Oppo Camp Non-Eagles Discussion

[Chief]

Continued in Part 2:

Oppo Camp - Non-Eagles Discussion

Who gives a **** about finals anyway So overrated It’s all about the draft these days

www.bigfooty.com

 

[Rowan18]

This is not really a fair comparison, as you need to fly to participate in the competition. The solutions to that would be unreasonable.

There is nothing wrong with Freo however not renewing the Woodside sponsorship and seeking alternatives.

I think it's pretty weak to protest sponsorship from an energy company when your club depends so much on its product to be able to function.

 

[Forward Press]

I think it's pretty weak to protest sponsorship from an energy company when your club depends so much on its product to be able to function.

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with a Woodside sponsorship - or any Australian resources company. Far worse sponsors out there, like TABTouch. No corporation is entirely clean, green, moral and ethical.

But I hope you can understand their rationale (ie climate change activism) even if you disagree strongly with it.

 

[Truckosaurus]

I've never been able to work out why anyone would follow Freo, so I'd suggest they follow anyone else Maybe not North or St Kilda though.

All I'll say is, there are more people sexually aroused by suffering pain than you might think.

 

[Keys]

If you’re going to start rejecting sponsorships based on moral/ethical grounds then you’ll find a significantly smaller pool of potential sponsors

There wouldn’t be very many companies willing and capable of spending the sort of money to be the principal sponsor of a team in a national comp without something they could be criticised for

 

[Carbine Chaos]

Am I the only one who thinks Lyon will be an astute signing by the Saints?

He’s done well there before and is a much better coach than Ratten.

 

[random260]

Fremantle nuffies and sponsorship. I hope nissy can read his membership demographic. Filled with boomers, miners, oil and gas who will not put up with this nonsense.

I like to think trev would be open arms about woodside and bhp. Because i listened to fremantle president defense of woodside HOLY SHIT it was weak sauce.

The Fremantle president essentially said their contract was up to either

1) Distance from Woodside
2) Try to fleece woodside for some more in their next contract

I highlight doubt it was the second option. Either way you would think woodside would be pissed at fremantle response. The issue is still up there because their weak sauce of a president refused to clamp it down/both sides it.

 

[Ochre]

I think it's pretty weak to protest sponsorship from an energy company when your club depends so much on its product to be able to function.

 

[Ochre]

If clubs are going to be walking billboards for companies, I think people involved with those clubs are entitled to not want to be a billboard for companies whose business they don't support.

I would have to assume almost everyone in here supports cigarette companies being banned from advertising during sport, what's the difference?

 

[random260]

If clubs are going to be walking billboards for companies, I think people involved with those clubs are entitled to not want to be a billboard for companies whose business they don't support.

I would have to assume almost everyone in here supports cigarette companies being banned from advertising during sport, what's the difference?

Go put it a member vote I ****ing dare you.

Also go put it to a player vote. I guarantee you the response will not be unanimous. We are talking about footy players here who most likely had connections to the industry. Either family are working there

The issue is you have the minority railing against it. This is woodside of all protest. It's not going to end well. If it was an adani it would be more close in terms of number of people that want to cut / keep.

 

[Ochre]

Go put it a member vote I ******* dare you.

Also go put it to a player vote. I guarantee you the response will not be unanimous. We are talking about footy players here who most likely had connections to the industry. Either family are working there

The issue is you have the minority railing against it. This is woodside of all protest. It's not going to end well. If it was an adani it would be more close in terms of number of people that want to cut / keep.

So people can't voice their opinion if the majority don't agree? That's the whole point of campaigning for something.

 

[random260]

So people can't voice their opinion if the majority don't agree? That's the whole point of campaigning for something.

They shouldn't speak for majority.

 

[Ochre]

Also merely raising the suggestion of a 'members vote' for anything on the West Coast board would be punishable by death if Trev had his way.

 

[Ochre]

They shouldn't speak for majority.

Have they done that?

 

[Inside Bull]

I had a quick look at their sponsors...

