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

      • gmatht on 27/10/2022 - 17:18

        Well, I was alive in the 80s. More fear about the Soviet Union. Less Internet (Unless you want to call dialing into a builitin board and watch your 600 baud modem gradually fill up you screen with text "the internet"). Less discussion of Trans rights. That is about it.

        It was well before my time, but reading history books gives me the impression that it was back in the 40s that a certain German politician gave racism and eugenics a bad name.

  • Davo1111 on 26/10/2022 - 02:24
    +4

    Tbh im sure we could think of a negative of any company that has the cash flow to sponsor an Australian sports team

    Their choice, but dont cry at the consequences

    • MrThing on 27/10/2022 - 13:12
      +1

      Exactly. Who are the big sponsors of sports teams..fast foods, betting, alcohol, car makers, banks, insurance

      Hardly difficult to find something someone might not like about them

  • Archi on 26/10/2022 - 10:38
    +4

    seems to me netball Australia, or rather the players want the sponsorship dollars, but doesn't want anyone to know where it came from.

    i see the conversation should have gone down as…

    "my morals and values do not align with those of the sponsorship provider, i will not play until the sponsorship contract is cancelled"

    but how it actually happenned

    "my morals and values do not align with those of the sponsorship provider, however i want to keep your money but i won't wear your logo on my shirt "

    • koplik8 on 26/10/2022 - 12:58
      +1

      Then better to resign to make a point rather than ruin the sport for everyone else

  • Dack Smith on 26/10/2022 - 11:35

    What about the One Belt One Road scheme to get the CCP to pay for Netball?

  • koplik8 on 26/10/2022 - 12:57

    17 June 2022, Netball Australia was going broke in the media https://www.triplem.com.au/story/netball-australia-on-the-br….
    What a load of BS when I read the latest. Wow, mouthy players obviously don't love their sport enough to keep their mouths shut. I think in this instance people need to pick their battles and think before they speak.
    RIP Netball Australia

  • prodrome on 26/10/2022 - 13:15

    All I know is they shouldn't take Mike Cannon-Brooks money either. Atlassian kept doing business in Russia.

    • MrThing on 27/10/2022 - 13:10
      +1

      Reminds me of the comment earlier here

      Money talks, bullshit walks.

      That dog is happy to jump up n down on climate, but clearly doesnt give a rats over the war if that comment is true

    • Davo1111 on 01/11/2022 - 00:47
      +1

      Its far from the worst thing Atlassian has done

      Drop in the ocean

  • bobolo on 26/10/2022 - 13:27
    +2

    "Don't bite the hand that feeds you"

    "Don't shit where you eat"

    Both saying apply here to Netball Australia.

    Funny how people don't talk about the amount of indigenous employment Hancock Prospecting has provided over the years (I believe by far the most in Australia), as well as funding remote aboriginal communities with water, healthcare and housing.

  • wimphrel on 26/10/2022 - 16:15
    +4

    Maybe a 4th Option for poll: Social media dragged the issue out for a week & caused the company to pull out to avoid continued negative publicity.

    It just sounded like they asked for permission for some of their team members to not have to wear the logo & the team members explained why to a reporter.
    Investor probably wouldn't have cared about this condition, and one article seemed to imply they didn't.

    Reporter did their usual click-bait article, making things seem worse than they did.
    Then social media blew up, using this for woke & anti-woke arguments - dragged this on for a week even though both sides seemed to come to an amicable agreement alone….

    Investor pulled out due to bad publicity from social media banging on and on about this.

  • dontboopthesnoot on 26/10/2022 - 16:25
    +2

    Gina saves 14m

    • Payne on 26/10/2022 - 17:01

      …which she used to buy lunch the next day.

  • mlburnian on 26/10/2022 - 19:25

    Pat cummins was concerned for crickets future due to global warning, https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/sport/2022/…
    Wonder what he thinks about the world cup getting washed out due to rain. Dude is also apparently not happy about Alinta being CA's sponsor. Maybe sports people should stick to what they do best

  • [Deactivated] on 26/10/2022 - 20:18

    Just another case of feelings before reality.

  • baz3189 on 26/10/2022 - 21:54
    -2

    Netball players don't agree with something said 40 years ago, outrage from the right for calling them out and using their free speech and celebrating that they lose sponsorship ensues

    Rugby player says god hates gays, quoting a 2000 year old book of garbage and loses contract and right are up in arms about free speech.

    Hypocrisy at its finest.

    • cashews on 27/10/2022 - 12:37
      -1

      The difference is that is a woman this time.

      • MrThing on 28/10/2022 - 08:11
        -1

        Fuk me u must have got help to draw your bow that long

        You must have a short memory champ, remember the folau issue and rugby australia, played a far bigger feature in the news than this has and ever will

    • tryagain on 28/10/2022 - 02:40
      +1

      So much wrong with just one statement

  • Maxxjet on 26/10/2022 - 22:13
    +5

    Netball players can reject the private sponsorship all the way and any way they want fine with me and not my concern, AS LONG AS they don't come to beg from taxpayer's money, then I will say go back to lick the boooooots of the any donor.

  • OzzyOzbourne on 26/10/2022 - 22:28
    +5

    Gina can add the $15mil to the hundreds of millions she already donates to charities including millions to supporting opportunities for indigenous kids….they deserve it way more than a woke netball team who are trying to rubbish her name due to something her now dead father said 40 years ago, which she had absolutely no part of.

