Play Nice Is it time to replace Woodside as sponsor?

[MadMundy]

Are we really sitting here arguing over sponsors? Do these sponsors have any impact on our on field performance???

No???? Then I couldn't give a **** who we have.

 

[holy diver]

Hancock Prospecting withdraws funding from Netball Australia after player backlash

Hancock Prospecting announces it will no longer fund Netball Australia following player backlash against the sponsorship deal.

www.abc.net.au

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Stronzo]

We weren't talking about where they came from... I was responding to a statement that all this had nothing to do with mining. Your answer doesn't speak to that question.

But you weren’t sure there’s a mineral mined that isn’t a fossil fuel. Obviously some problems understanding what a fossil fuel is and how it’s extraction and use is different to other minerals.

 

[Alfonz]

Their net zero targets are a farce. About 80% of carbon credits issued by Australia's clean energy regulator are flawed - they won't reduce the nation's carbon burden at all, and plenty will actually increase it.

On top of that their targets are only related to their operations and not the total scope of carbon emissions from the fossil fuels they produce (ie scope 3 emissions). They are also based on earlier estimations of their emissions that are likely to be less than half given the merger with BHP Petroleum.

I'm not anti-O&G but if companies are going to lie and mislead about their environmental impact then they need to be called out. Woodside has and will continue to leave a massive impact on our environment. I don't think people truly understand the scope of their impact. Pressuring to come clean and be more green shouldn't be disregarded through fear campaigns about job losses, weakened economy etc. t is possible to get a better balance and that starts with calling out their BS imo.

Woodside are no saints, no doubt. But the misinformation works both ways. Some of the claims against the Scarborough development were flat out preposterous. Another favourite is to say seismic boats kill whales. When there is a very strict window to record outside migration, and spotter planes that will cease operations if any whale is seen nearby. I was at the Midnight Oil concert a few weeks back where Garrett launched a huge anti-Woodside rant, and any good points he made were overshadowed by the propaganda and lies which formed most of his tirade. It went down like a lead balloon.

I've seen you post about FFI as if they are more palatable than Woodside. Hate to break it to you, but they are basically the same with the impact they have on the environment. FMG is the 5th biggest iron ore producer in an industry which creates enormous emissions through the coal powered smelters/refineries.

Twiggy loves to let everyone know how awesome he is. Sure, FFI have projects in the pipeline. Like the green hydrogen plant in the hub in Tasmania. Well guess what? Woodside have a bigger facility going into the same place. And Origin/Mitsui have a bigger one as well. Woodside last week just awarded a contract for a similar operation they are building in Oklahoma. Shell have commenced building the biggest one in Europe, that will be 10 times bigger than anything the "morally sound" entities have managed to build so far. But that doesn't suit the narrative, does it?

A fundamental problem with the righteous far left is they completely ignore the economic reality of the real world and the finances required for the green projects. It's going to be the biggest climate polluters who are going to pay for it (as they should), but the billions of dollars don't just materialise out of thin air. They have to keep polluting in the transition period in order to pay for the astronomical cost to come out the other side.

 

[Kram]

I wonder how the players that didn't buy into this complete idiocy feel about their future being jeopardised.

 

[Demons09]

I wonder how the players that didn't buy into this complete idiocy feel about their future being jeopardised.

Not as badly as the net ballers lol.

 

[Kram]

Twiggy loves to let everyone know how awesome he is. Sure, FFI have projects in the pipeline. Like the green hydrogen plant in the hub in Tasmania. Well guess what? Woodside have a bigger facility going into the same place. And Origin/Mitsui have a bigger one as well. Woodside last week just awarded a contract for a similar operation they are building in Oklahoma. Shell have commenced building the biggest one in Europe, that will be 10 times bigger than anything the "morally sound" entities have managed to build so far. But that doesn't suit the narrative, does it?

I have family that have been involved in mining management for a long time and I remember them saying in response to all the praise for Forrest bluntly with "Nah the guys a crook". When I asked why later they said that is a lot of stories about him being very dodgy which charity work, albeit early on. Only rumours of course but they aren't usually the type of person that would say something like that.

 

[Kram]

Not as badly as the net ballers lol.

