Thoughts on Netball Australia and Hancock Situation

Trying2SaveABuck on 23/10/2022 - 14:22
Last edited 24/10/2022 - 12:45

Hancock withdraws 15m sponsorship deal with netball Australia due to player backlash and players refusing to wear the Hancock brand

https://netball.com.au/news/hancock-prospecting-withdraws-pa…

Netball CEO admits to being concerned about the competitions financial future

https://www.news.com.au/sport/netball/netball-australia-reas…

Hancock donates 1m dollars of the sponsorship money taken from netball Australia to Telethon7

https://7news.com.au/sport/netball/netball-watches-on-as-gin…

Mike Cannon-Brooks being called out to save Netball Australia - as he only pays less then 10% tax opposed to Gina who pays 30% - yet is a massive socialist is interesting if he will put his money were his woke is

https://www.news.com.au/sport/netball/call-him-out-elites-pu…

Poll Options

  • 649
    Go Woke Go broke
  • 222
    Good on the players
  • 13
    Im not sure
Sports & Outdoors

Comments

          • BartholemewH on 25/10/2022 - 00:44
            +1

            @nephilim: Could substitute USA for China, that's the point. Squeeky clean naming rights sponsors /countries / religions are hard to find.

      • ProlapsedHeinous on 24/10/2022 - 12:03
        +4

        You mean China's dead dad

    • FlyingMiffy on 24/10/2022 - 19:06
      +1

      What has this got to do with China? Oh wait, they have a pretty poor PR machine, isnt liked by Aussie media, sponsors national sport and is filthy rich… OK, perfect comparison!!!

  • CurlCurl on 23/10/2022 - 17:41
    +4

    And driving a car made in China/Japan or where ever else possibly containing iron ore from Roy Hill.

  • mitt on 23/10/2022 - 17:48
    -4

    On the one hand I like it when garbage companies waste money on nonsense social benevolence instead of political lobbying.

    On the other hand I like it when women's sports stop getting cash injections they dont earn just because its a women's sport guuuuurl power!

    There are only good outcomes here.

    • MessyG on 24/10/2022 - 16:00
      +1

      Mens sports get cash injections they don't earn too, but well done for telling on yourself there.

  • Ughhh on 23/10/2022 - 17:58
    +19

    Given that the sports team did not want to wear the uniform and wanted to distance themselves from Hancock, it only make sense to distance themselves financially too.

    I would stop the sponsership too. You cant have your cake and eat it.

  • Seraphin7 on 23/10/2022 - 18:29
    +6

    Ironically, they seem all too happy to get around in Origin Energy gear … wonder what Pat Cummins has to say about that?

  • EightImmortals on 23/10/2022 - 18:31

    I guess sports players should go with their conscience?

    https://nypost.com/2022/07/26/rugby-league-players-refuse-to…

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 23/10/2022 - 23:01
      +18

      I guess sports players should go with their conscience?

      in fairness 'pride round' shirts is not a sponsor it is a social political act the bigwigs use to pander to the pc lunatics in the community…..

      im not having ago at the girls they can stand up for what they believe in but there is a difference - between being paid to wear something and being forced to wear something for social political reasons.

      i also support anyone refusing to support pride round or any thing political statement, sport should be about sport not political parties, the environment, sexuality, Religion etc

      i reckon social politics should stay da faq out of sport all together

    • MrFunSocks on 25/10/2022 - 14:13
      +1

      Sports players should have no say at all in what goes on the jersey they wear. If they don't want to wear it, there's the door.

  • freefall101 on 23/10/2022 - 19:33
    +1

    I would have thought there are more than enough people in Australia who hate Rinehart to replace $15m of funding. Apparently not. Would be great marketing too, anyone who sponsors them now will get a great run in the press.

    Makes sense to stand up against not being consulted and forced to wear a logo, also makes complete sense to pull the funding (it was the obvious outcome). Rinehart is a selfish, self centred git, all she has to do is say her dad was wrong but she's too detached from reality to do so.

