By Ben Somerford
November 19th 2009 @ 1:06am
Related coverage
Power to the people at Port Adelaide
Nick Salter and Matthew Broadbent of Port celebrate victory after the AFL Round 16 match between Port Adelaide Power and the West Coast Eagles at AAMI Stadium. The Slattery Media Group
Port Adelaide Football Club’s announcement yesterday of adopting their ‘Back In Black’ guernsey permanently for 2010 and beyond was greeted with plenty of applause from Power fans down at Alberton. And rightfully so. It’s a great move!
The Power will wear the predominantly black strip with a white and teal V (which they wore twice in 2009, after a 7-year-old came up with the design) in at least 18 home and away matches in 2010, with a white version to be their clash uniform.
It means Port will say goodbye to their home strip which they’ve worn since they joined the AFL back in 1997 and which they sported when they won the 2004 AFL Premiership, although it has been noted the guernsey may still be used on ‘special occasions’.
Nevertheless, Port’s previous jumper was one of the more random and bizarre looking strips seen in the AFL devoid of any local attachment, while the incoming guernsey is simple yet iconic.
Wednesday’s unveiling at Port Adelaide’s Alberton training facility proved the change was a popular one too, with hundreds of happy fans in attendance cheering on the decision.
Indeed, Port Adelaide Chief Executive Mark Haysman acknowledged the change in guernsey had been instigated by unprecedented feedback from the club’s supporters and members after the strip was used in Round 16 and 17 last season.
In this day and age, Haysman’s admission is certainly pleasing to hear.
Just last week, the Brisbane Lions revealed their new strip for 2010, which saw the iconic Fitzroy lion removed in favour of a more modern and marketable look. It hardly pleased Brisbane’s old Fitzroy legion.
Port, on the other hand, followed popular opinion and while there’s no doubt Power management will expect the well-liked new strip to sell well with the fans, Haysman made an interesting comment about the guernsey which suggests making a buck wasn’t their only consideration.
Haysman revealed, “This is the jumper we envisage wearing forever.
“Something just feels instinctively ‘Port Adelaide’ about this jumper, which has really been embraced by the playing group and coaching staff since they first saw it last season.
“Some people have also observed the guernsey resembles the SA State jumper in Port Adelaide colours. Given the iconic place of our club in the history and fabric of South Australia, that’s a very nice coincidence.”
Indeed, the jumper does have an iconic look about it which is ideal for the Power who’ve struggled to win over locals and Port Adelaide Magpies fans.
But Haysman’s statement that he wants to see Port Adelaide wear the uniform forever is quite the revelation.
Perhaps it is PR talk, but the comment suggests Port management genuinely value the guernsey as an icon of what the club is about, rather than a money-making, merchandise-selling tool.
And with the members and supporters basically ushering in the change of kit, Haysman’s statement reiterates his support of the fans’ opinion.
At the end of the day, though, a different guernsey won’t get players to perform better but it might just restore some pride and passion from those who keep the club alive and that’s important for a team like Port, still battling to find their identity.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(35)
JiMMM said | November 19th 2009 @ 8:51am | Report comment
I think this move by Port is the best in a long time in professional Australian sports, simply because it is about the fans and about the club not about the dollar. Hopefully it wont be long before the other “clubs” (read franchises) start to realise this is a good thing to do and we can start teh move towards a more traditional set of club structures instead of our current mess of franchises telling us a fans, supporters and followers what we should and should not like about teh game teh competitions teams.
AndyRoo said | November 19th 2009 @ 9:01am | Report comment
The Sydney Bulldogs have changed their name back to Canturbury Bankstown Bulldogs… it seems some clubs have finally moved on from their “franchising 101″ text books they all got from the NFL
JiMMM said | November 19th 2009 @ 9:28am | Report comment
I always found it amusing that when Australian teams looked at the NFL for guidance they mysteriosly missed the Green Bay Packers model of community ownership, I’m not sure how they missed what is arguably the NFL’s most succesfull team, and decided to follow the more prevailant model of a franchise there.
I guess all we can hope for is that our current franchises start to realise the mistake.
Michael C said | November 19th 2009 @ 9:38am | Report comment
the AFL has at least moved well away from private ownership,
in Melbourne – the stark contrast is that in Melbourne we now have reflected the Simpons “billionaires using public funds to construct a private playground for the rich and powerful.”, with the only publicly funded stadium being used ONLY by privately owned ‘franchise’ teams.
That’s a government vote of no confidence in member based/community based clubs.
That’s sick.