    • OzzyOzbourne on 27/10/2022 - 09:20
      +4

      But don't let facts stand in the way of wokeness 😂

  • [Deactivated] on 27/10/2022 - 02:48

    interesting if he will put his money were his woke is

    Well, that's going to be painful.

  • [Deactivated] on 27/10/2022 - 08:33
    -1

    I'm not sure of the exact context of his comments in 1984, but even back then, no one seriously thought that forcibly sterilizing an entire ethnic group was a realistic option in this country. He was likely being edgy, and using black humor about a situation that continues to this day. Lower life expectancy, alcohol, poverty, crime etc. All in numbers that far exceed that of the general population.

    Meanwhile in China, where such things actually happen, and worse, advocating for freedom in HK gets you pressured into apologizing. When a black woman said that white, blue eyed, men can be diverse, she was similarly pressured into retracting her factually correct statement, and apologizing.

    • KMeister on 27/10/2022 - 23:46
      +1

      You're not sure of the exact context of his comments yet you know what he likely meant by his derogatory comments? Which is it??

      • [Deactivated] on 28/10/2022 - 00:44
        -2

        Is that too complicated for you? Even without knowing exactly what he said, or where he said it, just like today, it would have no chance of being passed into law, and would be just as difficult to pull off illegally. Given that, I can make an educated guess about what his motivations were.

  • drfuzzy on 27/10/2022 - 16:12
    +4

    The netballers are within their rights to criticise Gina
    Gina is within her rights to walk away from support
    Children should be judged by their own character - not the character of the parents

    • Cluster on 27/10/2022 - 20:08
      +2

      Although the deceased man's company is still the same, this whole affair does have a strong flavour of 'sins of the father'. Yes, Rinehart's father voiced his opinions which we all agree are repugnant. How does that affect his daughter and her company today? The man has been dead for a long time.

      • tsugnev on 28/10/2022 - 00:18
        +1

        Rebuke the statements then?

        • tryagain on 28/10/2022 - 02:36
          +2

          Actions speak louder than words

          • moph on 28/10/2022 - 13:04

            @tryagain: Maybe so, but words are pretty cheap and easy to come by. It's kinda strange she seems so unwilling to say them.

            • tryagain on 28/10/2022 - 16:51
              +2

              @moph: I think it goes without saying that she disagrees with his comments, her actions show that. Maybe she is a bit pissed that her father's life is being boiled down to one comment. I don't agree with everything my parents have said, but I also wouldn't want to them them dragged through the mud for them. If she speaks to it, it will probably just give the situation more oxygen and drag it out longer.

              • tsugnev on 28/10/2022 - 23:26

                @tryagain: More oxygen than us talking about the same comments .to years later? Sure mate

              • moph on 29/10/2022 - 02:00
                -1

                @tryagain: The company is still named after the guy. She obviously doesn’t disagree too strongly.

                I don’t agree with everything my parents have said either, but I’m pretty sure they have never proposed literal genocide. Have yours?

                • tryagain on 29/10/2022 - 09:55
                  +1

                  @moph:

                  I don’t agree with everything my parents have said either, but I’m pretty sure they have never proposed literal genocide. Have yours?

                  No, and neither did Lang in his infamous interview, he said

                  "the ones that are no good to themselves and who can't accept things, the half-castes"

                  He didn't refer to the whole Aboriginal race.

                  The company is still named after the guy. She obviously doesn’t disagree too strongly.

                  Virtue signalling doesn't change the plight of Aboriginal people.

                  • moph on 29/10/2022 - 10:55

                    @tryagain:

                    Virtue signalling doesn't change the plight of Aboriginal people.

                    I see your point, but don’t quite agree. Actually I think that symbolic actions on the part of systems and people in authority have a lot of power to affect people. They need to be combined with concrete action to have lasting impact, but they send a message and set a tone about what is valued and what is accepted in society. That’s why things like using aboriginal place names and including aboriginal culture in public events is important. It tells indigenous people that their culture is important and that they are valued members of society. People who feel included and valued are more likely to want to participate and live healthy lives. It has an effect.

                    • tryagain on 29/10/2022 - 11:52

                      @moph: I have no issue with incorporating Aboriginal names, ceremonies etc, will it make much of a difference, I think only time will tell but I hope it does. I don't however think the whole idea of calling out people/companies for stuff that has happened in the distant past to feel morally superior is in any way good, in fact I think it detracts from the real issues.

                • ankor on 29/10/2022 - 10:54

                  @moph: The dude is not Hitler. She can still use her last name. We have to stop with this bs cancel culture, geez.

    • OzzyOzbourne on 27/10/2022 - 21:04
      +5

      I think the issue is with publicly criticising Gina and her business for something she played no part in. It should have been discussed behind closed doors, but the player in question wanted publicity.

  • MrThing on 28/10/2022 - 08:07

    https://www.9news.com.au/national/slswa-mothers-anger-at-fos…

    Flavor of the month, this nobody gets her 10seconds of fame

  • freefall101 on 31/10/2022 - 13:06
    -1

    And they've signed a $15m contract with Dictator Dan instead - https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-10-31/netball-australia-spo…

  • OzzyOzbourne on 31/10/2022 - 19:28

    Well seems like Dan decided I have to pay instead. He can absolutely get f.

  • ginormousgiraffe on 02/11/2022 - 10:27
    +1

    Do people really think gina sponsored them out of the goodness of her heart and not to make money? Now all of a sudden that Visit Victoria did it they think that the sponsorship is somehow a free gift?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join