Some sports people just need a belting with the strap
Ivan 01 said
10:04 AM Oct 25, 2022
A friend sent me this on email.
I found that it covered some very relevant points
Just when you think youve landed that ground breaking deal to keep your sport and its increasingly precious star attractions in the style to which theyve become accustomed, you get: Yeah, nah not really keen on that company it doesnt align with my personal values. What else ya got?
First our national netball team, the Diamonds, refusing the hand-up and hand-out of billionaire businesswoman and philanthropist Gina Rinehart, on account of something her dinosaur father Lang Han**** said in 1984 roughly 20 years before most of the current cluster of players were born. But hold that thought.
Days later, Cricket Australia confirms the role our national (mens) captain Pat Cummins played in the termination of a $40 million sponsorship deal with energy company Alinta, on the grounds it clean bowled his clearly articulated, increasingly well practiced environmental stance.
And late in the week, a bunch of high profile, non-playing, scarf wearing, sit in the grandstand-type Dockers members call for the termination of Fremantles association with Woodside Energy, accusing the gas giant of trying to extend its social licence on the back of the club. And the players. And the great game of AFL. In other words, strike while tempers are running hot.
Take a pew, people. This might take a while to unpack.
Lets start by drilling down into the conflicted corporate conscience of netball, a sport it needs to be pointed out is currently in a $4.5 million financial hole. Dont understand how, but it is, with spending in the last financial year exceeding income by $4.368 million.
So here are the Diamonds, in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, drowning. But when Gina arrives in her luxury motor launch to rescue them, they refuse to grab the life raft. They wave her away.
Rinehart has already rescued other sports rowing, swimming, volleyball. Perhaps our netballers are waiting for a wind powered vessel?
I dont want to be the bearer of bad news, but Ive checked the commercial radar there aint a lot of other rescue craft in the immediate vicinity. Whats Plan B?
But lets move onto cricket, and our carbon neutral national (mens) captain Pat Cummins, insistent that hes no longer comfortable having the Australian teams brand associated with a company with such a flagrant disregard for the environment.
It might be an inconvenient time to raise this, but isnt this loosely the same mob who four years ago dragged the good name of our national carrier Qantas through the mud, by trying to blatantly cheat in South Africa?
Selectively short memories. I would have thought a little more humility was in order, for say the next 40 years.
While contemplating the dismissal of Alintas $15 million a season contribution, I couldnt help but wonder what somebody like Allan Border would have been thinking. His last ACB contract was $90,000. For the season. Thats roughly what our current stars earn in a single innings of an Indian Premier League T20 match.
AB never had a social or political agenda. He just played cricket. He wore the baggy green with untold pride, grit and determination. Bit of a dinosaur really.
Forcing myself to look through a more youthful, woke lens, I can muster respect for Pat Cummins, and his intransigence on a point of principle. Hes an impressive, intelligent individual, and his passion is admirable.
Besides, it wasnt that many years ago that a major dilemma for an international cricketer outside the scarcity of runs and wickets was not being able to access the wi-fi when they arrived at their five star hotel. Or not being granted admission to the first class lounge at the airport. Seriously.
But there are as many holes in Cummins defence as there were in the defence of the English openers in the 2020-21 Ashes series. Never mind the Range Rover he drives has he thought about day/night cricket? You know, played under lights?
The predicament for professional sport, in the virtue signalling world in which we live, is that practically every corporate partnership in existence is potentially offensive. To somebody, at some level.
Lets explore the social ills of gambling. Most major sports have a lucrative partnership with at least one betting agency, and takes a commission from the turnover of the others.
What about the damage the gambling companies are doing to our social fabric? On the night of State of Origin 3 back in 2016, I vividly remember my (then) eight year old son asking What are the odds, Dad? Where Joel Caine?
But gamble responsible, people. Bet with your head, not over it.
Alcohol sponsorships. Theres your primary cause of domestic violence right there. Not to mention alcoholism. Fast food? Intrinsically linked to obesity, diabetes and heart disease. Whats the deterioration of adolescent health costing the community?
Furthermore KFC you know they kill chickens? McDonalds, cattle. The animal welfare people cant be happy about that. Banks? Theyre all morally corrupt, just like those filthy energy companies, trying to purge their guilty conscience by investing in sport, and pretending they care about the community.
Regardless of who sponsors what, in 2022 somebody, somewhere, is going to be indignant.
