Banter TRTT Part 13: 2021 Goodbye (To 2022)

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
And people like Popo will continue whining about the government subsidising women’s sport and weirdly failing to whine about the government not collecting any meaningful tax revenue from people like… Gina Rinehart.
What if people can complain about more than one thing at a time?

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk
 

Log in to remove this ad.

From the Australian playing group's side, three options are believed to have been put forward at the meetings between the playing group and Hancock Mining Group:

  • That an apology be made or at least some distance be put between Lang Hancock's genocide comments and the values of the current leadership of Hancock Prospecting, led by Gina Rinehart
  • That a pause be put on all discussions until the current international series against New Zealand and England was complete
  • That Wallam be granted an exemption from wearing the logo for personal reasons
These options seem reasonable to me and the dispute was close to being resolved on Friday night before Rinehart issued her statement withdrawing the funding offer and stating that players were 'virtue signalling' and claims that her company never insisted that the Hancock name be on the playing uniform.

In what seems as a bit of a tantrum move Rinehart controlled Roy Hill Mining then also withdrew their sponsorship funding from the West Coast Fever and Netball WA who weren't even a party to the Netball Australia dispute.

Bizarre.

gInA's nOt hEr fAtHeR

But when given the choice between saying 'yeah that stuff my father said literally advocating for actual genocide was bad' or pulling the sponsorship deal, it seems she picked pulling the sponsorship deal.
 
gInA's nOt hEr fAtHeR

But when given the choice between saying 'yeah that stuff my father said literally advocating for actual genocide was bad' or pulling the sponsorship deal, it seems she picked pulling the sponsorship deal.
But it's that uncompromising singlemindedness that made her into the billionairest person in Australia

... and all that shit she inherited
 
But it's that uncompromising singlemindedness that made her into the billionairest person in Australia

Oh, and all that s**t she inherited
I don't remember who it was but somebody on this board once genuinely tried to argue that she was 'self-made' because she only inherited a $30,000,000.00 dollar company. The mind boggles.
 
gInA's nOt hEr fAtHeR

But when given the choice between saying 'yeah that stuff my father said literally advocating for actual genocide was bad' or pulling the sponsorship deal, it seems she picked pulling the sponsorship deal.

There is a bit of irony here about us in a footy forum talking about the financial malaise of Netball Australia and them possibly now having to look to betting organisations to fund the accumulated deficits of the past 2 years

Because I have no doubt that the substantial TV and commercial success of the AFLW in recent years has directly contributed to the financial struggles of girls and senior women netball and basketball competitions.

The blanket TV coverage, substantial commercial sponsorship and exposure at schools etc. that takes away sponsorship dollars and interest from up and coming kids into alternative sports.

And the AFLs stated goal of making AFLW players the highest-paid sportswomen in Australian domestic competition by 2030 - all underwritten by the AFL sports betting income.

What chance has womens netball and basketball of competing for sponsorship dollars in that environment?
 
Last edited:
Lol again with the what about-ism.


Who exactly is pro-betting company sponsorship?

Do you think the people that have issues with Gina’s fathers comments / this sponsorship debacle are fully behind gambling sponsorship in our sports?


In the past couple of hours you’ve presented some pretty compelling arguments about the negatives of unfettered capitalism without a hint of irony as what about isms as if some gotcha to.. we’ll I’m not sure who?
Dude you can't even understand how your super balance has gone down even though you've been "working 50-70 hours a week" for the Man. I don't actually think you understand what Capitalism is.
 
There is a bit of irony here about us in a footy forum talking about the financial malaise of Netball Australia and them possibly now having to look to betting organisations to fund the accumulated deficits of the past 2 years

Because I have no doubt that the substantial TV and commercial success of the AFLW in recent years has directly contributed to the financial struggles of girls and senior women netball and basketball competitions.
AFLW isn't a TV or commercial success. WTF are you talking about?
 
I saw some pictures of Gina in her youth the other day, did that inheritance come with an overnight pig ugly curse?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Dude you can't even understand how your super balance has gone down even though you've been "working 50-70 hours a week" for the Man. I don't actually think you understand what Capitalism is.
Was asking if others experienced as bad performance or my superfund had been worse than the norm.

How you can try to spin that into something other than a pretty regular question is beyond me.
 
I saw some pictures of Gina in her youth the other day, did that inheritance come with an overnight pig ugly curse?
Beauty is only skin deep and lasts for just a moment.

Staggering wealth is so much more useful.

I don't actually think you understand what Capitalism is.

Gina does.

ScreenShot2021-12-01at8.46.30am-copy.png
 
And the AFLs stated goal of making AFLW players the highest-paid sportswomen in Australian domestic competition by 2030 - all underwritten by the AFL sports betting income.

What chance has womens netball and basketball of competing for sponsorship dollars in that environment?
Where is it stated anywhere that AFLW player's salaries will be underpinned by sports betting income?

Lol anyone who bets on sport could just as easily bet on Netball as they can on AFLW surely?

So AFLW incomes will have nothing to do with the new 4.5 billion TV rights deal?
 
So AFLW incomes will have nothing to do with the new 4.5 billion TV rights deal?

Why do you think Telstra, Murdoch and Seven paid $4.5 billion for the AFL TV rights?

Could the revenue from sports betting agencies have any role to play here?

Hint: Take a look at the advertising content across any AFL broadcast or associated program on Foxtel or Seven.

And please. Remember to 'gamble responsibly' ©
 
Beauty is only skin deep and lasts for just a moment.

Staggering wealth is so much more useful.



Gina does.

ScreenShot2021-12-01at8.46.30am-copy.png

Trump be like "Dafuq you got more money than me!"

Gina be like.....

cat-whats-happening.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top