    I'm also curious where all the free speech warriors supporting the Manly team have gone.

    • ozhunter on 23/10/2022 - 19:42
      -1

      I would have thought there are more than enough people in Australia who hate Rinehart to replace $15m of funding. Apparently not. Would be great marketing too, anyone who sponsors them now will get a great run in the press.

      I'm thinking that's what they're banking on the moment they decided to decline the offer.

      Makes sense to stand up against not being consulted and forced to wear a logo,

      Depends. If someone gets a papercut a work, you'd probably think it's reasonable to take a few days off, while other would think it's outrageous. You'd probably praise someone for quitting their job if they had to wear black pants or white shirt simply because they didn't like the color.

      A more reasonable person would think it's ridiculous but more understanding if someone was forced to wear social/political/ideological slogan or logos. You do you.

      Lol, look at the defenders of this compared to the Manly team issue

      • freefall101 on 23/10/2022 - 20:28
        +8

        And in this case, the logo of the richest person in Australia who can't even say her father was wrong on eugenics and who donates millions to political campaigns and anti-climate change campaigns is definitely political and ideological.

        And they clearly didn't wear it for political and ideological reasons, not because they just didn't like the colour.

        Glad to see you're supporting our women's netball team.

        • ozhunter on 23/10/2022 - 21:28
          +3

          who donates millions to political campaigns and anti-climate change campaigns is definitely political and ideological.

          That's why they didn't accept the offer? I didn't think so either.

          And they clearly didn't wear it for political and ideological reasons, not because they just didn't like the colour.

          Yea because they didn't like what the owner said in the 80's… and who has passed away decades ago. Probably expecting the all ex-owners and ex-employees to have the same opinion as them.

          Glad to see you're supporting our women's netball team.

          You're welcome.. There's not many of us, lol.

          • freefall101 on 24/10/2022 - 09:59
            +3

            @ozhunter:

            That's why they didn't accept the offer? I didn't think so either.

            It has been listed as one of the reasons, Rinehart's fathers comments and Rinehart refusing to condemn them is the one that makes the most headlines though.

            It's not just about what her father said, it's the fact Gina Rinehart refuses to condemn it. This would have all been over in seconds had Rinehart just said her father was wrong.

            • ozhunter on 24/10/2022 - 18:33
              +2

              @freefall101:

              This would have all been over in seconds had Rinehart just said her father was wrong.

              Doubt it.

              They could have just not assumed she had the same views.

            • trapper on 24/10/2022 - 19:31
              +3

              @freefall101:

              This would have all been over in seconds had Rinehart just said her father was wrong.

              This is not true at all though.

        • FlyingMiffy on 24/10/2022 - 19:09
          +1

          Thats what I dont get either. There seems to be a whole lot of support for one mega rich and not much for a national team and organization that has won a considerable amount of international tournaments. Its borderline hate or at the very list "suckers" for the womens sport…

          • ozhunter on 24/10/2022 - 19:53
            -1

            @FlyingMiffy:

            Thats what I dont get either.

            Not surprised.

            No one's taking into account the net worth or their achievements because it's irrelevant.

            Its borderline hate

            Surprising that you didn't start off with this, 😂

    • cfuse on 24/10/2022 - 12:58
      +7

      all she has to do is say her dad was wrong

      Apologising to wokescolds merely inflames their self righteous inquisition. If a group offers no path to redemption then there's zero reason to apologise to them, even if you're actually in the wrong (which she isn't).

      • freefall101 on 24/10/2022 - 16:09
        +4

        It's not an apology though, she just needs to say her dad was wrong. Lang Hancock was totally wrong and we obviously shouldn't sterilise anyone. See? Easy.

        As for the rest of your word salad… yeesh. Wokescolds? Path to redemption? It's about some people being pissed they had to wear a logo on their shirt, not a culture war.