I know its outside their pay grade, but do our professional athletes fully appreciate just how hard it is to land a $10 million sponsor? How rare that scale of financial support is in Australia?
No chance. Most (men) have only ever flirted fleetingly with the real world. Theyve been batting and bowling or shooting hoops since they were five.
Taking it a step further, if we ban banks, alcohol companies, gambling, energy, mining etc remove them all from the sponsorship pool whos going to fill the void?
The government? Us the tax payers? More likely, nobody.
And wheres that pain going to be most felt? At the grassroots level. Mums and Dads will be paying even more for little Johnny and little Jenny to take the field or the court. Beyond that, lower investment in grassroots, poorer long term performance. Its a proven cycle.
Nobody is denying the likes of Pat Cummins and Donnell Wallam and others the right to protest. But theyre contracted athletes, playing team sport. If they feel that strongly about the unfavourable terms of their employment, they can always vote with their feet. Go play an individual sport, where they have total control of their own destiny.
In recent years, Australia has become the world leader in oppose and object, the only plausible reason being that we have it so bloody good in this country, we have nothing else to whinge about.
But on this issue, were approaching a point of no return.
As a sports loving nation, we need to be very careful what we wish for.
Bobdown said
10:19 AM Oct 25, 2022
I like Jacqui Lambie's response......"the Diamonds are going to have to sell a lot of Bunnings sausage sizzles and a lot of chook raffles"
Mike Harding said
11:16 AM Oct 25, 2022
I suspect the Diamond's handling of this issue will be a salutary lesson which is well learnt by other clubs and codes as it, and its repercussions, sink in.
deverall11 said
11:18 AM Oct 25, 2022
Is this a case of biting the hand that feeds you?
Ivan 01 said
11:39 AM Oct 25, 2022
Mike Harding wrote:
I suspect the Diamond's handling of this issue will be a salutary lesson which is well learnt by other clubs and codes as it, and its repercussions, sink in.
Lets hope that common sense will prevail in the near future before the opportunities are lost because of the actions of a selfish few.
-- Edited by Ivan 01 on Tuesday 25th of October 2022 11:40:35 AM
86GTS said
11:46 AM Oct 25, 2022
Its a pity that money has become so intrinsically tied up with sport. What happened to the good old days when VFL players had normal day jobs, trained on Tuesday & Thursday nights & were payed £25 for playing on Saturday. Sport used to be played for the love off the game, now its played for the love of the money.
-- Edited by 86GTS on Tuesday 25th of October 2022 03:09:42 PM
Ivan 01 said
11:49 AM Oct 25, 2022
The word *Professional* has changed all that.
This says it all from above.
Nobody is denying the likes of Pat Cummins and Donnell Wallam and others the right to protest. But theyre contracted athletes, playing team sport. If they feel that strongly about the unfavourable terms of their employment, they can always vote with their feet. Go play an individual sport, where they have total control of their own destiny.
DMaxer said
02:46 PM Oct 25, 2022
Why do you need to use enormous sized printing to make your point. I don't care less whether sporting people choose to either accept particular sponsorship or not. They are the ones that are participating and they are the ones that will suffer the financial loss. I don't go to netball games so it doesn't matter to me who sponsors them or any other team for that matter.
Wheeling out Allan Border and his income in 1994 is totally ridiculous. When he was earning $94K the average Aussie was earning under $30K for their full time job. Added to Border's income was also all the advertising and appearance monies he received as well as incentives. The $94K was his base contract fee. The last time I saw him he was flogging solar panels and foot massages machines.
Why is it anyone's business as to what professional athletes earn or by whom they are sponsored. The sponsors are not doing it for the athletes' benefit, it is strictly a business interest for them.
Gundog said
02:48 PM Oct 25, 2022
Then we had the Manly RL players who withdrew because of a pride jumper, sections of woke brigade and media said awful things about these players, then a young AFLW player choose stand out of because of a gay pride strip because of religious reasons, nothing but praise was attributed to her decision.
AFLW refusal to acknowledge a minutes silence after the Queens passing, because some said it was hurtful. A NRLW player was suspended after a inappropriate social media comment about the queens passing.
Isn't it time the media stopped sensationalist reporting of the woke rubbish.
