Discussion Prison Bars debate

[Heardy_101]

They weren't even going to have an SANFL team in 1997, once they moved into The AFL. The SANFL I believe made some sort of demand for them to form another club for The SANFL, since they owned them.

I think this may have been the case. SANFL were also worried about the loss of revenue from not having a Port Adelaide in the League.

 

[Sam Hall]

And out come the insults. Nice one. You're losing the argument so you've resorted to name calling.

Look up the term Gaslighting, champ.

I've posted the letter from the club which explained the situation and the separation of the two clubs which existed for the Powers first 14 seasons in the AFL. It wasn't until 2010 this position changed and that's a fact. It wasn't wrong between 1997-2010. It may be wrong now in your eyes and that's fine. I'm not going to argue with you about that but it wasn't incorrect information back then and to say otherwise is either lying or ignorance.

I've provided commentary proof from the 1998 SANFL Grand Final which states Port won their 35th Premiership, thus providing further evidence the letter was correct at the time and the Magpies were the team established in 1870 and the Power were the team established in the 90's.

The SANFL Grand Final for 1999 states Port won their 36th Premiership.

Countless SANFL Football budgets that I have from between 2000-2010 state that Port have won 36 premierships. Not 2 for the new club and 34 for the club in the AFL.

You can google countless amounts of Port Power merchandise from between 1997-2010 that will say "Est 1996".

I honestly don't know what more you could want to be honest. The fact is a different club was established in the 90's and the Power decided to re-write history at some point in the 2010's. That's why there's "arbitrary rules" when it comes to Port. If people can't see how that's different to the name of the league being changed or old VFL clubs having VFA premierships then they're just being willfully ignorant.

 

[RossFC]

The SANFL footy budget also recently claimed we started competing in the SANFL in 2014...

And the AFL record says we've got 1 AFL and 36 SANFL premierships.

 

[Heardy_101]

I've posted the letter from the club which explained the situation and the separation of the two clubs which existed for the Powers first 14 seasons in the AFL. It wasn't until 2010 this position changed and that's a fact. It wasn't wrong between 1997-2010. It may be wrong now in your eyes and that's fine. I'm not going to argue with you about that but it wasn't incorrect information back then and to say otherwise is either lying or ignorance.

I've provided commentary proof from the 1998 SANFL Grand Final which states Port won their 35th Premiership, thus providing further evidence the letter was correct at the time and the Magpies were the team established in 1870 and the Power were the team established in the 90's.

The SANFL Grand Final for 1999 states Port won their 36th Premiership.

Countless SANFL Football budgets that I have from between 2000-2010 state that Port have won 36 premierships. Not 2 for the new club and 34 for the club in the AFL.

You can google countless amounts of Port Power merchandise from between 1997-2010 that will say "Est 1996".

I honestly don't know what more you could want to be honest. The fact is a different club was established in the 90's and the Power decided to re-write history at some point in the 2010's. That's why there's "arbitrary rules" when it comes to Port. If people can't see how that's different to the name of the league being changed or old VFL clubs having VFA premierships then they're just being willfully ignorant.

History was never re-written. It was simply corrected.

 

[Gibbsy]

You will all get pretty bored going around in circles continuing with these sort of tired debates. They have been done to death a million times before and I will happily reiterate the point that discussing the minutiae of the history of the PAFC and their premierships/establishment date is not a topic for the Footy Jumpers board.

This thread, if we can, is simply to discuss the use of the prison bars guernsey in the AFL.

If we can't, I will simply close it up.

 

[Andy_B]

For specifically Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club it was, which was a different club with different facilities and a different home ground. In fact, Port Adelaide Football Club were actually going to move into The AFL and have no SANFL team, but something happened where a new Magpies club was formed in The SANFL. Like I said, they've since merged with Port Adelaide Football Club in 2010.

