Port Adelaide's plan to use jumpers similar to Collingwood

[piesaregreat]

A simple solution Collingwood announces from now on any request from Port Adelaide will be refused no ifs or buts. If PA wont make any requests for ten years then Collingwood may consider such a request.

 

[mcgarnacle]

Why are you Port fans being so disingenuous about this conversation.

You dont want a "minor" change, you want the agreement scrapped. You might...begrudgingly...for now....setttle to wear the prison bars just for showdowns, but come on now...if you get that....in five years we will be having a conversation about you wearing it for home games.

Then...all games except collingwood.

Then...all games like collingwood

 

[Bearded Clam]

Port original agreement is with the AFL not Collingwood.

The AFL have already agreed to vary the agreement numerous times (as they should).

The AFL has stated that the variation Port now wants is fair and reasonable.

Gil just needs to grow a pair and it has nothing to do with Collingwood.

On SM-G960F using
BigFooty.com mobile app

Gil has grown a pair when it comes to this issue and he made the correct decision to stick to the agreement regardless of the background noise coming from port power supporters..

although, I suspect its the AFL’s lawyers that wouldve advised the AFL that it would be wise to stick to the original agreement.. and Gil simply took that advice.

 

[Bearded Clam]

Wear a prison bar outfit to work of course.

What?... and get mistaken for a Collingwood supporter?... yeah, no thanks..










But seriously, I actually dont mind the pies as a club but not enough to be seen as one of their supporters!...

 

[Enviable Tradition]

A simple solution Collingwood announces from now on any request from Port Adelaide will be refused no ifs or buts. If PA wont make any requests for ten years then Collingwood may consider such a request.

Port aren't making any requests of Collingwood.

 

[Engimal v3]

I just really dont see what the fuss is all about..

this...
View attachment 1118626
to me honestly looks a thousand times more classy than this...

View attachment 1118633
The guernsey up the top there looks like the guernsey design of a professional top league organisation..

the one below it looks like it was designed by the work experience kid at a design company on the cheap as a favour to a small local league footy club..

Agreed, looks shit lol

 

[BustedWing]

Port aren't making any requests of Collingwood.

Which is a part of the problem.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Tim Evans Beard]

Of all of the great arguments presented here by the learned BigFooty legal fraternity, the point of adherence to the original document is the one most Collingwood advocates refer to as the - 'You signed it so stick to it argument.' Indeed, the esteemed BigFooty legal experts consider the subject closed as the AFL and Collingwood hold the whip hand in all negotiations as per the terms of the unsighted, but often cited initial agreement regarding the apparel worn by the Port Adelaide Football club in the AFL.
It appears as though in their enthusiasm to declare 'mission accomplished' and have the upstarts from Port Adelaide banished forever from all thing black and white, our legal eagles (or legal magpies seems more apt) have failed to recognise the vast power imbalance, that when coupled with actions exploiting this power imbalance, one party is denied natural justice, or in the commercial phrase, parties have failed in the general 'duty to act fairly'.
This nuanced and subtle position may have readily been passed over in favour of the 'eat sh!t' argument our Adelaide and Collingwood representatives have been spouting -

(as an aside, it is important to not that the Australian Magpie - or false Magpie, is more similar to the black butcherbird than a true magpie. Indeed the black butcherbird is most often misidentified as a 'crow'. Thereby Adelaide appears to have infringed on the Collingwood Magpie likeness and brand more directly and obviously than anything put forward by Port Adelaide.)​

as it is rarely seen in Australian courts. The 'duty to act fairly' is hidden as it is:

• A key tenet of the family law system
• A key tenet of Native Title negotiation between mining companies and Native Title parties
• A key tenet of monopoly challenges
• A key tenet of trademark use and application
• A key tenet of small claims court regarding neighbour disputes
• Sexual harassment cases
• Discrimination events

Indeed, this subtle and nuanced principle appears in all aspects of the civil and criminal legal system - so it is easy to understand how our 'Ally McBeal -inspired' defendering the bastion of honesty and transparency that is the AFL may have overlooked this.

In short, a power imbalances existed between the PAFC and the AFL. The AFL (and the influential CFC) exploited this imbalance to the detriment of the PAFC. At no time did the AFL allow for 'principled negotiation' to take place and the subsequent actions of the AFL (and CFC) have continued to exploit this power imbalance to the detriment of those supporters of meritocracy rather than nepotism and cronyism so rampant under the current and previous administration.

