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

  • pegaxs on 23/10/2022 - 14:32
    +108

    TL;DR

    • Players got upset after something that a crazy old dude (born in 1909) said almost 40 years ago (in 1984).
    • Players refuse to wear uniform with logo of batshit crazy rich guy's company now run by his out of touch with reality daughter.
    • Players cut off noses to despite their faces and are now living on the tailing end of that old saying.
    • brendanm on 23/10/2022 - 14:43
      +74

      Waaaaahh we don't make enough money.

      Here, have a heap of money.

      No thanks lol.

      • Scrooge McDuck on 24/10/2022 - 19:13
        +20

        If they have a marketable entertainment product, why don't they get their revenue from ticket and TV sales?

        • brendanm on 24/10/2022 - 21:20
          +35

          marketable entertainment product

          I have a feeling that this may be the problem.

          I'm not sure when it was that people decided they should just get paid ridiculous sums simply for doing something, whether others were interested in it or not.

        • MrFrugalSpend on 26/10/2022 - 00:21
          +5

          That's not how it works - lots of sports have marketable entertainment products, the teams make their money from sponsors that want to be seen with their brand associated with such popular things….

          Ticket and TV Sales mostly make money to cover costs of putting on the event / organizer / venue / marketing etc and for the broadcaster.
          As for players, it goes:

          Hancock digs Aussie public assets out of ground —> sells it to China who pays Hancock $$$$ (which it gets from Aussies who buy products made with the imported raw material) —> after costs: (a) Hancock keeps 95% (b) 4% to taxes and royalties, compliance etc (c) 1% to other incl 0.001% to Team in sponsorship deals —-> 0.0005% goes to Players <—- organisers / venue sell marketable entertainment product for their $s <— patrons

          PS - Moral of the story: teach your kids to mine iron ore which makes useful stuff like cars and buildings (cause that's what people pay $$$ freely for)… not play netball, I guess??

          PPS - Kind of ironic they are upset about Hancock and climate change given they sell iron ore not fossil fuels and they already have ORIGIN ENERGY as sponsors who sell gas that releases amongst other things METHANE?! Sure they can clean up their act but so can 99% of us

        • TrafalgarSean on 26/10/2022 - 13:28
          +8

          Fed Gov: Here Foxtel, take this money to help promote and show womens sports including netball.
          Foxtel: Pockets cash what money?
          Fed Gov: Oh you.

          Foxtel has exclusive rights to the netball, but does a shit job promoting it.

      • brendanm on 23/10/2022 - 16:55
        -1

        Haha, Walt Disney was racist as all get out, but no one cries about that.

        • AustriaBargain on 23/10/2022 - 17:37
          +60

          People complain about Disney as a man and a corporation all the time. They are both openly called out as evil frequently.

          • brendanm on 23/10/2022 - 17:39
            -2

            @AustriaBargain: Yes, sure they are 😂 People gush over how woke Disney is.

            • AustriaBargain on 23/10/2022 - 17:40
              +29

              @brendanm: "disney is woke" has 2,900 results in Google, "Disney is evil" 23,600. Now I might not know much about which number is higher than the other, but it seems people complain about Disney being evil more often than being woke.

              • brendanm on 23/10/2022 - 17:42
                +10

                @AustriaBargain: Nice metric.

              • Chong on 24/10/2022 - 10:50
                +19

                @AustriaBargain: using data/facts to back convo up on OzB… hopefully becomes a trend

                • brendanm on 24/10/2022 - 11:25
                  +5

                  @Chong: I'm no sure if google search results/numbers are a valid data point.

                  • Chong on 24/10/2022 - 13:57
                    +4

                    @brendanm: not so much validity as a data point, but the fact an attempt to verify/critically analyse one's own view. Good enough for OzB

                    also when the scale of difference is that big, definitely tells you something…

                • MrFrugalSpend on 26/10/2022 - 00:30
                  +1

                  @Chong: WTF - we'd have nothing to argue about if everyone relied on facts?!

                  • Chong on 26/10/2022 - 08:02

                    @MrFrugalSpend: There's always alternative facts!

                    jokes aside, stats can always be misleading, viewed/presented with a different bias could tell different things… OzB can always argue about whether something is enough of a bargain to warrant being posted on OzB… always found those a little funny

                • 1st-Amendment on 28/10/2022 - 11:38

                  @Chong:

                  using data/facts to back convo

                  Because Google search results are now considered facts… 🤦

                  • Chong on 28/10/2022 - 15:44

                    @1st-Amendment: yes using google results to show that there are more websites search results of one over the other shows something… you may disagree but its like disagreeing there are 6 states in australia… that said everyone is entitled to their own opinion

                    • 1st-Amendment on 28/10/2022 - 18:16

                      @Chong:

                      yes using google results to show that there are more websites search results of one over the other shows something…

                      Yeah it shows you how many websites the google search algorithm has indexed and that is all. And since we know that Google filters search results, those results are pretty much useless for telling you anything else.

                      you may disagree but its like disagreeing there are 6 states in australia…

                      This sentence actually makes no sense. But at least you are consistent.