Why are you deflecting? I guess I must be right that you've set arbitrary rules for Port's establishment, but you don't apply the very same rules for Melbourne, Geelong, Carlton, etc who did the very exact same thing as Port did. The fact you came out with 1996 which has no "first milestone" significance for Port proves you don't know what you're talking about, since The Power branding came out in 1995, and 1994 was when they got their AFL license.

I think this may have been the case. SANFL were also worried about the loss of revenue from not having a Port Adelaide in the League.

It was a condition from the SANFL to let us have the 2nd AFL sub licence in 1994 (they offically held both our and the crows AFL licenses, until the 2010's)

rumour has it clubs like Sturt and Norwood were worried about us leaving as it could result in them losing one of their larger drawing home games.

so a replacement team was formed. Port Adelaide Magipes FC PTY LTD to replace Port Adelaide FC PTY LTD

they had to play at alberton, had to wear the bars. but couldnt be admined by us or live at alberton so their HQ was at Ethelton.

Quote "we couldnt even be seen taking a piss at the same urinal" - Greg bolton former President PAFC

The PAMFC bought an SANFL licence in 1996 for $1 millon and the prince of Wales hotel.

But all of that really doenst matter post the one club merger in 2010

 

[BigChippa52]

Judging by your Rey Skywalker profile picture I imagine you’re about 12 years old. Even if you’re not the chances you weren’t even alive beteeen 1996-2010 are significantly high so you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.

Go on Port Adelaide SANFL Facebook groups. Go to their games. Ask people how they feel about the Power and I guarantee you’ll find a lot of people who feel as though their club was stolen from them and that the two aren’t one in the same.

Anyone who’s not a Power fan and see it’s stolen history.

exacltly like MKDons and Wimbledon FC, port moved to the AFL removing any links to the port magpies, a new port magpies joined the league to take over from them they deserve to have claim to the sanfl premierships I'd say they are that team, the power doesn't there are more like a team that rebranded and removed their sanfl history like MKDons did after changing their name the removed all Wimbledon links, the power and MKDons don't deserve to be called the same team

 

[rabbitoh21]

I've posted the letter from the club which explained the situation and the separation of the two clubs which existed for the Powers first 14 seasons in the AFL. It wasn't until 2010 this position changed and that's a fact. It wasn't wrong between 1997-2010. It may be wrong now in your eyes and that's fine. I'm not going to argue with you about that but it wasn't incorrect information back then and to say otherwise is either lying or ignorance.

I've provided commentary proof from the 1998 SANFL Grand Final which states Port won their 35th Premiership, thus providing further evidence the letter was correct at the time and the Magpies were the team established in 1870 and the Power were the team established in the 90's.

The SANFL Grand Final for 1999 states Port won their 36th Premiership.

Countless SANFL Football budgets that I have from between 2000-2010 state that Port have won 36 premierships. Not 2 for the new club and 34 for the club in the AFL.

You can google countless amounts of Port Power merchandise from between 1997-2010 that will say "Est 1996".

I honestly don't know what more you could want to be honest. The fact is a different club was established in the 90's and the Power decided to re-write history at some point in the 2010's. That's why there's "arbitrary rules" when it comes to Port. If people can't see how that's different to the name of the league being changed or old VFL clubs having VFA premierships then they're just being willfully ignorant.

The idea of "spinning off" a business or association is nothing new when undertaking new ventures.

PAFC, as a club in whatever legal entity form (as many clubs, businesses and other groups around Australia have done, moving from public to private ownership or vice versa, or changed in structure or whatever), participated in the SANFL for over a century and then bid for and were given an AFL licence and moved to that league in 1997 (established 1996 is also a bit of a misnomer as a quick search reveals the "AFL" company was established in 1995).

As part of their move to the AFL, a SANFL club, PAMFC, was spun off of PAFC to continue their presence in the SANFL but without the extra resources, assets or finances that having an AFL club attached would bring, to satisfy other requirements. For all intents and purposes, PAMFC continued to represent PAFC in the SANFL but were legally and financially separate to satisfy these conditions and inherited PAFC's achievements and records as they pertained to the SANFL.

