Don't want, (or need) to start a new thread - still want to post it though

[Markfs]

Is it any different with Collingwood and Emirates/Holden etc?

Sponsorship is a commercial agreement therefore by definition all about the money that the sponsored party receives.

You can replace "proud" with comfortable/willing or any other term. If I'm paying $$$$$$$$ to sponsor a team, I want fair value in exchange and the sponsored willing to represent my brand. I don't want to have to apologise for my dad's f* ups. Was there any request that the players apologise for any sh*t their dad said?

Not a fan of Gina BTW, just objective.

Personally, I couldnt care less if Gina apologises. words are words are words. As I said in an earlier post, if a company founded by a real racist.....not a jeff kennett variety ....wants to sponsor me and I'm indigenous, I'm going to refuse the logo. I couldnt live with myself. The fact that wallam was willing to compromise only reinforces how much she cares for the team. I'm objective too. Arent we all?

 

[jathanas]

I didn't mean ethics, I meant that they're probably contractually obliged to pay the whole lot and are trying to get away with just 4 months.

I'd be sure the contract has clauses related to how the brand is represented so both parties would have claim.

I'd guess that only 1 of the parties has the resources to pursue this legally.

 

[jathanas]

Personally, I couldnt care less if Gina apologises. words are words are words. As I said in an earlier post, if a company founded by a real racist.....not a jeff kennett variety ....wants to sponsor me and I'm indigenous, I'm going to refuse the logo. I couldnt live with myself. The fact that wallam was willing to compromise only reinforces how much she cares for the team. I'm objective too. Arent we all?

How far back in history do we go for that statement to stand? Volkswagen, Hugo Boss for instance have a dark history.

I have no skin in this but it's a very slippery slope.

How do netball find a sponsor with a "clean enough" past?

 

[Markfs]

I didn't mean ethics, I meant that they're probably contractually obliged to pay the whole lot and are trying to get away with just 4 months.

well it seems that the team was to be sponsored by a charity formed by gina.....have a look at its internet site. It seems that they are funded by chook raffles....and community action... with gina taking all the street cred....but isnt that always the way with corporations and PR.

as an aside, I looked at the westpak rescue helicopters......the logo paid by westpak but the service either paid by gov't as it is in WA or by community action in NSW. .....have a look at optus stadium $50m gets your logo on a $2billion stadium

the lesson is that corporates want to take the cream and get the pats on the back....and the love...

so as part of the solution....let me say "i love you gina" "i think you are a great australia"

excuse me while I go and shower

 

[Markfs]

How far back in history do we go for that statement to stand? Volkswagen, Hugo Boss for instance have a dark history.

I have no skin in this but it's a very slippery slope.

How do netball find a sponsor with a "clean enough" past?

would you tell a jew to wear a VW logo in the interests of the team?

 

[jathanas]

would you tell a jew to wear a VW logo in the interests of the team?

I'd put forth the option to a team that had Jewish players if I felt it would grow the sport and that's what I was charged to do.

The union had been consulted for this to be communicated to the team so the players could respond which didn't happen. IMO this is largely to blame for where they find themselves.

FWIW I get your apprehension re: the Hancocks.

 

[sr36]

well it seems that the team was to be sponsored by a charity formed by gina.....have a look at its internet site. It seems that they are funded by chook raffles....and community action... with gina taking all the street cred....but isnt that always the way with corporations and PR.

as an aside, I looked at the westpak rescue helicopters......the logo paid by westpak but the service either paid by gov't as it is in WA or by community action in NSW. .....have a look at optus stadium $50m gets your logo on a $2billion stadium

the lesson is that corporates want to take the cream and get the pats on the back....and the love...

so as part of the solution....let me say "i love you gina" "i think you are a great australia"

excuse me while I go and shower

It's advertising space, hopefully being sold at competitive market rates. I'd like to see them take a small hit on the price by not including any clauses that give the company grounds to back out of the deal due to comments or behaviour from individual employees. Take away the ability for the corporate to leverage and influence, outside of the logo itself.

 

[FIGJAM]

How far back in history do we go for that statement to stand? Volkswagen, Hugo Boss for instance have a dark history.

I can only assume Southerner Colonel Sanders dropped the N-bomb from time to time, but even if he didn't, they've had some strange treatment of chicken practices over time, so if we draft any woke vegans we may be in trouble.

Nike's labour practices in China have been well documented and particularly dodgy.

Emirates were wholly owned by the Dubai government who only this decade outlawed honour killings and it's still legal to rape your wife.

La Trobe were once second tier lenders who were all over the nonconforming loan market with high default rates, which they've worked hard to turn around, but still lent money earlier this century to people who struggled to afford it.

Carlton Draught are also sponsors who've had a big part in guiding me and a lot of our fellow footy supporters to the alcoholics that we are today.

