Tattoos Not For Afl To Decide!!!!

[dunstall19]

WHAT A SCAM - THE AFL HAS NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER TO JUDGE A PLAYERS TATOOS OR A CLUBS!! WHAT A BUNCH OF DICKHEADS!! IF A CLUB DOES SUCH A DEAL GOOD ON IT, ITS PART OF A SPONSORSHIP DEAL WORTH ********EN 100 000. THE HAWKS HAVE DONE EVERYTHING FOR THE AFL INCLUDING GIVING UP THEIR CONTRACT ON WAVERLEY AND GET ANOTHER KICK IN THE HEAD FROM THE AFL WHEN IT IS LEADING THE RACE FOR SPONSORSHIP DOLLARS.
ITS A ********EN BRILLIANT PLAN AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO HAPPEN EVERY GAME INCLUDING FINALS!!

THE CLUB SHOULD NOT HAVE EVEN DISCUSSED IT WITH THE AFL AS IT HAS JACK SAY IN THE MATTER. WHY SHOULD THEY OF???

CRAWFORD DID SAY IT WAS THE PLAYERS WHO REJECTED THE IDEA (ON THE FOOTY SHOW)BUT IVE READ DIFFERENTLY AND IT MAKES MORE SENSE.

 

[CyberKev]

Agree wholeheartedly!

The AFL has already set the precedent (on several occasions) for innovative one-off sponsorship events and I don't see why this one should have been knocked back. I can (sort of) understand knock-backs when the deal involves rivals to the AFL's major sponsors, but this wasn't a problem here. Apparently the placement of fake stickers on your bicep is decidedly more aborhent than wearing gaudy orange or light blue jumpers! I await the kerfuffle that awaits the AFL when they grant the next off-beat scheme to the next innovative club! We're talking about $100,000 for 2.5 hours of minimal product placement here you stuffshirt clowns!!!!

Would they have knocked it back for cash strapped battlers like North or Geelong?

Kevin

 

[WCE2000]

god the AFL can be stupid sometimes.

As CyberKev (i think i've seen that name somewhere else) allready mentioned, how is having a sticker on a player's arm worse than wearing an oragne/light blue guernsey.

That money could have reallly done something for Geelong and the Roos.

 

[CJH]

Originally posted by CyberKev


...

Would they have knocked it back for cash strapped battlers like North or Geelong?

Kevin

I believe they refused to publish Garry Hocking's name as 'Whiska's' when he changed it by deed poll a few years back.

I wonder if they were actually legally entitled to do so.

 

[dunstall19]

IT SHOULDNT BE THE AFLS PEROGATIVE!! WHY SHOULD THEY HAVE TO APPROVE IT. I CAN SEE WHY THE JUMPER CHANGES MAY NEED TO BE CHECKED WITH AFL HEADQUARTERS BUT THIS IS EVEN LESS EXTRAORDINARY. THEY CAN MAKE MONEY FROM EVERYTHING- SPONSORS/CH 7/ADVERTISING, THEY DONT MISS ANY TRICKS BUT THEN REFUSE A CLUBS DEAL- WTF!!!!

 

[mantis]

Can someone please fill me in on what this about, the Footy Show was so boring last night I fell asleep & missed most of it.
What are the tattoos that the sponsors want the Hawks to wear, are the AFL logo for the Hawks? If they are then the AFL owns the rights to that logo & can say where & when it can be used, maybe they want royalties for allowing the sponsors to use the logo on a sticker. I have a Bombers tattoo & I have been told, I am legally in breach of using a registered AFL logo without permission, naughty me.
If it isn't the AFL logo what is it, because I would like to know how stupid the AFL is being again.

 

[CyberKev]

Mantis,

That was a very reasoned and respectful post, so I can only assume that you're an Essendon supporter who doesn't hail from that debaucherous essendonfc.com.au site

The tattoos were of one of Hawthorn's main sponsors 'Crazy Johns' and not of the AFL logo in any shape or form. Another example of the almighty AFL playing Napoleon and treating its clubs like schoolkids!

So how much are you blokes going to beat us by tomorrow? According to the class acts on your club site the average margin is about 10-12 goals.

Hmmm... I'll just be glad to get the game over with.

Cheers,
Kevin

 

[mantis]

cyber kev
Thanks for that info, so the AFL are just being morons again, figures.

I am not sure about tomorrows outcome, I have tipped us & naturally hoping for a win, but 10-12 goals, you have to realise that a lot of the fans on the official site are only young, so you have to take what they say with a pinch of salt.
I would wish you goodluck for tomorrow, but that would be insincere.

 

[Chris_23]

hahaha at least you are honest mantis, the feeling is mutual

 

[CyberKev]

Mantis,

Cheers, Old Son. I don't want opposition supporters wishing us luck and I expect supporters to be passionate about their club, but over the top abuse toward -- and disrespect of -- opposition clubs is poor form for mine. I suppose you're right about the age of most of the participants and I hope that these types stay with the club and ride with it when the inevitable downturn comes.

You're probably thinking that I'm a crotchety old tosser, and you may be right, but I like my football with a touch of grace. I'm only glad I showed some when I was a teenager and Hawthorn was the number one club in the land. Of course, that may have been more to do with my realistic (translation: pessimistic) attitude toward things... After 1983 I always expected that the ride would end tomorrow and it eventually did, of course, just a little later than expected.

Premierships are delightful things, but I'll happily make do with the adrenaline that flows from the week-to-week highs & lows. Still, its nice to be back to 'match of the round' status...

