Unique Crows Record

[Geoffa32]

This only happened when a few players 2009 contracts were in question, a few of them pulled their finger out in the last 2 games (P Burgoyne for 1). It shows what the players really play for and its definitely not the "Creed"

"Money Talks"

 

[Geoffa32]

regardless of individual games, seasons, players - the creed is more than a marketing slogan. The culture of the club is more than the creed. Pulling out these little incidents is absurd and another pathetic attempt by you to denigrate what the club stands for.
Newsflash: The game today (including the system that runs it and all of the impacts of that) is not what it was 10 years ago, let alone 20, 30, 50 years ago.



good on you



Bullshit. It's a recognition of actual lineage - not an 'attempt' to 'claim' it



Absurd suggestions. All speculation and shit-stirring.

More than a marketing slogan hey. Untill October 2008 The Creed has never been associated with the Power. Never been on the website nor been a part of anything the club had done from 1997 to October 2008. Now, after its worst AFL period, it is plastered everywhere, allbeit altered to include supporters. Coincedence. The past few years slogan was Revolution, what is this years then? Could it be Live the Creed 1870? Is that what is written on your tickets and Letterheads, where "Revolution" once was?


The "system" and league may change. But winning every game is always the goal of a footy club. As it was in the 50s. Unless you have a different reason for a footy clubs existance??

 

[PowerKat]

More than a marketing slogan hey. Untill October 2008 The Creed has never been associated with the Power.

Yes it has

Never been on the website nor been a part of anything the club had done from 1997 to October 2008. Now, after its worst AFL period, it is plastered everywhere, allbeit altered to include supporters. Coincedence. The past few years slogan was Revolution, what is this years then? Could it be Live the Creed 1870? Is that what is written on your tickets and Letterheads, where "Revolution" once was?

Yes - it's being used in our marketing. Yes the last two years the slogan was 'revolution'. Big friggin deal. My point remains re the creed - IT'S NOT JUST A SLOGAN, as much as you would like to continue to belittle everything the club does - Port supporter on the whole agee that this current emphasis on the creed is most welcome. IDGAF what you think about it being used on letterhead or tickets or whatever. What better way to emphasise it

The "system" and league may change. But winning every game is always the goal of a footy club. As it was in the 50s. Unless you have a different reason for a footy clubs existance??

Every player goes out to win every game. If you don't understand the impact of a changing world then that's your ignorance becoming evident yet again. You just love to harp on any little aspect that might help you argue that Port Adelaide are not Port Adelaide.

Sorry to break it to you (again), but we are always will be.

 

[Geoffa32]

Yes it has

Proof?? If I am wrong show me with more than a smiley



Yes - it's being used in our marketing. Yes the last two years the slogan was 'revolution'. Big friggin deal. My point remains re the creed - IT'S NOT JUST A SLOGAN, as much as you would like to continue to belittle everything the club does - Port supporter on the whole agee that this current emphasis on the creed is most welcome. IDGAF what you think about it being used on letterhead or tickets or whatever. What better way to emphasise it.

In its truest meaning when Fos wrote it it was more than a slogan. But recent events might suggest it has been hijacked.



Every player goes out to win every game. If you don't understand the impact of a changing world then that's your ignorance becoming evident yet again. You just love to harp on any little aspect that might help you argue that Port Adelaide are not Port Adelaide.

Whats a changing world got to do with winning games of footy? It is a basic game, you win the ball and kick goals, importantly more than your opposition. You do this week after week till your final game. The same as it was a century ago. You mentioned the "system" has changed, in what way does that change my stated ideal of winning every game.

Sorry to break it to you (again), but we are always will be.

I am not disputing the right that Port Adelaide FC Power are the same club from 1870. Of course they are. Just that emphasis of being Port Adelaide in recent times is contrived. Where was the 1870 emphaisis a few years ago when the club was more interested in chasing neutrals.

We may have to agree to disagree, but debate is good brain food.

 

[Damp Squarie]

Let me remind you again - Port Magpies and Port Adelaide Powere are from the same club, different teams playing in different leagues but the same club.

So by your line of thinking FLOG... the AFC was born in 1869
http://www.footypedia.com/00000331.htm

Tip:dont feed the trolls

 

[Geoffa32]

I suggest to all Port supporters - dont fall for the dribble that comes from disenchanted Crows supporters that Port have less history than them, its just their way of justifying their short existence.

