|
NicCarBel
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+xIs it confirmed that Socceroos shorts are green? Yes. On both kits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
heyitsrobbie1984
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 160,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xIs it confirmed that Socceroos shorts are green? Yes. On both kits. you sure? i thought the away kit is going to be green top with obsidian blue shorts and green socks. i still dont understand why fresh water is a colour though
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xIs it confirmed that Socceroos shorts are green? Yes. On both kits. you sure? i thought the away kit is going to be green top with obsidian blue shorts and green socks. i still dont understand why fresh water is a colour though Maybe freshwater aligns with clean air?
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xWait whaaaaat? The FFA own the rights to a song the teams fans sing?.. That can't be real? Do they do it for other franchise's? That's the funniest thing I've ever heard. Can the wanderers make t shirts that say For Wanderers I sing? Or does the order of the words not count? This is a symptom of a franchise model. The clubs do not own their own IP. However, you may be reading into this wrong. The FFA would not have registered the trademark on their own volition. WSW would have requested the FFA do it on their behalf. Because it contains the word 'Wanderers' it would be more likely to be approved if it is registered by the same owner of the Western Sydney Wanderers trademark, which is the FFA. This should all change once the league independence is finalised and clubs take ownership of their own IP. Thanks for the reply. Makes sense I guess, still baffles me that club members would not vote against this sort of thing though.
|
|
|
|
|
scott20won
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xWait whaaaaat? The FFA own the rights to a song the teams fans sing?.. That can't be real? Do they do it for other franchise's? That's the funniest thing I've ever heard. Can the wanderers make t shirts that say For Wanderers I sing? Or does the order of the words not count? This is a symptom of a franchise model. The clubs do not own their own IP. However, you may be reading into this wrong. The FFA would not have registered the trademark on their own volition. WSW would have requested the FFA do it on their behalf. Because it contains the word 'Wanderers' it would be more likely to be approved if it is registered by the same owner of the Western Sydney Wanderers trademark, which is the FFA. This should all change once the league independence is finalised and clubs take ownership of their own IP. Thanks for the reply. Makes sense I guess, still baffles me that club members would not vote against this sort of thing though. The whole thing is odd. May have to do with contracts that they aren’t allowed to own anything that is considered related to the club. Members, do you mean APFCA members? It is probably a condition FFA set the league up like. FFA own the one chant, Roary (2004) the only mascot. A notable mention is FFA own Sydney FC (2004). In 2007 AFL acquired Sydney Football Club. its odd in the way it’s not consistent. Why only 1 chant and 1 mascot. If clubs did request why didn’t FFA do it for all the clubs? and why are CFG allowed to own MCFC ip?
|
|
|
|
|
NicCarBel
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xIs it confirmed that Socceroos shorts are green? Yes. On both kits. you sure? i thought the away kit is going to be green top with obsidian blue shorts and green socks. i still dont understand why fresh water is a colour though They're both green to me, just different shades ;)
|
|
|
|
|
someguyjc
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xWait whaaaaat? The FFA own the rights to a song the teams fans sing?.. That can't be real? Do they do it for other franchise's? That's the funniest thing I've ever heard. Can the wanderers make t shirts that say For Wanderers I sing? Or does the order of the words not count? This is a symptom of a franchise model. The clubs do not own their own IP. However, you may be reading into this wrong. The FFA would not have registered the trademark on their own volition. WSW would have requested the FFA do it on their behalf. Because it contains the word 'Wanderers' it would be more likely to be approved if it is registered by the same owner of the Western Sydney Wanderers trademark, which is the FFA. This should all change once the league independence is finalised and clubs take ownership of their own IP. Thanks for the reply. Makes sense I guess, still baffles me that club members would not vote against this sort of thing though. and why are CFG allowed to own MCFC ip? Technically they don't because none of their trademark applications have been successful. All have either been rejected, withdrawn or have current opposition. https://search.ipaustralia.gov.au/trademarks/search/result?s=14d7fe9b-eafd-4861-8ac7-5cb368bbfe94#_1850900As for why they are allowed to apply. I'm guessing they probably negotiated a better agreement with the FFA when they purchased Heart. The FFA would not have wanted them to walk away from the deal and probably made some exemptions for them. CFG are to big to just let them walk over something as minor as that. Interestingly, MacArthur were the original owners of their name/branding, but ownership was changed on 1 July 2019 to the FFA. https://search.ipaustralia.gov.au/trademarks/search/view/2002161?q=macarthur+bulls(Click the history and publications drop down at the bottom.) My guess is this had something to do with independence. Originally, the AL independence was expected/scheduled to be finalised prior to Macarthur entering the comp. That would mean that there would be no reason for FFA to register their trademarks. However, that schedule changed (culprit most likely being Fox), and ownership of the Macarthur IP was all changed over to the FFA.
