Port Adelaide's plan to use jumpers similar to Collingwood

[Valentino]

Please make this happen!
View attachment 1123564

I for one would be completely happy for that happening. We don't own the song and are happy with it being used by anyone else who likes it and pays whe appropriate royalties to that great Aussie iconic band who happen to be massive Port supporters.

 

[ibd77]

Please make this happen!
View attachment 1123564

Cool, I can't wait for all the cringe comments from other club fans. This will be fun, much like "Nothing Else Matters".

 

[Ice-Wolf]

I for one would be completely happy for that happening. We don't own the song and are happy with it being used by anyone else who likes it and pays whe appropriate royalties to that great Aussie iconic band who happen to be massive Port supporters.

Would be a pisser if they refuse Collingwood permission and then sue them if they use it anyway.

 

[Tim Evans Beard]

What you've both done is ignore the latter half of my post though. I repeat; Port Adelaide entered the VFL/AFL comp knowing they couldn't be the Magpies nor wear their black and white striped, prison bar iteration jumper. If they were so attached to their history and heritage why did they do that and why did they at one point attempt to almost totally disassociate themselves from their SANFL history? Why did they agree to it contractually to now turn around and act like it's unfair?

Why join under those conditions? External influences
When the PAFC entered the AFL, the AFL could be viewed as an oligopoly that was quickly becoming a monopoly. Any club that wished to survive in a meaningful sense needed to compete in the AFL. As a dominant market force, the imperfect competition did not allow the PAFC to survive in a meaningful sense in any other competition - effectively forcing the PAFC to agree to whatever terms the AFL proposed. It should noted that these terms were a stark contrast to the terms offered should the PAFC have entered the league in 1990. So, the question as to why they did it is answered by the market forces attached to the AFL as the dominant league.

Why join under those conditions? PAFC influences
During the history of the PAFC, the PAFC has made many mistakes. In the recent AFL era, the attempt by some factions to distance the PAFC in the AFL from the PAFC history in the SANFL was one of these mistakes. The PAFC board at the time was a board dominated by SANFL interests, rather than PAFC interests. Again, another condition of the market forces squeezing compliance. There was always a PAFC community committed the PAFC as a continuation of the same club, values and identity that saw the PAFC as the most successful club in the SANFL and the only club to survive the nationalisation out of the WAFL and SANFL. Indeed, nationalisation cost the VFL Fitzroy its place on the national stage. There can be no denying that 'officially' the PAFC took these actions. However there is a strong argument that the forces promoting the disassociation of the SANFL era to the AFL era were SANFL representatives attempting to make a 'Crows-lite' out of the PAFC to continue to drain the financial windfall for the SANFL a national team represented.

Why change position now?
The current PAFC management is closer than ever to the PAFC values represented by the PAFC than ever before in the AFL era, although there is still along way to go. There has been no change from the PAFC community, only a change from the PAFC management to better reflect the PAFC community. As to why it is unfair, I would point to the examples cited in the UFC antitrust class action, whereby the market dominance has unfairly treated participants of that market. An action that Fitzroy could explore ...

Why should you care?
The AFL has hijacked Australian Rules Football. Indeed, it does not promote kids playing 'aussie rules' - they play AFL. Without consideration or consultation the AFL run ramshod over the clubs with rule changes, stadium deals, lucky dip draft concessions in the name of equalisation, sacrificing of competitive integrity in the name of financial benefit, and other equally dysfunctional actions. The ability for a day at the footy is so far out of reach for so many Western Australian and South Australian families that it has become the domain of men - whereby the general stupidity that ensues when a group of blokes gets together wth their mates ensues. The infestation of gambling into the game - whereby the official broadcast is undisguisable from the game broadcast so that gambling 'IS' the game is insidious.

These are all actions undertaken by the AFL. Not the Clubs. Not inline with Club values. Certainly something that should trouble us all when the 'custodians' of the game have simply become the bankers of the game.

TL;DR - heck AFL house and revolt with us!

 

[ibd77]

Why join under those conditions? External influences
When the PAFC entered the AFL, the AFL could be viewed as an oligopoly that was quickly becoming a monopoly. Any club that wished to survive in a meaningful sense needed to compete in the AFL. As a dominant market force, the imperfect competition did not allow the PAFC to survive in a meaningful sense in any other competition - effectively forcing the PAFC to agree to whatever terms the AFL proposed. It should noted that these terms were a stark contrast to the terms offered should the PAFC have entered the league in 1990. So, the question as to why they did it is answered by the market forces attached to the AFL as the dominant league.