Regards,
Kevin

 

[Same Old's]

It's good that the AFL stopped it. I'm sick of sponsors logo's adorning everything.

 

[Port01]

The line has to be drawn somewhere.

Hawthorn couldn't do it without asking the AFL because the AFL owns the broadcast rights, you can't advertise on that without permission.

Why it was refused I dont know, but you have to admit it's kinda screwed up wearing fake tattoos to advertise stuff in a football game (similarly carlton and north were screwed up changing their jumpers, but thats life).

Probably Carlton and North were allowed because the AFL got a kickback selling limited edition geurnseys or something.

MAybe we can get Essendon players a one off sponsorship to run around with TARGET tattoed on their forehead.

 

[CyberKev]

PORT01 wrote:

The line has to be drawn somewhere.

Perhaps, but it would be nice to know where that line was! In fact, it would be nice to know for sure that there was a line. The links between sport and commercialism at the elite level were inextricably forged years ago and it seems silly to be getting picky about these sort of things now.

I could give a fat cat's ginger about the aesthetic nature of some of these initiatives! For mine, the most important thing is that clubs are getting nice deals for themselves to help ensure their financial viability. If that means that players have to wear dodgy jumpers or sport gaudy tattoos every once in awhile then so be it. If the AFL wants to push its clubs to seek out strong external financial avenues then it needs to show greater commonsense and flexibility to suggestions like this.

Lawd Gawd, its not as if the AFL has set a precedent in reserving its trademark for highbrow products of the highest integrity!

Anyhow, that's what I reckon,
Kevin

 

[mantis]

Well, well, well, it seems it was the Hawks players that stopped this deal going through & not the AFL.
Dermie said on the game tonight, that all the players wanted to be paid for wearing the stickers & that is why deal was stopped, guess if that is the case, Hawks supporters better start putting the blame where it belongs & stop blaming others.

 

[Blues_Brat]

It came from Shane Crawfords mouth: The players vetoed it.

And fair enough too. I beleive the players should be paid some money for doing that because the advertising was on their actual bodies. It'd be different if it was on the guernseys.

Dunstal19, stop talking utter crap, why blame the AFL on this one? Or are you calling Shane Crawford a liar? Just proving how stupid you are once again by starting a bull******** story. AND TURN YOUR FREAKING CAPS LOCK OFF!!!!

 

[mantis]

Originally posted by CyberKev
Mantis,

So how much are you blokes going to beat us by tomorrow? According to the class acts on your club site the average margin is about 10-12 goals.

Hmmm... I'll just be glad to get the game over with.

Cheers,
Kevin

It appears the class acts on the club site were better judges than us.

 

[CyberKev]

Mantis wrote:

It appears the class acts on the club site were better judges than us.

So it would seem... Arrogance and foresight are not always mutually exclusive concepts

Beaten by a bunch of teenagers, I guess I can safely say that I've officially bottomed out.

Kevin

 

[dunstall19]

Originally posted by Blues_Brat
It came from Shane Crawfords mouth: The players vetoed it.

And fair enough too. I beleive the players should be paid some money for doing that because the advertising was on their actual bodies. It'd be different if it was on the guernseys.

Dunstal19, stop talking utter crap, why blame the AFL on this one? Or are you calling Shane Crawford a liar? Just proving how stupid you are once again by starting a bull******** story. AND TURN YOUR FREAKING CAPS LOCK OFF!!!!

SHUT UP YOU IDIOT. I MENTIONED WHAT CRAWFORD SAID BUT DONT ACCEPT IT AND IT IS IRRELEVENT YOU CARLTON CRUD. THE AFL DIDNT ALLOW IT ANYWAY AS IVE READ IN 3-4 DIFF ARTICLES.

GO BACK TO YOUR CARLSLUM HUNTING GROUNDS - YOUR SCUM.


#19 DIEGO BATA SUKER CANIGGIA VIERI BERGKAMP

 

[Blues_Brat]

Originally posted by dunstall,19


SHUT UP YOU IDIOT. I MENTIONED WHAT CRAWFORD SAID BUT DONT ACCEPT IT AND IT IS IRRELEVENT YOU CARLTON CRUD. THE AFL DIDNT ALLOW IT ANYWAY AS IVE READ IN 3-4 DIFF ARTICLES.

GO BACK TO YOUR CARLSLUM HUNTING GROUNDS - YOUR SCUM.


#19 DIEGO BATA SUKER CANIGGIA VIERI BERGKAMP

I dont follow Carlton you idiot!

There is more than one team in Australia called "the Blues"

And piss off with that stupid caps lock!

 

[GOALden Hawk]

I think it was a bit of both arguments. I reckon the players are entitled to a cut of any deal Hawthorn wanted to do (especially $100,000) when they have to wear the tattoos themselves and like Shane said, they would be the ones copping the flak.

But Dunstall 19 does have a valid point. Regardless of whether the players had said yes or no to the deal the AFL would have vetoed it anyway.

It's just another case of the bigwig tossers at the AFL offices in Colonial going on a power trip. People wonder why Hawthorn members get so p!ssed off at the AFL Commission, yet they continually make hypocritical decisions against the Hawks.

The AFL's reason for the ban was "once the floodgates are open you could have all sorts of problems". Then why did they allow to Carlton & North to wear jumpers that were even more hideous than a few of our pre-season outfits? (well, maybe not that diamond effort! )

No doubt if an interstate club had come up with such a deal Wayne Jackson would have lauded them for "clever marketing" and happily endorsed the deal.