PAFC itself may have changed their structure in the same way, for example, South Sydney (my NRL club) moved from a publicly-owned company "limited by shares" to a privately-owned company owned 75% by Blackcourt League Investments Pty Limited and 25% by a membership company. The clubs, like the AFL from the VFL, are simply continuations of the same association, business or club with a new legal structure.

If I, as a sole trader with just an ABN, turn around tomorrow and decide to launch a Pty Ltd, funnily enough, I don't turn 1 next year.

Port "Power" in the AFL were a new "AFL" club but not a new "football" club. They simply moved their principal football venture to the AFL competition, with a new spun-off club taking over their former SANFL venture.

Again, this is nothing new in business or sport. Not that it has anything to do with guernseys...

 

[Gibbsy]

Seriously guys, what did that take? Three minutes? I appreciate the first reply might have been crafted while I was typing my own response, but we have to let this one go.

 

[caloschwaby]

There are a lot of issues to consider in this debate that aren't just football related, since these clubs are also businesses and corporations.

First of all, personally I believe Port, like any AFL club, or any other elite sporting club in Australia, should have the right to choose whatever guernsey/jersey/uniform they wear. However, I also believe that no elite sporting club in Australia should be able to "steal" or "copy" the identity of another.

To most people who follow sport, we can easily tell the difference between Collingwood's traditional vertical stripes and Port's traditional vertical stripes. While they are both white on a black background and despite Collingwood having traditionally worn black stripes on white, both guernseys, from a sporting perspective, are distinct enough to tell the 2 apart in isolation.

However, if push came to shove and the issue were to be pursued legally, there is always the "reasonable person" that needs to be considered. This, ultimately, would be the person(s) who would need to be convinced that the guernseys and overall identities are not too similar.

There is the concept of "get-up" or "trade dress" (protecting businesses from competitors trying to "pass-off" their own products) in law, which considers the overall appearance of a product, not just the "details" of the design. We have seen this before with Kraft and Bega when Bega acquired the license from Kraft's Australian business, while a new company who licensed the Kraft brand separately was denied the right to the former Kraft's "get-up". There was also Cadbury's failed bid against Darrell Lea to prevent Darrell Lea (and probably by extension anyone else) from using purple for their chocolate products.

These cases revolved around two main questions: a) was there a distinct look-and-feel to the product exclusive to its owner and b) was that established look-and-feel infringed by the other.

What will complicate this issue, not just legally but within the "realm" of the Australian Football League, is the murky nature of determining the scope of consideration.

To understand things, we need to look at facts:

• Collingwood FC were formed in 1892, were foundation members of the VFL (of which the AFL is a direct successor and intrinsically linked to) and have exclusively worn a black and white vertically-striped guernsey as its primary choice (and been known as the Magpies) since the first VFL season.
• Port Adelaide FC were formed in 1870, were foundation members of the SANFL (then known as the SAFA) and joined the AFL in 1997, and had exclusively worn black and white vertically-striped guernseys (of several designs) as its primary choice (and been known as the Magpies) since 1902, wearing the "prison bar" design exclusively, in one form or another, for the periods of 1902-1922, 1928-1940 and 1953 until their AFL entry in 1997.
• The AFL itself was formed in 1897 as the VFL and was originally exclusively contested by Victorian clubs and began expanding out of the state in 1982 (when SMFC moved to Sydney, NSW), before aggressively expanding nationally between 1987 and 1997 (the year in which PAFC joined the AFL).
• The PAFC AFL entity is the same organisation that was founded in 1870, competed in the SANFL for over a century and then were admitted to the AFL in 1997.
• The Collingwood AFL entity is the same organisation that was founded in 1892.
• The AFL itself is the same organisation (or direct successor of such organisation) that was formed in 1897 and of which Collingwood was a foundation member.
• A separate PAFC entity, the Port Adelaide Magpies FC, was created upon PAFC's AFL entry and competed in the SANFL, and was legally separate from the PAFC's AFL entity until late-2010 (when PAMFC was merged into PAFC). PAMFC, while assuming the former identity, branding and guernseys of PAFC (from their SANFL years) must be considered distinct from the PAFC proper.
• The AFL, within reason and Australian law, has the right to set terms of entry into its competition (including the right to require a new club to avoid being too close to an existing club in identity, location, branding, etc.)
• From 2007-2027, the AFL owns the trademark for a black and white vertically-striped guernsey with the AFL logo on the right breast.
• The AFL also owns trademarks for most club branding and designs and has the right to license these as it sees fit.
• The SANFL, nor any league excluding the VFL, is not considered as part of the lineage of the AFL.

