SA Footy

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:

Jim05 wrote:

Spargo wrote:Swapping guernseys and singing the song, that sure showed‘em [emoji38]

Which song did they sing?

I believe it was the Power song...


Sent from my SM-G781B using Tapatalk

Good, their reserves and Sydney should stop butchering the Notre Dame Victory March!
Go the fighting Irish!

whufc wrote:

Booney wrote:Port boys donning the PBs for the song and firing up all the intellectual giants.

In all seriousness though surely your club hasn’t helped it’s cause to wear the prison bars ever again.

Essentially gone from having the AFL act as a somewhat mediator between you and Collingwood to now having the AFL as an adversity.

Not sure having the AFL off side is in the best long term interests of the club.

Collingwood don't own trade marks. F*ck Collingwood.

Booney wrote:

whufc wrote:

Booney wrote:Port boys donning the PBs for the song and firing up all the intellectual giants.

In all seriousness though surely your club hasn’t helped it’s cause to wear the prison bars ever again.

Essentially gone from having the AFL act as a somewhat mediator between you and Collingwood to now having the AFL as an adversity.

Not sure having the AFL off side is in the best long term interests of the club.

Collingwood don't own trade marks. F*ck Collingwood.

No but the AFL own the IP yeah????

agree F*ck Collingwood but do you honestly think this was the best way to get your ultimate goal which is to at least wear the prison bars in a game once a year?

I believe Ports' act was just as much a F*ck the AFL as it was F**k Collingwood.

whufc wrote:

Booney wrote:

whufc wrote:

Booney wrote:Port boys donning the PBs for the song and firing up all the intellectual giants. [emoji38]

In all seriousness though surely your club hasn’t helped it’s cause to wear the prison bars ever again.

Essentially gone from having the AFL act as a somewhat mediator between you and Collingwood to now having the AFL as an adversity.

Not sure having the AFL off side is in the best long term interests of the club.

Collingwood don't own trade marks. F*ck Collingwood.

No but the AFL own the IP yeah????

agree F*ck Collingwood but do you honestly think this was the best way to get your ultimate goal which is to at least wear the prison bars in a game once a year?

I believe Ports' act was just as much a F*ck the AFL as it was F**k Collingwood.

Exactly, AFL own ALL the IP of all the teams, lock stock.
Port signed up to these rules....

Sent from my SM-G781B using Tapatalk

Booney wrote:Port boys donning the PBs for the song and firing up all the intellectual giants.

I thought it was foolish and stirring a pot that didn't need to be stirred.

With our inability to flex our muscles against the better sides I'd sooner us focus on our on field performances for the time being.

We bashed up a young crows outfit in front of our home crowd, whoop de do, we got hurt too along the way and Lycett will be watching on while Ladhams will have to take on the best ruck duo in the comp.

On the same token, I can't see why we couldn't wear the PB's for the showdown, we were told "no" though so just move on and wear what you wear most weeks.

Lightning McQueen wrote:

Booney wrote:Port boys donning the PBs for the song and firing up all the intellectual giants.

I thought it was foolish and stirring a pot that didn't need to be stirred.

With our inability to flex our muscles against the better sides I'd sooner us focus on our on field performances for the time being.

We bashed up a young crows outfit in front of our home crowd, whoop de do, we got hurt too along the way and Lycett will be watching on while Ladhams will have to take on the best ruck duo in the comp.

On the same token, I can't see why we couldn't wear the PB's for the showdown, we were told "no" though so just move on and wear what you wear most weeks.

Far, far too sensible & level headed.

Spargo wrote:

Lightning McQueen wrote:

Booney wrote:Port boys donning the PBs for the song and firing up all the intellectual giants.

I thought it was foolish and stirring a pot that didn't need to be stirred.

With our inability to flex our muscles against the better sides I'd sooner us focus on our on field performances for the time being.

We bashed up a young crows outfit in front of our home crowd, whoop de do, we got hurt too along the way and Lycett will be watching on while Ladhams will have to take on the best ruck duo in the comp.

On the same token, I can't see why we couldn't wear the PB's for the showdown, we were told "no" though so just move on and wear what you wear most weeks.

Far, far too sensible & level headed.

I've growed up.

Spargo wrote:

Lightning McQueen wrote:

Booney wrote:Port boys donning the PBs for the song and firing up all the intellectual giants.

I thought it was foolish and stirring a pot that didn't need to be stirred.

With our inability to flex our muscles against the better sides I'd sooner us focus on our on field performances for the time being.

We bashed up a young crows outfit in front of our home crowd, whoop de do, we got hurt too along the way and Lycett will be watching on while Ladhams will have to take on the best ruck duo in the comp.

On the same token, I can't see why we couldn't wear the PB's for the showdown, we were told "no" though so just move on and wear what you wear most weeks.

Far, far too sensible & level headed.

I think he’s been hacked!

amber_fluid wrote:

Spargo wrote:Far, far too sensible & level headed.

I think he’s been hacked!

Only my rude bits.

