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

[LoungeLizard]

That's not an answer to the question, but I'll humour you.

1. We're not asking to wear the guernsey as our home guernsey so we're not reneging on that original agreement. Our colours are black, white, silver and teal. That hasn't changed. Our home guernseys have always included teal. That hasn't changed. Our new logo incorporates teal. Our new AFLW team wears teal in both guernseys. We are abiding by that original agreement.

2. Last time I checked, 2007 is more recent than 1995, so it seems that Collingwood (via MacGuire) was willing to enter into a new agreement to allow us to wear the guernsey in a heritage context. That's all we are asking for now.

So the original agreement is the same?

Ok, the agreement McGuire signed is still binding, it's the same, no-body is reneging.

McGuire didn't abandon heritage round.

So now you want a different agreement, then you will want a different agreement, after that you will want a different agreement.

Give the license back and go back and wear the black and white stripes.

 

[jsdsgn]

Port Adelaide were forced to sign agreements to enter the still Victorian centric league back in the 90’s.

We’ve grown up now haven’t we? Port Adelaide has a rich history in Australian Rules Football, I don’t see any reason they can’t wear the famous unique prison bar (wharf pylons of Port Adelaide) jumper in any game that’s not away to Collingwood.

Geelong and Carlton have the same colours, denying Port Adelaide the jumper they want to wear just sounds petty.

This won't be an attack on you specifically; I am just trying to clearly articulate what I mean.

As I think I mentioned in an earlier reply, bringing emotions into this wont work because unless Port can get an actual document signed to get what they want, whinging about it will do nothing. We can discuss how it is petty, or unfair, or how we aren't "grown up," but none of that really matters. This is not the primary school debating championships. I understand you cant see "any reason" why Port can't wear their jumper, but there are in fact reasons because PAFC signed them.

In an earlier reply, I wrote "Boiling this down to a topic based on "who cares" is probably the reason why it has become such a cat-fight. It's far more complex than that and emotional feelings aren't really relevant in the discussion."

Also, can you really not see the difference in comparing Coll/Port to Carl/Geel?

Were talking about two jumpers with black and white stripes, versus a blue/white hooped jumper and a navy blue jumper with the a monogram in the middle.

 

[jsdsgn]

Let's talk about one of these agreements, the most recent one, in 2007, signed by all three parties.

Why was Collingwood prepared to agree to a 'once a year' wearing of the PB guernsey in 2007, but now baulk at it?
Is it because they only signed it because they were acting in bad faith?

As I've mentioned in my reply above, we can discuss feelings and emotions like "bad faith" but in terms of an actual fact-based argument that means nothing. Going to Collingwood or the AFL and accusing them of "bad faith" will not get you what you want. My OP presented the facts in order try push and try and establish a middle ground. Inciting insults such as "bad faith" wont achieve that.

That's not an answer to the question, but I'll humour you.

1. We're not asking to wear the guernsey as our home guernsey so we're not reneging on that original agreement. Our colours are black, white, silver and teal. That hasn't changed. Our home guernseys have always included teal. That hasn't changed. Our new logo incorporates teal. Our new AFLW team wears teal in both guernseys. We are abiding by that original agreement.

2. Last time I checked, 2007 is more recent than 1995, so it seems that Collingwood (via MacGuire) was willing to enter into a new agreement to allow us to wear the guernsey in a heritage context 12 years after that initial contract. That's all we are asking for now.

Herein lies the issue which I think is what Collingwood is basing their stance on. The Pies are clearly worried that if they give Port an inch, you'll take a mile....that would hardly be surprising for someone like David Koch.

Approving the use of the PB's in a showdown is not going to be the end of it like some people think.

 

[Blackas87]

This won't be an attack on you specifically; I am just trying to clearly articulate what I mean.

As I think I mentioned in an earlier reply, bringing emotions into this wont work because unless Port can get an actual document signed to get what they want, whinging about it will do nothing. We can discuss how it is petty, or unfair, or how we aren't "grown up," but none of that really matters. This is not the primary school debating championships. I understand you cant see "any reason" why Port can't wear their jumper, but there are in fact reasons because PAFC signed them.

