Play Nice Is it time to replace Woodside as sponsor?

Is it time to replace Woodside as sponsor?

  • Yes

    Votes: 29 18.2%

  • No

    Votes: 130 81.8%
  • Total voters
    159

Remove this Banner Ad

BanjoRules said:
The overwhelming position on this thread and also a simple glance at responses from social media and a variety of online media is not to cancel Woodside sponsorship and as Gina puts it : "it is unnecessary for sports organisations to be used as the vehicle for social or political causes".
Click to expand...
I think running organisations off the back of comments on footy forums and social media is 100% the right strategy. The 132 votes in the poll above is an appropriately representative sample size. Not sure why Neilsen don't use this model for their research?

But wait a minute, did you vote? What skin do you have in the game? Why are you entitled to vote on the issue? Looking at your posting history you've contributed nothing to this forum outside of the Politics and Woodside threads. All evidence suggests you are not a true footy fan so really your vote shouldn't count should it? You are just a political actor only here to sway people's opinions on political matters, and not football ones. You are just Carmen Lawrence from the other side of the fence by the looks ;)
 
myfreodom said:
I think running organisations off the back of comments on footy forums and social media is 100% the right strategy. The 132 votes in the poll above is an appropriately representative sample size. Not sure why Neilsen don't use this model for their research?

But wait a minute, did you vote? What skin do you have in the game? Why are you entitled to vote on the issue? Looking at your posting history you've contributed nothing to this forum outside of the Politics and Woodside threads. All evidence suggests you are not a true footy fan so really your vote shouldn't count should it? You are just a political actor only here to sway people's opinions on political matters, and not football ones. You are just Carmen Lawrence from the other side of the fence by the looks ;)
Click to expand...
C'mon...you didn't see my mighty cardinals posts :) Thanks for refreshing my memory on what a great win that was !

People's political persuasion is irrelevant...everyone gets to have a vote.

Your first para was a blatant misrepresentation.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

wakojako said:
What does 4 billion years have to do with anything? 100 companies are responsible for 71% of emissions. 20 companies are responsible for half of single use plastic waste. Corporate greed is destroying the planet.

Again I don't support dropping the Woodside sponsor and most freo fans I've spoken to don't either. Pat Cummins dropping Alinta energy was virtue signaling but I don't know if the Netball Australia decision was? It was dropped due to historical treatment of indigenous peoples which is fair enough. I don't necessarily agree with the large mining companies being innocent either. They are vital to our economy but they are far from innocent. Look at the indigenous historical sites they have blown up for profit.
Click to expand...

This planet we briefly reside on at best estimates is around 4.5 billion years old.

The climate has been changing over this entire period. I suspect you know this though and are being facetious

I never said you supported dropping Woodside. I read your post. I queried why you label mining companies the source of climate change. That is not true. Civilisation has affected the climate no doubt but the current climate hysteria is steering things well off track. Look at the idiots gluing themselves to roads to annoy people.

Governments/Rulers , big business and even citizens at times all throughout history no matter where in the world are far from innocent on many levels. Looking to blame those of the present for the actions of and words of the past is modern leftist groupthink and it results in nothing more than attempting to place a blood debt on other people.

Lang Hancock is long since dead. His words are clearly disgraceful. Who do we punish then?

Netball Australia is more than just the national players. Its the kids and tiers of players all over the nation that have to bear the brunt of this. The whole cost of putting kids in sport is astronomical. Their actions affect a lot more people than themselves and a empty gesture. They'll still be paid.

As far as mining destroying cultural historical sites (and this is a world wide problem) - I don't think there would be many people who find this acceptable and the companies should face the full brunt of the law with such careless and deliberate actions.

You only have to look at the war in Ukraine that is still being pushed to see the extent of modern corporate greed. There are no good guys in that war regarding the leaders - all at the cost of civilian lives and the world economy. Greed and power indeed.
 
Last edited:
holy diver said:
Netball Australia is more than just the national players. Its the kids and tiers of players all over the nation that have to bear the brunt of this. The whole cost of putting kids in sport is astronomical. There actions affect a lot more people than themselves and a empty gesture. They'll still be paid.
Click to expand...
Hancock knows this as well yet they pulled the funding. Sponsors can be explicit in what their sponsorship is used for. Is she that insecure in herself that her ego can't take one player standing up for their culture?

Gina was given a free hit on a big win here and failed to realise it. She could have come out and pushed forward with their sponsorship despite the push back. She would have looked like being above all the politics by putting the cause ahead of her own ego. She could have done far more for her personal brand than what she achieved through investing plenty in her cringe Swimming Australia ads during the Commonwealth Games.