Izabarack said
02:50 PM Oct 25, 2022
What an over reaction by Gina. Apparently, Donell asked for an exemption to cover 3 games. Ms Ive got a lot of money and you need to kiss my a&$# if you want any of it then punished everyone for pointing out that her father was not a nice (?) person. Has anyone asked Gina if she endorses Langs expressed sentiments in regards Australias First Nations people?
Mike Harding said
03:07 PM Oct 25, 2022
>>> Dmaxer: "Why do you need to use enormous sized printing to make your point."
The fonts, highlighting and formatting of this forum are a mystery known only to one selected individual and I don't think she understands it very well.
----
>>> Izabarack: "What an over reaction by Gina."
Oh I dunno... I don't know about you but I tend not to give money to people who don't like me?
Ivan 01 said
03:30 PM Oct 25, 2022
DMaxer wrote:
Why do you need to use enormous sized printing to make your point. I don't care less whether sporting people choose to either accept particular sponsorship or not. They are the ones that are participating and they are the ones that will suffer the financial loss. I don't go to netball games so it doesn't matter to me who sponsors them or any other team for that matter.
Wheeling out Allan Border and his income in 1994 is totally ridiculous. When he was earning $94K the average Aussie was earning under $30K for their full time job. Added to Border's income was also all the advertising and appearance monies he received as well as incentives. The $94K was his base contract fee. The last time I saw him he was flogging solar panels and foot massages machines.
Why is it anyone's business as to what professional athletes earn or by whom they are sponsored. The sponsors are not doing it for the athletes' benefit, it is strictly a business interest for them.
You know what DMaxer, I am getting sick and tired of feeling I have to apologise to a couple of Prima Donnas on this forum.
My original post clearly states that the article was sent to me on email and that is what the copy and paste produced on this forum.
None of it was composed by me so I have had no input as to who the author decided to *Wheel Out* as you put it.
Is that a good enough explanation for you DMaxer or do you need to continue on with an attack hoping to provoke an argument?
I will leave it there and see whether your replies are stating your opinion on the current sponsor fiasco or are your comments only on here to incite arguments and support Ivan bashing.
-- Edited by Ivan 01 on Tuesday 25th of October 2022 03:45:14 PM
Cassie63 said
04:08 PM Oct 25, 2022
Woke will go broke
DMaxer said
04:26 PM Oct 25, 2022
I dont need any apology from you Ivan. I just dont understand why it is any concern of anyone but the netballers themselves as to whom they accept as a sponsor. People are entitled to decide with whom they wish to be aligned without copping criticism from armchair experts with an opinion on everything.
Ivan 01 said
05:03 PM Oct 25, 2022
A decision to reject a sponsorship of $15.000.000 in the sport of Netball will snowball with the effect all the way down the scale of levels to the little girls just starting out.
Now DMaxer, this is my opinion only, but why should one player in a team at an elite level have that power?
I believe she is a contracted player and should be prepared to honour her contract rather than play the card she played to have the sponsorship placed in any jeopardy.
There is no I in TEAM.
If she didnt like the uniform then she could have shown all of us her real conviction of belief and walked away, but that wasnt going to happen because there is no heroics in her doing that.
The above article is covering more than netball and is a general outline of the problems facing any organisation that may have a sponsorship placed in doubt over the decisions of a very foolish minority.
Izabarack said
05:14 PM Oct 25, 2022
Ivan 01 wrote:
A decision to reject a sponsorship of $15.000.000
The Sponsor deal was not rejected, it was withdrawn. By a bully, in my opinion. because an indiginious player drew attention to atrocious comments by the founder of the company she now heads.
Ivan 01 said
05:40 PM Oct 25, 2022
Izabarack wrote:
Ivan 01 wrote:
A decision to reject a sponsorship of $15.000.000
The Sponsor deal was not rejected, it was withdrawn. By a bully, in my opinion. because an indiginious player drew attention to atrocious comments by the founder of the company she now heads.
I dont know of a sports sponsor that doesnt expect a logo or recognition on the players uniforms.
The girl is not 44 years old and Gina had absolutely no control over what her father may have said.
As I said she played the card that brought the entire house of cards down.
No glory for her in just walking away to maintain her belief and leaving the entire sport to benefit from the sponsorship. The team and the administrators should hang their heads in shame while having a little think back for a moment or two just to remember where they all started to get to that level in the first place. No one is born into an elite level including the player at the crux of the entire fiasco.
KevinJ said
05:43 PM Oct 25, 2022
Good for Gina. Im sure she will find other gracious and worthy sporting organisations to give her money to.