Official AFL Website of the Fremantle Dockers

The official AFL website of the Fremantle Football Club

www.fremantlefc.com.au

Tier 2 - Pirate Life (alcohol)
Tier 3 - crypto.com (effectively gambling), McDonald's (need I say more?)
Tier 4 - TABTouch (gambling)
Tier 5 - CocaCola (ditto like McDonald's), Crown (gambling)

I am sure you can make a case against others too, I left out those that were borderline. And yes, quite aware we have similar types of sponsors too.

Realistically, it would be incredibly difficult to keep gambling, fast food, alcohol etc sponsors away at all times nowadays.

The funny thing is that every single company here is trying to get you to consume more of a product with ethical questions around it by adding to cravings, or making you think to pickup your phone and place a wager. Making the world worse (if that's what you believe these companies do overall)

Woodside and Alinta aren't trying to tell you to consume more fossil fuels, just to keep them in mind as a supplier if you are.

 

[Rowan18]

Am I the only one who thinks Lyon will be an astute signing by the Saints?

He’s done well there before and is a much better coach than Ratten.

If that list is capable of top 4 then he will get it there. He will also refuse to develop any youth.

They should give him a 2 year contract, possibility of a single 12 month extension and absolutely no extension beyond that (unless he wins a flag in year 3).

 

[amazingjoshy]

Am I the only one who thinks Lyon will be an astute signing by the Saints?

He’s done well there before and is a much better coach than Ratten.

Maybe they are geniuses, but I thought he was already well passed his use by date his last 2 years at Freo.

Going to have to change quite a few things (and not just playing style). Maybe he has it in him.....

 

[Keys]

I think people involved with those clubs are entitled to not want to be a billboard for companies whose business they don't support.

If that’s your criteria, let’s start a list:

• If Woodside are out, then put a line through any oil/gas companies - Chevron, Shell, Mobil, Alinta, Origin, BP, Caltex….
• Alcohol is linked to poor health issues, addiction, domestic violence etc so that’s all alcohol companies out
• Gambling nope. They’re out
• Chinese labour practices- where do I start here. Most electronic companies would source components from China, sporting goods/apparel. Goodbye to them
• Saudi connections - there goes some airline sponsorships
• Can’t imagine mining companies get a tick so their money is no good
• Vehicles burning fossil fuels so the auto industry is out.
• Fast food. Soft drink manufacturers. Unhealthy. Gone
I’m no fan of Woodside, they ****ed the town I lived in due to their botched gas project they pulled out of at the last minute and my life is worse for it, but this is a slippery path to walk down

Sports is an entertainment industry that relies on corporate sponsorship/advertising revenue and at the top it requires the sort of money that only major international/national companies can provide. Those companies in most instances are going to be problematic to varying degrees

I get that it’s nigh on impossible to avoid using gas in any real sense so individuals can’t boycott Woodside the same way they could McDonalds for example

But to see a group of people standing behind Carmen Lawrence poncing about making demands that come at no personal cost to them to make an ill thought out point. Spare me

 

[Goroyals22]

If that’s your criteria, let’s start a list:

• If Woodside are out, then put a line through any oil/gas companies - Chevron, Shell, Mobil, Alinta, Origin, BP, Caltex….
• Alcohol is linked to poor health issues, addiction, domestic violence etc so that’s all alcohol companies out
• Gambling nope. They’re out
• Chinese labour practices- where do I start here. Most electronic companies would source components from China, sporting goods/apparel. Goodbye to them
• Saudi connections - there goes some airline sponsorships
• Can’t imagine mining companies get a tick so their money is no good
• Vehicles burning fossil fuels so the auto industry is out.
• Fast food. Soft drink manufacturers. Unhealthy. Gone
I’m no fan of Woodside, they cactus the town I lived in due to their botched gas project they pulled out of at the last minute and my life is worse for it, but this is a slippery path to walk down

Sports is an entertainment industry that relies on corporate sponsorship/advertising revenue and at the top it requires the sort of money that only major international/national companies can provide. Those companies in most instances are going to be problematic to varying degrees

I get that it’s nigh on impossible to avoid using gas in any real sense so individuals can’t boycott Woodside the same way they could McDonalds for example

But to see a group of people standing behind Carmen Lawrence poncing about making demands that come at no personal cost to them to make an ill thought out point. Spare me

