Opinion The Collingwood Versus Port Adelaide Jumper Debate continues...

[jdeezy]

“AFL Intellectual Property means all registered and unregistered trademarks and brand names, designs and copyright and other industrial and intellectual property of AFL and each of the AFL Clubs including, without limitation, all playing uniforms, on-field uniforms, AFL Club shieldlogos, AFL Club caricatures, AFL Club nicknames, all AFL logos and all audio and visual recordings of AFL Matches and events, including photographs taken under AFL media accreditation. AFL Licensing Activity includes all AFL product sales, sales promotions, advertising (excluding generic media advertising promotingAustralian football) and endorsementarrangements.



AFL Licensing and Commercial Operations Guidelines means the licensing guidelines agreed between AFL and AFLPAcontained in Schedule E and any variation to such guidelines. AFL Match or Match means any football match played between or directly or indirectly involving any AFL Club including without limitation any practice match, trial match, representative match or Exhibition Match, and State of Origin Match. AFLPA means Australian Football League Players’ Association Inc, an incorporated association constituted under the Associations Incorporation Act 1981 (Vic) ABN 25 695 729 819. AFL Player Pathway Program means the program developed by the AFL Industry Education Committee to establishminimum standards for Players to receivebaseline accredited personal/professional development training and off field direction. AFL Premiership Season means the series of Matches played at the conclusion of the Pre- Season Competition and prior to the AFL Finals Seriesand for which premiership points are awarded or any like successor competition howsoever titled. AFL Protected Sponsor means one or more of the four sponsors (or such greater number as agreed between AFL and AFLPA) of the AFL nominated by the AFL in writing to AFLPA from time-to-time.”

AFL Intellectual Property Definition | Law Insider

Sample Contracts and Business Agreements

www.lawinsider.com

Cool so the first thing that is clear there is that Collingwood has no say in this, so **** them off out of the conversation.

Take the emotion out of it - What I genuinely don't get is the AFL is a business looking for maximum profit, so why are they not choosing the option to give them the most money? Collingwood are trying to argue another team wearing black and white hurts their business, but how? Can you point to one rational situation of someone that isn't going to buy a piece of Collingwood merchandise because another team has the colours? Meanwhile, Port not being able to wear and sell a preferred Guernsey is costing them a revenue stream. Why is the AFL not taking the option that provides them the most money? Given old mate Eddie (why do we care about his opinion anyway?) wants Port to pay their way, he's really contradicting himself.

 

[AndyD]

Cool so the first thing that is clear there is that Collingwood has no say in this, so * them off out of the conversation.

Take the emotion out of it - What I genuinely don't get is the AFL is a business looking for maximum profit, so why are they not choosing the option to give them the most money? Collingwood are trying to argue another team wearing black and white hurts their business, but how? Can you point to one rational situation of someone that isn't going to buy a piece of Collingwood merchandise because another team has the colours? Meanwhile, Port not being able to wear and sell a preferred Guernsey is costing them a revenue stream. Why is the AFL not taking the option that provides them the most money? Given old mate Eddie (why do we care about his opinion anyway?) wants Port to pay their way, he's really contradicting himself.

Because of the money they’d lose by allowing Collingwood to press the nuclear button on the licensing agreement, which is what would likely happen if the AFL allowed Port to wear it without Collingwood’s permission. So while it is technically correct to say that the AFL have final say on team colours/playing outfits, it is incorrect to say that Collingwood have no say in the matter if the AFL/ VFL only acquired those rights on the commitment that those colours would not be assigned to a different team on a regular basis, and the sorts of actions Collingwood could take if that commitment was broken. And to be clear, it wouldn’t just be Collingwood which would then be unbound from the AFL. All agreements based on the agreement which binds the clubs together would be out of the way, and the AFL would be primed for a LIV/Super League style challenge.

So yeah the AFL (via Port) could maybe make more money in complete isolation in jersey sales if Port were able to wear the prison bars. But they could lose a helluva lot more money everywhere else if they did, which is likely the reason successive commissions have deferred to Collingwood and most likely will continue to do so.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Shane Heard]

Cool so the first thing that is clear there is that Collingwood has no say in this, so * them off out of the conversation.

Take the emotion out of it - What I genuinely don't get is the AFL is a business looking for maximum profit, so why are they not choosing the option to give them the most money? Collingwood are trying to argue another team wearing black and white hurts their business, but how? Can you point to one rational situation of someone that isn't going to buy a piece of Collingwood merchandise because another team has the colours? Meanwhile, Port not being able to wear and sell a preferred Guernsey is costing them a revenue stream. Why is the AFL not taking the option that provides them the most money? Given old mate Eddie (why do we care about his opinion anyway?) wants Port to pay their way, he's really contradicting himself.