              • LFO on 24/10/2022 - 12:19
                -1

                @AustriaBargain:

                seems people complain about Disney being evil more often than being woke.

                Well, this "woke" business/hysteria is relatively new. A speech from that black US ex-president made "wokeness" popular and desirable.

                Evilness has been for a lot longer than wokeness (and has more substance) hence Google numbers.
                Lets see how long does it last.
                Wearing thin already.

              • kid-vhee on 24/10/2022 - 18:51

                @AustriaBargain: Not downplaying the stats ; but lets also consider negative bias.

                I'm not pro/con Disney - they're a for profit - and I enjoy my disneyland experiences.

              • dowhatuwant2 on 25/10/2022 - 11:35

                @AustriaBargain: disney virtue signalling has About 1,010,000 results

                Woke is not the most commonly used term

                • AustriaBargain on 25/10/2022 - 11:38

                  @dowhatuwant2: Disney evil has About 189,000,000 results. Which is approximately 189 times more than Disney virtue signalling.

                  • dowhatuwant2 on 25/10/2022 - 11:40
                    +2

                    @AustriaBargain: @AustriaBargain

                    I mean "evil" is a pretty vague search term to use against a corporation that makes movies with outright good and evil characters while both woke and virtue signalling are far more relevant to the topic at hand.

                    Like literally the first results are all about disney villains so your being outright deceptive when you represented it like a logical argument.

                    • AustriaBargain on 25/10/2022 - 11:51
                      +1

                      @dowhatuwant2: I suppose I'm like one of those evil Disney villains, the Great Deceivo or something, here to deceive you all into thinking that Disney is considered more evil than woke, mwahahaha. My evil plan is coming together 👹

                      • dowhatuwant2 on 25/10/2022 - 11:53
                        +2

                        @AustriaBargain: It would be super hard to prove even if the results were relevant as the same people calling it woke could very well be calling it evil.

                • Tonyh87 on 26/10/2022 - 09:32
                  +1

                  @dowhatuwant2: Disney are groomers gets 39,700,000 hits

        • DashCam AKA Rolts on 23/10/2022 - 17:40
          +5

          John Safran enters the chat.

        • camz0r on 24/10/2022 - 10:56
          +5

          Very true. A lot of corporates have terrible pasts.

          1. Hugo Boss was an active supporter of the Nazi party and made the SS uniforms
          2. IBM supplied technology to the Nazi's for like 15 years
          3. Volkswagen has a dark past. Audi used slaves during the war
          4. Adidas and Puma founders were both part of the Nazi party
          5. Henry Ford was anti-semitic

          I am sure I can find others. I dare say a lot of "woke" people all support these companies and their dark histories.

          • brendanm on 24/10/2022 - 11:24
            +12

            @camz0r: Go back far enough, there will be someone, somewhere in the company who has done something for people to get upset about. People need to build a bridge.

            • LFO on 24/10/2022 - 12:22
              +2

              @brendanm:

              People need to build a bridge.

              Very true.

              But hating is easier and most people need to hate something/someone. As a self-destruction mechanism.

          • Jackson on 24/10/2022 - 13:49
            +2

            @camz0r: Sodastream setup a factory in occupied territory and then used the locals as cheap labour and used up a lot of their watersupply while paying tax to the occupying power. Was still happening up until a few years ago, not 50-100 as in your examples. Not only did many people not give a crap, but some would actively support this craziness.

          • Maxxjet on 24/10/2022 - 20:02
            +1

            @camz0r: Yep, from the east - Mitsubishi using captured American soldiers as slave laborers in WW2

          • [Deactivated] on 27/10/2022 - 02:56
            -1

            @camz0r: Don't forget many of the "woke" left are Marxists while Karl Marx despised black people, lol.

        • cydia9k on 24/10/2022 - 13:54
          +1

          You are straw manning over and over.. hallmark of a weak viewpoint.

      • cheeseburger on 28/10/2022 - 12:28

        Did they turn down the money though? I thought Gina withdrew her sponsorship; not the players directly refusing her money.

        • AustriaBargain on 28/10/2022 - 13:21
          +2

          Yes, it seems that the girls wanted Gina to allow just one Indigenous player to not wear the Hancock logo for just three matches. And Gina withdraw the money in response.

