Port Adelaide's plan to use jumpers similar to Collingwood

[The Burger King]

Port had the fourth highest attendances in its first AFL season.

Division of the club hurt it more and more as each year went by until it was reunited.

 

[ploppy]

It’s like this port are Daryl Kerrigan in the movie the castle fighting for his home (the prison bar Guernsey) against the evil airport (collingwood) …it’s the vibe we are not giving up.

 

[BEEG]

It’s like this port are Daryl Kerrigan in the movie the castle fighting for his home (the prison bar Guernsey) against the evil airport (collingwood) …it’s the vibe we are not giving up.

Did Daryl sign a contract to sell the house and then ask for it back years later?

 

[ploppy]

Did Daryl sign a contract to sell the house and then ask for it back years later?

It’s the vibe man

 

[doppleganger]

It’s like this port are Daryl Kerrigan in the movie the castle fighting for his home (the prison bar Guernsey) against the evil airport (collingwood) …it’s the vibe we are not giving up.

You have it the wrong way around.

Collingwood are the Black n White Magpies in the AFL, that is their identity...their castle.

The Power are a new franchise who are trying to push in on the Pies territory - the evil airport.

They think that contracts, licensing agreements, trademarks shouldn't apply to them. They are already selling merchandise and are now just pushing their agenda to further encroach on Collingwood's black n white heritage....because it is good for their business, just like the evil airport wanted to compulsory acquire land.

It will be the Pies who may have to go to court to tell the airport (port) to GAGF.

 

[El_Scorcho]

I'm not sure you can position yourself as Australia's biggest sporting brand, having the governing body completely on your side in this issue, and then also argue that you're Darryl Kerrigan here.

Port aren't a perfect fit for the metaphor either but The Castle is a David v Goliath story.

 

[Fire]

I'm not sure you can position yourself as Australia's biggest sporting brand, having the governing body completely on your side in this issue, and then also argue that you're Darryl Kerrigan here.

Port aren't a perfect fit for the metaphor either but The Castle is a David v Goliath story.

Yes except this time Goliath is in the right, so the analogy really doesn't fit. Actually no analogy fits because this isn't really a tale worth telling.

 

[jle101]

It’s the vibe man

It's Mabo too.

 

[BEEG]

I guess the question is to the Port defenders in this thread.

If you signed a contract with your employer regarding terms of employment pay etc and they changed or broke that contract how would you feel?

It's as simple as that really.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

I guess the question is to the Port defenders in this thread.

If you signed a contract with your employer regarding terms of employment pay etc and they changed or broke that contract how would you feel?

It's as simple as that really.

Collingwood and all clubs break contracts with their players, coaches and staff on a yearly basis. Why is that ok?

 

[Ray Nolan]

I think you can compromise on that jumper now by including teal in it. Not much, just enough to appease the disgruntled like a 5mm outline on your black stripes. Same jumper but just helping Eddie sleep at night.

Take a good look, there is teal on this guernsey. We have made the compromise, now let us wear it.

 

[Tim Evans Beard]

I guess the question is to the Port defenders in this thread.

If you signed a contract with your employer regarding terms of employment pay etc and they changed or broke that contract how would you feel?

It's as simple as that really.

Considering the Fair Work Act 2009 was amended in 2020 demonstrates condition changes to employment contacts happen all the time.

Most employed people would understand this ...

 

[bomberclifford]

I guess the question is to the Port defenders in this thread.

If you signed a contract with your employer regarding terms of employment pay etc and they changed or broke that contract how would you feel?

It's as simple as that really.

Imagine if you were still being held to an employment contract you signed twenty five years ago. How would you feel?

 

[Enviable Tradition]

I guess the question is to the Port defenders in this thread.

If you signed a contract with your employer regarding terms of employment pay etc and they changed or broke that contract how would you feel?

It's as simple as that really.

If I signed it in bad faith I would probably recognise that I have to accept it is void and pay the consequences.

Collingwood would be like, you know those free lunches we organised for you. You don't get those any more because we don't do lunch any more, it is now called midday break.

 

[royboy2]

If I signed it in bad faith I would probably recognise that I have to accept it is void and pay the consequences.

Collingwood would be like, you know those free lunches we organised for you. You don't get those any more because we don't do lunch any more, it is now called midday break.

Eddie admits as much in the video, he says (paraphrase) I signed it knowing full well there would be no more heritage rounds

 

[sherb]

I guess the question is to the Port defenders in this thread.

