Toast #BringBackTheBars - Our Heritage, Our History, Our Right!

Assuming there were no obstacles, would you prefer the PB/Pylon guernsey to be our home colours?


  • Total voters
    376

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Joined
Dec 26, 2013
Posts
9,294
Likes
8,958
Location
Just refuelling ⛽
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
BOLTS, REN, OKC, WFC, LVB, STORM
Moderator #2,777
I think it works well, if it went to four they’d all have to be thinner to fit into the square space. It looks bolder this way. Also if you look at the PB design it’s really just two sets of three stripes anyway.

View attachment 691060
Unrelated, but from then to now, how did that team win a premiership and we won none?
 
Last edited:

S.Patrol.G

Premiership Player
Joined
Oct 5, 2006
Posts
4,027
Likes
3,762
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
There are no other teams
Firstly, Tom Basso is a teenage amateur sports 'journo'. Let's not pretend he has any inside info here. He's gleaned stuff from public commentary.

Secondly, just because the club caves in on a compromise, does not mean we as supporters need to. The pressure we have applied to the club and the AFL is real and we are already seeing some reactions for and against the campaign. That's what we want.

We want the AFL to either say that it is our right to wear it when we choose, without any 'Collingwood Clause', OR to have the balls to come out and say that, no we don't have the right because AFL=VFL and Collingwood call the shots.

If they choose the latter, the fight doesn't end, it just ramps up and creates new allies for us.
Completely respect your commentary on the matter, and this particular post, but don't you think the AFL and PAFC are going to make sure they share any public message?

I strongly believe the Board has no interest in a "wear it when we want it" agreement. In fact, I'll take a stab at the exact Board members that are directly opposed to it: Koch, Cardone, Ransom, Vanstone.

I've openly listened to both sides of the debate and am firmly in the "wear it when we want to" camp. The problem I have is I think the Board will happily sign off with the AFL on a binding agreement that it's away showdowns and nothing more forever and a day.
 
Joined
Sep 2, 2005
Posts
21,890
Likes
58,175
Location
Cerebral Cortex
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Port Adelaide Magpies
Completely respect your commentary on the matter, and this particular post, but don't you think the AFL and PAFC are going to make sure they share any public message?

I strongly believe the Board has no interest in a "wear it when we want it" agreement. In fact, I'll take a stab at the exact Board members that are directly opposed to it: Koch, Cardone, Ransom, Vanstone.

I've openly listened to both sides of the debate and am firmly in the "wear it when we want to" camp. The problem I have is I think the Board will happily sign off with the AFL on a binding agreement that it's away showdowns and nothing more forever and a day.
You and I (and every other supporter) will outlast this board.
If this supporter led campaign keeps up the noise, then the pressure will turn them.

Koch - he goes with whatever is the popular choice.
Ransom - she'll be gone before our 150th.
Vanstone - not so sure she'd be against it but she's an ex politician, she goes where the numbers tell her to.
Cardone - he's likely the fly in the ointment, and if he is, there is a chink in his armour that we can exploit.


There's never been anything like this before. The closest is the Return The Wings campaign by West Coast, but that was purely internal, no outside influence that needed to be countered.

It's vitally important that we keep the momentum up and maintain the pressure.

Our Heritage. Our History. Our Right.
 

S.Patrol.G

Premiership Player
Joined
Oct 5, 2006
Posts
4,027
Likes
3,762
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
There are no other teams
You and I (and every other supporter) will outlast this board.
If this supporter led campaign keeps up the noise, then the pressure will turn them.

Koch - he goes with whatever is the popular choice.
Ransom - she'll be gone before our 150th.
Vanstone - not so sure she'd be against it but she's an ex politician, she goes where the numbers tell her to.
Cardone - he's likely the fly in the ointment, and if he is, there is a chink in his armour that we can exploit.


There's never been anything like this before. The closest is the Return The Wings campaign by West Coast, but that was purely internal, no outside influence that needed to be countered.