There are further issues to consider, but these may not be factual (and therefore these are just my opinion):

• The "Prison Bar" design, worn by PAFC and PAMFC in the SANFL, is geometrically and visually distinct from the vertically-striped design worn by Collingwood.
• The black and white colours worn by both clubs are visually similar (if not identical).
• Both clubs have at various points worn designs, guernseys and colours that are geometrically and/or visually similar to each other's own (including designs previously worn by the other club and those worn at the same time). However, at these times, the clubs were in different competitions at a time when exposure to both clubs at the time was either limited or unlikely.
• There is no allegation, previous to the AFL entry of PAFC, that either club infringed the other's rights to the guernsey designs or colours.
• PAFC was allegedly required to forfeit its right to wear black and white guernseys (including the Prison Bar design) and use of the Magpies nickname/mascot in the AFL due to its similarity to Collingwood.
• Collingwood has allegedly, on some occasions, allowed PAFC to wear the Prison Bar guernsey and, on other occasions, denied such use.
• The AFL allegedly has the right to allow or deny any club use of any guernsey, logo, etc., with or without reason.
• Collingwood's "inversion" of colours in 2001 was a minor change to the design of the guernsey (from the front viewpoint especially) and in itself did not infringe on PAFC or any other club's designs and, further, was still visually distinct from all other club's guernseys.
• Further to the above, Collingwood's "inversion" of colours did not affect it's "traditional" use of black and white vertically-striped guernseys, nor did it disqualify the need to distinguish Collingwood from PAFC.
• While a number of teams within the AFL have similar colours (such as Collingwood's black and Carlton's navy, Melbourne's navy and red and Essendon's black and red, etc.), their designs are generally different enough as currently worn to be visually distinct from one another.
• Often, even when colours are nearly identical (such as Geelong and Carlton both being navy and white, or Adelaide, Brisbane/Fitzroy and GC Suns wearing navy, red/maroon and gold), their designs are generally distinct enough to differentiate them.
• Prison bar designs are, essentially, a vertically-striped design with the addition of a truncating bar at the top.
• Where teams share the same design (such as Collingwood, Hawthorn and North Melbourne, or Essendon and Richmond), the colours are significantly different to one another.
• There are a finite number of guernsey designs that have been worn at elite level - the main differentiator between clubs has traditionally been colours or the addition of other elements.
• As the league expands over time, there is likely to be more similarities between teams which will need to be avoided, particularly if the league admits any other pre-existing teams.
• For the majority of its history, the V/AFL has no precedent of 2 teams sharing both the same colours and guernsey design, nor nickname/mascot.
• Requiring clubs to adopt new colours (in addition to or in lieu of their traditional ones) is an established practice in Australian sport when clubs are admitted to a new or higher league (Penrith and Cronulla in the NSWRFL, the Dolphins in the NRL, for example).
• Unlike the NRL (formed in 1998 by the creation of the ARL-News co-owned NRL Partnership), for example, the VFL simply became the AFL by re-branding and, therefore, the AFL is a continuation of the VFL, rather than a distinct "national" league created for such purpose.
• When guernseys and other merchandise is presented at retail, club logos and designs may be obscured, leaving club colours as the primary differentiator for buyers.