-- Edited by KevinJ on Tuesday 25th of October 2022 05:43:34 PM
Aussie1 said
05:48 PM Oct 25, 2022
KevinJ wrote:
Good for Gina. Im sure she will find other gracious and worthy sporting organisations to give her money to.
-- Edited by KevinJ on Tuesday 25th of October 2022 05:43:34 PM
Agree 100 %.
Mike Harding said
05:59 PM Oct 25, 2022
Izabarack wrote:
The Sponsor deal was not rejected, it was withdrawn. By a bully, in my opinion.
I see: so not giving money to someone to who you have no obligation is bullying - an interesting and unusual perspective.
yobarr said
08:49 PM Oct 25, 2022
Mike Harding wrote:
Izabarack wrote:
The Sponsor deal was not rejected, it was withdrawn. By a bully, in my opinion.
I see: so not giving money to someone to who you have no obligation is bullying - an interesting and unusual perspective.
Claims of "bullying" are seemingly out of control, and are often beyond comprehension, but how anybody can believe that "not giving money to someone to who you have no obligation" can be even remotely considered "bullying" is beyond me. The "Gimme" brigade is thriving, and here we have one indigenous female playing the "victim" card over comments made by the sponsor's father - NOT the sponsor more than 40 years ago. "Poor me" and the sport that no doubt pays her well has a $15 million deal withdrawn. If she has such strong feelings over what I consider to be a non-event she should have simply taken her ball and gone home. Instead, she has simply stirred the pot. Cheers
yobarr said
08:52 PM Oct 25, 2022
Ivan 01 wrote:
The word *Professional* has changed all that.
This says it all from above.
Nobody is denying the likes of Pat Cummins and Donnell Wallam and others the right to protest. But theyre contracted athletes, playing team sport. If they feel that strongly about the unfavourable terms of their employment, they can always vote with their feet. Go play an individual sport, where they have total control of their own destiny.
X 2
rgren2 said
09:22 PM Oct 25, 2022
They are highly paid entertainers, entertain us, dont annoy us.
landy said
10:34 PM Oct 25, 2022
Hi Gina. Your father was a racist and I don't want to be associated with your company by wearing your logo. But can I please still have your $15,000,000 .
Can any one else see whats wrong with this. Yes players are entitled to choose what sponsors the are prepared to be associated with. But they can't have it both ways.
Good on ya Gina Landy
-- Edited by landy on Wednesday 26th of October 2022 07:54:48 AM
DMaxer said
05:37 AM Oct 26, 2022
Why should the person who was rightly offended by those vile comments of Lang Han**** just walk away. If other vile comments come to light about other peoples heritage should they just drop out as well for the sake of money.
Good on these girls for the team solidarity. The sponsors will be lining up as whoever is successful will have elevated exposure for what they have done.
She did not even have the grace to distance herself from those comments.
dorian said
06:13 AM Oct 26, 2022
Churchill: Madam, would you sleep with me for £1 million? Woman: Why Winston, yes I would. Churchill: What about £10? Woman: What sort of woman do you think I am? Churchill: We have already established what sort of woman you are, now we are just negotiating the price.
Whenarewethere said
06:27 AM Oct 26, 2022
Sport has nothing to do with sport. All these businesses can just go & die as far as I am concerned.
dorian said
06:46 AM Oct 26, 2022
Sponsorship is all about PR. With this in mind, it just beggars belief that Gina did not at least have the business acumen to quickly distance herself from her father's damaging slur. She did not have to attack her father, but she could have at least said that his comments were regrettable and did not reflect her company as it is today. I can only think that her failure to do so must have damaged her company's PR, at least in the minds of some people. But maybe she has principles of her own?
Basically, the girls are being lambasted for daring to believe that they can afford to have principles. It remains to be seen whether Rinehart's failure to grasp a PR opportunity, presumably also on principle, will have a cost of its own.
-- Edited by dorian on Wednesday 26th of October 2022 07:06:34 AM
Mike Harding said
07:44 AM Oct 26, 2022
Interestingly, I don't recall some of you guys supporting "principled stands" back when the Manly football players refused to wear homosexual colours.
Ivan 01 said
07:53 AM Oct 26, 2022
In the words of another member lets *Wheel Out* Ricky Ponting.