And promoting solar panels made in china using slave labour with poor conditions and human rights violations… but ignore that while travel around business class and driving their range rovers…

 

[Truckosaurus]

If that’s your criteria, let’s start a list:

• If Woodside are out, then put a line through any oil/gas companies - Chevron, Shell, Mobil, Alinta, Origin, BP, Caltex….
• Alcohol is linked to poor health issues, addiction, domestic violence etc so that’s all alcohol companies out
• Gambling nope. They’re out
• Chinese labour practices- where do I start here. Most electronic companies would source components from China, sporting goods/apparel. Goodbye to them
• Saudi connections - there goes some airline sponsorships
• Can’t imagine mining companies get a tick so their money is no good
• Vehicles burning fossil fuels so the auto industry is out.
• Fast food. Soft drink manufacturers. Unhealthy. Gone
I’m no fan of Woodside, they cactus the town I lived in due to their botched gas project they pulled out of at the last minute and my life is worse for it, but this is a slippery path to walk down

Sports is an entertainment industry that relies on corporate sponsorship/advertising revenue and at the top it requires the sort of money that only major international/national companies can provide. Those companies in most instances are going to be problematic to varying degrees

I get that it’s nigh on impossible to avoid using gas in any real sense so individuals can’t boycott Woodside the same way they could McDonalds for example

But to see a group of people standing behind Carmen Lawrence poncing about making demands that come at no personal cost to them to make an ill thought out point. Spare me

Your reasonable and balanced opinions have no place on the internet!

 

[Ochre]

If that’s your criteria, let’s start a list:

• If Woodside are out, then put a line through any oil/gas companies - Chevron, Shell, Mobil, Alinta, Origin, BP, Caltex….
• Alcohol is linked to poor health issues, addiction, domestic violence etc so that’s all alcohol companies out
• Gambling nope. They’re out
• Chinese labour practices- where do I start here. Most electronic companies would source components from China, sporting goods/apparel. Goodbye to them
• Saudi connections - there goes some airline sponsorships
• Can’t imagine mining companies get a tick so their money is no good
• Vehicles burning fossil fuels so the auto industry is out.
• Fast food. Soft drink manufacturers. Unhealthy. Gone
I’m no fan of Woodside, they cactus the town I lived in due to their botched gas project they pulled out of at the last minute and my life is worse for it, but this is a slippery path to walk down

Sports is an entertainment industry that relies on corporate sponsorship/advertising revenue and at the top it requires the sort of money that only major international/national companies can provide. Those companies in most instances are going to be problematic to varying degrees

I get that it’s nigh on impossible to avoid using gas in any real sense so individuals can’t boycott Woodside the same way they could McDonalds for example

But to see a group of people standing behind Carmen Lawrence poncing about making demands that come at no personal cost to them to make an ill thought out point. Spare me

Sure but if you're that black and white about it then why doesn't it work in reverse and we should allow cigarettes and the NRA and if Freo want to pay us to put a giant purple anchor on a WCE jumper then why not?

The idea that if you're not ok with everything then you can't be ok with anything is ridiculous. The slippery slope argument has always been ****ing ridiculous, play each ball on its merits.

 

[Truckosaurus]

Ironically this is all free publicity for Alinta. I watch a fair amount of cricket and I couldn't have told you on Monday that they sponsored the team.

 

[Icanwalk]

If that’s your criteria, let’s start a list:

• If Woodside are out, then put a line through any oil/gas companies - Chevron, Shell, Mobil, Alinta, Origin, BP, Caltex….
• Alcohol is linked to poor health issues, addiction, domestic violence etc so that’s all alcohol companies out
• Gambling nope. They’re out
• Chinese labour practices- where do I start here. Most electronic companies would source components from China, sporting goods/apparel. Goodbye to them
• Saudi connections - there goes some airline sponsorships
• Can’t imagine mining companies get a tick so their money is no good
• Vehicles burning fossil fuels so the auto industry is out.
• Fast food. Soft drink manufacturers. Unhealthy. Gone
I’m no fan of Woodside, they cactus the town I lived in due to their botched gas project they pulled out of at the last minute and my life is worse for it, but this is a slippery path to walk down

