One-Eyed Richmond Forum

Football => View from the Outer => Topic started by: bushranger on November 22, 2008, 08:04:15 AM

Title: Port Power new slogon
Post by: bushranger on November 22, 2008, 08:04:15 AM
I have just noticed the new slogon for Port Power and it isn't the slogon that I have a problem with, it's their establishment year that they are displaying.
They have it as 1870 now I know the Port Adelaide Power were never in the VFL/AFL in that time for sure.
I can't remeber the date Power signed on in the AFL but I think it was in the 2000's.
So this establishment year is way off.
The year is right for the Port Adelaide Magpies but not for the Port Adelaide Power.
So to me this looks like the Power is trying to have a free ride on the apron strings of the Port Adelaide Magpies.
I think this is a false way to make you team look better that it is the next thing they will be putting down is the Grand Final wins on it to.
Title: Re: Port Power new slogon
Post by: Chuck17 on November 22, 2008, 11:14:04 AM
I have just noticed the new slogon for Port Power and it isn't the slogon that I have a problem with, it's their establishment year that they are displaying.
They have it as 1870 now I know the Port Adelaide Power were never in the VFL/AFL in that time for sure.
I can't remeber the date Power signed on in the AFL but I think it was in the 2000's.
So this establishment year is way off.
The year is right for the Port Adelaide Magpies but not for the Port Adelaide Power.
So to me this looks like the Power is trying to have a free ride on the apron strings of the Port Adelaide Magpies.
I think this is a false way to make you team look better that it is the next thing they will be putting down is the Grand Final wins on it to.

You could be right there Bushranger about the GF's

Like when they won the GF in 1892 by beating the Whyalla (sp?) Sand crawlers 321 to 5
Title: Re: Port Power new slogon
Post by: bushranger on November 22, 2008, 11:23:33 AM
Yer this one just seem a little to strange to me.
And I liked the history lesson to.
Now I have no idea where you could find stuff like that, But now I know.
Title: Re: Port Power new slogon
Post by: Chuck17 on November 22, 2008, 11:27:39 AM
Yer this one just seem a little to strange to me.
And I liked the history lesson to.
Now I have no idea where you could find stuff like that, But now I know.


Sorry , I was making it up just to show how silly Port could go if they extended what they have started.
Title: Re: Port Power new slogon
Post by: bushranger on November 22, 2008, 11:39:15 AM
Well you got me and I thought it was a ripper all the same. Great job. Good Laugh.  :bow
Title: Re: Port Power new slogon
Post by: mightytiges on November 28, 2008, 02:39:33 PM
Technically Port Power is a continuation of the original Port Adelaide. The current Port Magpies were "created" to replace Port in the SANFL when it joined the AFL. I have to say this as my Port supporting dad would kill me otherwise  :D. So 1870 is correct. Just as the RFC was formed in 1885 yet wasn't part of the VFL/AFL until 1908.
Title: Re: Port Power new slogon
Post by: Fishfinger on November 28, 2008, 02:50:47 PM
I always wondered who the Melbourne based Port supporter was.
Title: Re: Port Power new slogon
Post by: mightytiges on November 28, 2008, 04:41:55 PM
lol.

The Crows are far worse with the paranoia. They once sacked their entire Victorian-based staff in the mid 90s  including ex-pat South Aussies because they didn't want anything Victorian as part of their club franchise. True story. Scared of Vics under the bed  :wallywink.
Title: Re: Port Power new slogon
Post by: bushranger on November 28, 2008, 05:44:30 PM
I still think that one is one idenity while the other is another idenity.
Port just want somethiong to hang their hats on because choker chain just hang limp like they do.
I say they are either Port Adelaide Magpies where I would say okay to the date.
But not to the Port Adelaide Power, I have no support to them trying to get accross that they formed then.
Title: Re: Port Power new slogon
Post by: torch on December 18, 2008, 11:22:43 AM
the "1870" should be smaller and higher on the back