Utter gibberish. You have no idea what you’re talking about.,

 

[yodellinhank]

You missed Port wearing the bars in a final against Richmond in 2014

Just thought it was Collingwood.

 

[Mr39]

Just thought it was Collingwood.

You can get free eye tests these days. Might be time.

 

[yodellinhank]

You can get free eye tests these days. Might be time.

Just associate B&W stripes with the one true magpies is all. That's how people missed it.

 

[Suspense]

Cool so the first thing that is clear there is that Collingwood has no say in this, so * them off out of the conversation.

Take the emotion out of it - What I genuinely don't get is the AFL is a business looking for maximum profit, so why are they not choosing the option to give them the most money? Collingwood are trying to argue another team wearing black and white hurts their business, but how? Can you point to one rational situation of someone that isn't going to buy a piece of Collingwood merchandise because another team has the colours?

The AFL owns the IP so it has an interest in maintaining the value and distinctiveness of the Collingwood IP (one of the most popular clubs) within its own market (the national AFL competition). Obviously, it cannot control the use of the black and white stripes in the Serie A league or even in the SANFL, but it can control how much they choose to dilute the distinctiveness of one of their most popular brands within their own competition.

 

[Pappagallo]

Because of the money they’d lose by allowing Collingwood to press the nuclear button on the licensing agreement, which is what would likely happen if the AFL allowed Port to wear it without Collingwood’s permission. So while it is technically correct to say that the AFL have final say on team colours/playing outfits, it is incorrect to say that Collingwood have no say in the matter if the AFL/ VFL only acquired those rights on the commitment that those colours would not be assigned to a different team on a regular basis, and the sorts of actions Collingwood could take if that commitment was broken. And to be clear, it wouldn’t just be Collingwood which would then be unbound from the AFL. All agreements based on the agreement which binds the clubs together would be out of the way, and the AFL would be primed for a LIV/Super League style challenge.

So yeah the AFL (via Port) could maybe make more money in complete isolation in jersey sales if Port were able to wear the prison bars. But they could lose a helluva lot more money everywhere else if they did, which is likely the reason successive commissions have deferred to Collingwood and most likely will continue to do so.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wearing the Prison Bars will trigger the formation of a rebel league?! LMFAO! Get on board downtrodden Interstaters we’ve just discovered the cure for #VICBIAS! Turns out it’s CLOTHING worn once a year between two SA teams in SA shown only in SA on FTA!

Honestly the best excuse thus far bar none. The insanity of this timeline is oddly appealing though.

 

[BallaratBulldog]

If they did something like this, then they should be able to wear it every game.

 

[PowerBaz]

The AFL owns the IP so it has an interest in maintaining the value and distinctiveness of the Collingwood IP (one of the most popular clubs) within its own market (the national AFL competition). Obviously, it cannot control the use of the black and white stripes in the Serie A league or even in the SANFL, but it can control how much they choose to dilute the distinctiveness of one of their most popular brands within their own competition.

You’re in our league now, it’s about control, nothing more,
Don’t overthink it.

 

[jdeezy]

Because of the money they’d lose by allowing Collingwood to press the nuclear button on the licensing agreement, which is what would likely happen if the AFL allowed Port to wear it without Collingwood’s permission. So while it is technically correct to say that the AFL have final say on team colours/playing outfits, it is incorrect to say that Collingwood have no say in the matter if the AFL/ VFL only acquired those rights on the commitment that those colours would not be assigned to a different team on a regular basis, and the sorts of actions Collingwood could take if that commitment was broken. And to be clear, it wouldn’t just be Collingwood which would then be unbound from the AFL. All agreements based on the agreement which binds the clubs together would be out of the way, and the AFL would be primed for a LIV/Super League style challenge.

So yeah the AFL (via Port) could maybe make more money in complete isolation in jersey sales if Port were able to wear the prison bars. But they could lose a helluva lot more money everywhere else if they did, which is likely the reason successive commissions have deferred to Collingwood and most likely will continue to do so.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Legally, the AFL owns Collingwood's identity, does it not? How do you propose Collingwood packs up it's toys and walks away? Where is this supposed contact that states that Collingwood have the right to leave the competition if a different team comes in wearing a Guernsey that doesn't have their blessing? That's nonsense.

Utter gibberish. You have no idea what you’re talking about.,

Enlighten me then.

The AFL owns the IP so it has an interest in maintaining the value and distinctiveness of the Collingwood IP (one of the most popular clubs) within its own market (the national AFL competition). Obviously, it cannot control the use of the black and white stripes in the Serie A league or even in the SANFL, but it can control how much they choose to dilute the distinctiveness of one of their most popular brands within their own competition.

