Politics The Hangar Politics Thread

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

I don't think Essendon's sponsors are generally terrible. Like there's no fossil fuel companies, no sports gambling companies. Powercor doesn't own any generators, they're just a distributor that owns a few poles and wires in the western suburbs.

List of sponsors: Official AFL Website of the Essendon Football Club

Our biggest issue is pokies.

Beyond that, you could get into things like Treasury Wine Estates and Carlton Draught, being alcohol brands, and we also have Macca's (which I think sponsors almost every club and the league itself).

And then if you really want to get out into the weeds you'd look at the sustainability of the products sold and the working conditions for the people who make the product, e.g. How Ethical Is Under Armour? - Good On You

I’d probably be in favour of alcohol and gambling advertising going the way of cigarettes, but it would have a shattering impact on sporting bodies such as the AFL who derive enormous money from it. I can’t see it happening in the foreseeable future.
 
Woodside does reek a bit. I mean, why are they doing it? Sponsorship is traditionally a bit of a two way street, particularly on jumpers etc. They don’t need to advertise to the public. So why the need to be on a footy jumper? It does feel a bit reputation wash
Because they think it shows them giving back to and being a part of the community just like you and me.
 
I’d probably be in favour of alcohol and gambling advertising going the way of cigarettes, but it would have a shattering impact on sporting bodies such as the AFL who derive enormous money from it. I can’t see it happening in the foreseeable future.
If they outlawed gambling ads the value of the tv rights would nosedive.
 
If they outlawed gambling ads the value of the tv rights would nosedive.

Conversely, if they allowed cigarette ads back in then the value of the tv rights would skyrocket.
 
Woodside does reek a bit. I mean, why are they doing it? Sponsorship is traditionally a bit of a two way street, particularly on jumpers etc. They don’t need to advertise to the public. So why the need to be on a footy jumper? It does feel a bit reputation wash

im still waiting for your name change to Bunk Merri-bek
 
I hope none of these activists idiots use any fossil fuels in their lives, and nothing taken from the ground either.

the netball one isnt quite about pulling stuff from the ground is it?- didnt old mate lang Hancock, the father of Gina pretty much say we should spike the water so Aboriginals are sterile and cant propagate?

I mean i know you cant blame daughter for the comments of a father 40 years prior, or maybe you can, i don't know
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I hope none of these activists idiots use any fossil fuels in their lives, and nothing taken from the ground either.

Have you seen the impact in pulling the stuff out of the ground that goes into the batteries we use for phones, tablets, cars etc? It's destroying those environments where people live. Yet everyone keeps using those devices.
 
Was chatting about sponsorship of teams to my cousin tonight at the Arsenal v PVS Eindhoven match (1:0 - ordinary game). The Gunners' current merch has a "Visit Rwanda" logo on the sleeve. A different league of sponsorship in so many ways. The merch shop (the Armoury) at Emirates is enormous - at least 20 tills.

The most interesting thing about the match was a quick chat with the UK opposition leader (Sir Keir Starmer) on his way to his seat, near my cousin's seats, on the day that Liz Truss resigned as PM. As he passed us, my cousin said that he was impressed by SKS' policy of doing nothing and leaving it all to the Tories. SKS replied that it was all working out quite nicely.
 
Last edited:
Was chatting about sponsorship of teams to my cousin tonight at the Arsenal v PVS Eindhoven match (1:0 - ordinary game). The Gunners' current merch has a "Visit Rwanda" logo on the sleeve. A different league of sponsorship in so many ways. The merch shop (the Armoury) at Emirates is enormous.

The most interesting thing about the match was a quick chat with the UK opposition leader (Sir Keir Starmer) on his way to his seat, near my cousin's seats, on the day that Liz Truss resigned as PM. As he passed us, my cousin said that he was impressed by SKS' policy of doing nothing and leaving it all to the Tories. SKS replied that it was all working out quite nicely.

Barcelona had a funny moralistic set of stepping stones

No shirt sponsor for decades- we are above such things.

Onto Unicef, ok let's act like we are sponsoring a cause..

Ok the shirt space has been opened up now, onto the open market it goes, next minute morals arnt applicable - maybe if they didn't spend so much money they don't have on shit players they wouldn't need to sell their souls?
 