She didn't even have to apologise for her dad's old comments but if she was willing to do that as well people would respect her for doing so. She isn't her dad but she is running the company he founded so she can't pick and choose when to disjoin the two things.

Nobody likes her because she inherited billions from her father and then came out and said people should stop complaining and work hard if they want to be as successful as her. I think we all agree with her that inheriting billions isn't any advantage, and those who started with nothing that aren't as rich, are just slackers. Opportunity was there to counteract some of that feeling toward her. You can lead a horse to water but... oh well.

- I don't think the netball players handled it well either but ffs it was a mountain out of a mole hill.
 
myfreodom said:
Hancock knows this as well yet they pulled the funding. Sponsors can be explicit in what their sponsorship is used for. Is she that insecure in herself that her ego can't take one player standing up for their culture?

Gina was given a free hit on a big win here and failed to realise it. She could have come out and pushed forward with their sponsorship despite the push back. She would have looked like being above all the politics by putting the cause ahead of her own ego. She could have done far more for her personal brand than what she achieved through investing plenty in her cringe Swimming Australia ads during the Commonwealth Games.

She didn't even have to apologise for her dad's old comments but if she was willing to do that as well people would respect her for doing so. She isn't her dad but she is running the company he founded so she can't pick and choose when to disjoin the two things.

Nobody likes her because she inherited billions from her father and then came out and said people should stop complaining and work hard if they want to be as successful as her. I think we all agree with her that inheriting billions isn't any advantage, and those who started with nothing that aren't as rich, are just slackers. Opportunity was there to counteract some of that feeling toward her. You can lead a horse to water but... oh well.

- I don't think the netball players handled it well either but ffs it was a mountain out of a mole hill.
Click to expand...

It certainly has become bigger than it ever needed to be, but here we are...

I agree she should've just stuck to her guns and remained sponsor. The decision may yet be reversed.

The players should stop looking for a social issue to signal on and just represent their nation. The game is bigger than them.

There are no winners here. Poorly handled all round.

I just don't want Fremantle to fall into this trap.
 
myfreodom said:
Have never been a huge fan of Twiggy but to his credit he has been walking the talk lately - not just talking it like most in his sector. If you think FFI and Woodside are even remotely the same from an environmental impact policy pov then you probably don't know enough about the two companies.

This will all be moot by the end of next year because Woodside won't be a sponsor anymore then, and Freo will have a sponsor list that contributes more than what the current one does, and with less baggage. Like I said before you can find info to make any company seem bad. I'd hope we always choose the lesser of two evils if given a choice - and I suspect we will in about 12 months time.
Click to expand...

Framing it as Woodside versus FFI is misleading. Of course FFI look awesome. But it is really Woodside versus FMG. And I'm not talking about policy. They all talk shit with respect to that. I'm talking their actual environmental impact when you consider what happens with the products they sell, and what happens in the immediate vicinity of their resource areas.

I would not put FMG on a pedestal above Woodside. The numbers below would suggest WDS are much worse than FMG for direct impact. But factoring in what happens down the line, FMG are actually far worse due to the horrendous emissions created by the smelters. You seem to think you know more than me about the two companies. Maybe you do. But did you know about this?

Scope 1 + 2 Emissions (gross) for FMG = 2.2 Mt CO2-e
Scope 1 + 2 Emissions (gross) for WDS = 8.9 Mt CO2-e (pre-merger with BHP, so let's call it 18 Mt CO2-e)

Scope 3 Emissions in 2021 for FMG = 252.2 Mt CO2-e
Scope 3 Emissions in 2021 for WDS = 37.2 Mt CO2-e (pre-merger with BHP, so let's call it 75 Mt CO2-e)

Sources:
https://www.woodside.com/docs/defau...ort/climate-report-2021.pdf?sfvrsn=7ae837b1_5 (page 40)
https://www.fmgl.com.au/docs/defaul...1-climate-change-report.pdf?sfvrsn=b26e27f9_4 (page 32-33)

I can only go on what is published. Even if you want to say Woodside have cooked the numbers or should be calculating them differently, they would have some distance to go to match FMG.

If FMG want to talk it up about reducing their Scope 3, and Woodside won't, then fair enough to attack Woodside for that. I won't argue with that. But as it currently stands, you can't be saying FMG (and hence FFI) are any better than Woodside. Twiggy is the ultimate snake, I wouldn't be so sure he is really "walking the talk" any more than others. They are all bullshit artists trying to work out how they can still be making billions in the coming decades.
 
holy diver said:
This planet we briefly reside on at best estimates is around 4.5 million years old.