    • Hardlyworkin on 23/10/2022 - 15:36
      +23

      Pretty sure that old racist bloke whose name is the sponsor just didn't say just 'something'. In terms of what the dead racist bloke said was about as bad as you could say whether 1984 or now. That some people may have tolerated it back then makes zero difference.

      With all the media attention, I won't be surprised if there will be a new company who steps in to help out Netball Australia. Gina will just go on counting her money and fighting with her family.

      • AdosHouse on 23/10/2022 - 15:45
        +85

        Doesn't matter what the racist bloke said, he's friggin dead. His daughter didn't say those things.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 24/10/2022 - 19:17
          +25

          I'd hate to be judged by the crap my dad said.

          • isthisreallife22 on 24/10/2022 - 20:37
            +18

            @Scrooge McDuck: She wasn't, the institution she is the head of was. Most institutions would just come out and say they unequivocally denounce those statements and don't share those views, and apologise to anyone that they impacted and earned some kudos along the way

            • Sxio on 25/10/2022 - 00:10

              @isthisreallife22: And instead she seemed to punish them for even knowing their history?

              Didn't exactly cover herself in glory. Was a good chance for good PR.

              • MrFunSocks on 25/10/2022 - 11:56
                +18

                @Sxio: She doesn't need good PR. Something her old man said 40 years ago is 100% irrelevant today, and a player bringing it up is just looking for something to be outraged about. Her company, as they said in their press release, spends hundreds of millions of dollars helping indigenous communities and causes. Overlooking that because her dad, a guy who lived when it was ok to own slaves, said something 40 years ago is peak stupidity and wokeness. Her coming out and making any PR statement makes no difference in reality, and if that's all it takes for the outraged people to be satisfied then it proves how performative their outrage was to begin with.

                • gmatht on 25/10/2022 - 19:59
                  +1

                  @MrFunSocks: IIRC the US abolished slavery in 1865. When do you think it was OK to own slaves, and just how old was that geezer?

                  • MrFunSocks on 25/10/2022 - 20:08

                    @gmatht: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Australia

                    Have a read, particularly the part titled “Forced Indigenous labour and stolen wages”. Just because something was “abolished” by one name by law doesn’t mean it disappeared.

                  • ankor on 25/10/2022 - 21:43
                    +5

                    @gmatht: The U.S and Australia are two separate countries. Our history is quite different. Look up the stolen generation and the forgotten Australians report.

            • 1st-Amendment on 28/10/2022 - 11:42

              @isthisreallife22:

              Most woke institutions would just come out and say…

              FTFY

              Apologising for something you didn't do is a fool's game. It never helps, it only serves to encourage more victim mentality. See Rudd's national apology for the perfect example…

          • 1Kenobi on 24/10/2022 - 20:46

            @Scrooge McDuck: You are if you are pale male and stale

      • tsunamisurfer on 23/10/2022 - 15:48
        +10

        No. Any new company will also come under scrutiny from the national media.

        There are very few companies that are squeaky clean.

        Toyota have class actions for diesel emissions and accelerator problems causing death, have the AFL denounced this awful partner?

      • Trying2SaveABuck on 23/10/2022 - 21:29
        +34

        Pretty sure that old racist bloke whose name is the sponsor

        i dont condone what was said but it is a bit harsh to blame Gina for something her father said….i dont like Gina but you cannot have ago at her and her company for something her father said in the 80s

        • isthisreallife22 on 24/10/2022 - 20:38
          +5

          Huh? They protested against the organisation, not Gina

          • Hearthstone on 25/10/2022 - 11:23

            @isthisreallife22: she is now the head of the organisation; organisation don't run by themselves it run by people and her father is long gone
            she has done a lot in her time helping a lot of projects and communities that are struggle financially.
            build a bridge and move forward.

            • 1st-Amendment on 28/10/2022 - 11:43

              @Hearthstone:

              build a bridge and move forward.

              But I've built an entire industry of dishing out victim cards, it's all I know how to do!

          • MrFunSocks on 25/10/2022 - 11:57
            -1

            @isthisreallife22: The organization that has invested hundreds of millions of dollars helping indigenous people lol

      • 2ndeffort on 25/10/2022 - 09:00
        +1

        I beg to differ, many big corporations probably have a few skeletons lurking in the closet, particularly if people are going through their history to find anything that doesn't suit modern values. Why hand over money to create a PR nightmare and probably get yourself sacked from the job of CEO. You would be better off finding a safer way to promote your company than exposing your employer's historical dirty laundry to some crusading sportspeople and the revisionary history crowd.

    • lunchbox99 on 23/10/2022 - 17:04
      +44

      Isn't the saying "cut off your nose to spite your face"?

      • whatwasherproblem on 23/10/2022 - 17:10
        +12

        And 'tail end', rather than 'tailing end'.

        I reckon it was just autocorrect shenanigans though. Phoneposters, hey?

