View Full Version : Contract announcement today
RogerRabbit69
7 Jul 2006, 09:55
I read a couple of paragraphs in today's Advertiser saying there's going to be a big contract announcement at Alberton today (and it's not Choco).
Any ideas?
Malibu#27
7 Jul 2006, 09:57
Reebok replacing Nike I think was the tip earlier this week.
Could be Symes and Surjan or something like that
RogerRabbit69
7 Jul 2006, 10:03
Reebok replacing Nike I think was the tip earlier this week.
Could be, but reading the article I got the impression it was a player.
Here it is:
Contract extension at Port
07jul06
PORT ADELAIDE this afternoon will make a "major announcement" at AAMI Stadium, the same term Adelaide used in prefacing its presentation of Neil Craig for his contract extension yesterday morning.
But the Power's event today will not, as word will develop this morning, be to announce the long-expected decision that premiership coach Mark Williams will have his contract extended.
"There will be an extension of a contract tomorrow, but not that of the coach," Port president Greg Boulton said yesterday.
"Mark already has a contract that lasts until the end of 2007. We speak with Mark three times a year on such issues and we will do so again at the end of the year."
Williams is expected to get, as Craig did yesterday, a two-year contract extension within the next month. But Boulton yesterday maintained this should not be taken for granted.
Asked if he approved of mid-season extensions, Boulton said: "There is no right answer to that. It depends on where the club, the coach and the board is at.
"Traditionally, we like to look at a coach's contract at the end of the year rather than during a year."
Malibu#27
7 Jul 2006, 10:10
I'm referring more to the "major announcement". To me theres no indication its of a player.
I was thinking more sponsorship/off-field ... ie renewing Vodaphone or something... but the rumour of Reebok being announced seemed to fit nicely with story.
Toots Hibbert
7 Jul 2006, 10:11
If it's a contract extension that must rule out a change from Nike to Reebok.
"Contract" appears to also rule out anything to do with sponsorship.
Do Port normally announce player contracts at Football Park?
It's "major". Hmmm. Multiple players re-signed? Warren Tredrea to stay at Port till the end of his career (I would have thought that was a given, now, but the club might view it as "major") ?
Got to hand it to Hitaaf. She has managed to pique our curiosity.
Edit:- Or are sponsorships referred to as contracts? If so I'm guessing a lengthy extension of a major sponsorship. That could fit because the sponsor would want maximum publicity.
RogerRabbit69
7 Jul 2006, 10:37
True, on reading it again, it could well be a corporate announcement.
PowerKat
7 Jul 2006, 10:41
Vodafone or Scotts maybe?
wharfie_1870
7 Jul 2006, 11:07
Vodafone or Scotts maybe?IIRC Scotts extended their sponsorship late last year for 2006 and 2007 so it would be unlikely they are going to extend again so soon. Not sure about Vodafone.
Definitely doubt it is about a player.
Paralowiepower
7 Jul 2006, 11:21
If it is an extension my tip is Vodafone, I doubt it would be Nike as I heard we will wear Reebok next season.
If it is an extension my tip is Vodafone, I doubt it would be Nike as I heard we will wear Reebok next season.
oh man! Reebok suck.:thumbsd:
It'll be Vodaphone.
birdmanptr
7 Jul 2006, 11:40
It looks like Mark will get 2 more years
Thoughts?
Toots Hibbert
7 Jul 2006, 11:47
It looks like Mark will get 2 more years
Thoughts?
My thoughts are that the mods should merge this into the already existing thread and that Breg Boulton has already indicated that this will not be discussed till later in the year.
Paralowiepower
7 Jul 2006, 11:48
Im happy with that, anyone free that is better?
Maybe it has nothing to do with either a player, a current sponsor or the coach.
They might be signing a contract to go overseas, London maybe for some exhibition games during the off season!;)
MrMeaner
7 Jul 2006, 11:58
oh man! Reebok suck.:thumbsd:
What difference the brand of kit our boys wear make? It will still look the same.
