going to follow up and fact check his allegations - heres one example:

SA police appeal for crowd restraint

www.theage.com.au

I wonder if someone has considered contacting Nike and hearing from the horses mouth if they give a shit.

 

[captain ebert]

Yeh so Nike only sponsor collingwood because black and white.

 

[Malibu#27]

Yeh so Nike only sponsor collingwood because black and white - according to Eddie.

Edited for accuracy

 

[dirty2]

6 minutes of jenkins and maher? do i get paid to listen to that

If you watch it while at work

 

[Sleezy]

The key point of contention from Collingwood is that BOTH the colours (black and white) and key design element (vertical stripes) is the same on both jumpers.

But this just isn't accurate:

Collingwood, North Melbourne & Hawthorn share the same key design element, to use your language: 3x full length vertical stripes.

Port Adelaide does not share this design. We have:

• 6x truncated vertical stripes
• A horizontal stripe above & connecting all six vertical stripes below the collar

Put all four (five if you include St Kilda) clubs' strips in grey scale and you'll find:

• Three are identical
• One is very similar (St Kilda)
• One is clearly distinct

You can bluster on about how both designs share 'key design elements' all you like, but if you strip away colour and compare designs on their merits your assertion crumbles. They're not the same design. This is pig-headed self interest at the expense of the only non-Victorian club that has managed to survive the AFL extinction and nothing more.

 

[Enviable Tradition]

Yeh so Nike only sponsor collingwood because black and white.

Moreso the white. Collingwood aren't great at the black.

 

[bomberclifford]

The reality is that when we first moved to enter the AFL, (late 80s), Collingwood were shit scared that we would take the mantle as THE black and white team in the highest competition in the land. That's why they pushed against it and it's this insecurity that Max Basheer manipulated to get his foot in the door for the Crows in 1990.

It's now sprouted as protecting commercial interests blah blah blah, but it really is still based on that original insecurity of a fragile club that was worried it might not win the battle.

Thirty odd years on and times have certainly changed.

Surely at this point, with Collingwood having grown to become a significant power base in the AFL, it doesn't need to worry about us wearing our heritage guernsey in AFL matches based in Adelaide. Most of the Collingwood people I know, don't really care, as it doesn't change anything about their club, nor does it diminish their brand.

Even if you consider that in 2007, Collingwood via McGuire, presented a contract that allowed us to wear the guernsey 'once a year' in heritage rounds. The premise of that agreement is all that we're asking for. Why was it 'yes' then but 'no' now?

Is it really just because Collingwood were only agreeing because they knew it was a stitch up? That is literally the definition of bad faith negotiation. What astounds me is the number of Collingwood supporters who wear this deceit as a badge of honour and how the media makes very little mention of this at all when talking about the issue.

They don't mind reiterating general misinformation like "you agreed and signed a contract" without a hint of irony. Yes we did, so did the AFL and Collingwood. We just want that one to be enabled by classifying our Showdown as our heritage round.

It even solves all the issues raised by Collingwood—not against them/not in Victoria/etc—far better than the 2007 heritage agreement did.

 

[bomberclifford]

Why would Nike stipulate "only one B&W club in the AFL"?
What benefit does this give them?

It's absurd.

 

[Steve Dore]

lol at those fake Collingwood supporters posting in this thread. If you can't tell the difference between patterns in black and white or vice versa how can they read text? Are they using text to speech to "read" other people's posts and speech to text to reply? More likely they are supporters of another club just trolling.

 

[Pappagallo]

Why would Nike stipulate "only one B&W club in the AFL"?
What benefit does this give them?

It's absurd.

They wouldn’t. It’s insane.

All they would care about is sales and nobody will forgo buying a Collingwood guernsey because the Prison Bars suddenly became available.

This is one Venn diagram that has absolutely zero overlap.

 

[Pt Augusta Power]

I acknowledge the designs are not identical, that much is obvious.

The key point of contention from Collingwood is that BOTH the colours (black and white) and key design element (vertical stripes) is the same on both jumpers.

This is not the case with any of the other teams mentioned or with Southport. No two clubs in the AFL share the same colour scheme and key design element which is part of what makes the league unique. The soccer comparison is completely irrelvant as the majority of teams in soccer leagues have a full block one-colour kit.

