Toast #BringBackTheBars - Our Heritage, Our History, Our Right! Part 1

[Steve Dore]

With all Collingwood's bluster about agreements it's as if agreements have never been renegotiated in the history of mankind.

The supposed existence of an historical agreement doesn't automatically precluded us from wearing the prison bars in the AFL and, as others have already pointed out, there is precedent for this happening, and not just once.

Why are Collingwood really so afraid of us wearing black and white only in a couple of games played in Adelaide that they are not involved in?

 

[Lockhart Road]

I'd like to see the detail of that agreement. There are so many allegedly going around. I have only seen objective evidence of one (the one Kane and Eddie argued about) and that was equivocal.

As others have suggested, the fact that we have worn the PBs a number of times since coming into the league, only one of which was allegedly subject to Collingwood's agreement, and Collingwood have not enforced their alleged right suggests there is a good argument that Collingwood have waived compliance with that term.

Re ‘said product’ alias black & white ... I’d add that said product was highly instrumental in forging the identity, alias PAFC, which the AFL since pre-1990 pursued in a determined quest to admit to its competition despite the existing presence of Collingwood.

I’d love to appear as a witness and quote verbatim, as I recall, a corroborating private statement made to me by Allen Aylett when he visited Hong Kong in 1994.

”We have always wanted Port Adelaide in,” quoth he.

 

[edgie]

We were denied the Guernsey in 2014 and this year, and maybe in the early 2000s, so the idea that any agreement is worthless isn't accurate at all.

Something does exist and it is enough for ground to refuse usage.

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

We were denied the Guernsey in 2014 and this year, and maybe in the early 2000s, so the idea that any agreement is worthless isn't accurate at all.

Something does exist and it is enough for ground to refuse usage.

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk

What and when were we denied in 2014?

 

[Lockhart Road]

We were denied the Guernsey in 2014 and this year, and maybe in the early 2000s, so the idea that any agreement is worthless isn't accurate at all.

Something does exist and it is enough for ground to refuse usage.

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk

There is no doubting agreement/s exist. ‘Grounds to refuse usage’ have been exercised by the AFL only with their decision/s having been inconsistent, and thus far unchallenged.

I look forward to the day a legal / semi-legal challenge is launched. Sooner the better.

 

[edgie]

What and when were we denied in 2014?

Champions of Australia 100 years?

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Champions of Australia 100 years?

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk

Did we make a formal full request?

If so, no wonder Collingwood/McGuire said no after allowing us to wear the PB as a fundraiser $260 x 1,600 people put their names on the jumper for the last game at Footy Park at end of 2013.

 

[Enviable Tradition]

We were denied the Guernsey in 2014 and this year, and maybe in the early 2000s, so the idea that any agreement is worthless isn't accurate at all.

Something does exist and it is enough for ground to refuse usage.

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk

Bullshit.

The AFL didn't deny us because of any agreement.

They denied us because they are weak as piss.

On SM-G960F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Chewy316]

The new Collingwood president was on Whateley's program on SEN this morning, and he confirmed that Collingwood's position on the PBs wasn't going to change. Apparently Collingwood have it in writing that they're the only club allowed to wear black and white.

The position doesn't change but the reasons behind said position seem to change as much as Melbourne's shitty weather.

You've got Eddie sprouting off that we need to be a net giver, then he pivots to the 2007 agreement.

The AFL in making their decision a few weeks ago only referred to the 2019 agreement, essentially implying that the 2007 was no longer applicable.

Now we've got old mate Korda who is saying the AFL have told them they are the only team who will ever play in black and white. Forget the design, this is now a colour issue. How the heck can the AFL put a restriction on the colours when you've got the Crows and Suns both playing in red, blue and yellow, along with Carlton and Geelong who both play in navy blue and white? And don't give me "well Geelong and Carlton have been playing in the league for 100+ years so it makes sense to keep the status quo" because we've been wearing our prison bars for over 100 years and such historical significance has essentially been pissed on by the league.

This has and always will be nothing more than the "might" (and I use that word loosely) of the VFL attempting to cling to whatever remaining power they have over an interstate club.

 

[edgie]

Bullshit.

The AFL didn't deny us because of any agreement.

They denied us because they are weak as piss.

On SM-G960F using BigFooty.com mobile app

Point is that an agreement exists for them to fall back on.

 

[Lockhart Road]

Point is that an agreement exists for them to fall back on.

Your point is ...

My point is that any agreement is word of mouth unless proven beyond doubt, which ain’t happened yet as we have not issued a challenge.

 

[MrMeaner]

We were denied the Guernsey in 2014 and this year, and maybe in the early 2000s, so the idea that any agreement is worthless isn't accurate at all.

Something does exist and it is enough for ground to refuse usage.