 

[BustedWing]

Of all of the great arguments presented here by the learned BigFooty legal fraternity, the point of adherence to the original document is the one most Collingwood advocates refer to as the - 'You signed it so stick to it argument.' Indeed, the esteemed BigFooty legal experts consider the subject closed as the AFL and Collingwood hold the whip hand in all negotiations as per the terms of the unsighted, but often cited initial agreement regarding the apparel worn by the Port Adelaide Football club in the AFL.
It appears as though in their enthusiasm to declare 'mission accomplished' and have the upstarts from Port Adelaide banished forever from all thing black and white, our legal eagles (or legal magpies seems more apt) have failed to recognise the vast power imbalance, that when coupled with actions exploiting this power imbalance, one party is denied natural justice, or in the commercial phrase, parties have failed in the general 'duty to act fairly'.
This nuanced and subtle position may have readily been passed over in favour of the 'eat sh!t' argument our Adelaide and Collingwood representatives have been spouting -

(as an aside, it is important to not that the Australian Magpie - or false Magpie, is more similar to the black butcherbird than a true magpie. Indeed the black butcherbird is most often misidentified as a 'crow'. Thereby Adelaide appears to have infringed on the Collingwood Magpie likeness and brand more directly and obviously than anything put forward by Port Adelaide.)​

as it is rarely seen in Australian courts. The 'duty to act fairly' is hidden as it is:

• A key tenet of the family law system
• A key tenet of Native Title negotiation between mining companies and Native Title parties
• A key tenet of monopoly challenges
• A key tenet of trademark use and application
• A key tenet of small claims court regarding neighbour disputes
• Sexual harassment cases
• Discrimination events

Indeed, this subtle and nuanced principle appears in all aspects of the civil and criminal legal system - so it is easy to understand how our 'Ally McBeal -inspired' defendering the bastion of honesty and transparency that is the AFL may have overlooked this.

In short, a power imbalances existed between the PAFC and the AFL. The AFL (and the influential CFC) exploited this imbalance to the detriment of the PAFC. At no time did the AFL allow for 'principled negotiation' to take place and the subsequent actions of the AFL (and CFC) have continued to exploit this power imbalance to the detriment of those supporters of meritocracy rather than nepotism and cronyism so rampant under the current and previous administration.

Cool.


Present the “power imbalance” argument in court.

See how far that gets you.

(Hint....not very far).

Wanna know why?

Port applied, knowing the conditions of said application as it was presented. They “won” the application process.

That’s knowing and willing parties engaging in a contractual agreement, not a strong arm power imbalance.

The arrogance of this argument....that port shouldn’t have to, and will never, negotiate to amend the terms of the very contract they APPLIED FOR, and instead stick true to the “don’t you know who we are?? That contract shouldn’t apply to us!!” Argument is staggering.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Tim Evans Beard]

Cool.


Present the “power imbalance” argument in court.

See how far that gets you.

(Hint....not very far).

Wanna know why?

Port applied, knowing the conditions of said application as it was presented. They “won” the application process.

The arrogance of this argument....that port shouldn’t have to, and will never, negotiate to amend the terms of the very contract they APPLIED FOR, and instead stick true to the “don’t you know who we are?? That contract shouldn’t apply to us!!” Argument is staggering.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

The power imbalance argument has recently been used by the PKKPAC against Rio Tinto in the application to ignore a 'gag' order on heritage agreements. The PKKPAC won.
The Milk Farmer federation of Australian used the power imbalance argument against Coles and Woolworths. The Milk Farmers Federation Won.
OPTUS and Vodophone used the same argument to access the Telstra communications network. OPTUS and Vodophone won.

But hey, you keep posting feelings brother!

 

[BustedWing]

The power imbalance argument has recently been used by the PKKPAC against Rio Tinto in the application to ignore a 'gag' order on heritage agreements. The PKKPAC won.
The Milk Farmer federation of Australian used the power imbalance argument against Coles and Woolworths. The Milk Farmers Federation Won.
OPTUS and Vodophone used the same argument to access the Telstra communications network. OPTUS and Vodophone won.

But hey, you keep posting feelings brother!

Can you see any differences between the above examples you posted, and one sporting organisation applying, of their own free will, to move sporting leagues?

If you can’t,it’s a good thing the Port Adelaide legal department do, as they tactfully decline to take this argument to court, and cost the club unnecessary legal fees.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[BustedWing]

Only just now realising you're a parody account of Port supporters lmao. You got me, fella. Good work.

Aaaaand now I feel foolish!


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Tim Evans Beard]

Can you see any differences between the above examples you posted, and one sporting organisation applying, of their own free will, to move sporting leagues?

If you can’t,it’s a good thing the Port Adelaide legal department do, as they tactfully decline to take this argument to court, and cost the club unnecessary legal fees.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Huh?

The reality is that any football club not in the AFL will lose significance, outreach, and influence. The FFC is an example of a club whose star waned upon leaving the league. All SANFL and WAFL clubs are examples of clubs diminished from not being in the premier league. In truth the AFL functions as a monopoly and the VFL clubs prior to AFL formation as an oligopoly. Clubs not in the AFL, for all intents and purposes, became insignificant in the 'football' discussion.

