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
    529

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

beenreal

Club Legend
Nov 19, 2003
1,032
422
Port Adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Port Adelaide
that is incredible lol. who does he think just won the flag? South Melbourne?
Speaking of the whingers! Next you'll be trotting out the old "settling for mediocrity" bullshit.

Yep, good on the Dee's for taking their opportunity.

You learn from your losses, so I'll back our club's plan for sustained success over some meteoric rise, then some "Malbun-style" fall.
 

Powerade 08

Brownlow Medallist
Mar 10, 2008
12,624
13,110
adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Speaking of the whingers! Next you'll be trotting out the old "settling for mediocrity" bullshit.

Yep, good on the Dee's for taking their opportunity.

You learn from your losses, so I'll back our club's plan for sustained success over some meteoric rise, then some "Malbun-style" fall.
If this is what sustained success looks like, then I want to die.
 

MrPlow

Club Legend
Oct 25, 2015
1,263
4,817
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
I see the powers that be have no shame in directing their mouthpieces (Rucci and K Cornes) to push the prison bars agenda on the back of Russell’s funeral.

I am in favour of the prisons bars but using someone’s death as a springboard for the discussion of a guernsey is so wrong and deplorable. It just reinforces how far from Port Adelaide we now are.

You may say calm down Mr Plow, there’s a reason to raise the discussion now given we’ve farewelled a club great who wore the prison bars with honour. Well, I can acknowledge but disagree. At the very least the timing of the media agenda is wrong.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Enviable Tradition

Professional Procrastinator
Oct 12, 2007
23,490
33,718
The Hills
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
I see the powers that be have no shame in directing their mouthpieces (Rucci and K Cornes) to push the prison bars agenda on the back of Russell’s funeral.

I am in favour of the prisons bars but using someone’s death as a springboard for the discussion of a guernsey is so wrong and deplorable. It just reinforces how far from Port Adelaide we now are.

You may say calm down Mr Plow, there’s a reason to raise the discussion now given we’ve farewelled a club great who wore the prison bars with honour. Well, I can acknowledge but disagree. At the very least the timing of the media agenda is wrong.
I couldn't disagree more.

Russ' funeral stokes the fires of my passion for the bars even more and makes me feel like now we need to fight more than ever before any more greats and connections to those greats are lost.
 

bomberclifford

Importer/Exporter
Sep 2, 2005
31,407
97,663
Cerebral Cortex
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Port Adelaide Magpies
I see the powers that be have no shame in directing their mouthpieces (Rucci and K Cornes) to push the prison bars agenda on the back of Russell’s funeral.

I am in favour of the prisons bars but using someone’s death as a springboard for the discussion of a guernsey is so wrong and deplorable. It just reinforces how far from Port Adelaide we now are.

You may say calm down Mr Plow, there’s a reason to raise the discussion now given we’ve farewelled a club great who wore the prison bars with honour. Well, I can acknowledge but disagree. At the very least the timing of the media agenda is wrong.
I get where you're coming from, but I think it's actually ok for Russell's passing to be a catalyst for our next push to wear the guernsey.

His contribution to the club is a huge reason that we are even in the AFL. The Ebert name symbolises the link between our past and our present. To me it is only fitting that he becomes a symbol of our right to wear it and our fight to attain that right.

Yesterday was everything you'd want in a funeral service for a much loved club identity. It hammered home where our heartland is and why the club is now battling for premierships on the national stage.

Unless we continue the fight to wear the guernsey when we see fit, then Russell's legacy is kept segregated from our AFL era.

The timing is right.
 

Andre

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 3, 2002
26,774
33,113
Adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
I get where you're coming from, but I think it's actually ok for Russell's passing to be a catalyst for our next push to wear the guernsey.

His contribution to the club is a huge reason that we are even in the AFL. The Ebert name symbolises the link between our past and our present. To me it is only fitting that he becomes a symbol of our right to wear it and our fight to attain that right.

Yesterday was everything you'd want in a funeral service for a much loved club identity. It hammered home where our heartland is and why the club is now battling for premierships on the national stage.