It's vitally important that we keep the momentum up and maintain the pressure.

Our Heritage. Our History. Our Right.
Couldn't agree more, but I'll put in a disclaimer. If our current Board, or CEO sign a binding agreement with the AFL that limits the club to once a year, no amount of momentum or pressure will make any difference. That's my overwhelming fear; however, count me in to maintain the pressure.
 
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Posts
49,664
Likes
116,706
Location
SA
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Toronto Raptors
I got lost at `Imagine if we had a great win in a Showdown.' :think:
Even 'imagine we had a great win' is pushing it.

Firstly, Tom Basso is a teenage amateur sports 'journo'. Let's not pretend he has any inside info here. He's gleaned stuff from public commentary.
I really like the Mongrel Punt. Amateur or no, Tom Basso has more passion, less bias and more sense than the vast majority of paid footy journos.
 
Last edited:

Spadge

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Posts
10,318
Likes
9,136
Location
Adelaide, South Australia
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
The problem I have is I think the Board will happily sign off with the AFL on a binding agreement that it's away showdowns and nothing more forever and a day.
This is also my fear
Eddie a few times has sprouted that we signed an agreement which i don't believe, however i can see him agreeing to 1 showdown a year IF and only IF we sign a binding agreement to say we will never ask for more than this

My great fear is our current management would probably agree and sign to it. This could very well be the legacy Koch leaves us with
 

Interstater

#BringBackTheBars
Joined
Jun 7, 2015
Posts
1,828
Likes
3,488
Location
SA
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
This is also my fear
Eddie a few times has sprouted that we signed an agreement which i don't believe, however i can see him agreeing to 1 showdown a year IF and only IF we sign a binding agreement to say we will never ask for more than this

My great fear is our current management would probably agree and sign to it. This could very well be the legacy Koch leaves us with
Yep, exactly my fear also.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Joined
Sep 2, 2005
Posts
21,890
Likes
58,175
Location
Cerebral Cortex
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Port Adelaide Magpies
If our current Board, or CEO sign a binding agreement with the AFL that limits the club to once a year, no amount of momentum or pressure will make any difference.
That is a risk and we've got some thoughts on how we can let it be known that the supporters won't stand for that.

My hunch is that they won't sign anything binding in the long term at this point because they don't have to.
 
Joined
Sep 2, 2005
Posts
21,890
Likes
58,175
Location
Cerebral Cortex
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Port Adelaide Magpies
Ok, today is the last day to order a t-shirt if you want one for the game on 22nd June. Whatever is ordered and paid for by midnight tonight is what will be printed.

Link here: https://forms.gle/q6EbCXDXqX2Eemuy5


Scarves are going ahead but won't be ready for the Geelong game, so we'll send around an order form early next week for that.
 

1954

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Mar 1, 2014
Posts
6,053
Likes
8,891
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
I will be very happy to be wrong, but I have absolutely zero faith in a Koch lead board getting what no doubt the majority of Port supporters obviously want re the use of our traditional guernsey.
The bloke is as weak as water, and in my opinion epitomises Fos's creed re people in football clubs who are there for the wrong reasons.

Coaching, selection policies, game plan etc, etc could all pale into insignificance given the long term damage Koch could do to our history and traditions, and as has already been mentioned he showed no interest in the club before we made it onto the national stage, and I suspect his interest now is more about self promotion than anything else.
 

chiwigi

I’ll make tears from your Wines.
Joined
Apr 9, 2009
Posts
16,381
Likes
27,300
Location
Port Adelaide Zone
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Thread starter #2,790
This is also my fear
Eddie a few times has sprouted that we signed an agreement which i don't believe, however i can see him agreeing to 1 showdown a year IF and only IF we sign a binding agreement to say we will never ask for more than this

My great fear is our current management would probably agree and sign to it. This could very well be the legacy Koch leaves us with
There's no binding agreement, there just isn't.
The legal issue is that the AFL own the IP, so they get to say what's what and Eddie influences them.