The reality is that the AFL and Port Adelaide's relationship looks to continue for the foreseeable future. Gil will leave one day. The next CEO may have the same attitude. The next 20 may have the same attitude. We only need one and then it is Prison Bars all round! You won't be able to unscramble the egg once the AFL says yes once. You need the support of every CEO and AFL for the rest of time. We only have to win the application once.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

Which is a part of the problem.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

What? So you want Port to request Collingwood not wear Black And White?

This really has nothing to do with Collingwood, they wont be effected in any meaningful way should Port wear or sell a Black and White Prison Bars jumper.

 

[BustedWing]

What? So you want Port to request Collingwood not wear Black And White?

This really has nothing to do with Collingwood, they wont be effected in any meaningful way should Port wear or sell a Black and White Prison Bars jumper.

It’s almost as if you haven’t read the last 20 or so pages of posts....


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Lagooner]

Gil has grown a pair when it comes to this issue and he made the correct decision to stick to the agreement regardless of the background noise coming from port power supporters..

although, I suspect its the AFL’s lawyers that wouldve advised the AFL that it would be wise to stick to the original agreement.. and Gil simply took that advice.

Lol no he hasn’t. Gil just simply ran out of time. We’ve been talking to the AFL about this for almost two years and only received a decision on it now because the game was literally days away. Time demanded an answer.

A day later he was on radio and admitted it was “a reasonable request” - his exact words - so you’d be an absolute fool to think the no decision is a definitive one.

This is only the beginning. The can’s just been kicked down the road. They ran out of time, so they made some more.

 

[Luv_our_club]

i have sympathy for both sides, but Eddie is right.

Have you seen the Port Adelaide crowd full of prison bars? Not cool. Not just a `one game a year' issue.

 

[ploppy]

That’s it we’re like the Irish trying to get reunification of Ireland (pb jumper) against the might of the English (Collingwood).

 

[Kablamo]

i have sympathy for both sides, but Eddie is right.

Have you seen the Port Adelaide crowd full of prison bars? Not cool. Not just a `one game a year' issue.

Most Port supporters are happy with our current guernsey and only want to wear the PB guernsey in showdowns once or twice a year. The AFL denying us that will only have the opposite effect in my humble opinion. In the eyes of Port supporters it is a big F U to say we cant celebrate what we see as our traditional guernsey. The guernsey so many of us born in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s celebrated during a dominant period in our clubs history.
We are ok being black, white, teal and silver. We are ok not being the magpies. But telling us we cannot celebrate our heritage will only inflame the masses and the PB guernsey will only become more popular in the stands.

Or let us wear it once a year then everyones happy and moves on.

On SM-J530Y using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Linda_Lovelace]

I don't really care about the jumper but the magpie cannot be touched in anyway.

That said I hope the AFL denies the request because I think the Port President is a Koch head.

 

[Enviable Tradition]

i have sympathy for both sides, but Eddie is right.

Have you seen the Port Adelaide crowd full of prison bars? Not cool. Not just a `one game a year' issue.

Its only going to get bigger and there is no way you can stop the fans wearing it.

On SM-G960F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Linda_Lovelace]

Most Port supporters are happy with our current guernsey and only want to wear the PB guernsey in showdowns once or twice a year. The AFL denying us that will only have the opposite effect in my humble opinion. In the eyes of Port supporters it is a big F U to say we cant celebrate what we see as our traditional guernsey. The guernsey so many of us born in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s celebrated during a dominant period in our clubs history.
We are ok being black, white, teal and silver. We are ok not being the magpies. But telling us we cannot celebrate our heritage will only inflame the masses and the PB guernsey will only become more popular in the stands.

Or let us wear it once a year then everyones happy and moves on.

On SM-J530Y using BigFooty.com mobile app

Its not your traditional jumper, you are the Port Power, the Port Adelaide Magpies exist in the SANFL. End of story.

 

[chazwazza]

Why are you Port fans being so disingenuous about this conversation.

You dont want a "minor" change, you want the agreement scrapped. You might...begrudgingly...for now....setttle to wear the prison bars just for showdowns, but come on now...if you get that....in five years we will be having a conversation about you wearing it for home games.

Then...all games except collingwood.

This.

 

[Kablamo]

Ok bro.

Its not your traditional jumper, you are the Port Power, the Port Adelaide Magpies exist in the SANFL. End of story.

On SM-J530Y using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[chazwazza]

That’s it we’re like the Irish trying to get reunification of Ireland (pb jumper) against the might of the English (Collingwood).

Heard it here first folks!!! PAFC doing the heavy lifting on behalf of Irish reunification......