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xWait whaaaaat? The FFA own the rights to a song the teams fans sing?.. That can't be real? Do they do it for other franchise's? That's the funniest thing I've ever heard. Can the wanderers make t shirts that say For Wanderers I sing? Or does the order of the words not count? This is a symptom of a franchise model. The clubs do not own their own IP. However, you may be reading into this wrong. The FFA would not have registered the trademark on their own volition. WSW would have requested the FFA do it on their behalf. Because it contains the word 'Wanderers' it would be more likely to be approved if it is registered by the same owner of the Western Sydney Wanderers trademark, which is the FFA. This should all change once the league independence is finalised and clubs take ownership of their own IP. Thanks for the reply. Makes sense I guess, still baffles me that club members would not vote against this sort of thing though. The whole thing is odd. May have to do with contracts that they aren’t allowed to own anything that is considered related to the club. Members, do you mean APFCA members? It is probably a condition FFA set the league up like. FFA own the one chant, Roary (2004) the only mascot. A notable mention is FFA own Sydney FC (2004). In 2007 AFL acquired Sydney Football Club. its odd in the way it’s not consistent. Why only 1 chant and 1 mascot. If clubs did request why didn’t FFA do it for all the clubs? and why are CFG allowed to own MCFC ip? No I meant club members... at the AGM every year are the fans that pay their yearly membership not given the right to table any issues they have so members can vote?
|
|
|
|
|
scott20won
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xWait whaaaaat? The FFA own the rights to a song the teams fans sing?.. That can't be real? Do they do it for other franchise's? That's the funniest thing I've ever heard. Can the wanderers make t shirts that say For Wanderers I sing? Or does the order of the words not count? This is a symptom of a franchise model. The clubs do not own their own IP. However, you may be reading into this wrong. The FFA would not have registered the trademark on their own volition. WSW would have requested the FFA do it on their behalf. Because it contains the word 'Wanderers' it would be more likely to be approved if it is registered by the same owner of the Western Sydney Wanderers trademark, which is the FFA. This should all change once the league independence is finalised and clubs take ownership of their own IP. Thanks for the reply. Makes sense I guess, still baffles me that club members would not vote against this sort of thing though. The whole thing is odd. May have to do with contracts that they aren’t allowed to own anything that is considered related to the club. Members, do you mean APFCA members? It is probably a condition FFA set the league up like. FFA own the one chant, Roary (2004) the only mascot. A notable mention is FFA own Sydney FC (2004). In 2007 AFL acquired Sydney Football Club. its odd in the way it’s not consistent. Why only 1 chant and 1 mascot. If clubs did request why didn’t FFA do it for all the clubs? and why are CFG allowed to own MCFC ip? No I meant club members... at the AGM every year are the fans that pay their yearly membership not given the right to table any issues they have so members can vote? I assume that you already know that “members” don’t vote. Not for the board or anything of the like. AL season ticket holder are season ticket holders. Like people who buy a yearly bus pass. Their purchase of a season ticket allows them to use the service they pay for. Then can influence a decision but can’t vote.
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xWait whaaaaat? The FFA own the rights to a song the teams fans sing?.. That can't be real? Do they do it for other franchise's? That's the funniest thing I've ever heard. Can the wanderers make t shirts that say For Wanderers I sing? Or does the order of the words not count? This is a symptom of a franchise model. The clubs do not own their own IP. However, you may be reading into this wrong. The FFA would not have registered the trademark on their own volition. WSW would have requested the FFA do it on their behalf. Because it contains the word 'Wanderers' it would be more likely to be approved if it is registered by the same owner of the Western Sydney Wanderers trademark, which is the FFA. This should all change once the league independence is finalised and clubs take ownership of their own IP. Thanks for the reply. Makes sense I guess, still baffles me that club members would not vote against this sort of thing though. The whole thing is odd. May have to do with contracts that they aren’t allowed to own anything that is considered related to the club. Members, do you mean APFCA members? It is probably a condition FFA set the league up like. FFA own the one chant, Roary (2004) the only mascot. A notable mention is FFA own Sydney FC (2004). In 2007 AFL acquired Sydney Football Club. its odd in the way it’s not consistent. Why only 1 chant and 1 mascot. If clubs did request why didn’t FFA do it for all the clubs? and why are CFG allowed to own MCFC ip? No I meant club members... at the AGM every year are the fans that pay their yearly membership not given the right to table any issues they have so members can vote? I assume that you already know that “members” don’t vote. Not for the board or anything of the like. AL season ticket holder are season ticket holders. Like people who buy a yearly bus pass. Their purchase of a season ticket allows them to use the service they pay for. Then can influence a decision but can’t vote. You know what they say about assumption? :)