In any case, Reebok is owned by Adidas. It's only a name.
Sometimes I think that Naomi Klein has it right. We are all too attached to brands.
What difference the brand of kit our boys wear make? It will still look the same.
In any case, Reebok is owned by Adidas. It's only a name.
Sometimes I think that Naomi Klein has it right. We are all too attached to brands.
Nike is a bigger better company with more money. Plus the "swoosh" looks better.
Nike is a bigger better company with more money. Plus the "swoosh" looks better.
Plus the clothing is of much better quality.
wharfie_1870
7 Jul 2006, 12:17
What difference the brand of kit our boys wear make? It will still look the same.
In any case, Reebok is owned by Adidas. It's only a name.What's wrong with Reebok?
They are the apparel sponsor for the Freemantle Dockers :D
Sometimes I think that Naomi Klein has it right. We are all too attached to brands.Totally agree.
wharfie_1870
7 Jul 2006, 12:18
Plus the clothing is of much better quality.It's all made by child labour in third world sweat shops.
What's wrong with Reebok?
They are the apparel sponsor for the Freemantle Dockers :D
Whats right with reebok? Heres a test. Whats the symbol of Reebok? I dont even know. Ask what the symbol of Nike is and most of the world knows. Reebok makes dodgy stuff and it never looks as good.
Originally Posted by MrMeaner
Sometimes I think that Naomi Klein has it right. We are all too attached to brands.
Totally agree.
Thats what people with no style say :p
It's all made by child labour in third world sweat shops.
Reebok must hire the malnutritioned kids then...:p
thats really not very PC :o
MrMeaner
7 Jul 2006, 12:25
It's all made by child labour in third world sweat shops.
I was going to say that but I realised that you could say the same thing for pretty much everything on my back today. It would be nice if there were more ethical alternatives available.
wharfie_1870
7 Jul 2006, 12:29
Whats right with reebok? Heres a test. Whats the symbol of Reebok? I dont even know. Ask what the symbol of Nike is and most of the world knows. Reebok makes dodgy stuff and it never looks as good.It was a rhetorical question and the answer was in the same post. :)
As for brand recognition of our sponsor's logo who gives a rats? We want people to recognise the Port Adelaide brand not this one;
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e6/RBK_Logo.JPG
Thast what people with no style say :pI didn't say I wasn't brand conscious just that I agree we are all too attached to brands ;)
wharfie_1870
7 Jul 2006, 12:31
Reebok must hire the malnutritioned kids then...:p
thats really not very PC :oWhen I said "all" I was referring to both Reebok and Nike.
MrMeaner
7 Jul 2006, 12:36
We want people to recognise the Port Adelaide brand not (the sponsor's)
Exactly.
It was a rhetorical question and the answer was in the same post. :)
As for brand recognition of our sponsor's logo who gives a rats? We want people to recognise the Port Adelaide brand not this one;
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e6/RBK_Logo.JPG
I didn't say I wasn't brand conscious just that I agree we are all too attached to brands ;)
what the hell is that? RBK? Reebok doesn’t need an abbrev. And that logo is just lame. :D
Who gives a rats? I do. and clearly so do lots of other people. You will never see me wearing reebok. lots of others have a similar opinion, which in turn means less $ for the club.
MrMeaner
7 Jul 2006, 12:47
Who gives a rats? I do. and clearly so do lots of other people. You will never see me wearing reebok. lots of others have a similar opinion, which in turn means less $ for the club.
Break the corporate group-think shackles and do the right thing by your club, comrade ;)
Exactly.
That is a naive and outdated line of thinking.
Both of you have already said society is very brand conscious, yet we could lose the biggest brand of them all. Thinking a 16 yr old kid will buy clothes because it has the Port logo on it isn’t realistic. Combine it with the Nike swoosh and you may be in business.
Kids these days buy stuff on what brand it is. If some club merchandise has fashionable brand they will be more likely to buy it = more $$.