His comments are hardly *lambasting* anyone but holds a fair amount of truth and sensibility
Rickys claim of *Virtual Signalling for Self Publicity* is the underlying reason the netball player didnt just enforce her own self exile rather than punishing the entire sporting code.
-- Edited by Ivan 01 on Wednesday 26th of October 2022 07:57:32 AM
A friend sent me this on email.
I found that it covered some very relevant points
Just when you think youve landed that ground breaking deal to keep your sport and its increasingly precious star attractions in the style to which theyve become accustomed, you get: Yeah, nah not really keen on that company it doesnt align with my personal values. What else ya got?
First our national netball team, the Diamonds, refusing the hand-up and hand-out of billionaire businesswoman and philanthropist Gina Rinehart, on account of something her dinosaur father Lang Han**** said in 1984 roughly 20 years before most of the current cluster of players were born. But hold that thought.
Days later, Cricket Australia confirms the role our national (mens) captain Pat Cummins played in the termination of a $40 million sponsorship deal with energy company Alinta, on the grounds it clean bowled his clearly articulated, increasingly well practiced environmental stance.
And late in the week, a bunch of high profile, non-playing, scarf wearing, sit in the grandstand-type Dockers members call for the termination of Fremantles association with Woodside Energy, accusing the gas giant of trying to extend its social licence on the back of the club. And the players. And the great game of AFL. In other words, strike while tempers are running hot.
Take a pew, people. This might take a while to unpack.
Lets start by drilling down into the conflicted corporate conscience of netball, a sport it needs to be pointed out is currently in a $4.5 million financial hole. Dont understand how, but it is, with spending in the last financial year exceeding income by $4.368 million.
So here are the Diamonds, in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, drowning. But when Gina arrives in her luxury motor launch to rescue them, they refuse to grab the life raft. They wave her away.
Rinehart has already rescued other sports rowing, swimming, volleyball. Perhaps our netballers are waiting for a wind powered vessel?
I dont want to be the bearer of bad news, but Ive checked the commercial radar there aint a lot of other rescue craft in the immediate vicinity. Whats Plan B?
But lets move onto cricket, and our carbon neutral national (mens) captain Pat Cummins, insistent that hes no longer comfortable having the Australian teams brand associated with a company with such a flagrant disregard for the environment.
It might be an inconvenient time to raise this, but isnt this loosely the same mob who four years ago dragged the good name of our national carrier Qantas through the mud, by trying to blatantly cheat in South Africa?
Selectively short memories. I would have thought a little more humility was in order, for say the next 40 years.
While contemplating the dismissal of Alintas $15 million a season contribution, I couldnt help but wonder what somebody like Allan Border would have been thinking. His last ACB contract was $90,000. For the season. Thats roughly what our current stars earn in a single innings of an Indian Premier League T20 match.
AB never had a social or political agenda. He just played cricket. He wore the baggy green with untold pride, grit and determination. Bit of a dinosaur really.
Forcing myself to look through a more youthful, woke lens, I can muster respect for Pat Cummins, and his intransigence on a point of principle. Hes an impressive, intelligent individual, and his passion is admirable.
Besides, it wasnt that many years ago that a major dilemma for an international cricketer outside the scarcity of runs and wickets was not being able to access the wi-fi when they arrived at their five star hotel. Or not being granted admission to the first class lounge at the airport. Seriously.
But there are as many holes in Cummins defence as there were in the defence of the English openers in the 2020-21 Ashes series. Never mind the Range Rover he drives has he thought about day/night cricket? You know, played under lights?
The predicament for professional sport, in the virtue signalling world in which we live, is that practically every corporate partnership in existence is potentially offensive. To somebody, at some level.
Lets explore the social ills of gambling. Most major sports have a lucrative partnership with at least one betting agency, and takes a commission from the turnover of the others.
What about the damage the gambling companies are doing to our social fabric? On the night of State of Origin 3 back in 2016, I vividly remember my (then) eight year old son asking What are the odds, Dad? Where Joel Caine?
But gamble responsible, people. Bet with your head, not over it.
Alcohol sponsorships. Theres your primary cause of domestic violence right there. Not to mention alcoholism. Fast food? Intrinsically linked to obesity, diabetes and heart disease. Whats the deterioration of adolescent health costing the community?
Furthermore KFC you know they kill chickens? McDonalds, cattle. The animal welfare people cant be happy about that. Banks? Theyre all morally corrupt, just like those filthy energy companies, trying to purge their guilty conscience by investing in sport, and pretending they care about the community.