        • cfuse on 27/10/2022 - 10:38

          It's not an apology though, she just needs to say her dad was wrong

          Why, because she was born to the wrong father and his wrongthink is leaking out of the casket? Sins of the father is a concept that is morally reprehensible. She is not responsible for the statements and acts of another, end of story.

          If it's not her problem then she should be able to ignore it without penalty. We cannot run the world off the back of the idea of silence being endorsement. It would be trivial to tear anyone apart for anything they didn't say under that paradigm.

          When it comes to scolds it is always just one simple thing, isn't it? That's how we went from people being held to account for what they said to being held to account for what their dead relatives have said. Tell me, when will it be enough for that kind of wokescold? That is why a sins of the father doctrine is so pernicious: it never ends.

          Wokescolds? Path to redemption? It's about some people being pissed they had to wear a logo on their shirt, not a culture war.

          If that is all it is then where's the necessity of Gina's grovelling denunciation of her father? Why does it matter? Why should anyone care?

          It is very clear that it is a lot more than a simple spat of idiot athletes and their cash strapped governing body. You can go straight to the horse's mouth to see that: the players, the association, and Reinhart all state as much directly. They all offer ideological reasons for their actions. And all of that before all the usual suspects bolt to twitter to virtue signal or bash the same.

          • freefall101 on 27/10/2022 - 15:52

            @cfuse:

            It is very clear

            Doubt

            And all of that before all the usual suspects bolt to twitter to virtue signal or bash the same.

            Oh, so it's a bunch of sports people, an idiot billionaire AND people on twitter? Well, definitely a culture war then when you add idiots on twitter, the most renowned group for logical and representative takes on society.

            I think you need to spend some time off the internet if you think this is a big deal.

            • cfuse on 28/10/2022 - 11:56

              @freefall101: I think judging people by the actions of others is fundamentally unjust. You need not share those principles nor consider them to be important.

    • trapper on 24/10/2022 - 16:36
      +5

      all she has to do is say her dad was wrong

      Why does she have to do this, it has nothing to do with her.

      Are the players also expected to line up and each make statements about the various things their own ancestors did wrong?

      • FlyingMiffy on 24/10/2022 - 19:12
        +1

        The world will be a better place for starters. Facts and history is just that. You acknowledge it, you learn from it, and you right a wrong if its in your power to do so. I bet you werent happy when Rudd gave the apology, huh.

        • brendanm on 25/10/2022 - 20:58
          +1

          I bet you werent happy when Rudd gave the apology, huh.

          It's made such a positive difference though.

    • trapper on 24/10/2022 - 17:04
      +4

      anyone who sponsors them now will get a great run in the press.

      Anyone who sponsors them now is going to have every skeleton in their closet hauled out in public.

      Need to be pretty damn sure they are squeaky clean…

    • MrFunSocks on 25/10/2022 - 14:14

      Would be great marketing too, anyone who sponsors them now will get a great run in the press.

      For a few days, then they're realise that no-one watches Netball or goes to it, which is why they're losing money hand over fist, so it would be a wasted investment.

  • sane on 23/10/2022 - 20:20
    +17

    When you are part of a 2nd (or 3rd) rung sport, and you desperately need the money, you don't get to be picky about where it comes from. If you don't realise that professional sport is about the money, not your feels, you end up not eating.

    Consider it a learning experience, about the real world.

    • Drj55 on 24/10/2022 - 11:38
      +9

      Correct. Sport only had one role. To entertain people enough so that they are willing to pay to watch you. If you can't get enough people to watch to cover costs you need to get sponsorship to cover the shortfall. Sponsorship will only be there if the sponsor feels there is some benefit for them. If you can't get the viewers and don't want to accept the sponsorship then get a real job!

      • nottodaysunshine on 24/10/2022 - 15:43

        Throwing a ball around is a "real job". They actually work up quite a sweat, especially with all them chips on their shoulders.