Having considered the above, these are my opinions on the debate:

• Despite being established before Collingwood, PAFC's history in the AFL itself only dates back to 1997, while Collingwood's began a century-prior.
• Based on the above, Collingwood had an incumbent "right" to black and white vertically-striped guernseys in the AFL which, until PAFC's admission, had previously been unchallenged.
• In consideration of Collingwood's long-standing place in the AFL prior to the admission of PAFC, there should have been an amount of "protection" for Collingwood's identity upon the entry of PAFC, including exclusivity to the Magpies name and at least some element of their existing "trade dress". The terms and duration of this protection is unknown but assumed to be in perpetuity as it stands.
• Further to the above, the AFL had assumed trademarks and licensing rights to club's identities and were, essentially, in control of these elements at the time of (and decades prior to) PAFC's admission to the AFL.
• Having co-existed as separate, distinct entities in the AFL for over 25 years, the need for "protection" is lessened over time as both clubs have had plenty of time to distinguish themselves from each other and other clubs, and both clubs will continue to have those opportunities.
• In the time between the AFL's expansion of the 1980s-1990s and the current, the AFL has assumed the role of the national league, rather than an expanded Victorian league. Having assumed a monopoly of elite football, the AFL should also begin to recognise the non-Victorian history of Australian football and its clubs from the other "top" leagues around the country (pre-AFL).
• While the Magpie mascot and nickname should remain solely at Collingwood's discretion in the AFL (given their tenure in the V/AFL), there is likely scope, based on a common-sense "time and place" approach, for PAFC to be allowed more use of the Prison Bars and black-and-white colours should they want to, whilst not infringing upon Collingwood's long-standing use of the black and white colours, black and white vertically-striped guernseys.

My "time and place" approach suggestion:

• The black and white "Prison Bars" guernsey will become exclusive for PAFC (i.e. Collingwood can't nick it).
• The Prison Bars may be worn only for home games in SA (or, at least, anywhere but VIC), or for home finals or Grand Finals where PAFC is the designated home team (having "earnt the right" to wear it).
• The Prison Bars may not be worn against Collingwood, except in the case of a Grand Final where PAFC is the designated home team (see above) against them.
• The Prison Bars guernsey must be geometrically and visually distinct from a typical Collingwood guernsey and should feature a clear PAFC badge (to avoid as much potential "confusion" as possible).
• PAFC should be discouraged from wearing an inverted Prison Bars guernsey which would similarly conflict with Collingwood's "traditional" black vertical stripes on white guernsey.
• PAFC merchandise and branding will still feature teal and/or silver, with Collingwood still having the exclusive right to use black and white only.
• Away, clash and other non-Prison Bars guernseys should still feature teal and/or silver.
• There is also potential of the Prison Bars guernsey only being available from the club's own retail channels and not general channels, to help prevent "confusion".

tl;dr: Collingwood should have been protected back in 1997, should still have some protection now but PAFC should also be able to wear the PBs more often.

Appreciate the time taken for this very well-balanced post. Almost convinced you just got ChatGPT to spit it out haha

Recognising that there are a fair number of stakeholders in this issue and each one has competing challenges and solutions to bring to the table. Obviously quite an emotive topic to discuss what is essentially coloured pyjamas worn while kicking a piece of leather, but we care because we love our clubs and we love football.

I think you did a fair job of addressing why Collingwood's general interest in this area is not completely unreasonable as its made out to be, but at the same time no where near as unreconcilable as this debate makes it seem sometimes.

The extra chatter generated from this after someone posts a teal-coloured yoke version of the Prison Bars as a solution for the club wanting to return to the Prison Bars full-time, that means every single match of the AFL season including at home vs Collingwood, barring clash issues away vs any other clubs. This is a genuine solution and "compromise" because there really is no realistic path forward for a full return to the traditional PBs as they are in this capacity for reasons outlined in above post. Collingwood doesn't pursue this just to take the piss out of Port otherwise the bars would be back as soon as Eddie walked out the door.

