Port Adelaide's plan to use jumpers similar to Collingwood

[jle101]

Not sure if anyone has answered your question or not but the "Heads of Agreement" between the AFL "The Commission" and the Port Adelaide Football Club "Port" states

9. The Commission agrees that Port shall participate in the AFL competition under the name 'Port Adelaide' and with players wearing its existing SANFL playing uniform subject to changing its football socks and changing its Club emblem of "The Magpies" so as to avoid confusion with the uniform and emblem of the Collingwood Football Club and subject to Port adopting an alternative uniform involving minor changes for matches between Port and the Collingwood Football Club, such changes to be approved by the Commission.

There is certainly a lot of BS in this thread with people trying to make claims, points etc. without actually knowing the facts. It's a bit like Trump trying to say he won but not being able to back it up.

Cheers mate. Interesting just how many things were taken away from Port once the SANFL changed its mind & decided to enter the Crows into the league. Seems we could have had two teams wearing black & white had the 1990 bid been successful.

 

[garlic munchers]

Bit torn over this issue...

Seems only fair Collingwood should have sole rights on this style of jumper as they were there first and otherwise, I find them quite likable (maybe because their so inoffensive and non threatening).

Then you have Port who being an interstater, I love to see kicking a Vic. But then; they are the Dockers of SA. So F### em.

 

[Bearded Clam]

Cheers mate. Interesting just how many things were taken away from Port once the SANFL changed its mind & decided to enter the Crows into the league. Seems we could have had two teams wearing black & white had the 1990 bid been successful.

Fair enough, and all interesting from a historical perspective... but the 1990 bid wasnt successful.. so there is very little to achieve from discussing it in this forum...

 

[jle101]

Fair enough, and all interesting from a historical perspective... but the 1990 bid wasnt successful.. so there is very little to achieve from discussing it in this forum...

I understand that. Was just curious & thought I'd ask. Wasn't supposed to be related to the current situation.

The 1990 bid has always been of great interest to me. After all, Port stuck their necks out & made a really tough decision to go along with the AFL back then, only for the SANFL & its clubs to turn their backs on them & eventually usurp them. Dunno why the AFL didn't just accept both bids & expand to a 16-team comp straight away. Imagine how well Port could have done had they been able to hang on to their players from 1990 - 1996. Wanganeen, Hodges, Tregenza, Buckley, Cockatoo-Collins, the Wakelins, Waterhouse, plus SANFL stalwarts such as Giniver, Phillips, Fiacchi etc.

 

[sprockets]

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 - ***** AFL house and revolt with us!

Agree that it's well written, however, isn't the real reason PA AFL wanted to become one with PA SANFL the 31 (or however many) flags? One flag in 23 years doesn't sound so great, particularly as PA supporters had become used to winning one every other year before joining the AFL, except your tally still unbelievably includes the SANFL (your reserves) flags won since as senior flags.

The jumper thing is just another step in that direction.

 

[Roby]

C'mon mate, paperwork goes missing all the time - just ask Dean Wallis.

Love how most of the fluff in here is 'herp derp the Power were happy to crap on their history when they joined the league and now they want to go back and change it'.

But those same people probably don't even realise the bars are in the original logo. So while they're happy to drop the Magpies, the bars are a massive part of the Port Adelaide identity.

So that means they should wear the bars every game.

 

[Papa G]

Agree that it's well written, however, isn't the real reason PA AFL wanted to become one with PA SANFL the 31 (or however many) flags? One flag in 23 years doesn't sound so great, particularly as PA supporters had become used to winning one every other year before joining the AFL, except your tally still unbelievably includes the SANFL (your reserves) flags won since as senior flags.

The jumper thing is just another step in that direction.

1 Flag in 23 years is bad by Port standards, State League VFL flags count, but SANFL State League Flags don't officially.

Yet whilst Port has been in the same league as the top 4 VFL/AFL Flag winners, the tally is this:

Head to Head and Flags:

Port 16 Collingwood 16 1 Flag each
Port 19 Essendon 14 1 Flag each
Port 20 Carlton 13 Port 1 flag, Carlton No Flag
Port 20 Richmond 14 Port 1 Flag Richmond 3. Flags

So whilst competing in the same league, Port has a better winning record than 3 VFL Era heavyweights (equal with Collingwood), Has the same amount of flags as Collingwood and Essendon, more than Carlton and only Richmond, based on their very recent success has more Premierships. Based on this, State League Flags really shouldn't equate with AFL Flags, because it really is a different, much harder league. The heavyweights of yore don't really stack up these days.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

I am all for tradition and I back Port Adelaide to show case theirs but if they signed an agreement stating they would only wear it during the designated heritage round than I don't exactly see what grounds they have here?

Not really fair to have your cake and eat it too....