Regardless of who sponsors what, in 2022 somebody, somewhere, is going to be indignant.
I know its outside their pay grade, but do our professional athletes fully appreciate just how hard it is to land a $10 million sponsor? How rare that scale of financial support is in Australia?
No chance. Most (men) have only ever flirted fleetingly with the real world. Theyve been batting and bowling or shooting hoops since they were five.
Taking it a step further, if we ban banks, alcohol companies, gambling, energy, mining etc remove them all from the sponsorship pool whos going to fill the void?
The government? Us the tax payers? More likely, nobody.
And wheres that pain going to be most felt? At the grassroots level. Mums and Dads will be paying even more for little Johnny and little Jenny to take the field or the court. Beyond that, lower investment in grassroots, poorer long term performance. Its a proven cycle.
Nobody is denying the likes of Pat Cummins and Donnell Wallam and others the right to protest. But theyre contracted athletes, playing team sport. If they feel that strongly about the unfavourable terms of their employment, they can always vote with their feet. Go play an individual sport, where they have total control of their own destiny.
In recent years, Australia has become the world leader in oppose and object, the only plausible reason being that we have it so bloody good in this country, we have nothing else to whinge about.
But on this issue, were approaching a point of no return.
As a sports loving nation, we need to be very careful what we wish for.
I like Jacqui Lambie's response......"the Diamonds are going to have to sell a lot of Bunnings sausage sizzles and a lot of chook raffles"
I suspect the Diamond's handling of this issue will be a salutary lesson which is well learnt by other clubs and codes as it, and its repercussions, sink in.
Lets hope that common sense will prevail in the near future before the opportunities are lost because of the actions of a selfish few.
-- Edited by Ivan 01 on Tuesday 25th of October 2022 11:40:35 AM
Its a pity that money has become so intrinsically tied up with sport.
What happened to the good old days when VFL players had normal day jobs, trained on Tuesday & Thursday nights & were payed £25 for playing on Saturday.
Sport used to be played for the love off the game, now its played for the love of the money.
-- Edited by 86GTS on Tuesday 25th of October 2022 03:09:42 PM
The word *Professional* has changed all that.
This says it all from above.
Nobody is denying the likes of Pat Cummins and Donnell Wallam and others the right to protest. But theyre contracted athletes, playing team sport. If they feel that strongly about the unfavourable terms of their employment, they can always vote with their feet. Go play an individual sport, where they have total control of their own destiny.
Why do you need to use enormous sized printing to make your point. I don't care less whether sporting people choose to either accept particular sponsorship or not. They are the ones that are participating and they are the ones that will suffer the financial loss. I don't go to netball games so it doesn't matter to me who sponsors them or any other team for that matter.
Wheeling out Allan Border and his income in 1994 is totally ridiculous. When he was earning $94K the average Aussie was earning under $30K for their full time job. Added to Border's income was also all the advertising and appearance monies he received as well as incentives. The $94K was his base contract fee. The last time I saw him he was flogging solar panels and foot massages machines.
Why is it anyone's business as to what professional athletes earn or by whom they are sponsored. The sponsors are not doing it for the athletes' benefit, it is strictly a business interest for them.
Then we had the Manly RL players who withdrew because of a pride jumper, sections of woke brigade and media said awful things about these players, then a young AFLW player choose stand out of because of a gay pride strip because of religious reasons, nothing but praise was attributed to her decision.
AFLW refusal to acknowledge a minutes silence after the Queens passing, because some said it was hurtful. A NRLW player was suspended after a inappropriate social media comment about the queens passing.
Isn't it time the media stopped sensationalist reporting of the woke rubbish.
What an over reaction by Gina. Apparently, Donell asked for an exemption to cover 3 games. Ms Ive got a lot of money and you need to kiss my a&$# if you want any of it then punished everyone for pointing out that her father was not a nice (?) person. Has anyone asked Gina if she endorses Langs expressed sentiments in regards Australias First Nations people?
>>> Dmaxer: "Why do you need to use enormous sized printing to make your point."
The fonts, highlighting and formatting of this forum are a mystery known only to one selected individual and I don't think she understands it very well.
----
>>> Izabarack: "What an over reaction by Gina."
Oh I dunno... I don't know about you but I tend not to give money to people who don't like me?