(btw AndyRoo – thankfully end of 2007, North Melbourne re-claimed ‘North Melbourne’,…just need Pip’s doggies to go back to ‘Footscray’!!)
re the Port jumper – - it fit’s the most important criteria of a footy jumper – - – that nanna can knit it!!
JiMMM said | November 19th 2009 @ 10:08am | Report comment
The AFL might have moved away from private ownership (I didn’t even know it had that, I thought it was all member owned (which I really like)), but it is still pushing franchises instead of clubs, look at the Gold Coast and West Sydney. Now I don’t know about West sydney but the Gold Coast has three clubs in the QAFL (Labrador, Southport and Burliegh), and Southport at least have been trying to get thier own team (similar to Port Adelaide) into teh AFL.
Instead the people of teh Gold Coast get a franchise.
Redb said | November 19th 2009 @ 10:11am | Report comment
JiMMM,
Pretty sure both GC and WS will be member based clubs with profit distributions going back to the club not to outside ownership ala Clive Palmer and GCU.
GC17 is a bid group which won the right to get a licence with the backing of Southport, the only reason they didnt run full stream with Southport was to not alienate other GC footy clubs.
WS’s framework is being initially established by the AFL – it will definitely not be sold to private interests though.
Redb
Michael C said | November 19th 2009 @ 10:25am | Report comment
JiMMM -
pretty much as Redb said, Southport for a while had been speculated as being capable of going it alone,
but, instead, it’s a broader Gold Coast AFL community club and that’s one reason that ‘Sharks’ won’t be the nickname as they don’t want it too heavily identified with any single existing club.
The Southport Sharks though are still pumping in about $11 million over 10 years I think it was announced about a month ago.
AndyRoo said | November 19th 2009 @ 10:18am | Report comment
MC
Don’t try and trick me, I know Nth Melb are still franchise sluts who sold themselves to Sydney, the Gold Coast and Canberra
Your team has a few more years of being good boys and actually looking after your fan base before they are to be forgiven.
Michael C said | November 19th 2009 @ 10:27am | Report comment
AndyRoo -
too true.
I think that everyone involved has perhaps realised you can’t stand for nothing in particular.
And, with the new facilities opening……and the last of the old buildings being demolished on Saturday week…..it’s a bright new era!!!
just gotta stop people walking their dogs across the oval when the lads are out there training!!!
(ruddy community based facilities!!!)
Redb said | November 19th 2009 @ 10:30am | Report comment
That’s actually a fair call, but not one the fans of North should wear.
AndyRoo said | November 19th 2009 @ 11:08am | Report comment
RedB, It’s ok because I used the smiley face.
North have obviously seen the light and are on their way to recovery. It always takes longer to recover and build tradition than destroy it though.
GCU would have to act like a proper football team for at least 10 years to make up for their first 6 months.
Michael C said | November 19th 2009 @ 11:31am | Report comment
I’ve said before – - I liked the notion when we were playing 3 games a year in Canberra and had the Murray Kangaroos as our ‘VFL’ team.
How good SHOULD that’ve been – - NOrth Melbounre almost ‘owning’ the Wagga/Canberra/Albury triangle.
Then for whatever reason, they jump into the Sydney market…..and into the Gold Coast market……and then withdraw entirely.
North SHOULD’ve been going that ‘golden triangle’ with Longmire (Corowa), Allison (ACT) and Carey (Wagga) leading the PR focus……perhaps they got greedy and thought the same folk might ‘crack’ the Sydney market??
Redb said | November 19th 2009 @ 1:57pm | Report comment
MC,
I dont know what North where thinking when they went to Sydney. never understood it.
Redb
Anthony said | November 20th 2009 @ 7:04am | Report comment
What is JiMMM talking about? All AFL clubs are membership based, which is the history of Australian football. The AFL may have looked to the NFL for some ideas (draft, slary cap) but the Aussie tradition is membership based. By contrast, English codes of football played in this country need private ownership to survive. EG: 50% of NRL clubs have (by necessity) embraced private ownership & soccer had to if it was to have a national competition.
Michael DiFabrizio said | November 19th 2009 @ 8:55am | Report comment
Good article, Ben. There’s no doubting Port Adelaide got this one right, and Brisbane screwed this one up. No prizes for guessing which club listened to their members and supporters and which one just rammed the change down their throats.
Republican said | November 19th 2009 @ 9:10am | Report comment
More’ Power’ to them!
Redb said | November 19th 2009 @ 9:48am | Report comment
Hopefully Port will play like they mean it. Will a good kit help, maybe?
No doubt one of the best jumpers going around now. Well done.