In an earlier reply, I wrote "Boiling this down to a topic based on "who cares" is probably the reason why it has become such a cat-fight. It's far more complex than that and emotional feelings aren't really relevant in the discussion."

Also, can you really not see the difference in comparing Coll/Port to Carl/Geel?

Were talking about two jumpers with black and white stripes, versus a blue/white hooped jumper and a navy blue jumper with the a monogram in the middle.

Collingwood and their fans are emotional about this. That is why Port Adelaide can’t wear their jumper.

Collingwood wear Black and White stripes, Port have Prison bars which is the Wharf Pylons of Port Adelaide, the jumpers are different and won’t be worn in the same game as both teams will have away jumpers.

 

[bomberclifford]

As I've mentioned in my reply above, we can discuss feelings and emotions like "bad faith" but in terms of an actual fact-based argument that means nothing. Going to Collingwood or the AFL and accusing them of "bad faith" will not get you what you want. My OP presented the facts in order try push and try and establish a middle ground. Inciting insults such as "bad faith" wont achieve that.

If the 2007 agreement was signed in good faith, why not allow the same agreement to be active by classifying our Showdown as a 'heritage' game? There's no loss for Collingwood because they've already agreed to those parameters.

The only reason we have to ask again is because the official heritage round was scrapped the very next year. (Something MacGuire has admitted he knew about it when signing the agreement so I'm not sure how it's an insult. Seems to me like this is a fact you don't want acknowledge because it doesn't paint your previous President in a particularly good light.)

Herein lies the issue which I think is what Collingwood is basing their stance on. The Pies are clearly worried that if they give Port an inch, you'll take a mile....that would hardly be surprising for someone like David Koch.

Approving the use of the PB's in a showdown is not going to be the end of it like some people think.

So why were you happy to sign the agreement in 2007?
Wouldn't this slippery slope argument have applied then as well?

 

[parano1a]

Collingwood wear Black and White stripes, Port have Prison bars which is the Wharf Pylons of Port Adelaide, the jumpers are different and won’t be worn in the same game as both teams will have away jumpers.

Whilst it is true that the AFL governs the licensing of the clubs colours, mascots, logos and jumper designs it has afforded its clubs assurances that no other club will infringe on any existing club's branding and IP.

The use of vertical stripes associated with the colours black and white is the sole property of Collingwood within the context of the AFL competition, in the same way black with a red sash is unique IP of Essendon, black with yellow sash Richmond etc.

In order to avoid infringement on Collingwood's existing brand, the Port Adelaide licence agreed to adopt the new monikers of "Port Power" and "Power" along with the logo featuring a stylised lightning bolt and the colour scheme of silver, teal, black and white when entering the AFL as the black and white colour scheme, vertical stripes in black and white and "Magpies" logo and moniker are the sole property of Collingwood. Port's whole AFL licence depends on these conditions which they are now seeking to change.

 

[jsdsgn]

Collingwood and their fans are emotional about this. That is why Port Adelaide can’t wear their jumper.

Collingwood wear Black and White stripes, Port have Prison bars which is the Wharf Pylons of Port Adelaide, the jumpers are different and won’t be worn in the same game as both teams will have away jumpers.

View attachment 1471209

Personally, I have no emotion regarding it, and a lot of fans I've spoken to agree. I've tried to present an article which has all the facts, and I have literally agreed with you in said article that they should be allowed to wear it. Not sure what more I can say really.

 

[jsdsgn]

If the 2007 agreement was signed in good faith, why not allow the same agreement to be active by classifying our Showdown as a 'heritage' game? There's no loss for Collingwood because they've already agreed to those parameters.

The only reason we have to ask again is because the official heritage round was scrapped the very next year. (Something MacGuire has admitted he knew about it when signing the agreement so I'm not sure how it's an insult. Seems to me like this is a fact you don't want acknowledge because it doesn't paint your previous President in a particularly good light.)