Unless we continue the fight to wear the guernsey when we see fit, then Russell's legacy is kept segregated from our AFL era.

The timing is right.
Further to this, given Russell's lifelong dedication to the PAFC, whilst obviously no one can know how he'd have felt about his death helping bring back the bars to be worn when we see fit, from everything known about him, I'd say the odds are greatly that he'd have been humbled, but supportive.
 

El_Scorcho

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 21, 2007
28,714
76,655
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Aston Villa, San Antonio Spurs
People want to wear the Prison Bars because of Russell Ebert. That was true when he was playing and it's true now.

His passing just further clarifies this undeniable truth.

People seem to be worried that pushing even harder for the bars somehow cheapens Russell's memory, as if we're using grief to score cheap political points. Far from it. We want to wear the bars because Russell was a shining example of everything we want to be and what we want our club to be.

Koch talks about "winning premierships and making our community proud". Russell was the absolute embodiment of that and proved that the two weren't mutually exclusive as the current administration makes it seem.

The guernsey worn by a footy club is so, so important. It's absolute horseshit that we've been forced into ultimately meaningless alternatives for 25 years. At a time where we've just lost the greatest living connection to our great history, it could not be clearer how important that great history is and how important it is to honour it. Just let us wear our f***ing guernsey like every other sports team in the world gets to FFS.
 

dirty2

Norm Smith Medallist
Nov 6, 2016
8,308
11,110
Bar Rossa
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Arsenal
People want to wear the Prison Bars because of Russell Ebert. That was true when he was playing and it's true now.

His passing just further clarifies this undeniable truth.

People seem to be worried that pushing even harder for the bars somehow cheapens Russell's memory, as if we're using grief to score cheap political points. Far from it. We want to wear the bars because Russell was a shining example of everything we want to be and what we want our club to be.

Koch talks about "winning premierships and making our community proud". Russell was the absolute embodiment of that and proved that the two weren't mutually exclusive as the current administration makes it seem.

The guernsey worn by a footy club is so, so important. It's absolute horseshit that we've been forced into ultimately meaningless alternatives for 25 years. At a time where we've just lost the greatest living connection to our great history, it could not be clearer how important that great history is and how important it is to honour it. Just let us wear our f***ing guernsey like every other sports team in the world gets to FFS.
Well said (typed)
 

Couch Coach

Premium Platinum
Apr 26, 2006
988
789
Melbourne
AFL Club
Collingwood
Serious question: Port Adelaide Power supporters claim they are a continuation of the Port Adelaide Magpies and not a separate entity (correct me if I am wrong please).

If this is the case why is the Port Father and Son selections:

"(iv) The Port Adelaide Football Club may include a person on its Primary List if that person’s father played 200 or more Senior Matches (being either home and away or finals series matches) at one of the following clubs prior to, but not including, 1997:
(A) Port Magpies Football Club;
(B) Woodville Football Club;
(C) West Torrens Football Club;
(D) North Adelaide Football Club;
(E) Central Districts Football Club; or

(F) West Adelaide Football Club."

https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/do...2.1555135146.1637184699-1358790420.1595486153

Why hasn't this been amended to just be 100 or more Senior Matches Port Magpies Football Club?
 

RossFC

Moderator
May 23, 2012
64,607
108,333
Alberton Oval
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Liverpool
Serious question: Port Adelaide Power supporters claim they are a continuation of the Port Adelaide Magpies and not a separate entity (correct me if I am wrong please).

If this is the case why is the Port Father and Son selections:

"(iv) The Port Adelaide Football Club may include a person on its Primary List if that person’s father played 200 or more Senior Matches (being either home and away or finals series matches) at one of the following clubs prior to, but not including, 1997:
(A) Port Magpies Football Club;
(B) Woodville Football Club;
(C) West Torrens Football Club;
(D) North Adelaide Football Club;
(E) Central Districts Football Club; or

(F) West Adelaide Football Club."

https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/do...2.1555135146.1637184699-1358790420.1595486153

Why hasn't this been amended to just be 100 or more Senior Matches Port Magpies Football Club?
I think the AFL wanted to split the SANFL clubs in half and give to Port and crows for that rule. But I agree it should have been 100 games for Port.