Port atre the same club that existed back in 1870. Different teams but same club. To say anything else is like saying the Glenelg Football League Team belongs to a different club than the Glenelg Reserves Team.

We all know this isnt the case - Glenelg League team AND the Glenelg Reserves team belong to the Glenelg Football Club - this cannot be argued.

Just as Port AFL team and the Port SANFL team belong to the PAFC. I know people will say they are now the PAMFC but this is silly legalities that are brought about most probably because of taxation purposes - i.e. you need to have separate entities to separate their income streams.

If any Cows supporter wants to argue legalities then show me your Bachelor of Law - then you could argue that you shouldnt be practicing if you are spending your working hours on the BigFooty website.

Its actually very simple

In 1994 the SANFL awarded the PAFC the right to use its second AFL licence. The PAFC went from being one of the independent SANFL clubs to being an entity under the SANFL. Changing the colour and name due to Collingwood's existance in the AFL. Like it did in 1901. This diagram shows the structure of footy in SA. Note that for the most part the Crows and Power are identical in structure. Only difference being nomination of members.

Now the SANFL wanted a Port presence in it league, and the Port players not good enough to play in the new AFL needed somewhere to play. So the PAMFC was set up. To give the PAMFC some creditbility it was agreed that the history be shared. They also keep the PB jumper alive.

The PAFC (Power) are the club that was founded in 1870. But has been reinvented to become the SANFL's second AFL team. Giving the SANFL control of all footy in our state. Unlike most AFL clubs neither the Crows nor Port own the AFL licence, but use it under a sublease agreement. Part of that being that the SANFL control where both clubs play.

 

[El_Scorcho]

What was our alternative Geoffa?

We had to deal with the SANFL to play AFL football.

The SANFL had a lot more money than we did. You've crapped on before about how we could have challenged the rights of the SANFL to the license and won it ourselves, but we likely wouldn't have won, giving us nothing. We'd currently be a nothing 2nd rate club while the combined Norwood/Sturt bid would be playing AFL footy.

As someone from West Coast said on their entry to the AFL, better to be in with a bad deal than sitting on the sidelines. We got in as soon as we could.

 

[Geoffa32]

That is true

But to say it is the "same" club is contrived. It is the same name and similar people running it, but became an SANFL "brand". No different to the "nasty corporate" Crows, and not at all similar "traditional" club like those in Victoria who own their licences. Which are all AFL franchises now anyway, but that is for another thread.

I highly doubt the SANFL would of let any other side into the AFL. Any other combination/club would of diminished the Crows powerbase. Whilst not increasing the SANFL market on AFL football as the PAFC did. Having Port and Crows ensure that the majority of football people in this state follow one of the SANFL AFL clubs. Having Crows and Norwood would of only counted for 2/3s (if that) and left the door open for a third AFL club, (PAFC perhaps??). One that is not under SANFL control.

I wonder what it would take for Centrals to buy out an AFL licence (Kangaroos Demons Bulldogs??) and become an independent third SA based AFL club. Playing out of Adelaide Oval, then a new CBD stadium. Pie in the sky today, but in a decade??? Could be like 1990 and Port Adelaide all over again.

 

[El_Scorcho]

It's all pie in the sky.

No SANFL club is in anywhere near a realistic position to compete with the SANFL for a 3rd SA license. It would be the same deal as Port and the Crows are on currently. The SANFL would want some level of control for their own benefit, and they have the money and power to make sure they get it.

As i've said before, I think football in SA would have been far better off if the Crows hadn't come in and dominated the SA football market. We would be in a far better position to have 3 or more SANFL clubs. Had the PAFC been allowed to join in 1990, the 2nd club would have been a Norwood or a Sturt. Centrals would have eventually followed.

This is all basically impossible due to the creation of the Crows.

The SANFL have the money and power to control any team joining from SA. It's a fact of life. We've dealt with it.

Once again, better to be in with a bad deal than on the sidelines. We were forced to deal with the SANFL, and dealing with them most certainly does not make us a different or new club.

We're the same club, we've had to give a couple of things up to play AFL football. I know you'd like to call us a different club to justify your abandoning of us in 1997, but it simply isn't the case.

To Port supporters, the people who's opinions on the subject actually matter, the PAFC that plays in the AFL now is the same club that has existed for 139 years.