  • peppet on 23/10/2022 - 20:57
    +14

    Y'all have a lot of strong opinions on what one should and shouldn't do. They stood up for their principles, nothing wrong with that. I'm sure they knew the potential consequences but OzB armchair experts are having a field day

    Relax just a little bit, you'll be ok

    • Windows98 on 24/10/2022 - 09:20
      +8

      As with a lot of topics. There's a lot of options from people who have never and will never watch netball.

      But this is an example of "wokeness" backfiring, so the sky news followers are loving it right now and capitalising on it.
      The way this thread and the poll is worded is a clear example of that.

      It's literally only been a few hours since this whole thing has gone down and most likely there will be another company to happily pick up the tab and soak up the attention.

      But we should let the anti-woke crowd have their moment.

      P.S. I actually agree with people about "one players feelings" impacting a whole sport. But I also know that the news is not giving us all the info and that there will be more to the story and this won't be the end of the entire sport forever. It's just another 24hr news cycle hype that will be forgotten by tomorrow.

    • ProlapsedHeinous on 24/10/2022 - 12:08
      +3

      I respect them standing up for what they believe, I also respect the sponsor for pulling their sponsorship. Everyone walks away happy. Gina can find somewhere else to spend the money and Netball Australia can find a new sponsor.

      • Trying2SaveABuck on 24/10/2022 - 12:48
        -2

        Gina can find somewhere else to spend the money and Netball Australia can find a new sponsor.

        netball Australia will struggle to find a 15m sponsor - no one right now is 'riding to there cause' Mike Cannon brooks the woke billionaire has been called out but who knows if he will answer the call - id say Gina has more positive publicity from this then the 15m given to netball ever would of done.

        Netball is on the brink of financial collapse whilst Gina probably has gotten 100m worth of marketing from this

        moral of the story dont bite the hand that feeds you

      • gromit on 24/10/2022 - 15:16
        +1

        unless all this publicity brings in some magical new sponsor I doubt Netball Australia will be happy, they are financially drowning, Gina had thrown them a life line which the players have rejected. Gina will definitely come off best of this, especially if she shows putting the money into another sport that doesn't spit in her face for being charitable.

  • 82norm on 24/10/2022 - 08:17
    -3

    Netball….the sport alone is boring enough. Ok, I get it, young girls play it, adult women blah blah….but let’s face it, it’s not league, it’s not Union, it ain’t soccer.

    As for not wearing the logo on the uniform, there’s been conflicting stories here. Gina Rinehart and her other company Roy Hill mentioned they’ve never asked for the logo to be to be worn, yet the media and Netball Australia says otherwise - what are the actual facts?

    While we’re at it, Pat Cummins is just as bad. Actually, let’s asks the Government, given they’re more than happy to get taxes on iron ore mining.

    Virtual signalling, political correctness, cancel culture, me too, BLM….where does it end?

    • klonky on 24/10/2022 - 09:15
      +12

      Opens with a sexist post and complains about political correctness. Go go ozbargain!

      • MessyG on 24/10/2022 - 16:02
        +4

        Classic OzB. One for the pool room isn't it.

      • hippyhippy on 25/10/2022 - 17:56

        What's sexist about that post?

    • DashCam AKA Rolts on 24/10/2022 - 09:45
      +3

      Virtual signalling, political correctness, cancel culture, me too, BLM….where does it end?

      You forgot to throw in woke.
      /s (in case it's needed.)

  • gromit on 24/10/2022 - 09:32
    +7

    players absolutely have a right to decide who they receive funding from. Though they better not whinge and complain about being underpaid or their competition shutting down due to lack of funding.

  • BigBirdy on 24/10/2022 - 09:40
    +9

    Rinehart has loads of money, and uses it to buy influence and extend her wealth. She has zero regard for the environment or health and welfare of others. Her sports funding is purely about influence, it's widely publicized and she demands photo ops with the stars. An easy compromise could have been the removal of Hankock's logo from uniforms, but Gina is not one for compromise. With her wealth and influence, it's her way r the highway. Just like her father.