This feels at least a slightly coherent argument, but where do you see the lack of "distinctiveness" hurting the AFL? People can tell two teams with similar guernseys apart, they've done it for years in other comps, hell, they do it in this league. It's not a fashion brand so people won't just flip from buying a Collingwood top one week to a Port one the next. What is the real world value of "maintaining the value of the IP"?


Besides, the most valuable IP in most metrics to the AFL is West Coast.
This is West Coast's Guernsey:

And here is an approved by the AFL Gold Coast Guernsey (a team that, mind you, wears the same colours as an existing team in the Crows and very similar to their own cross thrown rivals in which they compete for marketshare):

Did we hear anything about this from West Coast? No. Did the AFL defer the decision to West Coast? No.

It's never been an AFL issue, it's never been a distinctiveness of the IP issue, it's always been a board / President of Collingwood acting like spoilt toddler "issue".

 

[yodellinhank]

Legally, the AFL owns Collingwood's identity, does it not? How do you propose Collingwood packs up it's toys and walks away? Where is this supposed contact that states that Collingwood have the right to leave the competition if a different team comes in wearing a Guernsey that doesn't have their blessing? That's nonsense.



Enlighten me then.




This feels at least a slightly coherent argument, but where do you see the lack of "distinctiveness" hurting the AFL? People can tell two teams with similar guernseys apart, they've done it for years in other comps, hell, they do it in this league. It's not a fashion brand so people won't just flip from buying a Collingwood top one week to a Port one the next. What is the real world value of "maintaining the value of the IP"?


Besides, the most valuable IP in most metrics to the AFL is West Coast.
This is West Coast's Guernsey:
View attachment 1471663
And here is an approved by the AFL Gold Coast Guernsey (a team that, mind you, wears the same colours as an existing team in the Crows and very similar to their own cross thrown rivals in which they compete for marketshare):
View attachment 1471665View attachment 1471664
Did we hear anything about this from West Coast? No. Did the AFL defer the decision to West Coast? No.

It's never been an AFL issue, it's never been a distinctiveness of the IP issue, it's always been a board / President of Collingwood acting like spoilt toddler "issue".

Port are the ones acting like a spoilt toddler. They've already been told no. Time to accept it.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

The thing is, Port's statements that they merely want to "acknowledge their heritage" and don't want to go back to a Magpies, Prison Bars identity doesn't level with their actions.

• They minimised the amount of teal, removed references to "power" as both a word and and symbol in their logo, and added prison bars to their logo
• They added the white number panel to their back even though it makes their jumper purely from a design perspective uglier and clashier
• They have added Magpies branding to AFL merchandise
• They removed all teal from their clash uniform, even though teal was meant to be the main "differentiation" colour.

The thing is, you don't see Port reaching out and giving anything of this back in order to have a balance.

If Port removed their number panel, wore a Teal majority clash jumper (like their AFLW team just revealed and they've worn in pre-season so they're not against it on design), and redesigned their logo to include a reference to the word/concept of Power say within the next 15 years, that would be a sign of good faith that I'm sure the Pies would appreciate and allow to wear the Prison bars.

 

[jdeezy]

The thing is, Port's statements that they merely want to "acknowledge their heritage" and don't want to go back to a Magpies, Prison Bars identity doesn't level with their actions.

• They minimised the amount of teal, removed references to "power" as both a word and and symbol in their logo, and added prison bars to their logo
• They added the white number panel to their back even though it makes their jumper purely from a design perspective uglier and clashier
• They have added Magpies branding to AFL merchandise
• They removed all teal from their clash uniform, even though teal was meant to be the main "differentiation" colour.

The thing is, you don't see Port reaching out and giving anything of this back in order to have a balance.

If Port removed their number panel, wore a Teal majority clash jumper (like their AFLW team just revealed and they've worn in pre-season so they're not against it on design), and redesigned their logo to include a reference to the word/concept of Power say within the next 15 years, that would be a sign of good faith that I'm sure the Pies would appreciate and allow to wear the Prison bars.

Port had a "Power" logo and a whole gamut of predominately teal / Power / lightning bolt style guernseys for years, and acknowledging our heritage wasn't ok then, apparently. We don't need to show a "sign of good faith".

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

If they did something like this, then they should be able to wear it every game.

View attachment 1471646

Some staunch traditionalists may have an issue with this type of modified design but I think that’s the way to go. Looks reasonable and a mixture of both sides of our history.

Everyone is left somewhat happy but also somewhat out of shape. Therefor, it’s probably a good outcome.

 

[dmc333]

Collingwood is fine with them wearing teal and black bars once a season? LOL What?

Collingwood's now in charge of who wears vertical stripes? **** off.

 

[Grin]

If Collingwood relocated to Tasmania, called themselves the Tassie Devils and changed their colours to brown, white and black, Port could go back to their rightful name and colours. Tassie would get a financially strong team, saving tax payers a motza, and the Collingwood Magpies as we know them would no longer exist: Win/win/win/win.