I get players wanting a more ethical say in how their clubs get paid.
What does cause some unease is that these players are forcing their own political views on the whole club and it's supporters.

Is Hancock running a criminal enterprise?
Is it illegal to accept sponsorship money from Hancock?
What if you work at Hancock, or another miner, should you be forced to stop any involvement in the club? Where does it end.
That last point would have been inconceivable 10 years ago, maybe not so much now.
 
Have you seen the impact in pulling the stuff out of the ground that goes into the batteries we use for phones, tablets, cars etc? It's destroying those environments where people live. Yet everyone keeps using those devices.

There’s a meme going around that people post (mainly on Twitter I guess) in response to others crying hypocrite. It’s actually pretty good in that it makes a point but like all memes oversimplifies the conversation.

4E1EC0C5-F75F-4111-BE78-E2ED8A0E74D0.jpeg

Being able to criticise freely is what we should all enjoy and respect. What comes with it for me is an obligation to make a sincere effort to contribute personally. E.g. if someone is a climate champion and being noisy about it, they should be doing what they can to make personal changes, and should probably share these things when airing public critique.

E.g. Pat Cummins probably ought to be leading by talking about how he’s reducing his carbon footprint. It would certainly help reduce any backlash and influence more people the way he wants to. I’ve got nothing against the guy. He’s very likeable and genuine. I just think he’s made a mistake in missing an opportunity to show that: some people have got the impression he’s a hypocrite and I’m sure it’s not his intention. He needs to be addressing the contradictions IMO.
 
I get players wanting a more ethical say in how their clubs get paid.
What does cause some unease is that these players are forcing their own political views on the whole club and it's supporters.

Is Hancock running a criminal enterprise?
Is it illegal to accept sponsorship money from Hancock?
What if you work at Hancock, or another miner, should you be forced to stop any involvement in the club? Where does it end.
That last point would have been inconceivable 10 years ago, maybe not so much now.

I blame the person who burnt themselves on a hot coffee at McDonalds, sued them and won - thus ended personal liability and the age where people need and expect to be placated for their every stupid wish
 
the netball one isnt quite about pulling stuff from the ground is it?- didnt old mate lang Hancock, the father of Gina pretty much say we should spike the water so Aboriginals are sterile and cant propagate?

I mean i know you cant blame daughter for the comments of a father 40 years prior, or maybe you can, i don't know


Doesn't Gina fund the whole national league?
 
I hope none of these activists idiots use any fossil fuels in their lives, and nothing taken from the ground either.

Bit of a false dichotomy here.

You can want things to improve without living in the stone age. The impact most of us have on climate change is negligible, so whilst making changes in your own life (e.g. not using single use plastics) is a good thing to do, it's relatively minor in the scheme of things.

If the players at Freo - as a group - decide to lobby the club not to accept sponsorship dollars from Woodside so that Woodside can pretend they're all community minded, and are willing to take any subsequent financial impact upon themselves, go for it.

More likely that if Freo dumped Woodside the players would earn the exact same money they'd earn - since it's AFL funded - and some other people at the club would lose their jobs out of it.
 
the netball one isnt quite about pulling stuff from the ground is it?- didnt old mate lang Hancock, the father of Gina pretty much say we should spike the water so Aboriginals are sterile and cant propagate?

I mean i know you cant blame daughter for the comments of a father 40 years prior, or maybe you can, i don't know
The actual business is still called Hancock and there’s an Indigenous player who doesn’t want his name on her person. Fair enough, regardless of the old man being dead.

Gina never condemned the comments her father made either, even when asked to (instead her people point to how she gives money to Indigenous organisations).

I don’t think it’s about the sponsorship in general, it’s the logo on the uniform that’s the problem 🤔 Hancock isn’t pushing it either, they’ve not worn the logo dress a couple times without funding being withdrawn, so some credit to them.

Although another player had environmental concerns also.
 
The entire league is propped up by gambling companies - it's sickening.

I personally wish we weren't in pokies, but I understand that the whole league is immersed in it and therefore every single club is benefiting from it.

The league don't care because they make a fortune off it, the government don't care because they make a fortune off it (and unlike cigarettes there's no health expense associated with it ... yet)

Money wins. It always wins.

Winning Brian Cox GIF by SuccessionHBO
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Politics The Hangar Politics Thread

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top