If you signed a contract with your employer regarding terms of employment pay etc and they changed or broke that contract how would you feel?

It's as simple as that really.

Your employer must love you, only having to pay you 1997 pay rates.

 

[Bearded Clam]

Eddie admits as much in the video, he says (paraphrase) I signed it knowing full well there would be no more heritage rounds

we’re not talking about the heritage round agreement here though. we are talking about the original and overarching agreement.. the heritage round agreement was a completely seperate agreement that covered nothing more than the heritage round games so its totally and utterly irrelevant.

this has already been pointed out dozens of times already in this thread. do try and keep up..

 

[sherb]

we’re not talking about the heritage round agreement here though. we are talking about the original and overarching agreement.. the heritage round agreement was a completely seperate agreement that covered nothing more than the heritage round games so its totally and utterly irrelevant.

this has already been pointed out dozens of times already in this thread. do try and keep up..

As it has been pointed out that agreements/contracts don't have to be set in stone forever.

They can be varied, rewritten, renegotiated......

 

[Bearded Clam]

If I signed it in bad faith I would probably recognise that I have to accept it is void and pay the consequences.

Collingwood would be like, you know those free lunches we organised for you. You don't get those any more because we don't do lunch any more, it is now called midday break.

but just exactly how was the original agreement between the pies and port power drafted up prior to the power entered the afl in 1997 “signed in bad faith”??...

it simply wasnt. the rules were set out and both clubs agreed to them. now one signature to the agreement want to renege on the deal.

and attempting to compare an agreement like the one made between the pies and power, in which the power agreed never to wear the port adelaide sanfl magpies black and white striped guernsey or sell it, to an individual employment contract is just ludicrous and a completely pointless and stupid arguement.. can pretty much call that ”arguing in bad faith”!...

 

[sherb]

but just exactly how was the original agreement between the pies and port power drafted up prior to the power entered the afl in 1997 “signed in bad faith”??...

it simply wasnt. the rules were set out and both clubs agreed to them. now one signature to the agreement want to renege on the deal.

and attempting to compare an agreement like the one made between the pies and power, in which the power agreed never to wear the port adelaide sanfl magpies black and white striped guernsey or sell it, to an individual employment contract is just ludicrous and a completely pointless and stupid arguement.. can pretty much call that ”arguing in bad faith”!...

No, they want to vary it. Stop being disingenuous.

 

[simba_]

but just exactly how was the original agreement between the pies and port power drafted up prior to the power entered the afl in 1997 “signed in bad faith”??...

it simply wasnt. the rules were set out and both clubs agreed to them. now one signature to the agreement want to renege on the deal.

and attempting to compare an agreement like the one made between the pies and power, in which the power agreed never to wear the port adelaide sanfl magpies black and white striped guernsey or sell it, to an individual employment contract is just ludicrous and a completely pointless and stupid arguement.. can pretty much call that ”arguing in bad faith”!...

not only does this have 1) nothing to do with you, but you 2) don't even care, and 3) have an anti-Port agenda. 0/3

 

[Bearded Clam]

As it has been pointed out that agreements/contracts don't have to be set in stone forever.

They can be varied, rewritten, renegotiated......

yes, if both party‘s agree to renegotiate..

but collingwood dont want to, they are happy to continue on with the current agreement as it stands.
thats their right. and the AFL accepts that and has thus said, sorry port, the original agreement stands.

so that is effectively the end of the conversation.

 

[Bearded Clam]

No, they want to vary it. Stop being disingenuous.

vary, renegotiate, tear up, renege on, rewrite.. who gives a s**t, its all the same..

its not happening and you blabbing on about the semantics of the words being chosen by other posters is whats disingenuous..

 

[simba_]

You have it the wrong way around.

Collingwood are the Black n White Magpies in the AFL, that is their identity...their castle.

why do you think Port Adelaide wearing the prison bars would hurt Collingwoods brand? honestly what makes you fearful of that?

 

[sherb]

yes, if both party‘s agree to renegotiate..

but collingwood dont want to, they are happy to continue on with the current agreement as it stands.
thats their right. and the AFL accepts that and has thus said, sorry port, the original agreement stands.

so that is effectively the end of the conversation.

So Port applied to Collingwood to join the AFL in 1997?

Anyway, you are making it sound like the original agreement is set in stone forever, like some religious document.

It isn't. It can be varied. Stop pretending it can't be.

Of course it takes both parties to agree to any variation - that's common sense.

But one party has the right to seek variation if they so wish. Just because the other party says "no" now doesn't mean they can't stop trying.