I also don't think its unreasonable for the AFL community to be shocked Port are so focused on this endeavour of casting the brand they made for themselves into the gutter presumably in a way to shed from the recent history associated with Teal/Port Power for the last decade or so under Hinkley or since 2008+ a period which has had many highs, but contain some of Port's lowest lows. Forgive me for getting a little meta here (and this is of course very open to Port fans to share your side of this), but from an outside perspective it really does look like they want to get as far away as possible from their identity and just have their eyes locked on the past, and though who can blame the supporter-base for looking fondly for the kit that made them the football power they are today, I can't help but feel that mindset has evaded their ability to look toward the future with certain administrative decisions regarding certain individuals at the club. If it exists at this level I would also not be surprised if this plays into the future planning of the Port Adelaide brand.

Aside from the more legal/analytical angle of this, my main issue has always been from an aesthetic standpoint which has obviously been done to death on a board dedicated to really just that. That's just my personal opinion but its also reinforced every anecdote of the layman thinking Port playing in PBs = Collingwood (as recently as last week while playing AFL Live).

Anyway genuinely not sure what more I can even say on this topic in its entirety without going over something I've said before but more of an open-ended post to hopefully move it away from the PAFC vs PAMFC shitfight direction.

 

[rabbitoh21]

Appreciate the time taken for this very well-balanced post. Almost convinced you just got ChatGPT to spit it out haha

Nope, just ASD

I also don't think its unreasonable for the AFL community to be shocked Port are so focused on this endeavour of casting the brand they made for themselves into the gutter presumably in a way to shed from the recent history associated with Teal/Port Power for the last decade or so under Hinkley or since 2008+ a period which has had many highs, but contain some of Port's lowest lows. Forgive me for getting a little meta here (and this is of course very open to Port fans to share your side of this), but from an outside perspective it really does look like they want to get as far away as possible from their identity and just have their eyes locked on the past, and though who can blame the supporter-base for looking fondly for the kit that made them the football power they are today, I can't help but feel that mindset has evaded their ability to look toward the future with certain administrative decisions regarding certain individuals at the club. If it exists at this level I would also not be surprised if this plays into the future planning of the Port Adelaide brand.

I think the biggest thing is that time has changed. Part of why I wrote the post is because after all this time it's still an issue that's brought up. In a way, many people think Collingwood has some divine right to determine what Port can and can't wear - whether this is the situation is both debatable and somewhat probable.

There will always be people who sit in the "absolutely" and then the others who sit in the "absolutely not" camps. This doesn't achieve anything because the issue will always remain unresolved.

What needs to happen, with guernseys and with life in general, is people coming together to work out solutions that are amenable to not just one side or the other, but to all.

Football without history, regardless of code, is just blokes running around chasing a misshapen leather egg. It's only with context that it means something, whether it's the blokes at your local park on the weekend playing for their club or the big names chasing millions of dollars.

If you take away history, you get the BBL. Sure, it's exciting while its on and winning is always nice, but I don't think you'll see grown men cry when they chase down 130 in 18 overs.

Like national flags, football guernseys are the fabric of identity, not just a fabric. They are a visual shibboleth in a very tribal atmosphere. They are worth much more than the sum of their parts. That's why I believe both clubs have claim to their side of the story - but, at the same time, a resolution and "way forward" is needed.

We all want to watch the games, whatever code we're discussing. Port could run out in orange this season and Port fans would still support them. That doesn't mean they should.

Look at what this forum has achieved in the past with returning the wings and getting classic guernseys back into the mainstream in one way or another. It makes sport so much richer when people have that sense of nostalgia, those "I remember when" moments. Guernseys are just one of many ways to achieve that and I think historical guernseys like the PBs elicit some of the most visceral responses of any.

It's been 25 years - I think we've reached the tipping point, for the most part, of people distinguishing the current AFL Magpies from the previous SANFL ones. Back in 1997, maybe not. Legitimising Port's "claim" to the nickname could have been disasterous back then for Collingwood. Now, when the Pies are one of (if not) the biggest sports brands in this country, not so much the case.