    • gromit on 24/10/2022 - 09:44
      +3

      While I don't think much of her she is actually pretty generous, funding charities all over the world and in 3rd world countries. She tends to just not advertise it like many others do.

      • Randolph Duke on 24/10/2022 - 13:53

        Shame it doesn’t extend to her family.

    • Ughhh on 24/10/2022 - 12:11

      Just like her father

      Just like anyone really. No such thing as free lunch.

      • Beef jerky time on 24/10/2022 - 16:55

        Chuck Feeney would like a word.

        (If you don't know and don't want to google, he gave away ~$8 billion, mostly in secret).

  • HCBargain on 24/10/2022 - 09:44
    +7

    Based on the company statement, it seems Hancock actively contribute very significantly to the wellbeing of indigenous Australians.
    https://www.royhill.com.au/hancock-prospecting-public-statem…

    There is no doubt that the statement about sterilisation is hideous and exteremely offensive - to the point where arguably today it would be illegal.

    However it was also made by someone long dead, was made before anyone in the netball team was even born, and is evidently completely opposite in view to the sustained support provided by the company over a long period of time.

    • Willy Beamish on 24/10/2022 - 20:00
      +6

      Every Australian tax payer contributes very significantly to the wellbeing of "indigenous australians".

  • skyva on 24/10/2022 - 10:29
    +10

    Couple of thoughts:
    1. Given the statements and company's history it shows a remarkable lack of management from Netball Australia to not get everyone on board (Players Association etc) before announcing the deal. This could and should have been sorted by NA before announcing it. Hancock may not be the wokist company ever but NA new the (40yr old) issues and failed to deal with them. It has been suggested by Gina that NA said the money was for rebuilding but forgot to mention the players were demanding more money. A long term sponsor of that size probably has the right to know where their money will be invested.
    I give NA a 3/10 for this.
    2. The players and Association: its great to stand up for what you believe in. No problem. Reject the money and play for what its worth. At this stage, that is not much but hey your principles are important. Please don't come to the government for handouts that take money from the poor and sick. Also, you just cut down the number of cashed up sponsors dramatically. In my mind, Hancock is (currently) a lot better than any fast food, gambling, alcohol, crypto organisation, and the list goes on. Not only do they now need to be seen to have buy in on any deal, the Players Association will be judged on the quality of the sponsor. Comparisons will be made. So how do we feel about Milo (Nestle) or Nike (child labour) sponsorships? Or will they take money from other companies with issues as long as it is not an Australian issue? Sponsors would be very brave to stump up as there will be lots of publicity around any negative elements over the last 40 years and comparisons to Hancock.
    So I give the players association a 4/10 if they agree to a significant wage cut after losing the deal, and 2/10 if they whinge and ask for a government bailout.

    Women's sport and women/girls in sport was not the winner from this.

    • Roman Sandstorm on 24/10/2022 - 16:08
      +4

      @skyva

      Given the statements and company's history it shows a remarkable lack of management from Netball Australia to not get everyone on board (Players Association etc) before announcing the deal. This could and should have been sorted by NA before announcing it.

      This.

      Clearly, the relationship between NA and the elite players is…. not ideal.

      This is the core of the issue. Not one player's concerns over ancient comments, nor even general worries over the green credentials (or lack thereof) of the sponsoring company.

      If everyone was consulted, concerns addressed, etc, prior to the announcing of the sponsorship, then everyone would be singing from the same song sheet. The valid strengths of the sponsoring company (what they do for indiginous communities, employment creation, tax revenue generation, how their mineral extraction may aid emerging greener technologies, etc) could be expressed, and likewise, the possible negatives understood and responses prepared. After all, as many have mentioned here, no company is completely spotless for its entire history. But does that mean if they are doing the right thing now they should be forever condemned?