The climate has been changing over this entire period. I suspect you know this though and are being facetious
Click to expand...
Are you insinuating that climate change is not real but a natural process that the earth goes through?

I agree on everything else about the sponsors.
 
holy diver said:
This planet we briefly reside on at best estimates is around 4.5 billion years old.

The climate has been changing over this entire period. I suspect you know this though and are being facetious

I never said you supported dropping Woodside. I read your post. I queried why you label mining companies the source of climate change. That is not true. Civilisation has affected the climate no doubt but the current climate hysteria is steering things well off track. Look at the idiots gluing themselves to roads to annoy people.

Governments/Rulers , big business and even citizens at times all throughout history no matter where in the world are far from innocent on many levels. Looking to blame those of the present for the actions of and words of the past is modern leftist groupthink and it results in nothing more than attempting to place a blood debt on other people.

Lang Hancock is long since dead. His words are clearly disgraceful. Who do we punish then?

Netball Australia is more than just the national players. Its the kids and tiers of players all over the nation that have to bear the brunt of this. The whole cost of putting kids in sport is astronomical. Their actions affect a lot more people than themselves and a empty gesture. They'll still be paid.

As far as mining destroying cultural historical sites (and this is a world wide problem) - I don't there would be many people who find this acceptable and the companies should face the full brunt of the law with such careless and deliberate actions.

You only have to look at the war in Ukraine that is still being pushed to see the extent of modern corperate greed. There are no good guys in that war regarding the leaders - all at the cost of civilian lives and the world economy. Greed and power indeed.
Click to expand...
Gee, I think you need to get onto the climate scientists and let them know how old the Earth is and that the climate can change. I'm sure it'll be news to them.
 
myfreodom said:
*moving this convo to this thread to not * up the other thread *

True. ******* ridiculous that Tim Winton can't afford the same sponsorship that Woodside can with its $7 billion pa revenue. Everyone knows authors and O&G conglomerates earn pretty similar coin.
Click to expand...
It’s not a matter of whether an individual has as much income as a multi-national — of course they don’t.

But you are missing the point (again).

Its not about the multinational.

Because stating that the pissing and moaning of tools like Carmen Lawrence is pathetic is …. wait for this … about them and not the targets of their lazy, hypocritical criticism.

People like Lawrence built their whole life around consuming more resources that the average Aussie (her personal carbon footprint would dwarf the carbon footprint of virtually all of us here) and now, when it is convenient for her and her ilk, it’s time to condemn those who have enabled her own privileged lifestyle.

And wait for it! There’s more! This group of hypocrites still aren’t willing to actually participate in a solution (ie, sponsorship themselves). Nope they are just quit happy to sit back and tell everyone else who must be excluded from participating without offering to do anything positive themselves.
 
wakojako said:
Are you insinuating that climate change is not real but a natural process that the earth goes through?

I agree on everything else about the sponsors.
Click to expand...
If you read my post you'd see what I typed which already answers your question.

I did not say climate change isn't real. I made the point civilisation has indeed affected climate. I point to the current climate hysteria which prevents meaningful progress.

Personally I'm a little more concerned about the climate change through thermonuclear weapons or tactical warheads if the Ukraine war drags on. That's immediate and frightening climate change.



arsesmart said:
Gee, I think you need to get onto the climate scientists and let them know how old the Earth is and that the climate can change. I'm sure it'll be news to them.
Click to expand...
Sarcasm. The finest of wits.
 
myfreodom said:
What is hypocritical? That I use energy but would prefer that energy to be from renewable and sustainable sources that have a smaller footprint on our environment? I don't agree with all the decisions Freo Dockers make but I still pay for a seat to watch their games. Is that being hypocritical as well then?

This bollocks about anyone criticising O&G wanting us all to live in bamboo tents is a more childish way to debate than I'd expect from a 5 year old. The irony of claiming you have the "rational" pov. lol.
Click to expand...
You may watch the games even though you disagree with some club decisions.

Yeah OK, but you're not ringing up the club everyday complaining are you?

Unless I'm conversing with Carmen?

You've drawn a very long bow here.

As far as the 'hypocrisy 'i:e the phone I'm using now to convey this message, well there is little choice anyone has. Unless one wants to completely live off the grid.

That is your choice, campaigning a football club one barracks for to dis a sponsor has zero positive outcome for anyone.

Some are doing this, the one's that aren't, aren't as hypocritical. Obviously.
 