Break the corporate group-think shackles and do the right thing by your club, comrade ;)
I will, and I do, paid up member anchor etc all the bells and whistles. Buy heaps of merchandise etc etc. I will probably just change what I buy.
But not everyone is like me...much to my EDIT:chagrin. thanks toots
wharfie_1870
7 Jul 2006, 12:53
That is a naive and outdated line of thinking.
Both of you have already said society is very brand conscious, yet we could lose the biggest brand of them all. Thinking a 16 yr old kid will buy clothes because it has the Port logo on it isn’t realistic. Combine it with the Nike swoosh and you may be in business.
Kids these days buy stuff on what brand it is. If some club merchandise has fashionable brand they will be more likely to buy it = more $$.What an interesting concept. I buy PAFC gear because it is just that. Yes, I have a few pieces with the Nike swoosh on them but that is not why I bought them. If I applied your logic I would also have quite a bit of Carlton gear as I wear a lot of blue (it is one of the coulours I can see) and it has the Nike swoosh on it.
MrMeaner and I are naive :confused:
Toots Hibbert
7 Jul 2006, 12:53
I will, and I do, paid up member anchor etc all the bells and whistles. Buy heaps of merchandise etc etc. I will probably just change what I buy.
But not everyone is like me...much to my shagrin.
Are you saying you're upset or you're a bit of a stud?
MrMeaner
7 Jul 2006, 13:00
Both of you have already said society is very brand conscious, yet we could lose the biggest brand of them all. Thinking a 16 yr old kid will buy clothes because it has the Port logo on it isn’t realistic. Combine it with the Nike swoosh and you may be in business.
When I first came over to Melbourne, the big Nike store on the corner of Swanston and Bourke Streets stocked Port gear. A year later, it obviously (and unsurprisingly) did not sell and there was absolutely no Port merchandise in the store.
People did not buy the Nike stuff here because it was the wrong club (brand). Even if we had been the only club to be with Nike and thus the only club gear in the Nike store, it would not have sold.
My point is that a 16 year old kid will not buy a club product with our club's brand on it if they are not already inclined towards that brand.
Ultimately, the club is bigger than any of its sponsorships and it should long remain so.
Count Zero
7 Jul 2006, 13:01
If it is sponsorship and it is Vodafone then please God do not let us have the phone as the mascot again. That phone was a hopeless mascot, he couldn't move his legs hardly, and his little arms could not even meet each other at the front. The Geelong cat one night made a complete mess of him.
Whoever the sponsor is Thunda must stay. C'mon this is important stuff.
MrMeaner
7 Jul 2006, 13:09
Nike don't seem to be doing too well with their investment in soccer:
http://football.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1814630,00.html
I think what this illustrates is that sponors are riding on clubs' and countries' coattails not vice versa.
Ford Fairlane
7 Jul 2006, 13:16
It's Vodafone (http://portadelaidefc.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=279169). Until 2009.
wharfie_1870
7 Jul 2006, 13:19
It's Vodafone (http://portadelaidefc.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=279169). Until 2009.Great :thumbsu:
At least now the club will still be able to sell merchandise :cool:
Paralowiepower
7 Jul 2006, 13:22
Great news
MrMeaner
7 Jul 2006, 13:24
It's Vodafone (http://portadelaidefc.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=279169). Until 2009.
Personally, I'm an Optus man, so this is disappointing news. ;)
Toots Hibbert
7 Jul 2006, 13:30
Nice.
What an interesting concept. I buy PAFC gear because it is just that. Yes, I have a few pieces with the Nike swoosh on them but that is not why I bought them.
Yes you buy port gear because its just that. Like probably i will. We are the die hards. The true fans. Im not talking about us. Im talking about the casual fan who buys the occasional piece of clothing. If its Nike, IMO he/she will be more likely to buy it.
If I applied your logic I would also have quite a bit of Carlton gear as I wear a lot of blue (it is one of the coulours I can see) and it has the Nike swoosh on it.
Thats taking my argument out of context. Im saying casual Port people, particularly young casual port people, will be more likely to buy gear if its Nike.