|
|
|
|
|
pv4
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xWait whaaaaat? The FFA own the rights to a song the teams fans sing?.. That can't be real? Do they do it for other franchise's? That's the funniest thing I've ever heard. Can the wanderers make t shirts that say For Wanderers I sing? Or does the order of the words not count? This is a symptom of a franchise model. The clubs do not own their own IP. However, you may be reading into this wrong. The FFA would not have registered the trademark on their own volition. WSW would have requested the FFA do it on their behalf. Because it contains the word 'Wanderers' it would be more likely to be approved if it is registered by the same owner of the Western Sydney Wanderers trademark, which is the FFA. This should all change once the league independence is finalised and clubs take ownership of their own IP. Thanks for the reply. Makes sense I guess, still baffles me that club members would not vote against this sort of thing though. The whole thing is odd. May have to do with contracts that they aren’t allowed to own anything that is considered related to the club. Members, do you mean APFCA members? It is probably a condition FFA set the league up like. FFA own the one chant, Roary (2004) the only mascot. A notable mention is FFA own Sydney FC (2004). In 2007 AFL acquired Sydney Football Club. its odd in the way it’s not consistent. Why only 1 chant and 1 mascot. If clubs did request why didn’t FFA do it for all the clubs? and why are CFG allowed to own MCFC ip? No I meant club members... at the AGM every year are the fans that pay their yearly membership not given the right to table any issues they have so members can vote? I assume that you already know that “members” don’t vote. Not for the board or anything of the like. AL season ticket holder are season ticket holders. Like people who buy a yearly bus pass. Their purchase of a season ticket allows them to use the service they pay for. Then can influence a decision but can’t vote. Adelaide United have an actual membership system from memory.
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xWait whaaaaat? The FFA own the rights to a song the teams fans sing?.. That can't be real? Do they do it for other franchise's? That's the funniest thing I've ever heard. Can the wanderers make t shirts that say For Wanderers I sing? Or does the order of the words not count? This is a symptom of a franchise model. The clubs do not own their own IP. However, you may be reading into this wrong. The FFA would not have registered the trademark on their own volition. WSW would have requested the FFA do it on their behalf. Because it contains the word 'Wanderers' it would be more likely to be approved if it is registered by the same owner of the Western Sydney Wanderers trademark, which is the FFA. This should all change once the league independence is finalised and clubs take ownership of their own IP. Thanks for the reply. Makes sense I guess, still baffles me that club members would not vote against this sort of thing though. The whole thing is odd. May have to do with contracts that they aren’t allowed to own anything that is considered related to the club. Members, do you mean APFCA members? It is probably a condition FFA set the league up like. FFA own the one chant, Roary (2004) the only mascot. A notable mention is FFA own Sydney FC (2004). In 2007 AFL acquired Sydney Football Club. its odd in the way it’s not consistent. Why only 1 chant and 1 mascot. If clubs did request why didn’t FFA do it for all the clubs? and why are CFG allowed to own MCFC ip? No I meant club members... at the AGM every year are the fans that pay their yearly membership not given the right to table any issues they have so members can vote? I assume that you already know that “members” don’t vote. Not for the board or anything of the like. AL season ticket holder are season ticket holders. Like people who buy a yearly bus pass. Their purchase of a season ticket allows them to use the service they pay for. Then can influence a decision but can’t vote. Adelaide United have an actual membership system from memory. Well they where formed during the dying days of the evil NSL empire so that would make sense I guess. :) Getting back to the Kit thread though, Adelaide's yellow strip is garbage in my opinion - (sorry to be negative) It really pains me to admit but I quite like Victory's away white strip, especially the map of Melbourne detail.... I'm gonna go and have a shower now I feel dirty.
