Port Adelaide's plan to use jumpers similar to Collingwood

[PowerBaz]

So embarrassing you want to wear fancy dress when you play us? Make up your mind why don’t you.

We have?

 

[longdonkey]

The way I see it is that Port recorded another $4m loss which brings them to a $12m debt, while North seems to be able to operate off the sniff off an oily rag and have paid down their debt.

Bring them both together and create the Port Roos. They can then justifiably wear blue and white prison bars.

North doubles their membership base to 70k, Port not only gets to wear prison bars, but will have a competent board who actually understand finance, unlike their existing board.

Here's an interesting piece of reading its from the 2020 AFL Financial Report:
The AFL operates a Club Funding Model, which provides a base distribution and, subject to meeting certain qualifying criteria, a variable distribution. Variable distributions are designed to provide support to clubs that cannot fund their football program (playing and non-playing resources) to a competitive level solely based on the base distribution and their own revenue-generating capacity. Variable funding distributions are determined based on an estimation of revenue-generating disadvantages that may be caused by, among other things, different supporter base sizes, differing commercial arrangements with stadiums, the financial impact of the fixture and access to income from non-football related businesses. Variable funding was discontinued from April 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic; the cost of football programs was reduced and the AFL-funded match-day and travel costs directly through management of the High Performance Centres.

In light of what that says
Port Adelaide received $11.9 million
Collingwood received $12.3 million

and looking at Collingwood's Annual Report they manage to siphon $5 million out of the State Government for "subsidies" whatever that is.

No wonder we are in debt.

 

[ibd77]

and looking at Collingwood's Annual Report they manage to siphon $5 million out of the State Government for "subsidies" whatever that is.

No wonder we are in debt.

Taking a guess but could it be to do with AFLW?
I think we will be getting some government assistance to setup our facilities for women's teams.

 

[Billys Back]

Here's an interesting piece of reading its from the 2020 AFL Financial Report:
The AFL operates a Club Funding Model, which provides a base distribution and, subject to meeting certain qualifying criteria, a variable distribution. Variable distributions are designed to provide support to clubs that cannot fund their football program (playing and non-playing resources) to a competitive level solely based on the base distribution and their own revenue-generating capacity. Variable funding distributions are determined based on an estimation of revenue-generating disadvantages that may be caused by, among other things, different supporter base sizes, differing commercial arrangements with stadiums, the financial impact of the fixture and access to income from non-football related businesses. Variable funding was discontinued from April 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic; the cost of football programs was reduced and the AFL-funded match-day and travel costs directly through management of the High Performance Centres.

In light of what that says
Port Adelaide received $11.9 million
Collingwood received $12.3 million

and looking at Collingwood's Annual Report they manage to siphon $5 million out of the State Government for "subsidies" whatever that is.

No wonder we are in debt.

So what you are saying is that you don't have enough members, have not developed outside of football any reasonable commercial operations, have a terrible deal with your stadium and so you need to rely on the AFL each year. If the AFL can't support you, you are not a going concern.

How do North Melbourne do it?

 

[The Burger King]

So what you are saying is that you don't have enough members, have not developed outside of football any reasonable commercial operations, have a terrible deal with your stadium and so you need to rely on the AFL each year. If the AFL can't support you, you are not a going concern.

How do North Melbourne do it?

Might as well fold the competition.

 

[ibd77]

So what you are saying is that you don't have enough members, have not developed outside of football any reasonable commercial operations, have a terrible deal with your stadium and so you need to rely on the AFL each year. If the AFL can't support you, you are not a going concern.

How do North Melbourne do it?

Oh i'm sure you will learn here.

Port Adelaide - Can They Hack It In The Big Time League?

Time for an honest discussion about Port Adelaide as an AFL club. Port Adelaide chairman David Koch said the coronavirus-impacted 2020 season had been a severe setback and revealed a $12 million debt despite the Power having reduced their cost base by more than $17 million. In a brutal...

www.bigfooty.com

 

[longdonkey]

So what you are saying is that you don't have enough members, have not developed outside of football any reasonable commercial operations, have a terrible deal with your stadium and so you need to rely on the AFL each year. If the AFL can't support you, you are not a going concern.

How do North Melbourne do it?

