South Adelaide's jumper

[Mr66]

I've just had look at the South/Eagles trial game photos on the Photos forum and something perplexed me.
If South insist on calling themselves the 'Panthers', why do they still have the 'SA'
monogram on their jumper?

[HeartBeatsTrue]

They are still the South Adelaide Football Club.

[Mr66]

Thats gets back to my point as to why they use the Panthers instead of South Adelaide.
Splitting hairs i know, but it annoys the hell out of me.

[Wedgie]

Because a panther is a Super Animal.

[Pseudo]

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=21508&p=660973#p660973

[Sojourner]

I've just had look at the South/Eagles trial game photos on the Photos forum and something perplexed me.
If South insist on calling themselves the 'Panthers', why do they still have the 'SA'
monogram on their jumper?

Because its written into the actual SAFC Constitution that any change away from that Guernsey has to be put to members and voted through accordingly, whereas focusing on the name "Panthers" which I don't agree with isn't.

South last had a changed their Guernsey away from the SA logo in the early 1930s and for a Guernsey that had an S and A next to each other and it was changed back after one season and we have kept the same Guernsey continuing ever since. I am fairly certain that any attempt at changing it or adding a Clash Guernsey could expect to be voted down fairly quickly.

Still that said, my mail is that the club are looking at getting the original SAFC Guernsey out for another run which could possibly be used as a Clash Guernsey if we had to, its quite similar to the current Geelong Guernsey but with thinner and more blue horizontal rings running across.

[Bunton]

Did notice one odd thing on the jumper on saturday - the new solo logos had been taped over. why would this be? Maybe the league have out pressure on South as they did with North and Coopers thing. Will we be reading about the "soft drinks wars", not the beer wars appear to be over for the moment?

[Brucetiki]

Did notice one odd thing on the jumper on saturday - the new solo logos had been taped over. why would this be? Maybe the league have out pressure on South as they did with North and Coopers thing. Will we be reading about the "soft drinks wars", not the beer wars appear to be over for the moment?

That could be a possibility - I'd say Coca Cola would be an SANFL 'protected' sponsor as well.

[westies sarge]

yes coke are but the laws arent as strong for the soft drink giants as they are for alcohol

[Wedgie]

yes coke are but the laws arent as strong for the soft drink giants as they are for alcohol

What exactly are these laws you talk about mate? Link please.

[Brucetiki]

yes coke are but the laws arent as strong for the soft drink giants as they are for alcohol

Say that to the Brisbane Lions after the AFL slapped them with a $250 000 fine in 2002-3ish for 'Bringing the game into disrepute' after the Gabba awarded soft drink pourage rights to Cadbury Schweppes (Pepsi).

[Punk Rooster]

yes coke are but the laws arent as strong for the soft drink giants as they are for alcohol

What exactly are these laws you talk about mate? Link please.

probably the same laws of journalism AK Apostle uses...