|
|
|
|
|
scott20won
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xWait whaaaaat? The FFA own the rights to a song the teams fans sing?.. That can't be real? Do they do it for other franchise's? That's the funniest thing I've ever heard. Can the wanderers make t shirts that say For Wanderers I sing? Or does the order of the words not count? This is a symptom of a franchise model. The clubs do not own their own IP. However, you may be reading into this wrong. The FFA would not have registered the trademark on their own volition. WSW would have requested the FFA do it on their behalf. Because it contains the word 'Wanderers' it would be more likely to be approved if it is registered by the same owner of the Western Sydney Wanderers trademark, which is the FFA. This should all change once the league independence is finalised and clubs take ownership of their own IP. Thanks for the reply. Makes sense I guess, still baffles me that club members would not vote against this sort of thing though. The whole thing is odd. May have to do with contracts that they aren’t allowed to own anything that is considered related to the club. Members, do you mean APFCA members? It is probably a condition FFA set the league up like. FFA own the one chant, Roary (2004) the only mascot. A notable mention is FFA own Sydney FC (2004). In 2007 AFL acquired Sydney Football Club. its odd in the way it’s not consistent. Why only 1 chant and 1 mascot. If clubs did request why didn’t FFA do it for all the clubs? and why are CFG allowed to own MCFC ip? No I meant club members... at the AGM every year are the fans that pay their yearly membership not given the right to table any issues they have so members can vote? I assume that you already know that “members” don’t vote. Not for the board or anything of the like. AL season ticket holder are season ticket holders. Like people who buy a yearly bus pass. Their purchase of a season ticket allows them to use the service they pay for. Then can influence a decision but can’t vote. Adelaide United have an actual membership system from memory. I didn’t know they vote for their board.
|
|
|
|
|
someguyjc
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.4K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feed_The_Brox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.2K,
Visits: 0
|
our white kit is the best kit ever seen in the AL. its jizz in your pants stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
Footyball
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.7K,
Visits: 0
|
Brox is actually a sexy man.
|
|
|
|
|
Waz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+xour white kit is the best kit ever seen in the AL. its jizz in your pants stuff. Not enough Orange to be the best kit ever !!
|
|
|
|
|
elksy
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 300,
Visits: 0
|
The map on the victory away kit is brilliant, its a type of feature you'd see on a top premier league or world football club, not something youd expect within the league and its class.
|
|
|
|
|
Waz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+xThe map on the victory away kit is brilliant, its a type of feature you'd see on a top premier league or world football club, not something youd expect within the league and its class. It is.
|
|
|
|
|
someguyjc
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+xour white kit is the best kit ever seen in the AL. its jizz in your pants stuff. I wouldn't go that far, but it might be the best away kit MV has ever had.
|
|
|
|
|
Captain Haddock
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
I DON'T CARE- I LOVE IT!!!
There are only two intellectually honest debate tactics: (a) pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s facts, or (b) pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s logic. All other debate tactics are intellectually dishonest - John T. Reed
The Most Popular Presidential Candidate Of All Time (TM) cant go to a sports stadium in the country he presides over. Figure that one out...
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+xI DON'T CARE- I LOVE IT!!! "Shut up and take my money" ..... That has 2021 A-League marketing slogan written all over it :)
|
|
|
|
|
MarkfromCroydon
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+xour white kit is the best kit ever seen in the AL. its jizz in your pants stuff. I have to agree. It's one of the best kits I've ever seen in any league anywhere. I am buying one right now.
|
|
|
|
|
scubaroo
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xour white kit is the best kit ever seen in the AL. its jizz in your pants stuff. I have to agree. It's one of the best kits I've ever seen in any league anywhere. I am buying one right now. Wasnt sold on either till i saw the full picture, they are both great but that away kit is in my opinion the best the league has seen (though big fan of newys green one in the past) definitely will be picking one up.
|
|
|
|
|
NicCarBel
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.2K,
Visits: 0
|
This has been good fodder for making these kits for PES 2021
|
|
|
|
|
pv4
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
+xour white kit is the best kit ever seen in the AL. its jizz in your pants stuff. I find it very fitting that this ^ is followed directly by the below. +xBrox is actually a sexy man.
|
|
|
|
|
elksy
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 300,
Visits: 0
|
Not sure if this has been mentioned on another topic or post, but Sydney FC have annouced they will reuse the kit from this season again next season.
So no new kit for Sydney, and we claim to be the biggest team in the league. This is straight up pathetic, imo.
|
|
|
|
|
sydneyfc1987
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+xNot sure if this has been mentioned on another topic or post, but Sydney FC have annouced they will reuse the kit from this season again next season. So no new kit for Sydney, and we claim to be the biggest team in the league. This is straight up pathetic, imo. It's really only been the last few seasons where we haven't used the same kit for two seasons. We used the same kit in 15-16 as we did in 16-17.
(VAR) IS NAVY BLUE
|
|
|
|
|
SUTHERLANDBEAR
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xNot sure if this has been mentioned on another topic or post, but Sydney FC have annouced they will reuse the kit from this season again next season. So no new kit for Sydney, and we claim to be the biggest team in the league. This is straight up pathetic, imo. It's really only been the last few seasons where we haven't used the same kit for two seasons. We used the same kit in 15-16 as we did in 16-17. Still amatuerish though.
|
|
|
|