      Netball Australia appears to have/had a non-harmonious and fractious relationship with their newly-professional elite players on more than just this one issue (eg, SSN supershot, finals location). There appears to be a trend.

    • Roman Sandstorm on 24/10/2022 - 16:18

      @skyva

      Women's sport and women/girls in sport was not the winner from this.

      Although I agree with your first point, I think this is somewhat hyperbolic.

      The Hancock Prospecting sponsorship applied to elite level netball over four years.

      The financial impact on community and general netball would be zero. Perhaps there may be a perception impact, flamed by exaggerated and over-the-top reactions in media and online (such as your statement). But quantifying that would be impossible.

  • HelpMeiCantSee on 24/10/2022 - 10:40
    +4

    GWGB. watch them cry about lack of funding rofl.

  • Senatekill on 24/10/2022 - 10:53
    +4

    GOWOKEGOBROKE

    • MessyG on 24/10/2022 - 16:03
      +8

      Pat yourself on the back, bet you were hanging to use that. * golfclaps*

      • Senatekill on 24/10/2022 - 18:08

        dont bite the hand that feeds you.

        I hope they all head to the unemployment line. They deserve it.

        • isthisreallife22 on 24/10/2022 - 20:43
          +3

          Why do they "deserve" it exactly? Wtf

    • isthisreallife22 on 24/10/2022 - 20:42
      +2

      How did this get upvoted wtf

      • cashews on 25/10/2022 - 12:12

        I take it you don't visit these forums often.

  • FlyingMiffy on 24/10/2022 - 11:19

    Good on them for standing up to their beliefs. Its $15M, they can get that by crowd sourcing.

    • LFO on 24/10/2022 - 12:14
      +1

      they can get that by crowd sourcing.

      Netball fans??? NETBALL!

      • FlyingMiffy on 24/10/2022 - 12:46

        People have supported crowd sourcing for more insane topics and ideas…

        • LFO on 25/10/2022 - 13:59
          +2

          Yes, but this is netball.
          A "sport" usually associated with some high school girls and then just a few years thereafter.

          Protecting penguins in far away lands (or whatever) is more exotic and a better topic of dinner conversation. Netball doesn't.

    • OzzyOzbourne on 24/10/2022 - 12:44
      +1

      If you donate the first $14999999 perhaps

    • hippyhippy on 25/10/2022 - 13:39

      Aparently not … because professional sports is crowd sourcing… and they are losing money

  • LFO on 24/10/2022 - 12:13
    +2

    Revisionism is a very sharp double edged sword.
    Use with care.

  • FlyingMiffy on 24/10/2022 - 12:51
    -2

    And here's something that isnt always obvious… Hancock Prospectus actually makes money from resources that they dont own. They get taxed sure… but as Crown land grants issued after 1891 are typically limited to approximately 15.24 metres below the surface, what they mine and take money from is hardly theirs to take…

  • Dack Smith on 24/10/2022 - 13:35
    -6

    It’s time to have a Netball levy.

    Netball Australia represents Australia on the world stage, we have to support our athletes.

    We need to impose another increase of 2% tax, plus abolish the stage 3 tax cuts to the rich and greedy, to help fund our sports.

    Selfish and childish people will neg this comment no doubt, but in order to have world class sports teams, everyone has to pitch in.

    This is only fair and reasonable.

    • Randolph Duke on 24/10/2022 - 14:03
      +4

      I’m sure you thought this was super witty when typing it up.

    • OzzyOzbourne on 25/10/2022 - 14:31
      -1

      I reckon white men should subsidise it and all female sports. White men are probably the reason that women don't support and pay to see female sports and hence why the sport makes no money. Also the men doing one type of work earn more than women who are doing a different type of work (the pay gap) so they can afford to subsidise it (at least until they die or are injured doing that more difficult and dangerous work).