Carringbush2010 said:
You may watch the games even though you disagree with some club decisions.

Yeah OK, but you're not ringing up the club everyday complaining are you?

Unless I'm conversing with Carmen?

You've drawn a very long bow here.

As far as the 'hypocrisy 'i:e the phone I'm using now to convey this message, well there is little choice anyone has. Unless one wants to completely live off the grid.

That is your choice, campaigning a football club one barracks for to dis a sponsor has zero positive outcome for anyone.

Some are doing this, the one's that aren't, aren't as hypocritical. Obviously.
Click to expand...
Supporters and invested parties lobbying the club is perfectly fine.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

myfreodom said:
Nobody likes her because she inherited billions from her father and then came out and said people should stop complaining and work hard if they want to be as successful as her. I think we all agree with her that inheriting billions isn't any advantage, and those who started with nothing that aren't as rich, are just slackers. Opportunity was there to counteract some of that feeling toward her.
Click to expand...

Most people are backing Gina on this though?
 
sherrif said:
So you have no problems with gambling adds then? My point is that the reality is the world currently desperately needs MORE fossil fuels for the forceable future or the transition to RE comes to a halt all over the world. I've got cousins in England and a friend in Germany. In both countries RE transition has essentially stopped for the forceable future. My point is simply why not focus on other issues at a time where like it or not. Australian fossil fuels are desperately required.
Click to expand...
I broadly agree with you.

Was responding to the suggestion that swapping out Woodside for a mining company would satisfy the small group of internal critics.
 
Purple_Turtle said:
Most people are backing Gina on this though?
Click to expand...
i disagree with this one. most people on social media are. but i think its much more messy in the real world.

i think most people think the apology and netball keeping their funding was the optimal answer. the blowing everything up approach wasn't popular.

therefore everyone is taking sides over who was preventing the optimal situation from unfolding. people are saying gina had no choice, or gina is weak,..etc.
 
Johnny Dalmas said:
And wait for it! There’s more! This group of hypocrites still aren’t willing to actually participate in a solution (ie, sponsorship themselves). Nope they are just quit happy to sit back and tell everyone else who must be excluded from participating without offering to do anything positive themselves.
Click to expand...
Ha ha the irony of someone posting on a BigFooty forum about others sitting back and telling everyone else what they should be doing ;)

Look I'm not going to waste my time defending people like Tim and Carmen to anonymous people on the internet. They have strong opinions on environmental issues. They are almost certainly far more educated on environmental issues than the people posting in this thread but I'm not disregarding the less educated opinions on here like you are theirs. I am willing to listen to any opinion if it presents some logical reasoning.

They are pressuring the club to reconsider the Woodside partnership as is their right when we have free speech. I personally think the diatribe posted on here trying to discredit them doesn't help either side. The mob mentality is typical in these situations so I'm not surprised and I suspect if we replay the comments on here in 12 months we'd probably all cringe. And if we looked back in 50 years plenty would be downright embarrassed.

Nothing wrong with people being for or against Woodside - it is just a bunch of opinions. The 'ol hypocrite claim is a good way to avoid having a proper debate on an issue though. Perhaps you should heed your own advice and seek a solution rather than just throw insults?
 
Look some of the cases made here have swayed me. I don’t think the club will stop the Woodside sponsorship , so tomorrow I’m joining WC I’ll go in the morning to Mineral Resources Par…..oh s[¥t…😜
 
Last edited:

Remove this Banner Ad

Play Nice Is it time to replace Woodside as sponsor?

Similar threads

BStaff17
Fremantle Dockers Hall of Fame ??? Is it time to introduce one
Replies
20
Views
671
serial_thrilla
serial_thrilla
FreoGirl
Toast It's time to celebrate Nat Fyfe and what he has done for our club
2 3
Replies
69
Views
5K
BStaff17
BStaff17
Paracleet
Is it on?
6 7 8 9 10
Replies
235
Views
11K
Superkoops
Superkoops
ubiquitous226
Analysis Bye Time - The Run Home Special
6 7 8 9 10
Replies
226
Views
11K
pK75
pK75
J
Matthew Johnson, please stop taking on the tackler every time you get the ball
2 3 4
Replies
83
Views
4K
lint
L
Ysaye
List Mgmt. 2024 Young Talent Time (Drafting)
41 42 43 44 45
Replies
1K
Views
69K
fnerd
F
Tonga Bob
Review Walyalup Beat The Reigning Premiers, Time To Book The Bus?
6 7 8 9 10
Replies
228
Views
12K
Madas
Madas
Back
Top