AFL should just revisit the original agreement and change it if it sees the need too.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

1 Flag in 23 years is bad by Port standards, State League VFL flags count, but SANFL State League Flags don't officially.

Yet whilst Port has been in the same league as the top 4 VFL/AFL Flag winners, the tally is this:

Head to Head and Flags:

Port 16 Collingwood 16 1 Flag each
Port 19 Essendon 14 1 Flag each
Port 20 Carlton 13 Port 1 flag, Carlton No Flag
Port 20 Richmond 14 Port 1 Flag Richmond 3. Flags

So whilst competing in the same league, Port has a better winning record than 3 VFL Era heavyweights (equal with Collingwood), Has the same amount of flags as Collingwood and Essendon, more than Carlton and only Richmond, based on their very recent success has more Premierships. Based on this, State League Flags really shouldn't equate with AFL Flags, because it really is a different, much harder league. The heavyweights of yore don't really stack up these days.

See your point but don't forget VFL was the Premier Comp at the time, hence why VFL flags count and SAFL don't.

 

[sprockets]

See your point but don't forget VFL was the Premier Comp at the time, hence why VFL flags count and SAFL don't.

VFL is still the premier comp, it's just had a name change and some new teams added. SAFL did the same in the 1920's when they were the SAFL and before that when they were the SAFA. As a matter of fact name changes and new teams is common throughout football leagues.

 

[jle101]

Roughly from which point did the idea of the VFL being the premier comp take hold? Was it back in the early 80's when they went semi-national after relocating South Melbourne?

From all of the old footy books I've read that belonged to either my dad or older brother, all three of the WAFL, SANFL & VFL were considered to be on equal footing.

 

[Papa G]

See your point but don't forget VFL was the Premier Comp at the time, hence why VFL flags count and SAFL don't.

At what time? The VFL never had all the best players, or indeed all the best clubs. Those clubs that dominated the VFL, the fabled "Big 4" and i'll add Melbourne to that list, have comparatively struggled in when all the best players and club were playing in the same comp. It just indicates, VFL Flags don't equal AFL Flags. Port has a winning record against the 5 VFL era heavyweights. What does that say?

 

[sprockets]

At what time? The VFL never had all the best players, or indeed all the best clubs. Those clubs that dominated the VFL, the fabled "Big 4" and i'll add Melbourne to that list, have comparatively struggled in when all the best players and club were playing in the same comp. It just indicates, VFL Flags don't equal AFL Flags. Port has a winning record against the 5 VFL era heavyweights. What does that say?

Head to head doesn't really matter as you have a deficit to other 'lesser' VFL clubs. Flags are the criteria for greatness and yes you have an equal or better record than many. Still, 1 flag in 23 years shows that PA aren't the dominant team in the AFL that they were in the SANFL and if we use the law of averages you're below par. Hence why PA AFL wants to be so closely aligned with PA SANFL.

 

[Papa G]

Head to head doesn't really matter as you have a deficit to other 'lesser' VFL clubs. Flags are the criteria for greatness and yes you have an equal or better record than many. Still, 1 flag in 23 years shows that PA aren't the dominant team in the AFL that they were in the SANFL and if we use the law of averages you're below par. Hence why PA AFL wants to be so closely aligned with PA SANFL.

Its the same club. Ports A grade moved from the SANFL to the AFL in 97. There were many mistakes made in the transition, some self imposed, many forced upon us, but this is the plain facts. It's the same club, called Port Adelaide, based at Alberton with the same generations of supporters that won the 2nd SA license to play in the AFL. You have to be completely stupid, disingenuous or just trying to get a rise to not understand this.

 

[Boston tiger]

1 Flag in 23 years is bad by Port standards, State League VFL flags count, but SANFL State League Flags don't officially.

Yet whilst Port has been in the same league as the top 4 VFL/AFL Flag winners, the tally is this:

Head to Head and Flags:

Port 16 Collingwood 16 1 Flag each
Port 19 Essendon 14 1 Flag each
Port 20 Carlton 13 Port 1 flag, Carlton No Flag
Port 20 Richmond 14 Port 1 Flag Richmond 3. Flags

So whilst competing in the same league, Port has a better winning record than 3 VFL Era heavyweights (equal with Collingwood), Has the same amount of flags as Collingwood and Essendon, more than Carlton and only Richmond, based on their very recent success has more Premierships. Based on this, State League Flags really shouldn't equate with AFL Flags, because it really is a different, much harder league. The heavyweights of yore don't really stack up these days.

If you devalue the VFL then the reason for giving everything up ..prison bars included is silly.
Why were the other states happy to turn their backs on their own competition and turn their cities into 2 club towns ?

 

[PowerBaz]

Design overlap is not important if the colour palettes are completely different.

The following groups of teams have similar or identical designs but are each completely recognisable as a result of their unique colour palette.