You know what DMaxer, I am getting sick and tired of feeling I have to apologise to a couple of Prima Donnas on this forum.
My original post clearly states that the article was sent to me on email and that is what the copy and paste produced on this forum.
None of it was composed by me so I have had no input as to who the author decided to *Wheel Out* as you put it.
Is that a good enough explanation for you DMaxer or do you need to continue on with an attack hoping to provoke an argument?
I will leave it there and see whether your replies are stating your opinion on the current sponsor fiasco or are your comments only on here to incite arguments and support Ivan bashing.
-- Edited by Ivan 01 on Tuesday 25th of October 2022 03:45:14 PM
Now DMaxer, this is my opinion only, but why should one player in a team at an elite level have that power?
I believe she is a contracted player and should be prepared to honour her contract rather than play the card she played to have the sponsorship placed in any jeopardy.
There is no I in TEAM.
If she didnt like the uniform then she could have shown all of us her real conviction of belief and walked away, but that wasnt going to happen because there is no heroics in her doing that.
The above article is covering more than netball and is a general outline of the problems facing any organisation that may have a sponsorship placed in doubt over the decisions of a very foolish minority.
The Sponsor deal was not rejected, it was withdrawn. By a bully, in my opinion. because an indiginious player drew attention to atrocious comments by the founder of the company she now heads.
I dont know of a sports sponsor that doesnt expect a logo or recognition on the players uniforms.
The girl is not 44 years old and Gina had absolutely no control over what her father may have said.
As I said she played the card that brought the entire house of cards down.
No glory for her in just walking away to maintain her belief and leaving the entire sport to benefit from the sponsorship.
The team and the administrators should hang their heads in shame while having a little think back for a moment or two just to remember where they all started to get to that level in the first place.
No one is born into an elite level including the player at the crux of the entire fiasco.
Good for Gina. Im sure she will find other gracious and worthy sporting organisations to give her money to.
-- Edited by KevinJ on Tuesday 25th of October 2022 05:43:34 PM
Agree 100 %.
I see: so not giving money to someone to who you have no obligation is bullying - an interesting and unusual perspective.
Claims of "bullying" are seemingly out of control, and are often beyond comprehension, but how anybody can believe that "not giving money to someone to who you have no obligation" can be even remotely considered "bullying" is beyond me. The "Gimme" brigade is thriving, and here we have one indigenous female playing the "victim" card over comments made by the sponsor's father - NOT the sponsor more than 40 years ago. "Poor me" and the sport that no doubt pays her well has a $15 million deal withdrawn. If she has such strong feelings over what I consider to be a non-event she should have simply taken her ball and gone home. Instead, she has simply stirred the pot. Cheers
X 2
But can I please still have your $15,000,000 .
Can any one else see whats wrong with this. Yes players are entitled
to choose what sponsors the are prepared to be associated with. But they can't have it both ways.
Good on ya Gina Landy
-- Edited by landy on Wednesday 26th of October 2022 07:54:48 AM
Churchill: Madam, would you sleep with me for £1 million?
Woman: Why Winston, yes I would.
Churchill: What about £10?
Woman: What sort of woman do you think I am?
Churchill: We have already established what sort of woman you are, now we are just negotiating the price.
Sport has nothing to do with sport. All these businesses can just go & die as far as I am concerned.
Sponsorship is all about PR. With this in mind, it just beggars belief that Gina did not at least have the business acumen to quickly distance herself from her father's damaging slur. She did not have to attack her father, but she could have at least said that his comments were regrettable and did not reflect her company as it is today. I can only think that her failure to do so must have damaged her company's PR, at least in the minds of some people. But maybe she has principles of her own?
Basically, the girls are being lambasted for daring to believe that they can afford to have principles. It remains to be seen whether Rinehart's failure to grasp a PR opportunity, presumably also on principle, will have a cost of its own.
-- Edited by dorian on Wednesday 26th of October 2022 07:06:34 AM
Interestingly, I don't recall some of you guys supporting "principled stands" back when the Manly football players refused to wear homosexual colours.
In the words of another member lets *Wheel Out* Ricky Ponting.
His comments are hardly *lambasting* anyone but holds a fair amount of truth and sensibility
Rickys claim of *Virtual Signalling for Self Publicity* is the underlying reason the netball player didnt just enforce her own self exile rather than punishing the entire sporting code.
-- Edited by Ivan 01 on Wednesday 26th of October 2022 07:57:32 AM