Haha - ‘key design element’. Marketing 101 hey.
Talk about uniqueness - Tell me again what locally specific landmark is collongwoods guernsey based on again? What ‘derogatory’ nickname did collongwoods guernsey get labelled from their rivals (was it the prison bars?).

Forget about Your ‘key design element’ - the exact same guernsey design is shared by 3 clubs in the same city and in the same competition

Devils advocate - what if ports guernsey and collongwoods guernsey are actually different designs

Not similar - no ‘key design elements’

Just admit it - our design is more unique and just a better guernsey than the Hawthornesque guernsey collongwood wear.

 

[melanChronic]

They wouldn’t. It’s insane.

All they would care about is sales and nobody will forgo buying a Collingwood guernsey because the Prison Bars suddenly became available.

This is one Venn diagram that has absolutely zero overlap.

But you could definitely see McGuire stipulating that it be put in the contract, and the Nike lawyers raising their eyebrows and going "ok...". So then when Port request the PBs he can say "I've got the CEO of Nike on the phone saying that they're out if this goes ahead... if it's affecting Collingwood's partnerships then it is getting a bit ridiculous".

Exactly the sort of infantile, shifty shit that Eddie loves to pull so he can bring it up when he's out on Dandrew's back porch with Gil and the boys. Just like with the heritage round shenanigans he couldn't help but gleefully confess to on Footy Classified.

 

[Pappagallo]

But you could definitely see McGuire stipulating that it be put in the contract, and the Nike lawyers raising their eyebrows and going "ok...". So then when Port request the PBs he can say "I've got the CEO of Nike on the phone saying that they're out if this goes ahead... if it's affecting Collingwood's partnerships then it is getting a bit ridiculous".

Exactly the sort of infantile, shifty s**t that Eddie loves to pull so he can bring it up when he's out on Dandrew's back porch with Gil and the boys. Just like with the heritage round shenanigans he couldn't help but gleefully confess to on Footy Classified.

This is where the AFL needs to step in and go “OK let’s get Nike on the phone. This specific objection seems a bit weird. Let’s sort this out.”

The chode is obviously bluffing.

 

[El_Scorcho]

The idea that the guernsey designs are too similar is ridiculous anyway. They're quite distinct.

If we entered the league and hadn't previously been called the Magpies, I doubt this would be an issue. It's the former nickname AND the guernsey that they're worried about.

 

[Grave Danger]

Why would Nike stipulate "only one B&W club in the AFL"?
What benefit does this give them?

It's absurd.

You could maybe understand if it was Adidas, but not Nike.

 

[El_Scorcho]

The reality is that when we first moved to enter the AFL, (late 80s), Collingwood were s**t scared that we would take the mantle as THE black and white team in the highest competition in the land. That's why they pushed against it and it's this insecurity that Max Basheer manipulated to get his foot in the door for the Crows in 1990.

It's now sprouted as protecting commercial interests blah blah blah, but it really is still based on that original insecurity of a fragile club that was worried it might not win the battle.

Thirty odd years on and times have certainly changed.

Surely at this point, with Collingwood having grown to become a significant power base in the AFL, it doesn't need to worry about us wearing our heritage guernsey in AFL matches based in Adelaide. Most of the Collingwood people I know, don't really care, as it doesn't change anything about their club, nor does it diminish their brand.

Even if you consider that in 2007, Collingwood via McGuire, presented a contract that allowed us to wear the guernsey 'once a year' in heritage rounds. The premise of that agreement is all that we're asking for. Why was it 'yes' then but 'no' now?

Is it really just because Collingwood were only agreeing because they knew it was a stitch up? That is literally the definition of bad faith negotiation. What astounds me is the number of Collingwood supporters who wear this deceit as a badge of honour and how the media makes very little mention of this at all when talking about the issue.

They don't mind reiterating general misinformation like "you agreed and signed a contract" without a hint of irony. Yes we did, so did the AFL and Collingwood. We just want that one to be enabled by classifying our Showdown as our heritage round.

It even solves all the issues raised by Collingwood—not against them/not in Victoria/etc—far better than the 2007 heritage agreement did.

Yep, that contract, if it even exists in the form the claim it does, is null and void. We haven't gotten anything out of it in terms of consideration, and it was intentionally signed in bad faith. It's not standing up.