"Controversial" issues don't get solved in five minutes - this doesn't mean you never deal with them, this means you have to constantly re-evaluate the situation and keep chipping away at it until you can say "remember how dumb it was that...".

 

[Nickimus Rex]

I suggest again - Battle of the Bars

Every Collingwood v Port game a team wears their traditional kit and the other wears a completely different and distinct kit. Whomever wins that game reserves the right to wear their 'bars in the next Pies v Pies game. And so on, creating a Pie-valry as it were.

As an idea for the Pies, they could wear an all-white Swoopy boi, and Port could wear a Teal SBS kit (as their alternates)

 

[Heardy_101]

exacltly like MKDons and Wimbledon FC, port moved to the AFL removing any links to the port magpies, a new port magpies joined the league to take over from them they deserve to have claim to the sanfl premierships I'd say they are that team, the power doesn't there are more like a team that rebranded and removed their sanfl history like MKDons did after changing their name the removed all Wimbledon links, the power and MKDons don't deserve to be called the same team

Dude, just stop.

 

[BigChippa52]

Dude, just stop.

I honestly can't be bothered with this anymore, The Power doesn't have any right to claim the magpies history, I am going back to what I do best, making jersey designs, you can't handle being wrong

 

[Heardy_101]

I honestly can't be bothered with this anymore, The Power doesn't have any right to claim the magpies history, I am going back to what I do best, making jersey designs, you can't handle being wrong

Actually, we do. It doesn't matter if we're the Power or Port Adelaide, we're the same club from 1870. Just because we changed our name and changed competitions doesn't mean history gets changed or rewritten or we forfeit it.

This isn't like America where their NFL or NBA clubs move cities and act like they own the heritage of a club that's no longer there.

As for "You can't handle being wrong", says the one who's running away. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Your confusing opinion with fact; it's your OPINION that Port can't do this and Port can't do that and your using that as Gospel and claiming it as fact, even though your the one who's actually incorrect on this matter.

You're the one (like that Sam Hall campaigner) who can't handle being wrong!

Good day to you, sir.

 

[jakson68]

Whilst I didn't really understand why Port Power supporters held their 36 premierships in a 2nd rate competition in such high regard, since moving to Adelaide, I now understand it.

They have the biggest "little man syndrome" I have ever seen.
They long to be relevant and match it with the big boys.

Back in their fruitful times in the SANFL, they mattered.
They were basically the SA, smaller version of Collingwood.

Port and their PB were a big part of little SA, Collingwood and their Black and White Stripes are known everywhere and their popularity is a big reason for high profile sponsorship opportunities.

This being the case, I can understand why Collingwood would like to protect their brand and why Port would like a piece of it.

My humble opinion is that Port wear the PB's for home Showdowns only.

Port supporters will want more but up until I moved here, I wouldn't have even given them that.

 

[ibd77]

Came here for the bars, gone out with lecture from other club fans about my own club. Sheesh.

 

[Zoops]

You will all get pretty bored going around in circles continuing with these sort of tired debates. They have been done to death a million times before and I will happily reiterate the point that discussing the minutiae of the history of the PAFC and their premierships/establishment date is not a topic for the Footy Jumpers board.

This thread, if we can, is simply to discuss the use of the prison bars guernsey in the AFL.

If we can't, I will simply close it up.

 

[Freight Train]

Last warning on this thread.

Keep it civil, or I will start dishing out warnings and close up the thread.

 

[Heardy_101]

Whilst I didn't really understand why Port Power supporters held their 36 premierships in a 2nd rate competition in such high regard, since moving to Adelaide, I now understand it.

They have the biggest "little man syndrome" I have ever seen.
They long to be relevant and match it with the big boys.

Back in their fruitful times in the SANFL, they mattered.
They were basically the SA, smaller version of Collingwood.

Port and their PB were a big part of little SA, Collingwood and their Black and White Stripes are known everywhere and their popularity is a big reason for high profile sponsorship opportunities.

This being the case, I can understand why Collingwood would like to protect their brand and why Port would like a piece of it.

