SA Footy

Spargo wrote:

whufc wrote:this the first time they have been pulled up on their 'sign a contract that suits them at the time' to then only try and change that contract.

Thinking Football Park / AFL entry agreement, thinking guernsey issue, thinking conditions to have SANFL reserves.

You’re 100% spot on. For the majority of football people I talk to, no one gives a stuff about their guernsey.
It’s the repeated attempts to shift the goal posts when things don’t suit that leave people shaking their head.

Agreed.
Even though I think any club should be able to wear whatever they like for home games I just watched the Eddie v Kane clip and Eddie owned Kane on all fronts. Kane really didn't do the cause any good, the opposite if anything.
He should have argued lots of agreements are made and changed down the track, its called progress and discussed it more from a logical perspective. Most points Eddie raised were spot on with evidence to boot. Port themselves haven't helped things by selling guernseys when they agreed not to, I'm not sure how they got away with that without some repercussions.

Port should just lobby the return of the Heritage Round

Sent from my SM-G781B using Tapatalk

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:Port should just lobby the return of the Heritage Round

Sent from my SM-G781B using Tapatalk

Agreed

whufc wrote:As I said personally I think Port should be allowed to wear the guernsey but is this the first time they have been pulled up on their 'sign a contract that suits them at the time' to then only try and change that contract strategy.

Thinking Football Park / AFL entry agreement, thinking guernsey issue, thinking conditions to have SANFL reserves, thinking Adelaide Oval/SMA agreement.

Laughable that anyone would say you stick to the contract you signed. New contracts can always be agreed upon. Pretty sure Collingwood signed a contract with a player for 5 years but moved him on after 2

Booney wrote:Port Adelaide has been advised by the AFL that it cannot wear its heritage black-and-white prison bars guernsey in the upcoming Round 8 Showdown.

The Port Adelaide Football Club is extremely disappointed with this decision.

“Port Adelaide signed an agreement with Collingwood in 2019 to wear the prison bars guernsey in our 150th anniversary home Showdown in 2020. At the time, both parties were unable to reach agreement regarding ongoing use of the prison bars and therefore deferred consideration for future use to a later point in time. That’s exactly what we have been trying to do for nearly 12 months now,” Mr Koch explained.

“We also note that the AFL has reached today’s decision based on the existing signed agreements in place and refer to the 2019 agreement only. There is no mention of the 2007 agreement also signed by all parties providing Port Adelaide with the option to wear its heritage prison bar jumper once per year in home AFL heritage rounds. Port Adelaide signed that agreement in good faith.”

Mr Koch reinforced Port Adelaide’s request was for Showdowns only.

“We are requesting to wear this guernsey only in Showdowns, to celebrate the heritage of our Club and our contribution to South Australian football. We aren’t asking to wear it as a regular home or away guernsey or even outside of South Australia.

“As we’ve always maintained, the AFL own the intellectual property rights to all AFL clubs, and therefore this is a decision the AFL can make independently in representing what is in the best interests of the game and ALL clubs. This is a decision for the fans, the most important stakeholders in our game. To treat our fans and the heritage of our Club in this way is disappointing.

“A key purpose of the AFL is to protect and nurture the heritage of the game. Heritage makes our game stronger. Anything we can do to strengthen this bond can only build stronger clubs which is good for the game. The AFL cares about heritage and that should include Port Adelaide’s.

“Our frustration sits squarely with the AFL, not Collingwood. We believe our request is reasonable. This issue isn’t just about Port Adelaide. It is about the passion and connection that ALL fans have for their clubs.

“As I’ve said, this issue isn’t going away. It is too important to our people and our Club.”

This issue isn't going away but other issues are conveniently overlooked....



Sent from my SM-G781B using Tapatalk

Port should take the four point hit, that would be really making a point and not tearing them apart.

This is nothing new, Port knew all this when they signed up. They should appreciate they have been allowed to wear it in some games in this league previously.

The AFL own all the IP lock stock. All clubs are in this situation.

Sent from my SM-G781B using Tapatalk

Oh the irony!

cracka wrote:

whufc wrote:As I said personally I think Port should be allowed to wear the guernsey but is this the first time they have been pulled up on their 'sign a contract that suits them at the time' to then only try and change that contract strategy.

Thinking Football Park / AFL entry agreement, thinking guernsey issue, thinking conditions to have SANFL reserves, thinking Adelaide Oval/SMA agreement.

Laughable that anyone would say you stick to the contract you signed. New contracts can always be agreed upon. Pretty sure Collingwood signed a contract with a player for 5 years but moved him on after 2

Yeah but they're paying for 5

Anyone else listen to Eddie on 5AA tonight?
He’s a passionate man who’s not backing down.

amber_fluid wrote:Anyone else listen to Eddie on 5AA tonight?
He’s a passionate man who’s not backing down.

He's right about the contract they signed but I think he let out a bit much last night about the fact that he knew Heritage round would go.

Which raises a few questions as to why they would get rid of it. I liked it and many others did as well.

Regardless the contract says heritage round but you can get caught out being a bit too smart here and wanting everyone to know how smart you are.

I guess it shows the relationship between the AFL and Collingwood.

amber_fluid wrote:Anyone else listen to Eddie on 5AA tonight?
He’s a passionate man who’s not backing down.

Who?

Let's just take it to the federal court and then never speak of it again!

tigerpie wrote:Let's just take it to the federal court and then never speak of it again!

Or we could just not speak of it again now.

Also why should you have saying the AFL, where's your $40mil?

tigerpie wrote:Let's just take it to the federal court and then never speak of it again!

you'll lose in federal court. Contracts mean nuffin.

gadj1976 wrote:

tigerpie wrote:Let's just take it to the federal court and then never speak of it again!

you'll lose in federal court. Contracts mean nuffin.

Seems bit of a waste of the federal courts time doesn't it?

If Port take it to court, I wonder how much of the revenue from merch sales over the last 14 years they need to give up after breaching the contract they are arguing?

So what’s going to be the topic of today?

MW wrote:If Port take it to court, I wonder how much of the revenue from merch sales over the last 14 years they need to give up after breaching the contract they are arguing?

It’s not going to court. Port are $10m in debt and are being propped up by the AFL. They aren’t going to instigate legal proceedings against the mob that are keeping them afloat.