 

[PowerForGood]

We're the same club, we've had to give a couple of things up to play AFL football. I know you'd like to call us a different club to justify your abandoning of us in 1997, but it simply isn't the case.

I think that this is the reasoning behind geoffa's thoughts...

To Port supporters, the people who's opinions on the subject actually matter, the PAFC that plays in the AFL now is the same club that has existed for 139 years.

And after all is said and done, this is the best way to treat the Crows flogs who continue to roll out the same line....

 

[subaru]

I have sat back and watched this to-ing and fro-ing for 3 days.

I have concluded that it matters not what technicalities and loop holes are found in either argument ...it is still all about perception.

No-one other than Power supprters see Power as the old Port Adelaide.

Crows fans, myself included , will NEVER admit they are the same......Port fans seem to delight in the futility of all this.

Port in the AFL do not look like, or play like Port Adelaide of the old days. Dragging out Creeds and 1870's will not help the club re-evolve into anything remotely like Port Magpies...and doing so will only appease the old Magpies supporters, not help with enticing new ones.

So Crows fans, sit back and wait another two or three years when The Creed and Est 1870 plastered over everything turns to shit and have a laugh when Port Power make ANOTHER attempt at reinventing themselves.

 

[drcollossimo]

That is true

But to say it is the "same" club is contrived. It is the same name and similar people running it, but became an SANFL "brand". No different to the "nasty corporate" Crows, and not at all similar "traditional" club like those in Victoria who own their licences. Which are all AFL franchises now anyway, but that is for another thread.

.

Your simplifying the arguement there Geoffa old son, Port is very different to the Adelaide footy club, the traditional club aspect is well represented by Alberton itself becuase there is so much history there. A club, a society a anything is far, far more than an SNAFL organisation chart or as G.Cornes repeats hypnotically 'changing of a business identity'. Footy clubs become symbolic for a community, a set of values etc and Alberton is a wonderful symbol for a 'traditional grass roots club' which sprang into the AFL (yes in it's modified form) on the back of largely the working class at Port Adelaide.

In short if Port didn't have the history it did and people who contributed to that we wouldn't be an AFL club now. You can walk into 'Tigerland' and see and feel the history there or Arden st etc.. you can also do it at Alberton while most of that history is SANFL it is still there and it had its part to play in getting us to the AFL. You can do it at West Lakes but because it is still relatively new and the circumstances of its formation there's no escaping the 'manufactured' feeling.The SANFL responded directly as a consequence of Port trying to enter the comp they slapped state colours on a unoriginal name (I mean Croweaters = Crows doesn't it?) and bang there it is. How many clubs proudly dispaly a 'Team of the Decade' painting?, As a % how many of your supporters didn't grow up or live a percentage of their adult life supporting the Crows because they didn't exist? Nobody fought or earnt the right for the Crows to exist on a footy field, it was made in a board room by SANFL suits because of an offer the VFL made to Port and Norwood. The undeniable fact was the SANFL could no longer hold out in forming a national comp, Port made their decision for them and the rest is history love it or hate it.

 

[drcollossimo]

I have sat back and watched this to-ing and fro-ing for 3 days.

I have concluded that it matters not what technicalities and loop holes are found in either argument ...it is still all about perception.

No-one other than Power supprters see Power as the old Port Adelaide.

Crows fans, myself included , will NEVER admit they are the same......Port fans seem to delight in the futility of all this.

Port in the AFL do not look like, or play like Port Adelaide of the old days. Dragging out Creeds and 1870's will not help the club re-evolve into anything remotely like Port Magpies...and doing so will only appease the old Magpies supporters, not help with enticing new ones.

Sub surely your not that short sighted? We will never be the Magpies anymore I dont know why Crows fans are so frightened of this.

The club is setting out to differentiate itself from the Crows, 1870 and the Creed is much more about celebrating the origins of the club and the values etc.. that drove us to where we are. It's also about using that history and those values to take us into the future you can slap Uncompromising, Inclusive and Proud all over stuff but what the hell does that mean? The Creed was something FOS WILLIAMS NOT MARKETING PROFESSIONALS created, back when footy really was for the average punter on a Saturday avo. That carries much more weight than something contrived to sound impressive and if have to explain why that is then your beyond help. But your right in as much as 1870 and a Creed won't turn us into the dominant force we were as the Magpies but it will make it clear who we are, where we came from and what we want to become.