That's who I was talking about, still silly but Freo if Woodside left should at least get a similar sponsor.

 

[imperial_oz]

You're referring there specifically to lithium precipitated from lithium-rich salt beds and/or ground water brines, as occurred in the early noughties at South American lithium processing operations in Argentina, Bolivia and Chile.

Australian lithium processing however - like that currently happening in Kwinana - occurs via sulphuric acid leaching of spodumene ore, which is a totally different manufacturing process, and which - as I understand it at least - does not require anywhere NEAR as much ground water, simply because the mineral you're seeking isn't dissolved in millions of liters of the stuff in the form of lithium salts.

Your point is still valid in that neither process is exactly a walk in the park in terms of total environmental impact or inherent levels of production risk... but to argue via omission that these two hugely different processes are entirely equivalent and that all future lithium mining is/will be just as polluting / environmentally unfriendly as that which occurred in Chile from the turn of the century onwards, is frankly a little bit of a stretch.

I was referring to extraction of lithium from brines and my response was never intended to be all encompassing, so I don't think the arguing by omission is completely accurate. (nor completely wrong tbf) Plus, brine extraction is still used in South America.

Extraction of lithium using sulphuric acid baking is also bad in a slightly different way. It's highly energy intensive, emissions intensive, requires multiple iterations to refine the metal to a useful concentration and results in large quantities of waste products that I understand to be highly toxic. So far there is no environmentally benign way to extract lithium. There is work being done on extraction of lithium from seawater but that is only demonstrated in a lab. The process is not yet ready to be scaled up as there is so much development work to do.

I'll add one more point. The demand for lithium is rising faster than the amount being produced. Projections show that sometime between 2025 and 2030, demand will exceed supply and then the price will go even more crazy than it is now.

This is not to say we shouldn't be looking towards alternatives to fossil fuels. There are far too many reasons to take that path but my view is putting all our eggs into the lithium basket is not a good idea. We seem to be rushing headlong into a 'solution' that might have a limited future and be as damaging as greenhouse gases. I think a better alternative would be PV generated hydrogen and either use hydrogen based ICE or hydrogen fuel cells.

I just don't accept the point of view that fossil fuels are all bad and lithium batteries are all good. At least with hydrogen, the waste products (heat, water vapour) are not toxic to the environment.

 

[holy diver]

I wonder how the players that didn't buy into this complete idiocy feel about their future being jeopardised.

Netball Australia are in a financial black hole. They'll be praying the decision is reversed.

Climate hysteria has real consequences.

 

[holy diver]

That's who I was talking about, still silly but Freo if Woodside left should at least get a similar sponsor.

 

[King Huskii]

Too funny!

 

[arsesmart]

I wonder how the players that didn't buy into this complete idiocy feel about their future being jeopardised.

Please. The players do their part and the sponsors will be lining up.

 

[Kram]

Please. The players do their part and the sponsors will be lining up.

For netball?

 

[mightymouse75]

Ah yeah

Please. The players do their part and the sponsors will be lining up.

Who .. ???

 

[Yeti]

https://www.news.com.au/sport/netball/gina-rinehart-rips-up-15-million-netball-deal-after-sponsorship-scandal/news-story/39b2150b788699905c4ad19c654e9094

The $15 million commercial agreement was a lifeline for the governing body, which has lost more than $7 million over the past two years, mostly due to costs associated with Super Netball.

Can’t imagine the grassroots players will be happy with subsiding the elite competition. Would be interesting to know the total turnover of Netball Australia and previous operating profits.

 

[Yeti]

This is 2019, 2021 is brutal.

 

[estibador]

So I just googled the netball thing. I'd presumed it was environment related like the Freo thing, but I can see now why indigenous players would be reluctant to wear that Hancock logo.

 

[Purpletown]

https://www.news.com.au/sport/netball/gina-rinehart-rips-up-15-million-netball-deal-after-sponsorship-scandal/news-story/39b2150b788699905c4ad19c654e9094

The $15 million commercial agreement was a lifeline for the governing body, which has lost more than $7 million over the past two years, mostly due to costs associated with Super Netball.

Can’t imagine the grassroots players will be happy with subsiding the elite competition. Would be interesting to know the total turnover of Netball Australia and previous operating profits.