Why join under those conditions? PAFC influences
During the history of the PAFC, the PAFC has made many mistakes. In the recent AFL era, the attempt by some factions to distance the PAFC in the AFL from the PAFC history in the AFL was one of these mistakes. The PAFC board at the time was a board dominated by SANFL interests, rather than PAFC interests. Again, another condition of the market forces squeezing compliance. There was always a PAFC community committed the PAFC as a continuation of the same club, values and identity that saw the PAFC as the most successful club in the SANFL and the only club to survive the nationalisation out of the WAFL and SANFL. Indeed, nationalisation cost the VFL Fitzroy its place on the national stage. There can be no denying that 'officially' the PAFC took these actions. However there is a strong argument that the forces promoting the disassociation of the SANFL era to the AFL era were SANFL representatives attempting to make a 'Crows-lite' out of the PAFC to continue to drain the financial windfall for the SANFL a national team represented.

Why change position now?
The current PAFC management is closer than ever to the PAFC values represented by the PAFC than ever before in the AFL era, although there is still along way to go. There has been no change from the PAFC community, only a change from the PAFC management to better reflect the PAFC community. As to why it is unfair, I would point to the examples cited in the UFC antitrust clash action, whereby the market dominance has unfairly treated participants of that market. An action that Fitzroy could explore ...

Why should you care?
The AFL has hijacked Australian Rules Football. Indeed, it does not promote kids playing 'aussie rules' - they play AFL. Without consideration or consultation the AFL run ramshod over the clubs with rule changes, stadium deals, lucky dip draft concessions in the name of equalisation, sacrificing of competitive integrity in the name of financial benefit, and other equally dysfunctional actions. The ability for a day at he footy is so far out of reach for so many Western Australian and South Australian families that it has become the domain of men - whereby the general stupidity that ensues when a group of blokes gets together wth their mates ensues. The infestation of gambling into the game - whereby the official broadcast is undisguisable from the game broadcast so that gambling 'IS' the game is insidious.

These are all actions undertaken by the AFL. Not the Clubs. Not inline with Club values. Certainly something that should trouble us all when the 'custodians' of the game have simply become the bankers of the game.

TL;DR - ***** AFL house and revolt with us!

Well written, just a shame most here will glanced past it and give it no consideration to their trolling ways.

 

[OnlyPowerForever]

Got to love those so called agreements we supposed have signed in good faith and then when we produce actual documents with signatures... we get crickets. It just demonstrates that nothing written on paper and signed has weight or meaning when it features Collingwood presidents signature. Might as well be sh!t tickets.

Restricted Content - The Mongrel Punt

Content from our archives commencing with the 2018 season is restricted to members only. Gotta look after the people that look after us. Want a peek?

themongrelpunt.com

Collingwood President Allan McAlister’s letter to then Port Adelaide President Greg Boulton dated 1 September 1995.

“We at Collingwood are most grateful for Port Adelaide accepting it should enter the AFL with a change from its black-and-white colours and Magpie name which we hold dear to our hearts at Collingwood.

I will reiterate to our board that if the Port Adelaide Football Club should succeed at ranking higher than the Collingwood Football Club for three consecutive years in the AFL then our objections will be waived.”

Port Adelaide ranked higher than Collingwood on its first five consecutive years in the AFL from 1997 to 2001. Meaning, Collingwood did not honour its agreement,

Remember this was a running joke with a Collingwood mate up in Townsville. The funniest bit about all of this is that if you looked at H&A tables (not finals), it stretched even longer.
1997 9th v 10th
1998 10th v 14th
1999 7th v 16th
2000 14th v 15th
2001 3rd v 9th
2002 1st v 4th
2003 1st v 2nd
2004 1st v 13th
2005 8th v 15th
2006 12th v 5th (finally!)

 

[OnlyPowerForever]

Why join under those conditions? External influences
When the PAFC entered the AFL, the AFL could be viewed as an oligopoly that was quickly becoming a monopoly. Any club that wished to survive in a meaningful sense needed to compete in the AFL. As a dominant market force, the imperfect competition did not allow the PAFC to survive in a meaningful sense in any other competition - effectively forcing the PAFC to agree to whatever terms the AFL proposed. It should noted that these terms were a stark contrast to the terms offered should the PAFC have entered the league in 1990. So, the question as to why they did it is answered by the market forces attached to the AFL as the dominant league.