 

[Geoffa32]

It's all pie in the sky.

No SANFL club is in anywhere near a realistic position to compete with the SANFL for a 3rd SA license. It would be the same deal as Port and the Crows are on currently. The SANFL would want some level of control for their own benefit, and they have the money and power to make sure they get it.

As i've said before, I think football in SA would have been far better off if the Crows hadn't come in and dominated the SA football market. We would be in a far better position to have 3 or more SANFL clubs. Had the PAFC been allowed to join in 1990, the 2nd club would have been a Norwood or a Sturt. Centrals would have eventually followed.

This is all basically impossible due to the creation of the Crows.

The SANFL have the money and power to control any team joining from SA. It's a fact of life. We've dealt with it.

Once again, better to be in with a bad deal than on the sidelines. We were forced to deal with the SANFL, and dealing with them most certainly does not make us a different or new club.

We're the same club, we've had to give a couple of things up to play AFL football. I know you'd like to call us a different club to justify your abandoning of us in 1997, but it simply isn't the case.

To Port supporters, the people who's opinions on the subject actually matter, the PAFC that plays in the AFL now is the same club that has existed for 139 years.

A very good retort and not much I can disagree on......

Abandon, maybe but many a person stops supporting a club due to not agreeing with it.

But as Subaru has suggested it will be interesting to see if the Power persist with Live the Creed Est 1870 etc longterm if support continues as it did in 2008. Current membership figure is not that promising. None of us have the answer to that.

By the way is there any evidence that suggest the "The Creed" has ever been uttered at Alberton from 1997 to Late 2008?

 

[El_Scorcho]

The creed would have been mentioned plenty of times, and current membership is a reflection on last years performances.

In any case, I think we've come to an almost agreement. I kept supporting my club despite the changes, and you stopped supporting a club that you no longer felt represented your interests.

Despite the rest of the tripe in her post, subaru made a good point about perception. I think i'll leave this argument there...

until next thread!

 

[Geoffa32]

Your simplifying the arguement there Geoffa old son, Port is very different to the Adelaide footy club, the traditional club aspect is well represented by Alberton itself becuase there is so much history there. A club, a society a anything is far, far more than an SNAFL organisation chart or as G.Cornes repeats hypnotically 'changing of a business identity'. Footy clubs become symbolic for a community, a set of values etc and Alberton is a wonderful symbol for a 'traditional grass roots club' which sprang into the AFL (yes in it's modified form) on the back of largely the working class at Port Adelaide.

Was any of this in existance in the first ten years of Port in the AFL. It has "sprang up" since late last year. But for most of the AFL journey the emphasis has been on being "Crows Lite" or the "Other Teams for SA". Now we are set to believe that the Port values have been there all the time. Regardless of behaviour exhibited in 2008.

In short if Port didn't have the history it did and people who contributed to that we wouldn't be an AFL club now. You can walk into 'Tigerland' and see and feel the history there or Arden st etc.. you can also do it at Alberton while most of that history is SANFL it is still there and it had its part to play in getting us to the AFL. You can do it at West Lakes but because it is still relatively new and the circumstances of its formation there's no escaping the 'manufactured' feeling.The SANFL responded directly as a consequence of Port trying to enter the comp they slapped state colours on a unoriginal name (I mean Croweaters = Crows doesn't it?) and bang there it is. How many clubs proudly dispaly a 'Team of the Decade' painting?, As a % how many of your supporters didn't grow up or live a percentage of their adult life supporting the Crows because they didn't exist? Nobody fought or earnt the right for the Crows to exist on a footy field, it was made in a board room by SANFL suits because of an offer the VFL made to Port and Norwood. The undeniable fact was the SANFL could no longer hold out in forming a national comp, Port made their decision for them and the rest is history love it or hate it.

I have nothing against what Webber did in thrusting our state into the AFL. Had to be done as the SANFL is too conservative. I disagree with the PAFC playing into the SANFL's hands with regard to the second licence. And then becoming an SANFL lap dog. Now we have a situation where an ultra conservative organisation has control of football in this state. But as Thunderpower said there was not much Port could do. Too costly to take to court. Was the ACCC around back then? As the Supreme Court ruling did create a monoply.