      Continuing Dack's and the left's line of logic and reasoning, anyone who disagrees are xxxxphobic bigots and will go to hell

  • Mark1159 on 24/10/2022 - 13:42
    +5

    What if my great grandfather x 50 was an invading marauding Viking who raped my milk maid Scottish great grand mother x 50 in 1066 or thereabouts and gave birth to great grandparent parent x 49 - should I hate on Danes or wherever Vikings hail from?

    • pharkurnell on 24/10/2022 - 15:06
      +5

      You should apologize for what he did all those years ago… its your fault.. /s

    • FlyingMiffy on 25/10/2022 - 17:45

      Nah that would just quite literally give you a bastard heritage. And you already sound the part!

    • moph on 26/10/2022 - 14:38
      +1

      Would you refuse to condemn those actions, and continue to run a company named after your rapist great grandfather x 50?
      That's the problem here, not the fact that a bad thing happened in the past.

  • umoddbro on 24/10/2022 - 13:47

    Literally the saying, dont bite the hand that feeds you lol

  • Ghost47 on 24/10/2022 - 13:52
    -2

    Lesson learned — obey white man at all times or have no money. Dumb fools.

    • brendanm on 25/10/2022 - 21:09

      Gina is a woman though?

      • ozhunter on 25/10/2022 - 21:12

        Let him be, he's just following the script.

  • nottodaysunshine on 24/10/2022 - 14:42
    +5

    This story is a distraction from the real day to day problems we are facing at the moment.

    • Ghost47 on 24/10/2022 - 23:38

      What problems are those?

      • nottodaysunshine on 25/10/2022 - 03:20

        Real ones.

      • OzzyOzbourne on 25/10/2022 - 14:33
        +1

        How many genders there are?
        Whether a Christian guy should be allowed to manage a footy club?
        New name for the BOM?
        Whether minors should be allowed permanent gender alteration surgery against their parent's wishes on the recommendation of a school teacher?
        Whether flying the Australian flag should be banned?

        • Ghost47 on 25/10/2022 - 16:30

          Lmao.

        • smartazz104 on 25/10/2022 - 17:03

          Literally shaking rn.

    • Brianqpr on 25/10/2022 - 10:14
      +1

      What, you don't see netball sponsorship as a major issue? There's at least 2 countries that care about it.

      • smartazz104 on 25/10/2022 - 17:04

        More countries care about cricket, and that's also boring.

  • Amanda3724 on 24/10/2022 - 14:56
    +7

    There’s only so many times you can bite the hand that feeds before it withdraws.
    Time to forget about the past and look to the future. Every civilisation has dark times in it’s history, but for some it’s just an excuse to keep up the self-pity.

  • diddy50 on 24/10/2022 - 15:05
    +2

    What's sad is that grass roots netball, misses out and loses.

    All the kids miss out now because of someone being too sensitive to comments from a dead man.

    • Roman Sandstorm on 24/10/2022 - 15:54
      +3

      @diddy50

      What's sad is that grass roots netball, misses out and loses.

      All the kids miss out now because of someone being too sensitive to comments from a dead man.

      Incorrect on two counts.

      1. The Hancock Prospecting sponsorship was for elite netball, not community or grassroots level.
      2. Although NA do run some children's and community level activities, most of these programs are controlled and funded by the various state netball associations.

      So we do not have to "won't somebody think of the children"; they are not going to miss out.

      • BobLim on 25/10/2022 - 00:17
        +5

        Surely without the sponsorship, NA would otherwise need to spend significant funds on the elite level

        i.e. without the sponsorship, resources must be directed away from other levels to support the elite, ergo those other levels suffer?

  • Rockets84 on 24/10/2022 - 15:18
    +3

    The players stance actually cost netball more than $15 million. Roy Hill also pulled funding from Netball WA and the reigning Super Netball premiers West Coast Fever. Those organisations were collateral damage and understandably they are mighty ticked off at losing that sponsorship through factors outside of their control.

    • AMLagonda on 25/10/2022 - 12:44
      +1

      Havent they lost something like 25 million now?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join