If you read it properly it has nothing to do with that. AFL gives base distribution to all clubs. Then they take into account the club's capacity to pay its staff taking into account their revenue generating opportunities and that is paid as a variable distribution.

So looking at those guidelines they are saying Port has better revenue generating opportunities than Collingwood - who generate double the income with only 40% more members.

North received $3 million more than Port
St Kilda received $6 million more than Port

So you have better stadium deals than us, get better timeslots so have better commercial deals and you get given more than us by the AFL as distribution payments.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Pies have always agreed to let the 'Bars be worn as part of the heritage throw backs or milestone celebrations.

No they haven't, at all. They've repeatedly knocked us back every time we've asked, and every time the AFL told Eddie to suck it up and approved the bars, he publicly said never again.

We've been knocked back many, many more times than we've been successful. Asking nicely has gotten us nowhere.

 

[Shane Heard]

The way I see it is that Port recorded another $4m loss which brings them to a $12m debt, while North seems to be able to operate off the sniff off an oily rag and have paid down their debt.

Bring them both together and create the Port Roos. They can then justifiably wear blue and white prison bars.

North doubles their membership base to 70k, Port not only gets to wear prison bars, but will have a competent board who actually understand finance, unlike their existing board.

that’s a pretty good feasible idea that all port fans should embrace wholeheartedly

 

[doppleganger]

"I will reiterate to our board"

in a context of a letter, it doesn't mean consult, it means direct. If he was to consult, then why the letter?, why not a phone call in a less formal manner? If he was going rogue then that's your problem but he was still your President at the time an alleged formal club statement was presented to our club.

So no my interpretation is not incorrect! it is different to yours as we both have our own agendas.

It is now an alleged formal club statement!! LoL

And again your interpretation being that Port must hv believed big Al would be president forever.....how else would he reiterate it?

Pretty clear that Port fans clutching at straws, anything they can interpret that supposedly entitles them to wear black n white stripes is part of the agenda.

2007 agreement was made in the understanding that future heritage rounds would continue. However the AFL did not indicate a time frame to PAFC but happy to give that information to Collingwood instead. Rather cheeky from that point of view and rather dishonest. Hence the stunt on Saturday as the rolls are now reversed and Collingwood (Eddie) are now crying foul even though the AFL sanctioned it.

How bout Port fans take greater issue with their club failing to read the play...why didn't Port extend the clause to their potential return as “retro” or “throwback” rounds or "showdown specials"?

Have any bothered to ask chief executive John James to explain why he signed away the club’s rights to merchandising traditional black-and-white gear.....yet the “Never Tear Us Apart” scarves with the Magpies SANFL logo were created breaching the agreement.

Port signed an agreement, but then ignore it and actively breach it...and their fans somehow think this actually helps their position??

 

[jakson68]

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.

Port Power don't have a black and white striped jumper in the AFL, so I cannot see how our AFLW team has appropriated this.
The jumper Port Power want to wear, is the Port Adelaide Magpies jumper.
Im sorry but there is only space for one magpie team in the AFL.
Save that one for the SANFL.

 

[jakson68]

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

Another thing .
I cant think of anything Port do better than the rest.

 

[Billys Back]

Yes one should chose our battles, that made me laugh also.

But Eddie never charged us for the instruction.

 

[Papa G]

The Fat Bully Boy has actually misread the room on this one.

The Prison Bars will only get stronger from here.

Its driving further discussion and calling out of the corruption and inherent bias that exists within the league and who actually is in charge. This has been badly handled by the McGuire/Gilligan alliance.

Koch, more broadly, is a bit of a knob, no doubt about that, but unlike everybody in Malbun, he's not scared of Eddie.

Long Live the Bars.

 

[gtrxuone]

The prison bars was only to be worn for Ports home Showdown v The Crows.Total overreaction by Eddie.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

Did Kochie bother to reach out to Korda for the Pies new board to see their position?

Korda and the Eddie appointed board are just Eddie puppets. You can pretty much see his hand shoved up their backsides.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

in a context of a letter, it doesn't mean consult, it means direct. If he was to consult, then why the letter?, why not a phone call in a less formal manner? If he was going rogue then that's your problem but he was still your President at the time an alleged formal club statement was presented to our club.

The wording of the letter makes it look like something the clubs and AFL had agreed to and it was a reminder to the Collingwood board that that was what was agreed.