Why join under those conditions? PAFC influences
During the history of the PAFC, the PAFC has made many mistakes. In the recent AFL era, the attempt by some factions to distance the PAFC in the AFL from the PAFC history in the AFL was one of these mistakes. The PAFC board at the time was a board dominated by SANFL interests, rather than PAFC interests. Again, another condition of the market forces squeezing compliance. There was always a PAFC community committed the PAFC as a continuation of the same club, values and identity that saw the PAFC as the most successful club in the SANFL and the only club to survive the nationalisation out of the WAFL and SANFL. Indeed, nationalisation cost the VFL Fitzroy its place on the national stage. There can be no denying that 'officially' the PAFC took these actions. However there is a strong argument that the forces promoting the disassociation of the SANFL era to the AFL era were SANFL representatives attempting to make a 'Crows-lite' out of the PAFC to continue to drain the financial windfall for the SANFL a national team represented.

Why change position now?
The current PAFC management is closer than ever to the PAFC values represented by the PAFC than ever before in the AFL era, although there is still along way to go. There has been no change from the PAFC community, only a change from the PAFC management to better reflect the PAFC community. As to why it is unfair, I would point to the examples cited in the UFC antitrust clash action, whereby the market dominance has unfairly treated participants of that market. An action that Fitzroy could explore ...

Why should you care?
The AFL has hijacked Australian Rules Football. Indeed, it does not promote kids playing 'aussie rules' - they play AFL. Without consideration or consultation the AFL run ramshod over the clubs with rule changes, stadium deals, lucky dip draft concessions in the name of equalisation, sacrificing of competitive integrity in the name of financial benefit, and other equally dysfunctional actions. The ability for a day at he footy is so far out of reach for so many Western Australian and South Australian families that it has become the domain of men - whereby the general stupidity that ensues when a group of blokes gets together wth their mates ensues. The infestation of gambling into the game - whereby the official broadcast is undisguisable from the game broadcast so that gambling 'IS' the game is insidious.

These are all actions undertaken by the AFL. Not the Clubs. Not inline with Club values. Certainly something that should trouble us all when the 'custodians' of the game have simply become the bankers of the game.

TL;DR - ***** AFL house and revolt with us!

Thanks for putting in words so eloquently, so much of what this is about.

 

[OnlyPowerForever]

"Probably thought" and "try and" say it all.

The facts are, they contractually agreed not to wear or market / profit off the black and white prison bars nor have the monikor of Magpies in the AFL. Realising you've made an error doesn't change was has been agreed to legally. That they tried to disassociate themselves officially as a club from their SANFL history makes most of the historical arguments invalid, as hard as that would be to accept as a fan.

Am I allowed to use the word "nonsense"?
Because double-standards do apply.

Let me explain.
Eddie McGuire was quite vocal in his anger and dismay of a 9.8% Swans and Giants Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) paid for by the AFL.
He led the charge, passionately, insistently, vehemently, to have it eventually abolished in 2017.

What is not reported so widely, of course, is that Eddie himself signed off on that allowance in 2008.
Andrew Demetriou admitted that they had gone to all clubs to agree to the allowance as part of a unique cost of living in Sydney, and all clubs agreed.

To quote: "Realising you've made an error doesn't change was has been agreed to legally".
But apparently, only sometimes. Usually when you've made the error.

 

[underthestars]

One day it will dawn on the AFL that the battle of the magpies will be a big money earner. they are representing different cities and states for gawds sake. it won't hurt collingwood's identity or merchandise sales in any way at all.
port wear the bars at home, the pies can wear an all white historical umpires garb for all i care. or they could fall in line and wear a true away guernsey like the rest. the pies flaunt one rule when it suits them and demand the afl enforce another when it suits them. just allow us fans of the game to see one of australia's greatest footy teams wear their jumper. more importantly allow port fans and players the right. i read the most pedantic tribal arguments against it that boil down to nothing more than spite and selfishness.

 

[offtherails9]

True or false: Port Adelaide approved official AFL merchandise to be produced and sold indicating the club was established in 1996?