People love bringing up contracts that we've apparently signed as some sort of gotcha. They'll either reference "a contract we signed when we entered the league" or any other agreements that were for one-off games.

If Eddie had an iron clad contract that we couldn't wear the bars, we wouldn't have worn them. He sooked in 2003, he sooked in 2007, he sooked in 2013. In 2014 he would have sooked but the AFL didn't even ask him, they approved the bars in a few hours because there were time constraints. In 2020, he was too mired in public controversy to sook too much and it was our 150th, which the AFL obviously wanted to be seen to help us celebrate.

It's clear that the AFL will approve the bars when it suits them and then give Collingwood the illusion of control for Political reasons. If Collingwood had total control and were as against it as Eddie presents, we'd never have worn them. The fact is that we have now on 5 occasions. The telling occasion is 2014, because it was insta-approved when the AFL had created a problem through their own poor policy and needed it solved quickly.

The AFL back Collingwood on this for purely political reasons and could pull the rug from under them on this issue in a second if it became politically convenient for them to do so, and no amount of kicking and screaming from Collingwood would make a difference. They only have the power the AFL gives them.

 

[Grave Danger]

The AFL apparently has no issue with the PB jumper per se, because if Collingwood actually agreed to it the AFL would rubber stamp it, but they've abrogated the responsibility to Collingwood - that's the real crime here, they're showing favouritism to one club over another. The AFL are supposed to be the custodians of the game - the umpire if you will - if an umpire shows favouritism for one team over another at the very least it's incompetence, but more accurately CORRUPTION.

AFL = Animal Farm League: All clubs are equal, but some clubs are more equal than others.

 

[Smartys Power]

Nonsense. Plenty of soccer clubs have stripes, even black and white ones. Like Juventus and Udinese who shock horror play against each other in the same league.

View attachment 1465659
View attachment 1465660

Yeah baby!

Don’t be stupid, they’re the same team!!!

 

[Jonts]

I do wish Kochie would go harder and gaslight like Collingwood do on the regular

 

[Grave Danger]

I do wish Kochie would go harder and gaslight like Collingwood do on the regular

Don't hold your breath - you just know he'll be one of the first to issue a nauseating valedictory of Gil McLacklan when he leaves (when he should be saying "You've dishonoured our great club and diminished the standing of the league - good riddance to you!")

 

[PA88]

Yeh so Nike only sponsor collingwood because black and white.

Because black and white vertical stripes to be exact according to Paranoia

 

[PA88]

I acknowledge the designs are not identical, that much is obvious.

The key point of contention from Collingwood is that BOTH the colours (black and white) and key design element (vertical stripes) is the same on both jumpers.

This is not the case with any of the other teams mentioned or with Southport. No two clubs in the AFL share the same colour scheme and key design element which is part of what makes the league unique. The soccer comparison is completely irrelvant as the majority of teams in soccer leagues have a full block one-colour kit.

Soccer comparison is relevant and obviously you dont have a grip on domestic leagues around the world.

Saints have vertical stripes. They've got one white stripe. You've got three (well your new modern one), and we've got six. Different, so what.

 

[VineValerian]

Don't hold your breath - you just know he'll be one of the first to issue a nauseating valedictory of Gil McLacklan when he leaves (when he should be saying "You've dishonoured our great club and diminished the standing of the league - good riddance to you!")

I'm guessing this so called "contract" never sees the light of day, similar to the "ironclad agreement" between the two clubs that barred us from ever using the PB's that has always been referenced by Eddie but never produced.

 

[VineValerian]

View attachment 1465665

Eddie seems to bat on about commerical reasons and Nike being guaranteed that Collingwood would be the only black and white side etc
Eddie has been known to 'add mayo' to a story all of his career..... and he generally does this when he considers peiople aren't going to follow up and fact check his allegations - heres one example:

SA police appeal for crowd restraint

www.theage.com.au

View attachment 1465683






I wonder if someone has considered contacting Nike and hearing from the horses mouth if they give a s**t.

Well it's not an AFL sponsorship, just a club one, so the AFL aren't going to give a toss.

Nike seriously pull out of a sponsorship in the premier sporting code of a big market like Australia? Or worse, sponsor another Malbun club instead?

I seriously doubt that for a second.