Opinion Non-Crows AFL 5: Save Ken
- Thread starter ams4crows
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
I believe they did have to agree not to wear black and white.Haha, nah.
* Port.
They’re like the CCP. They just keep chipping away, chipping away. No wonder they had the China debacle
Did the club agree or not agree to not being allowed to wear black and white? Asking because I’ve heard so many computations about the situation I don’t know which is the truth anymore.
And even if it only gives one player 0.1% of uplift for a game against the Crows, then * em.
Which again is a VFL centric view as other leagues have teams with the same design/colour coexist.
Why can Man U and Liverpool have no issue, but Collingwood do?
My view is, given we have so many jumpers now, clubs should be able to wear whatever jumper they want. As long as it doesn't clash with their opponent's jumpers.
A club not involved in that game should have no say. Because the AFL owns the trademark/copyright anyway.
On SM-A325F using BigFooty.com mobile app
BTW, I think Port using "heritage" to wear this jumper in a Showdown is nonsense.
It is not part of that jumper's heritage to play the Adelaide Football Club. Apart from our Reserves teams playing each other.
If they want to use that logic, why not wear the jumper they wore when they won the first Showdown?
On SM-A325F using BigFooty.com mobile app
It is not part of that jumper's heritage to play the Adelaide Football Club. Apart from our Reserves teams playing each other.
If they want to use that logic, why not wear the jumper they wore when they won the first Showdown?
On SM-A325F using BigFooty.com mobile app
- Aug 30, 2021
- 19,489
- 38,653
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
So Tim Ginever is joining Rowey full time on 5AA, yuk, he’s boring and painful to listen to.
Man, it’s amazing how little you know about business
It doesn’t matter who owns it, it matters who signed it away
And the people who signed it away don’t get a say anymore.
You either own your trademarks or you don’t.
And they don’t
You're right, things are renegotiated all the time but if one of the other parties wants the status quo - the contract remains the same.
Plus its a bit of karma for Port who backstabbed the Sanfl, if they hadn't we may have negotiated a better deal for the non-Vic sides.
The VFL were desperate to get an SA side.
Port are reaping what they sowed, bit rich of them now crying about what they agreed to.
Aaah Jeeez.
As if I needed another deterrent, but this would make me vomit.
Love Tim as a bloke when he's not flagellating about everything Port, but couple that with Rowe's pay-for-praise Port comments and if it isn't already excruciating to listen to, it certainly will be now.
Astonishingly bad take.
The AFL is consulting with its constituent stakeholders, there’s nothing wrong with that
Frankly, and it might help if you read you this a few times, slowly until you understand, the only thing the AFL is doing wrong is even entertaining the request.
Port are in the wrong to even ask.
It's Port having the pathetic sook.
They knew what they were signing, but like everything Port, they expect everything to favour Port.
No the AFL do.
And as such they make the decision on their trademarks and what jumpers clubs wear.
Not Collingwood.
If the AFL said no, with no influence from Collingwood I would agree. But they have said Port and Collingwood can negotiate for Port to wear it. Collingwood say no. Why does Collingwood have this power over a trademark they don't own or control?
By the way, in Business, you have never renegotiated terms in a contract? Or had a new contract redrawn as the industry changes.
Your view is kind of simplistic.
Crows and Power were contracted to play all home games at Footy Park in perpetuity. It was a condition of the SANFL owned licence.
We don't play at Footy Park anymore, and the SANFL doesn't own our licenses.
In your world view of "business " this kind of change can never happen. Because of an agreement created upon formation of the two clubs.
Did the widget factory you managed in 1970 never grow? Or did they always remain exactly the same because of agreements they made when formed?
On SM-A325F using BigFooty.com mobile app
This sort of imbecilic nonsense should only ever be written in crayons that have recently been ejected from the writers nose
There is no such thing as unilateral renegotiation, it requires both sides - and one side says no.
The end
Gtowncrow
Premiership Player
- Jul 6, 2021
- 3,287
- 4,209
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
So you're pleased that Collingwood is influencing the showdown?
I'd rather keep the showdowns as South Australian games. Port Adelaide is a significant part of SA footy, as are the showdowns. Just leave it to us I say. It's nobody else's war.
Gtowncrow
Premiership Player
- Jul 6, 2021
- 3,287
- 4,209
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
I don't understand?
My point is that the AFL are the controlling party as they own all trademarks and copyrights associated with AFL imagery. It is up to them what clubs wear.
The "decision " they made is that Port and Collingwood can negotiate for Port to wear a jumper in a game Collingwood have no involvement in. Collingwood don't want to.
Why are the AFL deferring this decision to Collingwood?
On SM-A325F using BigFooty.com mobile app
Incorrect.
Legally Collingwood are not a party to the decision. AFL and Port are.
AFL have said yes, as long as Collingwood agree. Why have the AFL given Collingwood this power for a game they have no involvement in.
Remember the AFL is a franchise set up.
On SM-A325F using BigFooty.com mobile app
Because Collingwood are or would be the injured party.
FFS.
What compensation are Port offering? You want to renegotiate, what are they proposing.
Given how reluctant one side is to relinquish their hold, the price is going to be high
How are they injured?
No one is going to buy a Port jumper over a Collingwood jumper.
They are not playing each other.
Every second week most clubs wear different (clash) jumpers.
Port's merchandise (polos hats etc) are already very similar to Collingwood's. So you can't argue injury to branding.
Do you understand the Franchise system the AFL operates in? Any revenue from merch sales goes to the AFL first then dispersed evenly across the 18 franchisees. Apart from sales directly made by each club.
There are already multiple homogeneous branded merchandise across the league with only club logos differentiating the hat or piece of clothing.
Where is the injury to Collingwood?
On SM-A325F using BigFooty.com mobile app
No, they deferred to Collingwood.
Why?
So you support Collingwood having control in this situation?
On SM-A325F using BigFooty.com mobile app
- Oct 13, 2017
- 20,783
- 34,980
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Liverpool, Glenelg, tigers
Poor Ken..
I cant believe some people are treating him like this.. how disrespectful that someone dares to put “Sack Hinkley” on a sign for all to see..
I think the PAFC should extend his current contract for another 5 years in support of the great man..
I cant believe some people are treating him like this.. how disrespectful that someone dares to put “Sack Hinkley” on a sign for all to see..
I think the PAFC should extend his current contract for another 5 years in support of the great man..
- Status