View attachment 1123711
View attachment 1123714
View attachment 1123722

These were made by the AFL's merchandise partners at the time. The club immediately brought this error to the AFL's attention and that is why virtually all merchandise issued since these initial pieces have 1870 and Port Adelaide on them. These are actually collectors items because there were very few of these produced after 1997. In fact these are probably some of the last produced judging by the logo, maybe around 2000. It was an ongoing problem for the first few years.

Another example of Port choosing their history. It's just a cash grab. That first image, the merch there is from the mid 2000s fwiw.

 

[OnlyPowerForever]

One day it will dawn on the AFL that the battle of the magpies will be a big money earner. they are representing different cities and states for gawds sake. it won't hurt collingwood's identity or merchandise sales in any way at all.
port wear the bars at home, the pies can wear an all white historical umpires garb for all i care. or they could fall in line and wear a true away guernsey like the rest. the pies flaunt one rule when it suits them and demand the afl enforce another when it suits them. just allow us fans of the game to see one of australia's greatest footy teams wear their jumper. more importantly allow port fans and players the right. i read the most pedantic tribal arguments against it that boil down to nothing more than spite and selfishness.

I've said long long ago that the two teams should play for the right to wear their strip and opponents their clash strip the next time they play.

 

[ibd77]

Another example of Port choosing their history. It's just a cash grab. That first image, the merch there is from the mid 2000s fwiw.

I'm pretty sure your you enjoyed the extra revenue with all those cat, dog, horse, goat memberships to inflate your membership numbers.

 

[doppleganger]

Got to love those so called agreements we supposed have signed in good faith and then when we produce actual documents with signatures... we get crickets. It just demonstrates that nothing written on paper and signed has weight or meaning when it features Collingwood presidents signature. Might as well be sh!t tickets.

Restricted Content - The Mongrel Punt

Content from our archives commencing with the 2018 season is restricted to members only. Gotta look after the people that look after us. Want a peek?

themongrelpunt.com

Collingwood President Allan McAlister’s letter to then Port Adelaide President Greg Boulton dated 1 September 1995.

“We at Collingwood are most grateful for Port Adelaide accepting it should enter the AFL with a change from its black-and-white colours and Magpie name which we hold dear to our hearts at Collingwood.

I will reiterate to our board that if the Port Adelaide Football Club should succeed at ranking higher than the Collingwood Football Club for three consecutive years in the AFL then our objections will be waived.”

Port Adelaide ranked higher than Collingwood on its first five consecutive years in the AFL from 1997 to 2001. Meaning, Collingwood did not honour its agreement,

LoL

Big Al McAllister was moving on from Collingwood at the end of 1995, with Kevin Rose taking over at the start of 1996.

How good, Big Al pulled an Eddie like the heritage round 'agreement', he knew he wasn't even going to be president in 96 let alone when Port entered the competition!!

This wasn't a Collingwood agreement, it was a letter from McAllister....in 1996 he had nothing to do with Collingwood.

 

[OnlyPowerForever]

Another example of Port choosing from their history. It's just a cash grab. That first image, the merch there is from the mid 2000s fwiw.

Missed a word there. Added for context.

 

[ibd77]

LoL

Big Al McAllister was moving on from Collingwood at the end of 1995, with Kevin Rose taking over at the start of 1996.

How good, Big Al pulled an Eddie like the heritage round 'agreement', he knew he wasn't even going to be president in 96 let alone when Port entered the competition!!

This wasn't a Collingwood agreement, it was a letter from McAllister....in 1996 he had nothing to do with Collingwood.

Would have been interesting to see if that document contained Collingwoods letterhead. It wouldn't have mattered if he was moving on as the document could have been legally binding to the club at the time of submission as he was still formally your president.

Of course Port were in no position to challenge it at that time as their end goal was enter the AFL and get established.

In regards to our agreement to terms & conditions to join the AFL, sure we had to adopt new colours and nicknames, we had no interest in ruffling feathers at the time. However like any agreement, it can be reviewed and amended at any time and the custodian of the agreement is the AFL. We are now challenging that agreement with the AFL to have more freedom that best represents the club as desired by its fan base.

At the moment we have been dealing with very conservative AFL Board, however one day we will see a progressive AFL board which will try to maximise the potential & revenue of all clubs in the competition. They might even enforce their power to change club strips should an event call for it.

