SA Footy

Following on from a conversation started on the SANFL's board, I want to know should Collingwood own exclusive rights to the Black and White?
My opinion is that they shouldn't, as there are many sporting leagues around the world that have clubs comprised of the same colours. I also believe that since there are two clubs that already exist in the AFL that use the same colours as an integral part of their guernsey design, that a precedent has been set that clubs shouldn't "own" the rights to colours.
Thoughts?

As a Collingwood supporter, I wax and wane on this issue.
Here's some random thoughts on it.

Where's the harm in having an alternate strip? It's good for marketing and it's only colours after all and if Manchester United can defile itself over the years in some god awful away shirts, why should we resist change and not have an alternate strip.
However, just because every other team has an alternate strip, why should we?
You can argue the tradition card that Collingwood is black and white. That's how we see ourselves and that's how you, the opposition that hates us, sees us. So why should we change?
However, we've also seen that tradition is a very flexible thing and Collingwood uses it when it wants.
Maybe I'm just a fence sitter.
I don't think we should have to change our guernsey until forced by the AFL.
I can't see the AFL taking this on while Eddie is president.

Dogwatcher wrote:As a Collingwood supporter, I wax and wane on this issue.
Here's some random thoughts on it.

Where's the harm in having an alternate strip? It's good for marketing and it's only colours after all and if Manchester United can defile itself over the years in some god awful away shirts, why should we resist change and not have an alternate strip.
However, just because every other team has an alternate strip, why should we?
You can argue the tradition card that Collingwood is black and white. That's how we see ourselves and that's how you, the opposition that hates us, sees us. So why should we change?
However, we've also seen that tradition is a very flexible thing and Collingwood uses it when it wants.
Maybe I'm just a fence sitter.
I don't think we should have to change our guernsey until forced by the AFL.
I can't see the AFL taking this on while Eddie is president.

granted but you don't have to change the colours to have an alternate strip... what about a predominantly black guernsey with a bit of white through it... look at Freo and the Dogs clash guernsesy...

FROM SANFL FORUN
Re: Port Magpies to be dissolved. Is it true?

"tipper" wrote
It isnt just about the colours though, it is about how they are arranged on the guernsey. The three clubs with blue and white have a different "pattern" with the same colours. North Melbourne dont have horizontal blue and white stripes like Geelong, neither do Carlton. The power do have black and white on their design, there is also silver and teal. they were allowed to use the same colours as collingwod, just not the design.

How ridiculous would it be having two clubs with exactly the same design? You dont think that may cause even more of an identity problem? And you are still ignoring the fact that Collingwood were a part of the AFL before the Power joined. Just because the power have the more successful "history" does that mean a team that was there first should have to change to accomodate them? First in Best dressed......

I agree that it is how they are arranged on the guernsey. I don't think that the Port Magpies and Collingwood's guernseys are exactly the same however. I think you need to take another look at the two guernseys if this is what you are saying. If the case was that the two guernseys should happen to be exactly the same then a clash guernsey would be used.
That is not what I am proposing though and I have not written that anywhere. I have so far talked only about the use of the colours and the traditional Magpie prison bars guernsey, so maybe you should either ask that question of people who have made that statement or you should hone your reading skills a little better.
As for first in best dressed, I think in some cases disputes should be resolved in deference to the older club. But I don't think ownership of colours should come to that. I also think that Port is of a higher pedigree than Collingwood so that should be factored in.

Port is of a higher pedigree than Collingwood?????? What?

Dogwatcher wrote:Port is of a higher pedigree than Collingwood?????? What?

a pedigree is a pure bred.....

Port = 1% pure bred 99% mongrel
Collingwood = 100% mongrel

Nice equation there Nug, I'll give you that one.

HeartBeatsTrue wrote:

therisingblues wrote:Heart Beats True: Following your logic, I guess Port could change its colours to Black, with the White there just to make a design?

And by your logic, Sturt should not be called the double blues as all shades of blue are the same.
Port probably could have dropped their "white" and be known as just being "black" to get around Collingwood's "ownership" of the colour combo but I dont think that would appeal with existing or new supporters.

Hmmm, your first point is valid. So I should perhaps drop the North Melbourne issue as their Royal Blue is a different shade to the Navy used by Carlton and Geelong.
Your second point? There's a side in the SAAFL called "The Blacks" and they have white on their guernesy also. I wonder how Collingwood would feel about that combination of colours, design and logo in the AFL? But your right in that there are appeal considerations. But it may turnout to be a more popular alternative.

nuggety goodness wrote:

Dogwatcher wrote:Port is of a higher pedigree than Collingwood?????? What?

a pedigree is a pure bred.....

