dc, are you referring to Carlisle or the manager? As it happens, I'm not sure either had a duty to disclose the information, but neither should they complain if action is now taken against Carlisle including, should the Saints want, termination of the contract or a substantial rewriting of its terms.

we all set our own levels of probity ldvc. we obviously differ. that's life

here is the age first-lady's latest take on the aints/carlisle fuggup

AFLPA is as corrupt and is as much to blame for the denigration of our great game as the AFL itself.

Inclined to agree Song. And, as mentioned, it's probably not helped by an AFL President who appears to sit on his hands. AD's legacy is going to look terrific compared to this bloke

Inclined to agree Song. And, as mentioned, it's probably not helped by an AFL President who appears to sit on his hands. AD's legacy is going to look terrific compared to this bloke

ad was the jeff kennet, gm is the joan kirner

ad was the jeff kennet, gm is the joan kirner

DC, It just feels like he has no real presence. May well be a terrific bloke but I'm yet to see any strong leadership. The AFLPA currently is a case in point. Have I missed Gill's response? Was there one?

Disgusting situation if proved to be fact

The AFL is starting to eat itself now

It actually is.

DC, It just feels like he has no real presence. May well be a terrific bloke but I'm yet to see any strong leadership. The AFLPA currently is a case in point. Have I missed Gill's response? Was there one?

agree. think he's a figure head the board can easily control. not a head kickers @rseole

agree. think he's a figure head the board can easily control. not a head kickers @resole

The game has some real challenges ahead in terms of the evenness of the competition, local participation and grass roots support. We all know this but I'm not sold on his ability to navigate through the issues.

AFLPA for players is compulsory membership or as they call it 100% uptake.

Not doing much are they, seeing as it is compulsory. Wonder what their charter says?

Footy is lies.

If the money is there in the future, I think there could be room for another league entirely. I can see more and more people becoming disenchanted with the AFL. If outside interests (say China) were to throw a stack of dollars on the table, and offer up another option (new league), then I can't see why that couldn't happen. The AFL shouldn't have a mortgage on the game of Aussie rules, absolutely not. Australia is a completely different climate to other nations (US), and I think a new league could easily find traction in the future. I would love to see it happen.

If the money is there in the future, I think there could be room for another league entirely. I can see more and more people becoming disenchanted with the AFL. If outside interests (say China) were to throw a stack of dollars on the table, and offer up another option (new league), then I can't see why that couldn't happen. The AFL shouldn't have a mortgage on the game of Aussie rules, absolutely not. Australia is a completely different climate to other nations (US), and I think a new league could easily find traction in the future. I would love to see it happen.

Except for that little word "easily" ....

The AFL holds all the rights for the existing club names, nicknames, logos, colours, etc. The Collingwood Magpies with black and white prison stripes playing out of Shanghai isn't going to happen. Nor the Shanghai Magpies nor any club with black and white stripes.

Who would you follow in World Series Aussie Rules? I can't get excited about the Melbourne Stars or any 20-20 team. Same for the Chennai Satellites or whatever the hell they're called. Barracking for an Aussie Rules "Macau Rebels" or "Beijing Pirates" or "Canberra Blow-ins" isn't very appealing.

Except for that little word "easily" ....

The AFL holds all the rights for the existing club names, nicknames, logos, colours, etc. The Collingwood Magpies with black and white prison stripes playing out of Shanghai isn't going to happen. Nor the Shanghai Magpies nor any club with black and white stripes.

Who would you follow in World Series Aussie Rules? I can't get excited about the Melbourne Stars or any 20-20 team. Same for the Chennai Satellites or whatever the hell they're called. Barracking for an Aussie Rules "Macau Rebels" or "Beijing Pirates" or "Canberra Blow-ins" isn't very appealing.

are you sure the afl hold the rights to team colours/arrangement and nicknames.

i'd be very surprised

are you sure the afl hold the rights to team colours/arrangement and nicknames.

i'd be very surprised

Yes it's true. The afl own it all. The clubs gave it all to the afl commission when it was formed in 89......

Jake Carlisle potentially could have a serious drug problem and the AFLPA told his management to sweep it under the carpet instead of addressing the issue and helping the player.

When you asked me how I was doing

or was that some kind of joke ?

R. Zimmerman from his song entitled "ALFPA"

Yes it's true. The afl own it all. The clubs gave it all to the afl commission when it was formed in 89......

how do you explain hundreds if not thousands of teams around australia wearing black and white striped guernseys etc and team nicknames called lions, tigers, demons etc

i can't believe the vfl clubs ever had the rights in the first case to assign them to the afl

additionally there are clubs here and overseas in other sports that have the same nicknames

p.s. i'm not talking about logos and registered club names, that's different

The AFL applied for and got the trademarks for all those things. Save for a few sporting clubs that got in first.

EG. AFL own "Collingwood Football Club", "Collingwood Magpies Football Club", "Collingwood Football Club Est 1892" and lots of other variations. They also own just "Magpies". But they don't own "Western Suburbs Magpies" (a rugby league club).

My understanding is that the various far flung clubs that never asserted any trademark miss out. The AFL own them now.

But the AFL, out of the goodness of their heart, do not assert their legal rights over clubs that had already been using the names, logos, etc. Wangaratta Magpies for instance. It's a "grandfathering" de facto lets-all-be-nice-about-this agreement. (I think.)

But I believe the AFL do get to vet the names, logos, etc of new clubs in an AFL-affiliated competition (which is most if not all?) and get the final say.

If you're good and don't abuse it or try to make money off it then they will let you be. Otherwise woe betide ...

The AFL applied for and got the trademarks for all those things. Save for a few sporting clubs that got in first.

EG. AFL own "Collingwood Football Club", "Collingwood Magpies Football Club", "Collingwood Football Club Est 1892" and lots of other variations. They also own just "Magpies". But they don't own "Western Suburbs Magpies" (a rugby league club).

My understanding is that the various far flung clubs that never asserted any trademark miss out. The AFL own them now.

But the AFL, out of the goodness of their heart, do not assert their legal rights over clubs that had already been using the names, logos, etc. Wangaratta Magpies for instance. It's a "grandfathering" de facto lets-all-be-nice-about-this agreement. (I think.)

But I believe the AFL do get to vet the names, logos, etc of new clubs in an AFL-affiliated competition (which is most if not all?) and get the final say.

If you're good and don't abuse it or try to make money off it then they will let you be. Otherwise woe betide ...

you didn't mention jumper colour/layout (minus any logos)

i've seen these sold as non afl approved in department stores (at vastly cheaper prices). i think target had them

TBH I'm not sure about the colours. I've heard of the AFL shutting down sales of such stuff.

so getting back to kingdingaling's suggestion of a breakaway comp, i think as far as colours/guersey pattern and nick-names (at the simplest level) the afl would be hard pressed to stop it.

no doubt they would try and make it costly by the usual heavy legal tactics

I think the colours are trademarked but I am happy to be corrected.

But there is absolutely no doubt the AFL would heavy the oppo regardless.

The AFL are happy for clubs to go right to the edge. It keeps the power base down

It is why they haven't bought Etihad Stadium outright

It's hard to fix the draw each season with 18 strong clubs

The AFL are happy for clubs to go right to the edge. It keeps the power base down

It is why they haven't bought Etihad Stadium outright

It's hard to fix the draw each season with 18 strong clubs

Rubbish. They haven't bought it outright YET because they can buy it for the price of entry in 10 years.

"$30 in a few years’ time or $200 million today. It doesn’t seem a hard choice to wait, does it!"

http://www.sportsbet.com.au/blog/sportsbet-media/afl-to-run-down-the-clock-on-etihad-stadium-deal

Not like you to ignore facts in favour of a good old conspiracy theory hey WYL?

Edited November 1, 20159 yr by stuie

Rubbish. They haven't bought it outright YET because they can buy it for the price of entry in 10 years.

"$30 in a few years time or $200 million today. It doesnt seem a hard choice to wait, does it!"

http://www.sportsbet.com.au/blog/sportsbet-media/afl-to-run-down-the-clock-on-etihad-stadium-deal

Not like you to ignore facts in favour of a good old conspiracy theory hey WYL?

not Rubbish at all. How are the 4-5 tennant clubs going to look in 10 years?

Fitzroy comes to mind.

The AFL like to have clubs on drip feeds. Etihad is the perfect home for that.

not Rubbish at all. How are the 4-5 tennant clubs going to look in 10 years?

Fitzroy comes to mind.

The AFL like to have clubs on drip feeds. Etihad is the perfect home for that.

So you'd consider paying $199,999,970 over the future price of something a good business decision?

So you'd consider paying $199,999,970 over the future price of something a good business decision?

For the long term future of the clubs in question yes

$200 mill up front pay it now and make it a clean stadium every week for whoever plays there.

In 10 years that would make a lot more $$$ than the savings you are quoting

But the AFL want weak clubs as well as strong

Keeps them in charge