Collingwood / North Melbourne / Hawthorn
Essendon / Richmond
Carlton / Gold Coast
Geelong / Adelaide
Port Adelaide / Fremantle
Sydney / Melbourne

Roughly from which point did the idea of the VFL being the premier comp take hold? Was it back in the early 80's when they went semi-national after relocating South Melbourne?

From all of the old footy books I've read that belonged to either my dad or older brother, all three of the WAFL, SANFL & VFL were considered to be on equal footing.

When Ed was born.

 

[Papa G]

If you devalue the VFL then the reason for giving everything up ..prison bars included is silly.
Why were the other states happy to turn their backs on their own competition and turn their cities into 2 club towns ?

Again these questions are either stupid or deliberately disingenuous. The flow of money, media and players started in the 70's and culminated in West Coast joining the VFL. From that point a fair and equitable and representative National League could never be achieved. The horse had bolted. Port saw the writing on the wall and did what was best for it. Other great WA and SA clubs sat on their hands and were left in the dust. The VFL took over the game. If you didn't jump on you got left behind.

 

[Roby]

VFL is still the premier comp, it's just had a name change and some new teams added. SAFL did the same in the 1920's when they were the SAFL and before that when they were the SAFA. As a matter of fact name changes and new teams is common throughout football leagues.

The more Victorians act like dicks the more those VFL flags count for less.

 

[Ray Nolan]

I understand that. Was just curious & thought I'd ask. Wasn't supposed to be related to the current situation.

The 1990 bid has always been of great interest to me. After all, Port stuck their necks out & made a really tough decision to go along with the AFL back then, only for the SANFL & its clubs to turn their backs on them & eventually usurp them. Dunno why the AFL didn't just accept both bids & expand to a 16-team comp straight away. Imagine how well Port could have done had they been able to hang on to their players from 1990 - 1996. Wanganeen, Hodges, Tregenza, Buckley, Cockatoo-Collins, the Wakelins, Waterhouse, plus SANFL stalwarts such as Giniver, Phillips, Fiacchi etc.

The 1990 bid is covered in great detail in Norman Ashton's 2018 book "Destiny: How Port Adelaide Put Itself On The National Stage". I highly recommend checking this book out if you're interested in the story behind the 1990 bid and the subsequent successful bid. It certainly would have been interesting had we been admitted in 1991 with the talent we had on the park at that time and that would come through in the subsequent 5 years. I really believe we would have won an AFL flag within 5 seasons. What might have been ...

 

[jle101]

The 1990 bid is covered in great detail in Norman Ashton's 2018 book "Destiny: How Port Adelaide Put Itself On The National Stage". I highly recommend checking this book out if you're interested in the story behind the 1990 bid and the subsequent successful bid. It certainly would have been interesting had we been admitted in 1991 with the talent we had on the park at that time and that would come through in the subsequent 5 years. I really believe we would have won an AFL flag within 5 seasons. What might have been ...

Will have to see if I can track down a copy, its about time I added to my sports book collection! Just seemed like the natural solution to me to admit both Port & the Crows at the same time which would have cancelled out the need for a bye round from 1991 - 1994. Clearly there was enough talent to go around &, as you said, Port would have most likely have been finals contenders at the very least during the early 90s.

 

[Boston tiger]

Again these questions are either stupid or deliberately disingenuous. The flow of money, media and players started in the 70's and culminated in West Coast joining the VFL. From that point a fair and equitable and representative National League could never be achieved. The horse had bolted. Port saw the writing on the wall and did what was best for it. Other great WA and SA clubs sat on their hands and were left in the dust. The VFL took over the game. If you didn't jump on you got left behind.

Norwood? Sturt ? Glenelg?

Ok so why was their a flow of money media and players to the VFL ?

6.7 million Victorians
1.7 million South Australians

Think of the standard of the SANFL at its peak and then do the maths for a general idea and think of what was going on in the VFL.



Thank the VFL for all this.

 

[Tim Evans Beard]

VFL is still the premier comp, it's just had a name change and some new teams added. SAFL did the same in the 1920's when they were the SAFL and before that when they were the SAFA. As a matter of fact name changes and new teams is common throughout football leagues.

Well written what is this VFL THEN?

VFL/VFLW - AFL.com.au

All the latest VFL/VFLW news, ladder, results, scores and information

www.afl.com.au

 

[Boston tiger]

The more Victorians act like dicks the more those VFL flags count for less.

That makes sense.

 

[parano1a]

Based on this, State League Flags really shouldn't equate with AFL Flags, because it really is a different, much harder league.

Try and follow this logic:
Port Adelaide Magpies is the exact same club as Port Power, they just changed the nickname.
VFL is the exact same competition as the AFL, they just changed the name.

 

[parano1a]

Well written what is this VFL THEN?

The league formerly known as the VFA is now known as the VFL, and also acts as a de-facto reserves comp for the AFL. Completely different league.