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk

There doesn't have to be an agreement for the AFL to exercise its discretion against us. There may be an agreement or agreements but given the way this debate has progressed, you could expect that if they are in writing, they would have been waved about. That they haven't says something.

Not that an agreement needs to be in writing. But even for unwritten agreements, you need something more than mere assertion that it exists.

Then there are the terms of the 'agreement'...

 

[Steve Dore]

... the idea that any agreement is worthless isn't accurate at all. ..

I didn't say it was worthless. Agreements can be amended and even completely waived. Why do Collingwood have such a complex about another team wearing black and white devaluing their brand?

 

[Lockhart Road]

There doesn't have to be an agreement for the AFL to exercise its discretion against us. There may be an agreement or agreements but given the way this debate has progressed, you could expect that if they are in writing, they would have been waved about. That they haven't says something.

Not that an agreement needs to be in writing. But even for unwritten agreements, you need something more than mere assertion that it exists.

Then there are the terms of the 'agreement'...

Concur ...

... Just as the AFL exercised its discretion:
1) against us wearing our then home guernsey for the 2014 home elimination final,
2) in favour of Richmond wearing whatever they liked,
3) in favour of us wearing the Bars, purposely minus reasonable due notice,
4) consequentially in favour of Mark Evans accepting a fait accompli that made the AFL look out of control (which they were),
5) consequentially in favour of a precedent being set that despite whatever agreement/s are/are not in place that pragmatism wins out ... and pragmatism will be the basis of any challenge we may / will make.

 

[Alex09]

With all Collingwood's bluster about agreements it's as if agreements have never been renegotiated in the history of mankind.

The supposed existence of an historical agreement doesn't automatically precluded us from wearing the prison bars in the AFL and, as others have already pointed out, there is precedent for this happening, and not just once.

Why are Collingwood really so afraid of us wearing black and white only in a couple of games played in Adelaide that they are not involved in?

There use to be an "agreement" between men that women couldn't vote. An "agreement" between white people that blacks had to ride at the back of the bus only. Love agreements that are agreed to by those in a privileged position to infringe on another less fortunate party in order to maintain the power imbalance.

 

[GremioPower]

Struggling to not bite on this one here lads

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk

The Swans would have never looked so good.

 

[Ant Bear]

Struggling to not bite on this one here lads

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk

O no! First our song, now this???

Yes, I know it is a spoof.

 

[edgie]

O no! First our song, now this???

Yes, I know it is a spoof.

It's more WHO posted it, than what was posted...

 

[Dylan8]

Struggling to not bite on this one here lads

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk

I love humour, and jokes

 

[Dylan8]

With all Collingwood's bluster about agreements it's as if agreements have never been renegotiated in the history of mankind.

The supposed existence of an historical agreement doesn't automatically precluded us from wearing the prison bars in the AFL and, as others have already pointed out, there is precedent for this happening, and not just once.

Why are Collingwood really so afraid of us wearing black and white only in a couple of games played in Adelaide that they are not involved in?

(Jim Jefferies voice) It's an AMENDMENT!

 

[ibd77]

(Jim Jefferies voice) It's an AMENDMENT!

“You cannot change the Second Amendment!” And I’m like, “Yes, you can. It’s called an ‘amendment.'” If you can’t change something that’s called an “amendment”, see, many of you need a thesaurus more than you need a constitution. And if you don’t know what a thesaurus is, get a dictionary and work your way forward.

 

[Fizzler]

We were denied the Guernsey in 2014 and this year, and maybe in the early 2000s, so the idea that any agreement is worthless isn't accurate at all.

Something does exist and it is enough for ground to refuse usage.

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk

2006 we were denied by Collingwood, hence the agreement coming in the next year. The 2007 agreement which we all know says we can wear it in heritage rounds which obviously don't exist anymore. I'd wager a guess that the AFL just asks Collingwood every time we ask. We'd be in the same predicament even if there was no agreement. It's beyond a joke at this point.

 

[PA88]

With all Collingwood's bluster about agreements it's as if agreements have never been renegotiated in the history of mankind.

The supposed existence of an historical agreement doesn't automatically precluded us from wearing the prison bars in the AFL and, as others have already pointed out, there is precedent for this happening, and not just once.

Why are Collingwood really so afraid of us wearing black and white only in a couple of games played in Adelaide that they are not involved in?

Collingwood don't want one game per year to become every game.

There's nothing binding on paper that the club has signed to never request and wear the jumper again. However the afl tried to get us to sign some kind of never request to wear it again agreement in 2019 but we didn't. It's the reason we only got one game in 2020. Gil now says this 2007 agreement is updated by 2019. Gil and Eddiewood interpret these nonsense agreements to their liking.

 

[Alyx]

Struggling to not bite on this one here lads

 

[simba_]

It's more WHO posted it, than what was posted...

wayne walker or selina ashton?