AIA have been just been ordered to pay $NZ700,000 for false and misleading representations across the ditch.

That's all of our major sponsors for the men's team anyway. Can find a way to cancel all of them if you're high on the virtue signalling spectrum.

 

[Markfs]

I'd put forth the option to a team that had Jewish players if I felt it would grow the sport and that's what I was charged to do.

The union had been consulted for this to be communicated to the team so the players could respond which didn't happen. IMO this is largely to blame for where they find themselves.

FWIW I get your apprehension re: the Hancocks.

you avoided the question a little. if you consider yourself a person who puts a large emphasis on the rights of the individual, would you agree with the union looking at the broader good? Some people say yes to that easily.... they are more collective in their approach to life. But so-called conservatives - maybe like peter dutton - should be advocating the rights of the individual to say that they wont wear the logo.

my dislike of the hancocks and my views on billionaires running society are independent of my views about a person choosing not to wear a logo of someone who spat on my face 40 years ago. I can emphasise with her feelings.

 

[Markfs]

I can only assume Southerner Colonel Sanders dropped the N-bomb from time to time, but even if he didn't, they've had some strange treatment of chicken practices over time, so if we draft any woke vegans we may be in trouble.

Nike's labour practices in China have been well documented and particularly dodgy.

Emirates were wholly owned by the Dubai government who only this decade outlawed honour killings and it's still legal to rape your wife.

La Trobe were once second tier lenders who were all over the nonconforming loan market with high default rates, which they've worked hard to turn around, but still lent money earlier this century to people who struggled to afford it.

Carlton Draught are also sponsors who've had a big part in guiding me and a lot of our fellow footy supporters to the alcoholics that we are today.

AIA have been just been ordered to pay $NZ700,000 for false and misleading representations across the ditch.

That's all of our major sponsors for the men's team anyway. Can find a way to cancel all of them if you're high on the virtue signalling spectrum.

I'm glad that you mentioned virtue signalling. I read about a slight tweak to the model. There is where you get someone else to signal your virtue. It was road tested years ago by the cash for comments jocks - alan jones and his mates.

now yesterday a bloke called costello in SA is saying that we should all kneel to Gina. He's a media guy so he is probably crawling up somewhere or hoping to get somewhere in life. But it would seem that he is involved in a charity about cows in cambodia.......and gina has evidently bought a few cows....so this bloke is giving her the payback.

https://www.news.com.au/sport/netball/sa-radio-host-andrew-costello-feels-sorry-for-gina-rinehart/news-story/04a8af82e0c9510fc484d41f1308777a

And a footnote for those out there who disagree with my views and personality and everything else about me, I give money to doctors without borders on a monthly basis. On a pro-rata basis, its the equivalent of GIna spending $10m on cows.....and that's just one of the charities that I regularly donate to. And yes, I'm virtue signalling because I cant get any other person to signal for me.

 

[Markfs]

It's advertising space, hopefully being sold at competitive market rates. I'd like to see them take a small hit on the price by not including any clauses that give the company grounds to back out of the deal due to comments or behaviour from individual employees. Take away the ability for the corporate to leverage and influence, outside of the logo itself.

sometimes you're too rational. Gina wants it all. Why else does someone need $17 billion?

 

[jathanas]

you avoided the question a little. if you consider yourself a person who puts a large emphasis on the rights of the individual, would you agree with the union looking at the broader good? Some people say yes to that easily.... they are more collective in their approach to life. But so-called conservatives - maybe like peter dutton - should be advocating the rights of the individual to say that they wont wear the logo.

my dislike of the hancocks and my views on billionaires running society are independent of my views about a person choosing not to wear a logo of someone who spat on my face 40 years ago. I can emphasise with her feelings.

Didn't mean to avoid the question. Yes, I'd ask a Jew to wear a VW logo.

 

[Markfs]

Didn't mean to avoid the question. Yes, I'd ask a Jew to wear a VW logo.

fair enough. of course, i dont know you from a bar of soap so i cant see how that pans out in other aspects of your life.

i was listening to the car radio this morning. it seems they want to move a bali monument for some practical reason.....families are kicking up a storm. Tell them to just on with life?

Which opens up a can of worms. I still wander why those families want to know where that malaysian airlines plane went. All that money spent on them which would be better served on helping people who are alive....they need to suck it up and move on.

 

[sr36]

sometimes you're too rational. Gina wants it all. Why else does someone need $17 billion?

Don't sell it all to her. It's potential advertising space. Sell the sponsor the right to have their logo on your jumper, but don't include any other influence over the team or helicopter or stadium and how it operates.

 

[Markfs]

Don't sell it all to her. It's potential advertising space. Sell the sponsor the right to have their logo on your jumper, but don't include any other influence over the team or helicopter or stadium and how it operates.

i'm not sure what you're saying. The other examples are just of a general trend that companies want to pay for signage or naming rights so that they get love in return. We love westpak because they save us with their helicopters. We love gina because she gives us a netball team. Of course, they never pay the whole tab, but you want the signage to appear that way.