Sports is an entertainment industry that relies on corporate sponsorship/advertising revenue and at the top it requires the sort of money that only major international/national companies can provide. Those companies in most instances are going to be problematic to varying degrees

I get that it’s nigh on impossible to avoid using gas in any real sense so individuals can’t boycott Woodside the same way they could McDonalds for example

But to see a group of people standing behind Carmen Lawrence poncing about making demands that come at no personal cost to them to make an ill thought out point. Spare me

You can make reasoned delineations between each of those companies/enterprises you have listed. Even the oil/gas companies listed differ in their ethical standards (i.e. there would be a stronger case to protest say Shell sponsoring your team than Woodside).

Sport teams (at least in the AFL) are not listed companies. They are not subject to a legal obligation to maximise returns to any shareholders. There is increasing awareness of sportswashing, and its impact on society, so we can rightly expect to see more consideration of the sources of sponsorship income in sports.

 

[Icanwalk]

I think it's pretty weak to protest sponsorship from an energy company when your club depends so much on its product to be able to function.

This argument is not as clever as you think it is. Consumers do not have a real choice to use or not use gas or fossil fuels. The disproportionate amd unchecked influence of energy companies in Australian politics and the media is a significant contributing factor to the lack of a viable aternative. In the absence of consumer choice, protest is a fair recourse. Or am I missing a veiled jab at Freo in this?

 

[Keys]

Sure but if you're that black and white about it then why doesn't it work in reverse and we should allow cigarettes and the NRA and if Freo want to pay us to put a giant purple anchor on a WCE jumper then why not?

The idea that if you're not ok with everything then you can't be ok with anything is ridiculous. The slippery slope argument has always been ******* ridiculous, play each ball on its merits.

Cigarettes should be banned but governments are too timid and/or reliant on excise revenues to pull that trigger. The companies that manufacture them should be grateful they’re allowed to exist so being banned from advertising is a small price to pay in comparison. That said, if they were allowed to advertise what remains a legal product I wouldn’t object

The NRA is a US based political lobby group that as far as I’m aware don’t sponsor sporting teams. At least not in Australia. So they’re irrelevant to this discussion

Freo paying us to put an anchor on our jumpers. That would be a direct competitor using us to promote their brand. Isn’t going to happen any sooner than Coles putting up signs promoting Woolworths in their supermarkets

“If you’re not ok with everything then you can’t be ok with anything is ridiculous”

Fair point. I wouldn’t expect one individual to object to every company/industry I listed so, yes, people could want to avoid sponsorship from a gas company whilst being ok with beer sponsorship. However, I guarantee that there would be groups of different people more than willing to protest to each category I listed

And that’s where the slippery slope comes in. The Dockers play the Woodside issue on its merits and decide they’d be better with an alternate sponsor. Fair enough, move on.

Then another group see the success of the Woodside sponsors and decide to voice their opinion on alcohol consumption

Like I said, virtually every company large enough to provide sponsorship at that level will have justifiable reasons to reject that money

At some point you’re going to be labeled a hypocrite for accepting money from A, whilst rejecting it from B

 

[Icanwalk]

Fair point. I wouldn’t expect one individual to object to every company/industry I listed so, yes, people could want to avoid sponsorship from a gas company whilst being ok with beer sponsorship. However, I guarantee that there would be groups of different people more than willing to protest to each category I listed

And that’s where the slippery slope comes in. The Dockers play the Woodside issue on its merits and decide they’d be better with an alternate sponsor. Fair enough, move on.

Then another group see the success of the Woodside sponsors and decide to voice their opinion on alcohol consumption

Like I said, virtually every company large enough to provide sponsorship at that level will have justifiable reasons to reject that money

At some point you’re going to be labeled a hypocrite for accepting money from A, whilst rejecting it from B

People/groups have different opinions on matters, including companies and the products they produce. They have the right to voice those opinions, which includes the right to protest. It has always been this way and it always will be. It is not a slippery slope. Being labelled a hypocrite, correctly or incorrectly, is honstely a triviality