 

[mcgarnacle]

The wording of the first paragraph is slightly confusing, I think there may be typos in there, but the SANFL side for Port Adelaide is in fact their reserves side, is it not?

Only since 2014.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

If Collingwood relocated to Tasmania, called themselves the Tassie Devils and changed their colours to brown, white and black, Port could go back to their rightful name and colours. Tassie would get a financially strong team, saving tax payers a motza, and the Collingwood Magpies as we know them would no longer exist: Win/win/win/win.

You're all just arguing... finally we have a solutions man in here.

 

[mcgarnacle]

Think you're missing the point here. I went deeper into this in the OP

You're using the argument that it's fine for Sydney and Brisbane to honour their heritage because their South and Fitzroy strips don't bear a similarity to other clubs. They're using it in multiple away games.

Port in contrast are content to use theirs once in a home game against a state rival. They aren't requesting to use it every week and in Victoria.

Let them have it! Get the contract done in good faith where it's stipulated that this it. No exceptions. Not a snaky way where Collingwood knew heritage round was on its last legs! Geez, if they have this, they might even go back to a black panel on the back on their V jumper rather than the hideous white panel to be able to honour some sort of club heritage.

Seriously, folks of other heritage clubs in will crap on about the plastic franchises of WCE, GWS, GC etc, yet want to prevent a famous football club from honouring the heritage they do have!

BF contradiction at its finest!

 

[mcgarnacle]

The thing is, Port's statements that they merely want to "acknowledge their heritage" and don't want to go back to a Magpies, Prison Bars identity doesn't level with their actions.

• They minimised the amount of teal, removed references to "power" as both a word and and symbol in their logo, and added prison bars to their logo
• They added the white number panel to their back even though it makes their jumper purely from a design perspective uglier and clashier
• They have added Magpies branding to AFL merchandise
• They removed all teal from their clash uniform, even though teal was meant to be the main "differentiation" colour.

The thing is, you don't see Port reaching out and giving anything of this back in order to have a balance.

If Port removed their number panel, wore a Teal majority clash jumper (like their AFLW team just revealed and they've worn in pre-season so they're not against it on design), and redesigned their logo to include a reference to the word/concept of Power say within the next 15 years, that would be a sign of good faith that I'm sure the Pies would appreciate and allow to wear the Prison bars.

An action leads to reaction.

Collingwood and the League won't allow them to honour their heritage, so they've taken it upon themselves to do it.

It could've all been different if they could've worn the strip once a season.

 

[Kings_Gambit]

Hey this is my personal opinion only. I don’t care if Port wear their prison bar jumper once a year. My only concern is in another 5 years there will be another campaign to perhaps wear it for some more home games. Then you suffer death by 1000 cuts. If it was a one or two time thing (show downs only) then I have no problem.

 

[bomberclifford]

They have added Magpies branding to AFL merchandise

Come on now, this is absolute tosh.

 

[bomberclifford]

Hey this is my personal opinion only. I don’t care if Port wear their prison bar jumper once a year. My only concern is in another 5 years there will be another campaign to perhaps wear it for some more home games. Then you suffer death by 1000 cuts. If it was a one or two time thing (show downs only) then I have no problem.

Easy solution to that is to say 'no' if and when that happens, not to refuse a reasonable request now because of what might happen in the future.

I'm one of those supporters who doesn't want the PBs for all home games. I like our current home and away kit. I am even open to a modified PB guernsey at some point in the future, but only once we have the right to wear the original one in a heritage context. That last bit is essential to Port being a strong, independent club in the AFL, which is good for everyone, not just us.

 

[iameviljez]

I find Collingwood's position on this whole thing to be pure self-indulgence.

Look around the world - teams everywhere are somehow able to co-exist with far more similar kits than Collingwood and Port, all without screaming shitfights about it. Newcastle and Juventus will undoubtedly play in the same European competition in a few years; nobody cares. Man United and Liverpool square off with practically the same red; Aston Villa, West Ham and Burnley all play in pretty much identical kits.

Collingwood carrying on about what Port Adelaide wear when they play against Essendon, West Coast, Adelaide, whatever, is just immature. Frankly, it's nothing to do with Collingwood.

It's also Vic-centric. Collingwood was lucky that it was a part of the VFL in a large city; Port Adelaide was unlucky in that it was part of the SANFL in a smaller city. That's why Port had to make the compromises it did in order to join the AFL; it wasn't there by birthright.

This also extends to Collingwood's posturing about a clash strip. It's a professional, national competition now. Yes, your jumper is important, but it's not the end of the world if you have to wear an actual clash guernsey away from home a few times per year (Geelong, Port Adelaide), nor is it the end of the world if a team wears something with black and white stripes.