Every few months there is debate in Adelaide about a CBD stadium. Guess what. The SANFL has ensured it will never happen. Why build it if there will be no AFL played there.

The difference between Port and Crows is that the Crows began "manufactured". But Port became manufactured.




At least there is something we can all enjoy, I hope, Richmond losing..........

 

[Peninsula Boy]

I have sat back and watched this to-ing and fro-ing for 3 days.

I have concluded that it matters not what technicalities and loop holes are found in either argument ...it is still all about perception.

No-one other than Power supprters see Power as the old Port Adelaide.

Crows fans, myself included , will NEVER admit they are the same......Port fans seem to delight in the futility of all this.

Port in the AFL do not look like, or play like Port Adelaide of the old days. Dragging out Creeds and 1870's will not help the club re-evolve into anything remotely like Port Magpies...and doing so will only appease the old Magpies supporters, not help with enticing new ones.

So Crows fans, sit back and wait another two or three years when The Creed and Est 1870 plastered over everything turns to shit and have a laugh when Port Power make ANOTHER attempt at reinventing themselves.

Nah, it's just that you want to make it about perception so you can find as much specious logic as you can to help build your ''argument". It's an argument born of hate, nonsense and most particularly, ENVY [as the Cow supporters are trying to take history/identity away from Port Adelaide because they have none/is insipid]. Just stick with the facts. Port Adelaide Football Club, Est. 1870. It's that simple.

 

[aneale]

But your right in as much as 1870 and a Creed won't turn us into the dominant force we were as the Magpies but it will make it clear who we are, where we came from and what we want to become.

Yet it took til 2008 to jump all over it, why wasn't this plastered on the website, guernsey, merchandise etc and so forth since 1997? One would have thought that you would have always wanted "it clear who we are, where we came from and what we want to become"

If the powers that be always intended PAFC II to be known as the old 1870 club, which is asserted infinitum and not a new entity, funny how they didn't address it. The response of 'we didn't think it would be an issue', is of course crap. It was thought about, it was discussed.

 

[noddy]

I have sat back and watched this to-ing and fro-ing for 3 days.

I have concluded that it matters not what technicalities and loop holes are found in either argument ...it is still all about perception.

No-one other than Power supprters see Power as the old Port Adelaide.

Crows fans, myself included , will NEVER admit they are the same......Port fans seem to delight in the futility of all this.

Port in the AFL do not look like, or play like Port Adelaide of the old days. Dragging out Creeds and 1870's will not help the club re-evolve into anything remotely like Port Magpies...and doing so will only appease the old Magpies supporters, not help with enticing new ones.

So Crows fans, sit back and wait another two or three years when The Creed and Est 1870 plastered over everything turns to shit and have a laugh when Port Power make ANOTHER attempt at reinventing themselves.

A serious question for you subaru

Do you think that in time over the next couple of years if their latest gimmick to attract & keep members fails like their previous ones that the Port Adelaide Power FC will then go back to square one & reignite their "Port Power" logo that they used with some minor success in the first 3 years of their existence ??

 

[noddy]

Nah, it's just that you want to make it about perception so you can find as much specious logic as you can to help build your ''argument". It's an argument born of hate, nonsense and most particularly, ENVY [as the Cow supporters are trying to take history/identity away from Port Adelaide because they have none/is insipid]. Just stick with the facts. Port Adelaide Football Club, Est. 1870. It's that simple.

Don't you realize that you have history a day after you are born ?

Maybe the AFC does not have the long, long boring history of your club but it's a proud & well respected one just as it's culture is.

Give me quality over quantity any day young man.

 

[portfan36]

So by your line of thinking FLOG... the AFC was born in 1869
http://www.footypedia.com/00000331.htm

Tip:dont feed the trolls

This is proof you are the untimate flog. See how many of your Crows supporting friend agree with what you are saying here. First of all you say that Port (AFL) and Port (SANFL) are different clubs but dont deny the history started in 1870.

Now when you still havent (and cant) prove your point that they actually are the same club you go and claim that the AFC has existed since 1869????????

You are the only Cow supporter to claim this, I reckon your standing in the Crows blog heirachy has severely diminished..........you flog

 

[portfan36]

Its actually very simple

In 1994 the SANFL awarded the PAFC the right to use its second AFL licence. The PAFC went from being one of the independent SANFL clubs to being an entity under the SANFL. Changing the colour and name due to Collingwood's existance in the AFL. Like it did in 1901. This diagram shows the structure of footy in SA. Note that for the most part the Crows and Power are identical in structure. Only difference being nomination of members.