Port = 1% pure bred 99% mongrel
Collingwood = 100% mongrel

True.
But I have read somewhere that Port is the most successful sporting club in the world or something along those lines. If this is true then they'd have to be ranked above Collingwood on the pedigree stakes.
Unless it could be argued that the SANFL was so far below the VFL in standard that it doesn't matter how successful they were.

therisingblues wrote:

nuggety goodness wrote:

Dogwatcher wrote:Port is of a higher pedigree than Collingwood?????? What?

a pedigree is a pure bred.....

Port = 1% pure bred 99% mongrel
Collingwood = 100% mongrel

True.
But I have read somewhere that Port is the most successful sporting club in the world or something along those lines. If this is true then they'd have to be ranked above Collingwood on the pedigree stakes.
Unless it could be argued that the SANFL was so far below the VFL in standard that it doesn't matter how successful they were.

yes but we don't talk about that down here.....

on the Port Adelaide and Port Power thing, i thought that when the Power entered the AFL they wanted a distinct identity seperate to that of Port Adelaide...

No team should have exclusive rights to any colours.

I've always felt that Port Adelaide should have worn their traditional black and white prison bar jumpers from day one.

When Port play Collingwood, the away team would be obliged to wear an alternative strip.

It happens in English soccer all the time. There are a few teams in the English league that wear black & white stripes i.e. Newcastle Utd, Notts County, Port Vale.
Similarly and Sheffield Utd and Southampton both have red and white stripes.
If these teams play each other (more than likely in a Cup match due to differing divisions) the away team has to adapt.

I see your point but I don't think you can use an English soccer comparison in that way. Soccer has a relegation/promotion system which means teams with the same colours come up against each other regularly. The AFL is one competition and a limited number of teams, meaning there's no reason colours shouldn't be different.
We've got 16, soon to be 18 teams, whereas English soccer has hundreds.

So, if Port were allowed to have the black and white stripes, would they still be called the Power, or would we have two teams in the AFL called the Magpies?

F*ck collingwood and Port. This arguement is too old. As port were joining the competition they had the right to change their colours. If the SANFL went national and Collingwood joined it would be Collingwood to change their jumper and nickname. Get Over It.

Collingwood pinched the idea of the South Australian State Team to began with.

Leaping Lindner wrote:Collingwood pinched the idea of the South Australian State Team to began with.

Are you sure about that LL? I thought Port Adelaide didn't adopt the back & white until 1902, and Collingwood were around before that.

Adelaide Hawk wrote:

Leaping Lindner wrote:Collingwood pinched the idea of the South Australian State Team to began with.

Are you sure about that LL? I thought Port Adelaide didn't adopt the back & white until 1902, and Collingwood were around before that.

I'm pretty sure he is correct as the State Side wore black and white before Collingwood started playing and they also thought that the bird on our flag was a magpie (same family).

Collingwood made it a condition of Port's entry to the AFL that the B&W colour scheme, B&W stripes and the magpie emblem were off limits. I don't think that means that own the rights to B&W everywhere, because obviously they don't.

But they sewed it all up in the AFL. Port went in knowing this and, as far as I am aware, as a club they aren't complaining about it. I think this is just a beat up off the SANFL Board.

I am not as understanding of Collingwood on the issue of the alternative strip or of Eddie using heritage or tradition when it suits him. In reversing the black and white on the guernsey in the early 2000s he arguably orchestrated the biggest change in Collingwood's playing outfit in it's history. Yet he'll say it's still B&W stripes and Collingwood's guernsey design is one of the oldest in the world and "can't change". Well, the negative of the current guernsey design might have been the oldest Eddie.

Strawb07 wrote:. As port were joining the competition they had the right to change their colours. If the SANFL went national and Collingwood joined it would be Collingwood to change their jumper and nickname. Get Over It.

sanity at last

MightyEagles wrote:

Adelaide Hawk wrote:

Leaping Lindner wrote:Collingwood pinched the idea of the South Australian State Team to began with.

Are you sure about that LL? I thought Port Adelaide didn't adopt the back & white until 1902, and Collingwood were around before that.

I'm pretty sure he is correct as the State Side wore black and white before Collingwood started playing and they also thought that the bird on our flag was a magpie (same family).

They asked our permission apparently. It was back in 1892 or 1891. This is a photo of the 1894 state team. The same jumper we wore pre-Collingwood.