Search results for query: *

Haven’t forgotten. Big footy don’t pay the bills, sadly. Tomorrow is a possibility Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Honestly I reckon that looks pretty awesome.

AFL owns the licences. There’s a difference. Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Nothing else? Ah. You’re going with the “well never stop stop stop!” Argument I see, hardly a solution, more of a “suck our dicks” position... Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

I mean, you SORT OF answered the question, albeit with an odd example. Any other issues you can identify that’s preventing port from doing whatever it likes in this situation? Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

I would agree - he didn't SUGGEST it - he flat out said it. So if the matter was resolved, then there were issues that needed resolving. What are the issues in this, DIFFERENT situation? What the proposed resolution? If your suggested resolution is Collingwood can suck your prison barred D$*k...

No we can’t “all agree”. In fact, very few would agree Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Sigh... Ok. I’ll respond, and hope you will engage in good faith. Gimme a day or so. Other priorities. Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

This is straight up nonsense.

I'll be honest here....why? Will it make any difference to your position? If I spend time pointing out the differences into a post, are you just going to respond a few posts later with: "But why male models?" or the equivalent? If I do this, I will do so by asking questions of you...

What do they wear? Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

I can get behind this.

Says....who? You? Its a part of the overall brand make up, and for some organisations, its more important that it is for others. You've gone off the deep end a little bit here. You're still not understanding are you... Deliberately perhaps.

That’s.....not what I meant. Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

When it comes to sponsor alignment, as just one example, brand confusion and its effects are not limited to just the "proper fans".

Your opinion. An incorrect one at that. It is that too, but it is also many other things, INCLUDING your visual imagery. Why you pretend otherwise is beyond me. This is just a "Blah blah collingwood suck poo poo pants, so therefore you lose" argument - the sort of thing thats effective next...

To use the term "fear" is far from accurate. Do you fear mosquitoes? Probably not. Them being around ruins your picnic - but it doesnt ruin your life. So...you bring the bug spray along. PAFC wearing prison bars wouldn't DESTROY Collingwood, but it would IMPACT their brand value in a negative...

Agree - not the best thing to have happened to/by the CFC branding wise.

In this case it is the AFL (who owns the licences) entering another brand (PAFC) into the marketplace that negatively impacts the CFC market space, the Australian Footbal market. Other terms that might be appropriate in this case include "Brand Identity", "Brand bonding" or "Brand misappropriation"

This thread is now 152 pages of Port fans having the bleeding obvious explained to them over and over. Their response is to pretend its not been said yet, and cry about being oppressed. Its tiresome.

Brand value dilution. Its been explained a few times in this thread.

Plenty of the conversations with Port fans in here seem eerily similar.

The "proof" is in the actions of the AFL and, perhaps more tellingly, the INACTIONS of the PAFC in pursing this legally, vs the court of public opinion amongst PA fans.

THis has been proven false over and over in this thread. The fact you simply choose to ignore this, does not make your position any more tenable.

Yes you do. Plenty of fans here have stated it very clearly. Given the passion you have for the prison bars, I hazard a guess you do too...deep down. That desire will appear later on if this is approved. Time to nip it in the bud. Your history and heritage lies in the SANFL - rich as it...

Why didnt they choose to "leave it" then? You know...prison bars, heritage and what not.

And you've just beautifully articulated why it will never happen. There is no way the licence would have been granted under these terms, and hence why the firm stance now.

Collingwood's legal team (and all club legal teams for that matter) wouldn't be doing their jobs properly if they didnt have a clause written into all player contracts stipulating that they reserve the right to terminate contract (with payout) for certain circumstances. Makes you wonder...what...

It’s almost as if you haven’t read the last 20 or so pages of posts.... Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Aaaaand now I feel foolish! Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com