My humble opinion is that Port wear the PB's for home Showdowns only.

Port supporters will want more but up until I moved here, I wouldn't have even given them that.

Lol it has nothing to do with Port wanting a "piece of Collingwood's brand"

 

[Heardy_101]

Came here for the bars, gone out with lecture from other club fans about my own club. Sheesh.

Basically

They're saying because Port left the SANFL and joined the AFL, we're a new club with no right to claim anything pre-1997.

Imagine if we argued the same for the VFL clubs in 1897, 1908, 1925 and the South becoming Sydney in the 1980s.

 

[ibd77]

Basically

They're saying because Port left the SANFL and joined the AFL, we're a new club with no right to claim anything pre-1997.

Imagine if we argued the same for the VFL clubs in 1897, 1908, 1925 and the South becoming Sydney in the 1980s.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know the full Big Footy story. Just go to the main board for that nonsense. Bay 13 is more intelligent on the discussion even with its piss taking.

 

[seaforthswan]

Nope, just ASD

I think the biggest thing is that time has changed. Part of why I wrote the post is because after all this time it's still an issue that's brought up. In a way, many people think Collingwood has some divine right to determine what Port can and can't wear - whether this is the situation is both debatable and somewhat probable.

There will always be people who sit in the "absolutely" and then the others who sit in the "absolutely not" camps. This doesn't achieve anything because the issue will always remain unresolved.

What needs to happen, with guernseys and with life in general, is people coming together to work out solutions that are amenable to not just one side or the other, but to all.

Football without history, regardless of code, is just blokes running around chasing a misshapen leather egg. It's only with context that it means something, whether it's the blokes at your local park on the weekend playing for their club or the big names chasing millions of dollars.

If you take away history, you get the BBL. Sure, it's exciting while its on and winning is always nice, but I don't think you'll see grown men cry when they chase down 130 in 18 overs.

Like national flags, football guernseys are the fabric of identity, not just a fabric. They are a visual shibboleth in a very tribal atmosphere. They are worth much more than the sum of their parts. That's why I believe both clubs have claim to their side of the story - but, at the same time, a resolution and "way forward" is needed.

We all want to watch the games, whatever code we're discussing. Port could run out in orange this season and Port fans would still support them. That doesn't mean they should.

Look at what this forum has achieved in the past with returning the wings and getting classic guernseys back into the mainstream in one way or another. It makes sport so much richer when people have that sense of nostalgia, those "I remember when" moments. Guernseys are just one of many ways to achieve that and I think historical guernseys like the PBs elicit some of the most visceral responses of any.

It's been 25 years - I think we've reached the tipping point, for the most part, of people distinguishing the current AFL Magpies from the previous SANFL ones. Back in 1997, maybe not. Legitimising Port's "claim" to the nickname could have been disasterous back then for Collingwood. Now, when the Pies are one of (if not) the biggest sports brands in this country, not so much the case.

"Controversial" issues don't get solved in five minutes - this doesn't mean you never deal with them, this means you have to constantly re-evaluate the situation and keep chipping away at it until you can say "remember how dumb it was that...".

Nup Im suss now too. ChatGPT hundred percent. This guy is too good

 

[parano1a]

Whomever wins that game reserves the right to wear their 'bars in the next Pies v Pies game.

The only "Pies v Pies" game is a Collingwood intraclub. Port are the "Power" and teal is their core brand differentiator from a marketing perspective. Yes, they should be able to wear the prison bars for heritage rounds and limited special occasions, but those push for its full time reinstatement as a home jumper are living in la-la-land. Port Adelaide FC's main focus should be winning a Preliminary Final yet the club administration gets caught up with this jumper debate year after year. Ken Hinkley probably loves the topic coming up in the media as it provides a distraction from his sub-par coaching performance.

 

[From The Pocket]

The only "Pies v Pies" game is a Collingwood intraclub.

Probably because Port Magpies were/are a whole lot more likely to get shortened to Maggies than Pies.