MrMeaner and I are naive :confused:
No. IMO your argument on branding is naive. No-one who barracks for Port could be anything but near perfect :p
Are you saying you're upset or you're a bit of a stud?
No, im saying im a poor speller. Fixed. thanks.
When I first came over to Melbourne, the big Nike store on the corner of Swanston and Bourke Streets stocked Port gear. A year later, it obviously (and unsurprisingly) did not sell and there was absolutely no Port merchandise in the store.
People did not buy the Nike stuff here because it was the wrong club (brand). Even if we had been the only club to be with Nike and thus the only club gear in the Nike store, it would not have sold.
My point is that a 16 year old kid will not buy a club product with our club's brand on it if they are not already inclined towards that brand.
Different argument. At the risk of re-posting. Im saying that casual young port supoprters, who are allready Port supporters, will be more likely to buy port gear if its nike.
Ultimately, the club is bigger than any of its sponsorships and it should long remain so.
Oh for sure. As I said, if reebok offered us a sponsorship, and after all the sums were done and the bean counters reckoned we would be in front. I couldn't care less. Whats best for the club > whats best for the individual.
wharfie_1870
7 Jul 2006, 15:06
..........Thats taking my argument out of context. Im saying casual Port people, particularly young casual port people, will be more likely to buy gear if its Nike.......OK, I concede, slightly out of context :o
There is a downside to Nike branding though and that is cost. I can buy official AFL Port Adelaide gear from K-Mart for a fraction of the cost of similar gear with the Nike branding from the Power Gear Shop. Admittedly the Nike branded gear is much better quality but the demographic from which a large number of Port Adelaide supporters come is very price sensitive.
There is a downside to Nike branding though and that is cost. I can buy official AFL Port Adelaide gear from K-Mart for a fraction of the cost of similar gear with the Nike branding from the Power Gear Shop. Admittedly the Nike branded gear is much better quality but the demographic from which a large number of Port Adelaide supporters come is very price sensitive.
Good point. I never really thought of that.
Is Nike more expensive than reebok though? I'm not sure. Regardless of who the sponsor is, the cheaper K-Mart type gear will always be available.
wharfie_1870
7 Jul 2006, 15:27
........Is Nike more expensive than reebok though? I'm not sure. Regardless of who the sponsor is, the cheaper K-Mart type gear will always be available.Don't know either. I've never bought anything Reebok.
Don't know either. I've never bought anything Reebok.
:rolleyes:
wharfie_1870
7 Jul 2006, 15:34
:rolleyes:Now if Reebok put out stuff with Port Adelaide branding on it I just might buy it :p
RussellEbertHandball
7 Jul 2006, 15:55
SA Brewing's contract runs out at the end of this year. I wonder if they will renew given that they didn't believe they could get value for money out of the Crows sponshorship. I guess if they have exclusive pourage rights at Footy Park they are probably right.
I hope the marketing department has been sweat talking Coopers or even Fosters. Who knows, one day you might actually be able to sit in your seat and enjoy a Coopers whilst watching a game at Footy Park.
I'd be happier to hear that they were courting Becks or Carlsberg.
wharfie_1870
7 Jul 2006, 16:19
I think it's time we got Jack back, and I don't mean Cahill ;)
Malibu#27
7 Jul 2006, 16:49
Id love to have Coopers come on board, and if that didn't happen would not mind rewarding West End for their loyalty.
But I suspect the commerical reality is that the club will do as per the Crows (something I was critical of) and end up with a CUB sponsorship. Commerically I suspect it makes no sense for West End to continue ...
Coopers could possibly use the sponsorship signage better (seem to have a more global market these days) - but the CUB/AFL agreement would prevent this.
Arsene Wenger
7 Jul 2006, 16:50
well - any news on what it is yet ?
MrMeaner
7 Jul 2006, 16:51
Click the link to find out
It's Vodafone (http://portadelaidefc.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=279169). Until 2009.