 

[Billys Back]

The prison bars was only to be worn for Ports home Showdown v The Crows.Total overreaction by Eddie.

Give an inch and you take a Kochie snozz

 

[Teal Leviathan]

As someone who has no organic connection to the prison bars, I'd like to offer a more philosophical perspective. It's clear that Port Adelaide thrives on the narrative of greatness denied, suppressed, or resented. Having Collingwood and the AFL, represented spiritually if not legally by Eddie Maguire, be seen to obstruct Port Adelaide in this matter only furthers the club's mythology in ways that are likely to drive memberships, crowds, and merchandise sales.

I see two dangers that could undermine what is otherwise a useful dynamic for Port Adelaide: (1) a legalistic, too-easy resolution of the matter that would suck all the passion out of the room and (2) overcooking the issue with AFL HQ such that they begin to work against Port Adelaide's interests elsewhere in retribution.

On the other hand, I can't see much of a downside for Port in making this all about those dastardly Colliwobbles and bobblehead Maguire. The only danger there is indirect, i.e. the influence Collingwood has with AFL HQ, see (1).

 

[jle101]

Have read a couple of posts in here that suggest the original terms offered to Port to join the AFL in 1990 were a lot more favorable than those eventually agreed to in 1996.

Would be interested if anyone could tell me whether or not Port would have been permitted to wear the bars had they actually joined in 1991, or hadn't the negotiations reached that point yet?

As some of us already know, Port & Collingwood had that trial match in 1993 & both sides were seen in black & white. Curious to know what Port would have worn had they won the license ahead of the Crows.

 

[bomberclifford]

Have read a couple of posts in here that suggest the original terms offered to Port to join the AFL in 1990 were a lot more favorable than those eventually agreed to in 1996.

Would be interested if anyone could tell me whether or not Port would have been permitted to wear the bars had they actually joined in 1991, or hadn't the negotiations reached that point yet?

As some of us already know, Port & Collingwood had that trial match in 1993 & both sides were seen in black & white. Curious to know what Port would have worn had they won the license ahead of the Crows.

I believe we were going to be wearing our traditional guernsey, with a clash guernsey for games against Collingwood.

 

[Shane Heard]

I believe we were going to be wearing our traditional guernsey, with a clash guernsey for games against Collingwood.

Go ahead and do it.

You’ll be docked premiership points and hopefully banished from the league until you wake up to yourselves

 

[EskimoPAFC]

Another thing .
I cant think of anything Port do better than the rest.

Volume of coke zero consumed in the coaches box?

 

[bomberclifford]

As someone who has no organic connection to the prison bars, I'd like to offer a more philosophical perspective. It's clear that Port Adelaide thrives on the narrative of greatness denied, suppressed, or resented. Having Collingwood and the AFL, represented spiritually if not legally by Eddie Maguire, be seen to obstruct Port Adelaide in this matter only furthers the club's mythology in ways that are likely to drive memberships, crowds, and merchandise sales.

I see two dangers that could undermine what is otherwise a useful dynamic for Port Adelaide: (1) a legalistic, too-easy resolution of the matter that would suck all the passion out of the room and (2) overcooking the issue with AFL HQ such that they begin to work against Port Adelaide's interests elsewhere in retribution.

On the other hand, I can't see much of a downside for Port in making this all about those dastardly Colliwobbles and bobblehead Maguire. The only danger there is indirect, i.e. the influence Collingwood has with AFL HQ, see (1).

The BBTB campaign has always been more about the fight than the victory. It’s why we’ve set our goals as much more ambitious than what the club is asking for. It’s also why the biggest risk for us right now is for the club/Koch to sign something that ends it all. The momentum is building and needs to be maintained.

The fight is about much more than just the guernsey and has as much to do with internal club matters as it does the external influences/issues.

 

[OnlyPowerForever]

There’s about 3000 posts on facts and valid objections in this thread.

Having trouble reading are we?

I will say whatever I want in defence of the integrity of the League.

And Port Adelaide Magpie black and white vertical stripes are not an official AFL jumper.

The sooner you accept this fact the better you’ll sleep at night.

Who said anything about wearing the SANFL Magpie guernsey in an AFL game?
Facts, facts, and damned lies.
Defending integrity of the League peddling those mistruths... funny.