That rule may be finished though, I think it’s just 100 AFL games for Port and crows now.
 

RussellEbertHandball

Flick pass expert
Nov 16, 2004
70,030
108,407
SE Oz
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
The Mighty Blacks
Serious question: Port Adelaide Power supporters claim they are a continuation of the Port Adelaide Magpies and not a separate entity (correct me if I am wrong please).

If this is the case why is the Port Father and Son selections:

"(iv) The Port Adelaide Football Club may include a person on its Primary List if that person’s father played 200 or more Senior Matches (being either home and away or finals series matches) at one of the following clubs prior to, but not including, 1997:
(A) Port Magpies Football Club;
(B) Woodville Football Club;
(C) West Torrens Football Club;
(D) North Adelaide Football Club;
(E) Central Districts Football Club; or

(F) West Adelaide Football Club."

https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/do...2.1555135146.1637184699-1358790420.1595486153

Why hasn't this been amended to just be 100 or more Senior Matches Port Magpies Football Club?
Complete fu**.wits running the AFL are to blame for this stupidity.

The 2001 AFL father son rule change basically was a numbers smoothing exercise to allow WCE, Freo and Adelaide some rights to sons of state league champions, plus the politburo at West lakes had split the club in 2, had control of our licence and said they are 2 different clubs and we will line you up with other SANFL clubs because the AFL has done a numbers smoothing exercise so that the;

The average number of players who played 100 games for each of the VFL clubs (inc Sydney and Brisbane Lions) approx = number of players who played 200 SANFL games for the 5 SANFL clubs attached to each of the 2 SA AFL clubs = approx the number of players who have played 150 WAFL games for the 4 WAFL clubs attached to each of the 2 WA clubs.

The SANFL stupidly supplied the wrong information to the AFL, because unlike the WAFL and VFL, they counted the preseason cups / night series cup games in the totals of players whereas as the VFL 100 games and WAFL 150 games were only premiership season games. The SANFL total probably should have been 175 games not 200.

It should be changed but the AFL are too ******* lazy and too ******* stupid to change it. We have not nominated, and probably never will nominate the son of non Port 200 game SANFL player, but there have been plenty of 100-199 game Port SANFL father sons we have had some interest in.
 
Last edited:

Powerade 08

Brownlow Medallist
Mar 10, 2008
12,624
13,110
adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Serious question: Port Adelaide Power supporters claim they are a continuation of the Port Adelaide Magpies and not a separate entity (correct me if I am wrong please).

If this is the case why is the Port Father and Son selections:

"(iv) The Port Adelaide Football Club may include a person on its Primary List if that person’s father played 200 or more Senior Matches (being either home and away or finals series matches) at one of the following clubs prior to, but not including, 1997:
(A) Port Magpies Football Club;
(B) Woodville Football Club;
(C) West Torrens Football Club;
(D) North Adelaide Football Club;
(E) Central Districts Football Club; or

(F) West Adelaide Football Club."

https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/do...2.1555135146.1637184699-1358790420.1595486153

Why hasn't this been amended to just be 100 or more Senior Matches Port Magpies Football Club?
The smoking gun. RIP Ports
 

Grave Danger

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 6, 2000
26,444
48,180
West Perth
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Woomera Centrals, Jazza
I think the AFL wanted to split the SANFL clubs in half and give to Port and crows for that rule. But I agree it should have been 100 games for Port.

That rule may be finished though, I think it’s just 100 AFL games for Port and crows now.

Effectively finished, with the 200 game requirement being SANFL games before 1991 for the Camries and 1997 for us.

James Borlase came close for us, but unfortunately Darryl didn't quite get to 200 before 1997. Darryl was about 35 years old when James was born, so probably the last of the Maggies players to have a kid (almost) eligible under the pre-1997 rule.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad