Primal wrote:
> Colin Kynoch <kynochfamily@no-spam> wrote in
> news:3F07DA33.4090703@no-spam
>
>
>>>The AFL cannot force Essendon to change their strip, but it can
>>>probably penalise it out of premiership contention until it does.
>>>
>>
>>And lose when challenged in court.
>>
>
> On what grounds? Essendon, as a club, has agreed to abide by the rules
> of the AFL. The fact that it has a pre-existing clause in its
> constitution which may now prevent it from complying is solely
> Essendon's problem.
No it isn't.
You see there is a law above the AFL, and it wopuld be considered more
important than any AFL rule or regulation.
Further to that the AFL cannot compel the Essendon Football Club to
break the law, that in itself is an offence.
> Would the AFL let a team ignore the salary cap just
> because its constitution said 'We will not limit our salaries to a level
> defined by a third party'? Of course not. Same theory here.
That isn't the sort of thing that can be included in a constitution as
it would in itself be unlawful.
So your comparison is invalid.
>>The AFL cannot force Essendon to break the law.
>>
>
> It's not forcing them to break the law, take your blinkers off.
If the AFL forces Essendon to change its jumper withoput the required
vote being gained by its members that is precisly what the AFL would be
doing.
A constitution is a legally binding document.
> It's forcing them to make good on their promise that the club will abide by
> the rules of the AFL.
The LAws of the Commonwealth of Australia take precedence over any silly
little rule or regulation the AFL wants to dream up. The AFL knows it
the Essendon Football Club knows it it just seems some stupid people
haven't worked that out yet.
> How the club achieves, legally or otherwise, is up
> to the club.
The AFL knows it cannot force Essendon to change their jumper.
Wayne Jackson has said as much.
>>Any penalty that the AFL chose to apply would be overturned in court.
>>
>
> Why? It would be in the rules of the AFL. Or don't they apply to
> Essendon???
Why because the laws of the Commonwealth of Australia take precedence
and the AFL cannot force Essendon to break those laws.
>>>The Bombers' refusal to look seriously at an alternate strip is only
>>>going to harm one group, and that's the club itself.
>>>
>>Not at all. It will only strengthen the club as its supporters will
>>be even more supportive when the club refuses to cave in to commercial
>>pressure applied by the AFL.
> Well, they can help the club pay the fines then.
They wont need to.
Will the other clubs be happy to force the issue when all legal costs
will be borne by the AFL and the AFL could itself be penalised?
> And when eventually the
> club realises that it DOES have to alter its constitution, its going to
> have an even harder time getting the members to accept this...
And it can only alter its constitution with the requiste votes from the
members, the AFL cannot force a change.
Colin Kynoch
>
>
>
>
> Rod
>
Daniel Burdie wrote:
> "Colin Kynoch" <kynochfamily@no-spam> wrote
>
>>Primal wrote:
>>Not at all. It will only strengthen the club as its supporters will be
>>even more supportive when the club refuses to cave in to commercial
>>pressure applied by the AFL.
>>
>>And that is the only reason to have alternate strips, commercial
>>
> pressure.
>
> Nobody is pressuring clubs such as Sydney, Brisbane or Hawthorn to wear
> clash strips as there as no clashes.
The clashes are in your mind.
> Commercial pressure is one of the reasons: no television network wants a
> product where both teams are wearing red, white and black uniforms as
> happened on Friday night - Essendon's refusal to change is devaluing the
> TV rights.
Bullshit.
Colin Kynoch
Sanctify wrote:
> Above and beyond all of your arguments is the contract that Essendon have
> signed with the AFL requiring them to abide by their rules and regulations.
And when they signed on there was nothing about alternate strips so
Essendon had no problems signing it.
> Hence when the ALF decrees an alternate strip Essendon have to do it - and
> there's nothing they can do about it unless they (Essendon) want to leave
> the AFL.
Wrong. The AFL cannot induce one of the clubs to break the law. In
other words it cannot bring in any rule or regulation which would cause
a club to break the law to remain in the AFL
To do so would be to breach a whole myriad of laws.
> Simple as that Col'n.
I guess you are when it comes to issues like this.
Colin Kynoch
Colin Kynoch <kynochfamily@no-spam> wrote in
news:3F08E03F.2090208@no-spam
> Sanctify wrote:
>
>> Above and beyond all of your arguments is the contract that Essendon
>> have signed with the AFL requiring them to abide by their rules and
>> regulations.
>
> And when they signed on there was nothing about alternate strips so
> Essendon had no problems signing it.
Essendon has agreed to accept the rules of the AFL *and any and all
amendments the AFL chooses to make*. How else is the AFL meant to make
any changes to its rules stick when every club (by your logic) can pick
and choose what rules it will and won't follow?
>> Hence when the ALF decrees an alternate strip Essendon have to do it
>> - and there's nothing they can do about it unless they (Essendon)
>> want to leave the AFL.
>
> Wrong. The AFL cannot induce one of the clubs to break the law. In
> other words it cannot bring in any rule or regulation which would
> cause a club to break the law to remain in the AFL
>
> To do so would be to breach a whole myriad of laws.
It is not even CLOSE to inducing someone to break the law when you ask
them to fulfil their obligations under a legal and binding contract,
even if they are not immediately able to do so. Essendon independently
agreed to abide by current and future AFL rules, and then independently
chose to amend its constitution (knowing full well that alternate strips
were an issue, hence the clause). If it wishes to continue to fulfill
obligations it agreed to under the former, then the club and not the AFL
carries the burden of finding a way around the latter. If the Essendon
board can't get the constitution changed, then the board will be liable
for entering the club into a contract that now breaches its
constitution. Yes, that does give the League a lot of power over the
clubs, but that's the reality of playing in the AFL and that's fairly
straightforward contract and corporate law.
The fact that Essendon inserted this jumper clause in the late 90s only
makes it clearer that the club realised the AFL might introduce
alternate strips, and that it would be bound to follow an AFL ruling on
the matter if it did. Why else put the matter in writing when the
membership has never shown signs of moving to change it?
>> Would the AFL let a team ignore the salary cap just
>> because its constitution said 'We will not limit our salaries to a
>> level defined by a third party'? Of course not. Same theory here.
>
> That isn't the sort of thing that can be included in a constitution as
> it would in itself be unlawful.
Why? There is no law on player salaries, and there is no limitation on
what non-illegal behaviour can be specified in a constitution (viz
Essendon's insertion of a clause about its jumper). The salary cap and
bargaining agreement are determined by the AFL and the AFLPA - so by
your own logic, this AFL-enforced restriction can be avoided by a simple
constitutional amendment.
Rod
Colin Kynoch <kynochfamily@no-spam> wrote in news:3F08B902.7050903
@no-spam
> The clashes are in your mind.
That is generally where most people process the visual data from their
eyes, yes...
>
> The fact that Essendon inserted this jumper clause in the late 90s only
> makes it clearer that the club realised the AFL might introduce
> alternate strips, and that it would be bound to follow an AFL ruling on
> the matter if it did. Why else put the matter in writing when the
> membership has never shown signs of moving to change it?
>
You've read the Essendon constitution have you? We inserted that in the
'90's?
Primal wrote:
> Colin Kynoch <kynochfamily@no-spam> wrote in
> news:3F08E03F.2090208@no-spam
>
>
>>Sanctify wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Above and beyond all of your arguments is the contract that Essendon
>>>have signed with the AFL requiring them to abide by their rules and
>>>regulations.
>>
>>And when they signed on there was nothing about alternate strips so
>>Essendon had no problems signing it.
>
>
> Essendon has agreed to accept the rules of the AFL *and any and all
> amendments the AFL chooses to make*. How else is the AFL meant to make
> any changes to its rules stick when every club (by your logic) can pick
> and choose what rules it will and won't follow?
Essendon has no choice about the jumper issue. Under its constitution
it has to be agreed to by the members.
Wayne Jackson knows this the AFL knows this maybe one day you will get
this though that think head of yours.
>>>Hence when the ALF decrees an alternate strip Essendon have to do it
>>>- and there's nothing they can do about it unless they (Essendon)
>>>want to leave the AFL.
>>
>>Wrong. The AFL cannot induce one of the clubs to break the law. In
>>other words it cannot bring in any rule or regulation which would
>>cause a club to break the law to remain in the AFL
>>
>>To do so would be to breach a whole myriad of laws.
> It is not even CLOSE to inducing someone to break the law when you ask
> them to fulfil their obligations under a legal and binding contract,
> even if they are not immediately able to do so.
> Essendon independently
> agreed to abide by current and future AFL rules, and then independently
> chose to amend its constitution (knowing full well that alternate strips
> were an issue, hence the clause). If it wishes to continue to fulfill
> obligations it agreed to under the former, then the club and not the AFL
> carries the burden of finding a way around the latter.
Not at all.
> If the Essendon
> board can't get the constitution changed, then the board will be liable
> for entering the club into a contract that now breaches its
> constitution. Yes, that does give the League a lot of power over the
> clubs, but that's the reality of playing in the AFL and that's fairly
> straightforward contract and corporate law.
And as the AFL had no objection to Essendon making changes to its
constitution they can't now force them to change it.
All the AFL had to do was tell Essendon at the time that the
constitution could not be changed in that manner and it would have been
dead. As they didn't the AFL were complicit in the act of changing the
constitution.
> The fact that Essendon inserted this jumper clause in the late 90s only
> makes it clearer that the club realised the AFL might introduce
> alternate strips, and that it would be bound to follow an AFL ruling on
> the matter if it did. Why else put the matter in writing when the
> membership has never shown signs of moving to change it?
In that regard the Essendon board were smart.
As the AFL did not have a problem with the clause being inserted they
cannot now compel Essendon to change it, and they know it.
>>>Would the AFL let a team ignore the salary cap just
>>>because its constitution said 'We will not limit our salaries to a
>>>level defined by a third party'? Of course not. Same theory here.
>>
>>That isn't the sort of thing that can be included in a constitution as
>>it would in itself be unlawful.
> Why? There is no law on player salaries,
Players salaries come under Industrial Relations laws. You may or may
not be aware (clearly you aren't) the AFl and the players enter into an
Enterprise Bargaining situation on a regular basis. The conduct of this
is governed by Commonwealth Law.
> and there is no limitation on
> what non-illegal behaviour can be specified in a constitution (viz
> Essendon's insertion of a clause about its jumper). The salary cap and
> bargaining agreement are determined by the AFL and the AFLPA - so by
> your own logic, this AFL-enforced restriction can be avoided by a simple
> constitutional amendment.
Except that the salary issue is not soley governed by the AFL. There
are clear guidlines for EB
Under Enterprise Bargaining a single entity does not necessarily have
the right to negotiate on a separate basis outside of the EB.
Colin Kynoch
Primal wrote:
> Colin Kynoch <kynochfamily@no-spam> wrote in news:3F08B902.7050903
> @no-spam
>
>
>>The clashes are in your mind.
>
>
> That is generally where most people process the visual data from their
> eyes, yes...
Then if you have a problem get your eyes checked.
If you can't tell the difference your eyes are fucked.
Colin Kynoch
BJS wrote:
> "Colin Kynoch" <kynochfamily@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3F08B902.7050903@no-spam
>
>>
>>Daniel Burdie wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Colin Kynoch" <kynochfamily@no-spam> wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>>Primal wrote:
>>>>Not at all. It will only strengthen the club as its supporters will be
>>>>even more supportive when the club refuses to cave in to commercial
>>>>pressure applied by the AFL.
>>>>
>>>>And that is the only reason to have alternate strips, commercial
>>>>
>>>
>>>pressure.
>>>
>>>Nobody is pressuring clubs such as Sydney, Brisbane or Hawthorn to wear
>>>clash strips as there as no clashes.
>>
>>
>>The clashes are in your mind.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Commercial pressure is one of the reasons: no television network wants a
>>>product where both teams are wearing red, white and black uniforms as
>>>happened on Friday night - Essendon's refusal to change is devaluing the
>>>TV rights.
>>
>>
>>Bullshit.
>>
>>
>>Colin Kynoch
>>
>
> You are doing a wonderful job here with these tools Colin, but I don't know
> why you bother - they'll never get it! These would be the same ones though
> that argue the AFL should be "forcing" the home ground advantage rule during
> the finals against the "legally binding" contract witht he MCC!!
No, they seem to tag team being tools.
Colin Kynoch
"Colin Kynoch" <kynoch@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3F0A1616.2050408@no-spam
>
>
> Primal wrote:
> > Colin Kynoch <kynochfamily@no-spam> wrote in
> > news:3F08E03F.2090208@no-spam
> >
> >
> >>Sanctify wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Above and beyond all of your arguments is the contract that Essendon
> >>>have signed with the AFL requiring them to abide by their rules and
> >>>regulations.
> >>
> >>And when they signed on there was nothing about alternate strips so
> >>Essendon had no problems signing it.
> >
> >
> > Essendon has agreed to accept the rules of the AFL *and any and all
> > amendments the AFL chooses to make*. How else is the AFL meant to make
> > any changes to its rules stick when every club (by your logic) can pick
> > and choose what rules it will and won't follow?
>
> Essendon has no choice about the jumper issue. Under its constitution
> it has to be agreed to by the members.
Essendon doesn't own the jumper anyway - the AFL does. Thus, if they really
wanted to, they could remove Essendon and give those colours to anyone
else - not that they will.
And if th AFL decree it then it'll be done - members or no members.
>
> Wayne Jackson knows this the AFL knows this maybe one day you will get
> this though that think head of yours.
Think head - thanks for that, because I do think a lot.
Col'n get your head around this - alternate strips will be introduced next
season and your club, and Colliwood, will be wearing them. Cry a river,
build a little bridge and get the fuck over it.
Sanctify wrote:
> "Colin Kynoch" <kynoch@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3F0A1616.2050408@no-spam
>
>>
>>Primal wrote:
>>
>>>Colin Kynoch <kynochfamily@no-spam> wrote in
>>>news:3F08E03F.2090208@no-spam
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Sanctify wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Above and beyond all of your arguments is the contract that Essendon
>>>>>have signed with the AFL requiring them to abide by their rules and
>>>>>regulations.
>>>>
>>>>And when they signed on there was nothing about alternate strips so
>>>>Essendon had no problems signing it.
>>>
>>>
>>>Essendon has agreed to accept the rules of the AFL *and any and all
>>>amendments the AFL chooses to make*. How else is the AFL meant to make
>>>any changes to its rules stick when every club (by your logic) can pick
>>>and choose what rules it will and won't follow?
>>
>>Essendon has no choice about the jumper issue. Under its constitution
>>it has to be agreed to by the members.
>
>
> Essendon doesn't own the jumper anyway - the AFL does. Thus, if they really
> wanted to, they could remove Essendon and give those colours to anyone
> else - not that they will.
>
> And if th AFL decree it then it'll be done - members or no members.
So you are sugegsting you know more about the issue than Wayne Jackson?
>>Wayne Jackson knows this the AFL knows this maybe one day you will get
>>this though that think head of yours.
>
>
> Think head - thanks for that, because I do think a lot.
>
> Col'n get your head around this - alternate strips will be introduced next
> season and your club, and Colliwood, will be wearing them. Cry a river,
> build a little bridge and get the fuck over it.
Essendon will not be.
I don't care if Collingwood come out in yellow and white stripes.
Colin Kynoch
>
>
"Colin Kynoch" <kynoch@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3F0A75CB.6080009@no-spam
>
>
> Sanctify wrote:
> > "Colin Kynoch" <kynoch@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:3F0A1616.2050408@no-spam
> >
> >>
> >>Primal wrote:
> >>
> >>>Colin Kynoch <kynochfamily@no-spam> wrote in
> >>>news:3F08E03F.2090208@no-spam
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Sanctify wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Above and beyond all of your arguments is the contract that Essendon
> >>>>>have signed with the AFL requiring them to abide by their rules and
> >>>>>regulations.
> >>>>
> >>>>And when they signed on there was nothing about alternate strips so
> >>>>Essendon had no problems signing it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Essendon has agreed to accept the rules of the AFL *and any and all
> >>>amendments the AFL chooses to make*. How else is the AFL meant to make
> >>>any changes to its rules stick when every club (by your logic) can pick
> >>>and choose what rules it will and won't follow?
> >>
> >>Essendon has no choice about the jumper issue. Under its constitution
> >>it has to be agreed to by the members.
> >
> >
> > Essendon doesn't own the jumper anyway - the AFL does. Thus, if they
really
> > wanted to, they could remove Essendon and give those colours to anyone
> > else - not that they will.
> >
> > And if th AFL decree it then it'll be done - members or no members.
>
> So you are sugegsting you know more about the issue than Wayne Jackson?
Are you?
Jackson has always made it quite clear that the AFL holds the copyright to
each and every jumper worn by the clubs. Demi has also made it clear that
next season each club will be required to wear an alternate 'away' strip or
be fined for each game that they refuse to do so in. You're hearing this
for the first time I take it?
>
> >>Wayne Jackson knows this the AFL knows this maybe one day you will get
> >>this though that think head of yours.
> >
> >
> > Think head - thanks for that, because I do think a lot.
> >
> > Col'n get your head around this - alternate strips will be introduced
next
> > season and your club, and Colliwood, will be wearing them. Cry a river,
> > build a little bridge and get the fuck over it.
>
> Essendon will not be.
Wanna bet?
>
> I don't care if Collingwood come out in yellow and white stripes.
And Essendon will be wearing black and red, but not like they do now.
>
> Colin Kynoch
>
> >
> >
>
it still remains that it may be done by hoisting
Essendon on their own petard
the AFL already have a rule that governs
what sponsorship goes on a jumper
this is by agreement with the clubs
and nothing to do with your constitution
if the AFL rejected any sponsorship
simply by enforcing your own constitution
precluding changes to the jumper
then you would lose valuable sponsors$
unless you put the motion to the members
to change it again, I suppose it all depends
on the exact wording in your constitution
PS: can you post the exact clause re the jumper
because this is all supposition unless we know
"Colin Kynoch" <kynochfamily@no-spam> wrote in message news:3F07D9AA.1070008@no-spam
>
>
> Mjh wrote:
>
> > "Colin Kynoch" <kynochfamily@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:3F063302.1070609@no-spam
> >
> >
> >>There is a higher authority that overrules the AFL and that is federal
> >>
> > law.
> >
> >
> > You are correct there.
> >
> > But unless I am mistaken, the 'not changing jumper thing' is in Essendon's
> > constitution, not part of federal law.
>
>
> No but changes to a clubs constitution are governed by federal law.
>
> Colin Kynoch
>
"Zed Strange" <Z3dStrang3@no-spam> wrote in message
news:ec3ggvckprr06h82097blocqjr92obn8p1@no-spam
> On 04 Jul 2003 15:01:16 GMT, backdownunder@no-spam (BackDownUnder)
> wrote:
>
> >Even though St.Kilda were the home team, they should have known Essendon
are
> >too stubborn to have an alternate strip and so they could have digged out
their
> >yellow strips and used them. However, I may be ignorant of any
agreements
> >concerning the home team. Is it mandatory for St.Kilda to wear their
> >traditional red white and black strip (original or cross design) if they
are
> >the home team or are they allowed to switch to an alternate (the yellow
strip
> >in this case) if they so wish (after some proper approval from the AFL
etc.)
>
> So what has StKilda done for the previous 100 odd years when they did
> not have a yellow strip?
>
>
StKilda has had a yellow strip in the past.
pharro
"Colin Kynoch" <kynochfamily@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3F07D732.4050504@no-spam
>
>
> pharro wrote:
>
> > "Colin Kynoch" <kynochfamily@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:3F063302.1070609@no-spam
> >
> >>
> >>Daniel Burdie wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Well after years of talk, the AFL is still yet to solve the problem of
> >>>colour clashes.
> >>>
> >>>Tonight's game was an absolute disgrace - both teams wearing
> >>>
> > predominantly
> >
> >>>black strips with elements of white and red. Awful to watch and a very
> >>>amateurish look for the nationally televised game.
> >>>
> >>>St Kilda does the right thing and wears an alternative strip when it is
> >>>the away team now, the AFL should show some authority and force
Essendon
> >>>(and others) to do the same.
> >>>
> >>
> >>The AFL cannot force Essendon to change their strip.
> >>
> >>There is a higher authority that overrules the AFL and that is federal
> >>
> > law.
> >
> >>The only way Essondon can be forced to change its strip is by 75% of its
> >>members voting for it.
> >>
> >>I for one will never do so.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > If the AFL changes rules to insist upon clash strips, Essendon will be
free
> > under federal law to wear their red and black abomination in the VAFA.
>
>
> The AFL cannot force Essendon to change their constitution and to
> attempt to do so would see the AFL in serious trouble
>
>
The AFL can do a lot of things if you really want to pull the gloves off
Colin. How's about reallocating ANZAC Day for starters?
pharro
"Colin Kynoch" <kynochfamily@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3F08B902.7050903@no-spam
>
>
> Daniel Burdie wrote:
>
> > "Colin Kynoch" <kynochfamily@no-spam> wrote
> >
> >>Primal wrote:
> >>Not at all. It will only strengthen the club as its supporters will be
> >>even more supportive when the club refuses to cave in to commercial
> >>pressure applied by the AFL.
> >>
> >>And that is the only reason to have alternate strips, commercial
> >>
> > pressure.
> >
> > Nobody is pressuring clubs such as Sydney, Brisbane or Hawthorn to wear
> > clash strips as there as no clashes.
>
>
> The clashes are in your mind.
>
>
>
And Scott Lucas'. Oh but he's just an ignorant player. Doesn't have anywhere
near the experience and wealth of knowledge on the matter that certain
Essendon fans claim.
pharro
pharro wrote:
> "Colin Kynoch" <kynochfamily@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3F07D732.4050504@no-spam
>
>>
>>pharro wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Colin Kynoch" <kynochfamily@no-spam> wrote in message
>>>news:3F063302.1070609@no-spam
>>>
>>>
>>>>Daniel Burdie wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Well after years of talk, the AFL is still yet to solve the problem of
>>>>>colour clashes.
>>>>>
>>>>>Tonight's game was an absolute disgrace - both teams wearing
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>predominantly
>>>
>>>
>>>>>black strips with elements of white and red. Awful to watch and a very
>>>>>amateurish look for the nationally televised game.
>>>>>
>>>>>St Kilda does the right thing and wears an alternative strip when it is
>>>>>the away team now, the AFL should show some authority and force
>>>>
> Essendon
>
>>>>>(and others) to do the same.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The AFL cannot force Essendon to change their strip.
>>>>
>>>>There is a higher authority that overrules the AFL and that is federal
>>>>
>>>
>>>law.
>>>
>>>
>>>>The only way Essondon can be forced to change its strip is by 75% of its
>>>>members voting for it.
>>>>
>>>>I for one will never do so.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>If the AFL changes rules to insist upon clash strips, Essendon will be
>>
> free
>
>>>under federal law to wear their red and black abomination in the VAFA.
>>
>>
>>The AFL cannot force Essendon to change their constitution and to
>>attempt to do so would see the AFL in serious trouble
>>
>>
>
>
>
> The AFL can do a lot of things if you really want to pull the gloves off
> Colin. How's about reallocating ANZAC Day for starters?
You honestly think the AFL will chsnge what the MCC classes the second
most important game of the year?
Colin Kynoch
"Colin Kynoch" <kynoch@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3F0B48FD.90205@no-spam
>
>
> pharro wrote:
> > "Colin Kynoch" <kynochfamily@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:3F07D732.4050504@no-spam
> >
> >>
> >>pharro wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Colin Kynoch" <kynochfamily@no-spam> wrote in message
> >>>news:3F063302.1070609@no-spam
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Daniel Burdie wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Well after years of talk, the AFL is still yet to solve the problem
of
> >>>>>colour clashes.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Tonight's game was an absolute disgrace - both teams wearing
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>predominantly
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>black strips with elements of white and red. Awful to watch and a
very
> >>>>>amateurish look for the nationally televised game.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>St Kilda does the right thing and wears an alternative strip when it
is
> >>>>>the away team now, the AFL should show some authority and force
> >>>>
> > Essendon
> >
> >>>>>(and others) to do the same.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>The AFL cannot force Essendon to change their strip.
> >>>>
> >>>>There is a higher authority that overrules the AFL and that is federal
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>law.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>The only way Essondon can be forced to change its strip is by 75% of
its
> >>>>members voting for it.
> >>>>
> >>>>I for one will never do so.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>If the AFL changes rules to insist upon clash strips, Essendon will be
> >>
> > free
> >
> >>>under federal law to wear their red and black abomination in the VAFA.
> >>
> >>
> >>The AFL cannot force Essendon to change their constitution and to
> >>attempt to do so would see the AFL in serious trouble
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > The AFL can do a lot of things if you really want to pull the gloves off
> > Colin. How's about reallocating ANZAC Day for starters?
>
> You honestly think the AFL will chsnge what the MCC classes the second
> most important game of the year?
>
>
Col, I'm sure the AFL will do everything to appease the MCC, given the way
that the MCC has bent over backwards to accommodate AFL finals compromise
requests.
pharro
pharro wrote:
> "Colin Kynoch" <kynoch@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3F0B48FD.90205@no-spam
>
>>
>>pharro wrote:
>>
>>>"Colin Kynoch" <kynochfamily@no-spam> wrote in message
>>>news:3F07D732.4050504@no-spam
>>>
>>>
>>>>pharro wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Colin Kynoch" <kynochfamily@no-spam> wrote in message
>>>>>news:3F063302.1070609@no-spam
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Daniel Burdie wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Well after years of talk, the AFL is still yet to solve the problem
>
> of
>
>>>>>>>colour clashes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Tonight's game was an absolute disgrace - both teams wearing
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>predominantly
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>black strips with elements of white and red. Awful to watch and a
>
> very
>
>>>>>>>amateurish look for the nationally televised game.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>St Kilda does the right thing and wears an alternative strip when it
>
> is
>
>>>>>>>the away team now, the AFL should show some authority and force
>>>>>>
>>>Essendon
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>(and others) to do the same.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The AFL cannot force Essendon to change their strip.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There is a higher authority that overrules the AFL and that is federal
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>law.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>The only way Essondon can be forced to change its strip is by 75% of
>
> its
>
>>>>>>members voting for it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I for one will never do so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>If the AFL changes rules to insist upon clash strips, Essendon will be
>>>>
>>>free
>>>
>>>
>>>>>under federal law to wear their red and black abomination in the VAFA.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The AFL cannot force Essendon to change their constitution and to
>>>>attempt to do so would see the AFL in serious trouble
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>The AFL can do a lot of things if you really want to pull the gloves off
>>>Colin. How's about reallocating ANZAC Day for starters?
>>
>>You honestly think the AFL will chsnge what the MCC classes the second
>>most important game of the year?
>>
>>
>
>
>
> Col, I'm sure the AFL will do everything to appease the MCC, given the way
> that the MCC has bent over backwards to accommodate AFL finals compromise
> requests.
So you think the AFL will can one of its best marketing opportunities
for the year
You really are a dreamer.
Colin Kynoch
> >> So what has StKilda done for the previous 100 odd years when they did
> >> not have a yellow strip?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >StKilda has had a yellow strip in the past.
>
> are you sure thay have had a yellow strip for the last 100 odd years?
No, but the strip with a black cross only appeared in the last 7 or 8 years.
Before that they had a tricolour.
Julian