The text I have bolded is probably the best way out of this and I think it is quite plausible.

I might also add that I am not a McGuire apologist. I think he does a good job of painting himself in his own light. As the great Sixto Rodgiguez once sung, a monkey in silk is a monkey no less.

The reason I haven't 'acknowledged' it is because of what I said earlier - emotions and feelings like "bad faith" hold no weight in a heavily fact-based, and even legal, argument.

So why were you happy to sign the agreement in 2007?
Wouldn't this slippery slope argument have applied then as well?

I might also add that Collingwood may also be worried about the effect that PAFC wearing the Prison Bars in the AFL competition twice a year would have on diluting Collingwood's image. You might not think this would happen, but you'd be surprised. The AFL is a business after all, who is constantly trying to expand.

 

[LoungeLizard]

If the 2007 agreement was signed in good faith, why not allow the same agreement to be active by classifying our Showdown as a 'heritage' game? There's no loss for Collingwood because they've already agreed to those parameters.

The only reason we have to ask again is because the official heritage round was scrapped the very next year. (Something MacGuire has admitted he knew about it when signing the agreement so I'm not sure how it's an insult. Seems to me like this is a fact you don't want acknowledge because it doesn't paint your previous President in a particularly good light.)




So why were you happy to sign the agreement in 2007?
Wouldn't this slippery slope argument have applied then as well?

My guess is Eddie didn't believe that's where is stops, I don't believe it stops there either, you know the saying, an inch and all that?

I was all for Port wearing their bars a few years ago, but many of your supporters like to, let's say like to bag Vic and Collingwood and then what Koch did to Gold Coast.
Now I wouldn't care if the AFL took the license back and said "try again"

 

[Shane Heard]

This constant back and forth between port and Collingwood on this debate is getting a bit ridiculous really.

Personally, I don’t really care what we wear. Each year we get a more heated debate from our chairman regarding what we wear than what we do about an underperforming team. The focus from top to bottom should be on improving our team and winning premierships. This gurnsey debate every year is nothing but a distraction.

Time for the AFL to step in and either allow us to wear it during showdowns only or not at all. I think if they want to wear it twice a year that’s a reasonable request and has no impact on the pies. Make a final decision and take that decision out of the pies and port’s hands.

I may be wrong but isn’t the AFL the body that owns the legal rights to all team designs, colours and logo’s? If that’s the case, it’s up to the AFL to make the decision independent of Collingwood and Port as the clubs themselves do not own their designs although they represent and wear them.

You can’t wear the goddamn bnw vertical bars

In this league (one seperate from the SANFL and is the governing body of the game itself ) Collingwood have ownership of black and white everything.


It’s like WAFL club Perth FC joining the VFL and asking to wear red sash on black every home game or Claremont doing the Richmond jumper.


It’s just a stupid, dumb pointless idea

 

[Wargreymon90]

You can’t wear the goddamn bnw vertical bars

In this league (one seperate from the SANFL and is the governing body of the game itself ) Collingwood have ownership of black and white everything.


It’s like WAFL club Perth FC joining the VFL and asking to wear red sash on black every home game or Claremont doing the Richmond jumper.


It’s just a stupid, dumb pointless idea

Can you please show me where they own the rights to black and white? I’ve checked the trade mark and design register? Nothing there.

You seem so sure.

 

[Enviable Tradition]

How insecure would your club have to be to think Port wearing a teal and black prison bars guernsey (which they don't want to wear anyway) more than once a year is going to hurt your brand.

And how entitled would you have to be to think you would have a say.

If Port wanted to wear a teal and black prison bar guernsey every week of the year they already would be.

 

[Shane Heard]

Can you please show me where they own the rights to black and white? I’ve checked the trade mark and design register? Nothing there.

You seem so sure.

Don’t be ridiculous. Use your brain.

The league owns the club trademark names and colours…you know…for its own league.

The simple fact of the matter is that Da Power is not the PAFC magpies.