What a sad joke Netball Australia is.

Unfortunately the grass roots community netball (football, hockey, soccer and a multitude of other sports for that matter) get very little from the governing body but is expected to contribute both money and voluntary helpers.

Gina Rinehart has given an undertaking to continue the funding until a new sponsor can be found but I doubt any other sponsors will stump up that amount to such a poorly run organisation that is all but bankrupt.

 

[arsesmart]

For netball?

Yeah, talking precedents, cricket never found any sponsors after tobacco sponsorship was nixed, did they?

 

[Kram]

So I just googled the netball thing. I'd presumed it was environment related like the Freo thing, but I can see now why indigenous players would be reluctant to wear that Hancock logo.

Yeah her old man was a racist old dinosaur. Still it's not his daughter's fault and he died 30 years ago.

 

[88mph]

Is this double counting by Gina?

Has she ever donated before? Interesting in context of recent news.

Rinehart’s very generous $1 MILLION donation to Telethon

Less than an hour since the annual fundraising spectacular began, Telethon has hit over $1 million in donations thanks to a generous donation from Gina Rinehart’s Hancock Prospecting.

www.perthnow.com.au

 

[poshman]

But you weren’t sure there’s a mineral mined that isn’t a fossil fuel. Obviously some problems understanding what a fossil fuel is and how it’s extraction and use is different to other minerals.

No that was not what I was saying at all. I am simply asking for someone to define how that extraction is different to mining? No need to be pretentious.

I was told that it was not mining. Having worked with Oil and Gas companies and having friends who work at Woodside and with other large Oil and Gas companies, I can let you know they all consider it mining or part of the mining/resources sector. I am trying to understand why someone would think it isn't mining.

 

[poshman]

Yeah, talking precedents, cricket never found any sponsors after tobacco sponsorship was nixed, did they?

You are either naive or not being an honest broker. The Australian mens cricket team is far more valuable from a sponsorship POV than the womens netball team. Will the netball team find a sponsor? I hope so. I think it is a great sport. Is it a definite based on a sport getting sponsorship that has millions more fans, tv exposure, international exposure and that exceeds its popularity with adults by a long way? No it is not guaranteed.

4 degrees? Your thoughts on the scientists who wrote your article quoting that study incorrectly?

 

[poshman]

Are we really sitting here arguing over sponsors? Do these sponsors have any impact on our on field performance???

No???? Then I couldn't give a * who we have.

Of course they do. Ask North or a few other Vic clubs who have struggled for years financially if big paying sponsors make a difference.

I would have to check the numbers but from memory FFC 2019 had a revenue of ~50 million.

Profit share with WAFC meant a profit of 2-3million for FFC. I think it was lower than that and happy to be corrected.

Woodside sponsorship ~$2 million.

Do I need to say more about the importance of a big financial sponsor when you look at the bottom line each year? One of the reasons WCE are ridiculously strong is the ongoing high level sponsorships that have become an institution. They can reliably ask for more $ at every tier of there sponsorship packages due to the price anchors of their major sponsors.

People often think it would work the other way around. I will throw some numbers around here, however I have seen some of the tier options for FFC. I know they are higher at almost every tier at WCE.

If they have a major sponsor at $3.2 million. the number two sponsor will be ~2.8. Every bracket below that top line is between 15-25% higher than ours apart from the very base bracket which is more like 8-10% higher.

To think that sponsors don't affect on field performance is madness. Why do you think Eddie celebrated so hard when they landed Lexus and Etihad? It not only secures the future of the club, facilities, talent acquisition on and off field, it creates a new price anchor that flows through every tier of sponsorship.

It is why who you accept as a major sponsor is such an important decision. Clubs as big as essendon have been weakened in part due to top tier sponsorships changing regularly. They would love a Woodside as a sponsor. The truth is that most businesses of 200 million plus revenue are not guaranteed a place in the market long term. Big resource companies that are established can commit for a far longer term than most companies.

Freo should go back to woodside and ask to extend for 7 years. Have a yearly increase built in that is slightly in their favour from a market conditions perspective. Ask them if we can help promote any big RE projects with them and push on to secure the future of the club long term.