Thank you Gina. we are indebted to you to get other people to dig up north and make billions for you ....for some unknown reason. It's not as if she did anything other than slip out of lang hancock's filipino bride. I assume she did. Her wiki doesn't refer to Rose.

 

[jathanas]

fair enough. of course, i dont know you from a bar of soap so i cant see how that pans out in other aspects of your life.

i was listening to the car radio this morning. it seems they want to move a bali monument for some practical reason.....families are kicking up a storm. Tell them to just on with life?

Which opens up a can of worms. I still wander why those families want to know where that malaysian airlines plane went. All that money spent on them which would be better served on helping people who are alive....they need to suck it up and move on.

You have no interest in what circumstances I would ask a Jewish team member to wear a VW logo on their journey, you wanted simply a yes or a no. I gave you that.

You've embraced that simple answer and gone on a virtue signaling tangent.

 

[jathanas]

i'm not sure what you're saying. The other examples are just of a general trend that companies want to pay for signage or naming rights so that they get love in return. We love westpak because they save us with their helicopters. We love gina because she gives us a netball team. Of course, they never pay the whole tab, but you want the signage to appear that way.

Thank you Gina. we are indebted to you to get other people to dig up north and make billions for you ....for some unknown reason. It's not as if she did anything other than slip out of lang hancock's filipino bride. I assume she did. Her wiki doesn't refer to Rose.

One thing to consider.

Most would not support Gina in this. It's your heated carrying on about this that is prompting others to offer a slightly more balanced view.

 

[Abdul_The_Bull]

Netball Australia, and especially grass-roots netball, will be the big losers in all of this. If anyone thinks that Reinhardt will lose a minute's sleep over this, then frankly they're deluded. There will be scores of organizations lined up to apply for sponsorship/funding from her organization and she will gladly oblige. From my, albeit very limited, experience in dealing with benevolent institutions who dole out funding they are commercial first and altruistic second. They won't want or need the grief associated with this palava and will happily move on to the next applicant. Oh, and if anyone thinks that any sponsorship doesn't come with 'strings attached' then think again. There is almost always, at a minimum, a 'no disparagement' clause and typically a positive marketing or advertising clause associated with any funding allocation.
I'm neither supporting nor disparaging Reinhardt but in this instance, I can understand why the funding was pulled.

 

[Markfs]

You have no interest in what circumstances I would ask a Jewish team member to wear a VW logo on their journey, you wanted simply a yes or a no. I gave you that.

You've embraced that simple answer and gone on a virtue signaling tangent.

i'll contact you when i'm ready to do my biography...

 

[Markfs]

One thing to consider.

Most would not support Gina in this. It's your heated carrying on about this that is prompting others to offer a slightly more balanced view.

gina and me....we do what we do.... we dont make apologies

 

[jathanas]

i'll contact you when i'm ready to do my biography...

I'll get looking for sponsors. I hear Gina has recently freed up some funds.

 

[ZEV]

You have no interest in what circumstances I would ask a Jewish team member to wear a VW logo on their journey, you wanted simply a yes or a no. I gave you that.

You've embraced that simple answer and gone on a virtue signaling tangent.

It's a really tricky proposition. If you made that request to me, I would politely but firmly decline and disassociate myself from the club/team.

However, I've got family members that drive/own/owned the ****ing things and wouldn't have a problem at all.

 

[jathanas]

gina and me....we do what we do.... we dont make apologies

I think you'd be more fun at parties

 

[Markfs]

Netball Australia, and especially grass-roots netball, will be the big losers in all of this. If anyone thinks that Reinhardt will lose a minute's sleep over this, then frankly they're deluded. There will be scores of organizations lined up to apply for sponsorship/funding from her organization and she will gladly oblige. From my, albeit very limited, experience in dealing with benevolent institutions who dole out funding they are commercial first and altruistic second. They won't want or need the grief associated with this palava and will happily move on to the next applicant. Oh, and if anyone thinks that any sponsorship doesn't come with 'strings attached' then think again. There is almost always, at a minimum, a 'no disparagement' clause and typically a positive marketing or advertising clause associated with any funding allocation.
I'm neither supporting nor disparaging Reinhardt but in this instance, I can understand why the funding was pulled.

I agree adbul. I loved your line " benevolent institutions who dole out funding they are commercial first and altruistic second.".....benevolent - well meaning and kindly. serving a charitable rather than a profit-making purpose.

you gotta love how words are used. Gina's benevolent charity is even less benevolent than me giving to charity. I just do it to ease my guilty conscience. I dont think she has one.

 

[Markfs]

I think you'd be more fun at parties

And i'm better looking in a party dress