Lightning McQueen wrote:

Booney wrote:Port boys donning the PBs for the song and firing up all the intellectual giants.

I thought it was foolish and stirring a pot that didn't need to be stirred.

With our inability to flex our muscles against the better sides I'd sooner us focus on our on field performances for the time being.

We bashed up a young crows outfit in front of our home crowd, whoop de do, we got hurt too along the way and Lycett will be watching on while Ladhams will have to take on the best ruck duo in the comp.

On the same token, I can't see why we couldn't wear the PB's for the showdown, we were told "no" though so just move on and wear what you wear most weeks.

Agree, and I have to wonder if Lycett might have got away with a high impact rather than severe if we didn't poke the AFL bear.

Lightning McQueen wrote:

amber_fluid wrote:

Spargo wrote:Far, far too sensible & level headed.

I think he’s been hacked!

Only my rude bits.

He said hacked not jacked

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:

whufc wrote:No but the AFL own the IP yeah????

agree F*ck Collingwood but do you honestly think this was the best way to get your ultimate goal which is to at least wear the prison bars in a game once a year?

I believe Ports' act was just as much a F*ck the AFL as it was F**k Collingwood.

Exactly, AFL own ALL the IP of all the teams, lock stock.
Port signed up to these rules....

Sent from my SM-G781B using Tapatalk

I don't think this is an IP issue at all.

A search on IP Australia's Designs Register returns matches for normal AFL guernseys - registered to the AFL where still current - but I couldn't find the prison bar jumper on there.

In my view, the prison bar is not substantially similar to the Collingwood guernsey.

We hear a lot that Port 'signed up' to various rules back in the 90s. Exactly what they signed up to and what any contract with the AFL prevents them from doing remains unclear to the general public.

Nevertheless, I think Kochie's actually correct when he says that all the Power need in order to wear the prison bar during games is the AFL's approval - and that the only sanction for doing so without approval would be loss of competition points etc. - I just can't see any IP or other legal issues for Port here.

I rate waking up to a tekscrew in my front left tyre on a Monday morning.

Booney wrote:I rate waking up to a tekscrew in my front left tyre on a Monday morning.

Makes it lovely sound as you're driving along.

Booney wrote:I rate waking up to a tekscrew in my front left tyre on a Monday morning.

Port won, you’re welcome

Booney wrote:I rate waking up to a tekscrew in my front left tyre on a Monday morning.

Eddie’s power reaches far & wide...

Couple of nights in the Marion Bay Eco Pod this weekend for Mrs Boon's birthday.

RB wrote:

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:

whufc wrote:No but the AFL own the IP yeah????

agree F*ck Collingwood but do you honestly think this was the best way to get your ultimate goal which is to at least wear the prison bars in a game once a year?

I believe Ports' act was just as much a F*ck the AFL as it was F**k Collingwood.

Exactly, AFL own ALL the IP of all the teams, lock stock.
Port signed up to these rules....

Sent from my SM-G781B using Tapatalk

I don't think this is an IP issue at all.

A search on IP Australia's Designs Register returns matches for normal AFL guernseys - registered to the AFL where still current - but I couldn't find the prison bar jumper on there.

In my view, the prison bar is not substantially similar to the Collingwood guernsey.

We hear a lot that Port 'signed up' to various rules back in the 90s. Exactly what they signed up to and what any contract with the AFL prevents them from doing remains unclear to the general public.

Nevertheless, I think Kochie's actually correct when he says that all the Power need in order to wear the prison bar during games is the AFL's approval - and that the only sanction for doing so without approval would be loss of competition points etc. - I just can't see any IP or other legal issues for Port here.

His right the AFL own all IP rights, if they say its ok its 100% ok. Collingwood don't own shite just like Port don't.

The IP issue is that the AFL are saying its not ok and Port are pushing the boundary including selling versions of a guernsey they don't have permission to.

whufc wrote:The IP issue is that the AFL are saying its not ok and Port are pushing the boundary including selling versions of a guernsey they don't have permission to.

AFL permission being needed to use or sell the guernsey without breaching the AFL's IP rights would require a) IP rights existing in relation to the PBs and b) the AFL holding those rights. I'm particularly skeptical re the former. As I said though, everyone seems to be very vague about what Port actually signed up to.

I think the main problem for Port is having competition points docked (something they would understandably be keen to avoid).

RB wrote:

whufc wrote:The IP issue is that the AFL are saying its not ok and Port are pushing the boundary including selling versions of a guernsey they don't have permission to.

AFL permission being needed to use or sell the guernsey without breaching the AFL's IP rights would require a) IP rights existing in relation to the PBs and b) the AFL holding those rights. I'm particularly skeptical re the former. As I said though, everyone seems to be very vague about what Port actually signed up to.

I think the main problem for Port is having competition points docked (something they would understandably be keen to avoid).

My very uneducated understanding from the media bits I've read this week is there is no IP in relation to the prison bars directly but more an overriding IP ownership that requires permission for any logo, nickname, colours, designs to be used and signed off by the AFL.