 

[Shane Heard]

How insecure would your club have to be to think Port wearing a teal and black prison bars guernsey (which they don't want to wear anyway) more than once a year is going to hurt your brand.

And how entitled would you have to be to think you would have a say.

If Port wanted to wear a teal and black prison bar guernsey every week of the year they already would be.

Teal is not white

So port can conjure up any stupid looking jumper they like ..as long as it’s predominantly teal n black

 

[Wargreymon90]

Don’t be ridiculous. Use your brain.

The league owns the club trademark names and colours…you know…for its own league.

The simple fact of the matter is that Da Power is not the PAFC magpies.

Using my brain. The afl don’t own the trade mark to any colours. I’ve checked. Pleas explain why you are so certain?

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

It’s amazing that every time this discussion comes up, usually it’s a non pies/port fan that is the most outraged by the discussion.

 

[jsdsgn]

It’s amazing that every time this discussion comes up, usually it’s a non pies/port fan that is the most outraged by the discussion.

These days, Nothing amazes me from football fans, lol

 

[Shane Heard]

Using my brain. The afl don’t own the trade mark to any colours. I’ve checked. Pleas explain why you are so certain?

“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

 

[Kwality]

Port Adelaide were forced to sign agreements to enter the still Victorian centric league back in the 90’s.

We’ve grown up now haven’t we? Port Adelaide has a rich history in Australian Rules Football, I don’t see any reason they can’t wear the famous unique prison bar (wharf pylons of Port Adelaide) jumper in any game in the National competition that’s not away to Collingwood.

Geelong and Carlton have the same colours, denying Port Adelaide the jumper they want to wear just sounds petty.

Imagine watching the footy in b&w. No wonder the players were confused, North v the Pies.

 

[Wargreymon90]

“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

Yeah the colours black and white aren’t included in that.

 

[spudmaster]

I'm just surprised no one has tried to pinch our colour combination yet...

 

[Enviable Tradition]

I'm just surprised no one has tried to pinch our colour combination yet...

You're just lucky Collingwood let you wear it more than once a year given their recent statement.

Given its the exact same design (unlike the bars) in a different colour combinaiton.

 

[parano1a]

Given its the exact same design (unlike the bars) in a different colour combinaiton.

Collingwood are happy for other clubs to wear the same or similar designs in different colour combinations. That's exactly why the club suggested Port alter its prison bar design to black and teal, so it can be worn without issue and represent the history, present AND future of Port Adelaide.

 

[Enviable Tradition]

Collingwood are happy for other clubs to wear the same or similar designs in different colour combinations. That's exactly why the club suggested Port alter its prison bar design to black and teal, so it can be worn without issue and represent the history, present AND future of Port Adelaide.

You might have missed the bit where they suggested we could only wear that once a year.

Thats right. A different design and different colours.

Taking the absolute piss.

 

[chooke]

The reason it is that way is because of past agreements signed by all 3 parties. This is not a situation where people are sticking up for their mates, as much as you may wish it was.

Do you have a copy of this said agreement signed by the three parties? Does it actually exist?

If not, why would it carry more weight than cwd agreeing port can wear the pbs if they finish higher than cwd in the first five seasons? More importantly, it is then really a decision for the afl, not cwd or port.

Your history could have gone into more detail in relevant areas. For example ports 1990 bid which was scuppered by the sanfl. The pbs were not an issue with cwd, only the magpie moniker which port agreed to drop (as well as the club song which adopted by sydney). So why did the pbs become an issue in 1996? Could it be that Eddie was now on the scene turning it into an irrational debate?

But the main question I have is does this written agreement really exist? I haven't been following the pb debate closely (personally not a major issue with me) but I recall Kornes asking Eddie that question and put the agreement up in public so we can all see it. Not sure if Eddie ever did.

Apart from that, your history omits several other times port wore the pbs as others have pointed out.

Also, some content on how such an issue (if it would be an issue) would play out in other major sporting codes like the english footy league would also take out some the emotion and bring more rationality to the discussion.