 

[Malibu#27]

Would be a pisser if they refuse Collingwood permission and then sue them if they use it anyway.

Reminded me of this:



Graham Cornes is a try hard, saw the succes of NTUA for Port - but had no understanding of why it worked. So hes thrown up all sorts of songs for the Crows to play pre-game, and lobbied Jimmy Barnes to use No Second Prize. I guess its like Collingwoods attempts to use Nothing Else Matters.

 

[fnerd]

LoL

Big Al McAllister was moving on from Collingwood at the end of 1995, with Kevin Rose taking over at the start of 1996.

How good, Big Al pulled an Eddie like the heritage round 'agreement', he knew he wasn't even going to be president in 96 let alone when Port entered the competition!!

This wasn't a Collingwood agreement, it was a letter from McAllister....in 1996 he had nothing to do with Collingwood.

A bit like fat Eddie is no longer president and has nothing to do with Collingwood now?

 

[longdonkey]

Reminded me of this:

View attachment 1123947

Graham Cornes is a try hard, saw the succes of NTUA for Port - but had no understanding of why it worked. So hes thrown up all sorts of songs for the Crows to play pre-game, and lobbied Jimmy Barnes to use No Second Prize. I guess its like Collingwoods attempts to use Nothing Else Matters.

Our celebrity supporters are the best. Another thing we do better than the rest.

 

[Shane Heard]

Doping is illegal, wearing the best jumper in the country is not, it should be admired by all.

You related to eddie Mceddieface by any chance?

Blatantly ignoring copyright infringement is illegal

 

[Ice-Wolf]

Blatantly ignoring copyright infringement is illegal

It's not copyright infringement.

 

[Shane Heard]

Power don't want to wear Collingwood's jumper - they want to wear their jumper. It's pretty easy to tell the difference.

If anything, the Pies have appropriated the Port jumper in the AFLW with the top front panel.

no, you’re so very wrong

It is what it is..your replicating black and white vertical stripes

 

[Shane Heard]

It's not copyright infringement.

yes it is

 

[El_Scorcho]

What you've both done is ignore the latter half of my post though. I repeat; Port Adelaide entered the VFL/AFL comp knowing they couldn't be the Magpies nor wear their black and white striped, prison bar iteration jumper. If they were so attached to their history and heritage why did they do that and why did they at one point attempt to almost totally disassociate themselves from their SANFL history? Why did they agree to it contractually to now turn around and act like it's unfair?

What kind of question is this?

Of course the decision is going to be to play in the AFL over a dying state league. Every state league club in the country would have made the jump if it was available to them. It's better to be in with a bad deal than be forever consigned to 2nd tier anonymity like Norwood. What's become obvious since is the deliberate wedge driven between the club and it's history by the AFL was completely unneccesary and very harmful to the club in it's early stages. Why award Port the licence and then remove everything visually that makes us Port?

The club, at AFL level, has been SANFL controlled and is now AFL controlled. The SANFL appointed our board until what, 2010? The SANFL were granted control over the licence for whatever reason, which meant they had control of our board and basically ran us into the ground to the point that the AFL basically took the licence back. What the board was between 1997-2010 doing, especially from a branding perspective, was wildly at odds with the fanbase a lot of the time, but some dudes who was appointed CEO in 2004 isn't the club and doesn't represent the supporterbase. There are examples all over the league and in fact all over the sporting world of prominent club administrators doing things that are at odds with the will of the supporter base that are ultimately harmful to the club.

Trying to demand that we never challenge the conditions of our original 25 year old licence agreement is dumb. The AFL have changed the conditions of the competition every single year since then, often quite drastically. Why can't we as a club and supporter base push for an apparent clause that has proven to be dumb to be removed?

 

[Valentino]

Blatantly ignoring copyright infringement is illegal

I researched the colour black and no mention of copyright.
I also researched the colour white and still no mention of copyright.
So then I researched the colours black and white and still no mention of copyright.

I then looked up insecure little internet troll and your name magically appeared.

 

[Shane Heard]

I researched the colour black and no mention of copyright.
I also researched the colour white and still no mention of copyright.
So then I researched the colours black and white and still no mention of copyright.

I then looked up insecure little internet troll and your name magically appeared.

You really have reached the end of your tether with some kind of defence of your inane argument

you’re wrong and you know it