Chris said | November 19th 2009 @ 10:26am | Report comment
I don’t like the AFL at all, but all clubs (AFL/Super 14/NRL/A-League) should listen to this line:
“This is the jumper we envisage wearing forever.”
Great stuff!
Amazing how a jumper that hasn’t been worn yet can feel traditional. This embodies what all jumpers/jerseys should be – simple but effective.
Ben of Phnom Penh said | November 19th 2009 @ 11:07am | Report comment
It’ll be a strip with more appeal down at Alberton, that’s for certain. I can’t say I’m a Port fan however I do like the strip and the move towards more solid colours.
davelee said | November 19th 2009 @ 11:26am | Report comment
I think port should be kicked out of the afl. along with the dockers and richmond.
is a new strip really gonna help?
Ben of Phnom Penh said | November 19th 2009 @ 11:45am | Report comment
Yes, the new strip will assist in fan engagement.
Gibbo said | November 19th 2009 @ 1:50pm | Report comment
yep, i agree with Davelee, relegation to a second tier. and promote sandringham, claremont & woodville-west torrens to the big league!
Redb said | November 19th 2009 @ 1:55pm | Report comment
I would have thought Central Districts would be the obvious choice from the SANFL?
Gibbo said | November 19th 2009 @ 2:04pm | Report comment
i’ll come clean, W/W-T were pretty much the only SANFL club i could think of!! I lived in claremont for 6 months and i would have nominated my local Coburg Tigers from the VFL but they’ve been hamstrung having so many Richmond rejects in the side…
Redb said | November 19th 2009 @ 2:20pm | Report comment
Will Hardwick make a difference?
Republican said | November 19th 2009 @ 11:31am | Report comment
davelee
So who then should replace them,PNG or NZ perhaps?
Brett McKay said | November 19th 2009 @ 2:19pm | Report comment
right on Ben, this is a move that should have footy-loving fans around the country just as happy as graphic designers should be worried. Blow me down if connection to fans of a club hasn’t reaped massive rewards. It’s a big lesson for the Brisbane Paddle-Pop Lions, and every other professional team in Australia considering a strip change…
davelee said | November 19th 2009 @ 3:03pm | Report comment
what does fan engagement mean?
will it be the difference between a fan buying a membership or not? i dont think so.
look at the dockers for example, sh*t colour, sh*t gurnsey, sh*t emblem, sh*t song, sh*t team, sh*t management, sh*t everything and they still pull members. its because people support Fremantle regardless of the other factors.
the only thing it does for port is sell a few hundred extra gurnseys at the start of the season.
Ben of Phnom Penh said | November 19th 2009 @ 6:50pm | Report comment
Fan engagement is the strengthening of links between the club and its supporters. Without it you have passive support (ie declare loyalty and watch the game on the box however that’s about the extent of it). The question is as to whether it is an indicator of a broader policy by the club on it’s approach to its fan base.
Tifosi said | November 19th 2009 @ 4:33pm | Report comment
Never liked it that Port Adelaide had to change their original strip of black and white stripes.
Sure they didnt need to be called the Magpies but the colours should have stayed.
I think Eddie Macguire was the most outspoken about it, God forbid two teams in a competition could have the same colour jersey.
As if i needed another reason to hate Collingwood. .
Redb said | November 20th 2009 @ 7:16am | Report comment
That’s not realistic you could hardly have two teams running around in black and white vertical stripes as their primary colours.
This was one occasion were I agreed with Collingwood as the existing club they had first dibs. If the SANFL has become the AFL then Port Adelaide would have.
Redb
Michael C said | November 20th 2009 @ 7:29am | Report comment
for any amount of Collingwood loathing that people may have – b/w Collingwood and Essendon are the two clubs to have stuck most ardently to their jumpers in colour and design and to NOT extort the ‘away’ jumper merchandising game.
It’s sad when ‘hate’ and ‘respect’ are so closely aligned……but, that’s Eddie and that’s Collingwood.
Republican said | November 19th 2009 @ 7:04pm | Report comment
Let’s give the away guernseys the flick while we’re at it, nauseating corporate scourges on the game that they are!
davelee said | November 20th 2009 @ 4:23pm | Report comment
i like the away guernseys. we need them. sometimes its so hard to differentiate who’s who. i recall going to games in perth between WCE and richmond and another between freo and essendon. bloody hard to tell who’s who on first glance. not ideal spectating.
gazz said | November 20th 2009 @ 5:29pm | Report comment
tend to agree davelee. the fans (and prob the players too) need away guernseys to differentiate teams. its almost farcical sometimes. plus if clubs can flog jumpers to willing merchandise-buying fans then why not? just keep their use rare. no harm in that i thnk.