Now the SANFL wanted a Port presence in it league, and the Port players not good enough to play in the new AFL needed somewhere to play. So the PAMFC was set up. To give the PAMFC some creditbility it was agreed that the history be shared. They also keep the PB jumper alive.

The PAFC (Power) are the club that was founded in 1870. But has been reinvented to become the SANFL's second AFL team. Giving the SANFL control of all footy in our state. Unlike most AFL clubs neither the Crows nor Port own the AFL licence, but use it under a sublease agreement. Part of that being that the SANFL control where both clubs play.

Onya Geoffa, I appreciate commonsense. Now can you pm this to that flog Topjars who still cannot grasp the concept. (p.s. he does get it but his ingrained hatred of the PAFC makes him blurt out nonsense.

 

[portfan36]

I have sat back and watched this to-ing and fro-ing for 3 days.

I have concluded that it matters not what technicalities and loop holes are found in either argument ...it is still all about perception.

No-one other than Power supprters see Power as the old Port Adelaide.

Crows fans, myself included , will NEVER admit they are the same......Port fans seem to delight in the futility of all this.

Port in the AFL do not look like, or play like Port Adelaide of the old days. Dragging out Creeds and 1870's will not help the club re-evolve into anything remotely like Port Magpies...and doing so will only appease the old Magpies supporters, not help with enticing new ones.

So Crows fans, sit back and wait another two or three years when The Creed and Est 1870 plastered over everything turns to shit and have a laugh when Port Power make ANOTHER attempt at reinventing themselves.

Thats because you hate PAFC who has 139 years of tradition whilst your corporation hasnt. Yours is a corporation as it was borne purely from the SANFL whilst the Power was borne from an SANFL club - the PAFC. Pretty simple isnt it.

 

[portfan36]

I have sat back and watched this to-ing and fro-ing for 3 days.

I have concluded that it matters not what technicalities and loop holes are found in either argument ...it is still all about perception.

No-one other than Power supprters see Power as the old Port Adelaide.

Crows fans, myself included , will NEVER admit they are the same......Port fans seem to delight in the futility of all this.

Port in the AFL do not look like, or play like Port Adelaide of the old days. Dragging out Creeds and 1870's will not help the club re-evolve into anything remotely like Port Magpies...and doing so will only appease the old Magpies supporters, not help with enticing new ones.

So Crows fans, sit back and wait another two or three years when The Creed and Est 1870 plastered over everything turns to shit and have a laugh when Port Power make ANOTHER attempt at reinventing themselves.

The 19th man???????? hahahahahahaHA

 

[subaru]

A serious question for you subaru

Do you think that in time over the next couple of years if their latest gimmick to attract & keep members fails like their previous ones that the Port Adelaide Power FC will then go back to square one & reignite their "Port Power" logo that they used with some minor success in the first 3 years of their existence ??

Who knows, Nodster....all I know is that as far as most supporters of AFL , Port Adelaide, playing in the AFL , will always be Port Power. That's what they started off as....incorporating pumping fists, revolutions,etc. Maybe this helped them attract the larger crowds they had intially. The supporters they are trying to entice to games with this new ploy are the old Magpies supporters , no-one else gives a red rats arse what an SANFL coach said in 1772 or whenever. As the Magpies might get 5,000 to a game I don't see this as tapping a well of new fans.

They branded themselves wrongly in the first place, hence all the argument about Port Adelaide/Port Power. If they had done it right to start with, and by that I mean a whole new club, they would not have this continuing saga, as evident by the last 10 pages of this thread. It is not clear who they are...and no-one really cares who they were.

I wouldn't even care, except for the premiership factor...Power taking credit for the Magpies flags reeks of arrogance, existing to win premierships when they have, in reality, won one , smacks of stupidity.

Blaming this whole debacle on jealousy from Crows supporters is simply wrong. I am proud of the AFC short history, but what I am interested in is the next game, and the game after that and the game after that.

History of clubs is highyly over-rated..I'm more concerned about now. Whacking 1870 on your letterheads, jumpers, Club websites etc won't make a scrap of difference.