The whole thing is POLITICAL not legal. That is why pressure needs to be applied.
 

El_Scorcho

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 21, 2007
Posts
24,590
Likes
52,244
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Aston Villa, San Antonio Spurs
There's no binding agreement, there just isn't.
The legal issue is that the AFL own the IP, so they get to say what's what and Eddie influences them.

The whole thing is POLITICAL not legal. That is why pressure needs to be applied.
Yep.

Even if we signed a "binding agreement", the AFL has full control over what we're allowed to wear and could overturn it on a whim, just like they've repeatedly barred us from wearing the bars despite their being no binding agreement.

Koch signing something saying we'll only ever wear it once a year would be frustrating but ultimately it could be easily overturned by a better, future chairman
 
Joined
Mar 1, 2014
Posts
9,043
Likes
43,332
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Moderator #2,792
There is no binding agreement on anything to do with this matter that has ever been produced or even mentioned by anyone from the PAFC or the AFL. The only reference to such a thing has been Eddie pissing in the wind. It simply doesn't exist and has never existed.
 

S.Patrol.G

Premiership Player
Joined
Oct 5, 2006
Posts
4,027
Likes
3,762
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
There are no other teams
That is a risk and we've got some thoughts on how we can let it be known that the supporters won't stand for that.

My hunch is that they won't sign anything binding in the long term at this point because they don't have to.
Like the Hinkley extension.
 
Joined
Sep 2, 2005
Posts
21,890
Likes
58,175
Location
Cerebral Cortex
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Port Adelaide Magpies
There is no binding agreement on anything to do with this matter that has ever been produced or even mentioned by anyone from the PAFC or the AFL. The only reference to such a thing has been Eddie pissing in the wind. It simply doesn't exist and has never existed.
Precisely. Much like his 'Collingwood own the trademark on black and white stripes" claim, it's an absolute fabrication.

If he did, he would have used it, legally, to stop us every time.
 

S.Patrol.G

Premiership Player
Joined
Oct 5, 2006
Posts
4,027
Likes
3,762
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
There are no other teams
Touche.

Now I'm worried.
Look, I think it's fairly clear there's no such thing as a binding agreement, contract, or Trademark law because if there was, Eddie would have produced one. It's all bluff and bluster and I fully understand the decision is completely in the hands of the AFL. I also believe, from an AFL perspective they'd be quite happy for the Bars to be our main guernsey because they galvanise our identity, potentially increase membership, and certainly mean $ for the club in merchandising- all good aspects for us and the AFL.

The key will be how much they (AFL) bend to Eddie and what he wants for Collingwood.

That's why it's absolutely essential our Board sign NOTHING. My issue has always been my lack of trust in the current Board. The evidence is there. Our Board, in recent years, have been more Vanilla than even Vanilla. Hinkley extension, co-captains, manipulation of the Board members, dismissive of member feedback.

The right decision is that the PAFC, like EVERY OTHER CLUB IN THE AFL, has the freedom to wear ANY guernsey they please (even a superhero one) provided, as the AWAY team, they avoid a clash.
 

Grave Danger

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jun 6, 2000
Posts
16,774
Likes
25,269
Location
West Perth
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Woomera Centrals, Jazza
I see old Allan McAllister passed on/ceased to be/expired/gone to meet his maker/kicked the bucket/shuffled off this mortal coil/joined the choir invisible/******* snuffed it the other day. If anyone signed an agreement it was him - we should have been wearing the PBs since about 2000.
 

Enviable Tradition

Professional Procrastinator
Joined
Oct 12, 2007
Posts
15,901
Likes
14,277
Location
The Hills
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
That is a risk and we've got some thoughts on how we can let it be known that the supporters won't stand for that.

My hunch is that they won't sign anything binding in the long term at this point because they don't have to.
You mean like how they didnt have to give Hinkley an extension?

EDIT: Way too slow.

On SM-G960F using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
Top Bottom