      • pegaxs on 23/10/2022 - 19:17
        +1

        Isn't the saying…

        It absolutely is… I don't know how I made/didn't pick up that mistake. I didn't even notice it until you said it… It is 100% spite not despite… I need to proof read a little better

        I reckon it was just autocorrect shenanigans though

        And yes, I did write it on my iPad while I was between loading screens on my xBox game… Added to that I didn't really proof read it too much, just hit Post and let it ride…

        • lunchbox99 on 23/10/2022 - 20:39

          Autocorrect mate, all good

      • nottodaysunshine on 24/10/2022 - 14:38
        -2

        No! It's definitely to despite.

      • iCandy on 24/10/2022 - 15:35
        +7

        Yes, for all intensive purposes…

      • Jhonka on 25/10/2022 - 12:54

        it's a doggy dog world mate 😁

    • CalmLemons on 24/10/2022 - 12:17
      +11

      Thanks.

      Yeah no one gives a fk honestly.

      No one born before 1980 was a perfect angel. What matters is what we do with today and tomorrow.

      Too much woke bs.

      No one is going to want to sponsor them now.

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

        No one born after 1980 was either, tbf.

      • caitsith01 on 25/10/2022 - 08:10
        +2

        'Perfect angel'? The guy literally called for genocide against indigenous Australians! And so far Gina hasn't said anything to condemn it.

        • MrFunSocks on 25/10/2022 - 11:59

          And so far Gina hasn't said anything to condemn it.

          Who cares though? She doesn't need to. She didn't say it. She hasn't said she mirrors those thoughts. Her actions have done the opposite. Like her or hate her, her company has given hundreds of millions to indigenous causes. You don't do that if you want to commit genocide against them.

          • caitsith01 on 25/10/2022 - 13:20
            +4

            @MrFunSocks: She operates a company bearing the name of her pro-genocide father. If you read the company's statement about this issue they blame Netball Australia and make no reference to the entirely legitimate concerns that gave rise to this situation.

            • MrFunSocks on 25/10/2022 - 20:09
              +2

              @caitsith01: There are no legitimate concerns. Those comments were made almost 40 years ago by a dead guy that has nothing to do with the company anymore.

              Have they all looked through the history of every employee of all their other sponsors?

              • caitsith01 on 25/10/2022 - 22:42
                -2

                @MrFunSocks: Ridiculous comparison.

                This is more like a Jewish player objecting to the club being sponsored by Adolf Hitler Industries, but sure.

                • MrFunSocks on 26/10/2022 - 17:01
                  +2

                  @caitsith01: If Adolf Hitler Industries was run by people that have never done or said anything remotely suggesting they share the same thoughts that Adolf did and has invested hundreds of millions of dollars towards Jewish causes and Jewish people then sure, it's more like that.

                  Demanding an apology for something her dad said or asking her to "denounce" the obviously terrible thing he said, that clearly isn't what she or anyone in the company thinks, is nothing more than virtue signalling and performative wokeness. Would it actually change anything? If someone asked her "Do you think all aboriginals should be eliminated?" and she answered "of course not", what does that achieve? Literally nothing changed. Why would something as pointless as that change anything? It wouldn't, it serves literally no purpose other than to give a bunch of people that constantly look for something to be outraged about a pat on the back.

            • 1st-Amendment on 28/10/2022 - 11:44
              -1

              @caitsith01:

              She operates a company bearing the name of her pro-genocide father.

              Wibble wibble, cry yourself a river…

          • Autonomic on 26/10/2022 - 19:45

            @MrFunSocks: She doesn't need to do anything. But when someone points it out and you throw a tantrum that is kind of telling. She probably supports the idea too.

        • ankor on 25/10/2022 - 21:48
          +2

          So every time someone says her dad was a prick, she needs to apologise?

          Why do you think it's necessary?

          Here's a thought exercise for you..

          If your brother stole my car, should I also be demanding an apology from you, even though you weren't the one who stole my car??

          • trapper on 26/10/2022 - 19:35

            @ankor: If his brother stole your car you should refuse his $15M gift and demand an apology! lol

    • nottodaysunshine on 24/10/2022 - 15:48
      +3

      I feel netball Australia and paypal made a deal to see how quickly they can lose money…

    • GoIdDigger on 28/10/2022 - 10:57

      Literally 1984

  • Benoffie on 23/10/2022 - 14:32
    +80

    Apparently beggars can be choosers.

    But still be beggars.

    • Muzeeb on 23/10/2022 - 16:09
      +16

      r/choosingbeggars

      Some gold there.

    • lunchbox99 on 23/10/2022 - 16:59
      -1

      Sick burn

    • tonsta on 24/10/2022 - 16:41
      +3

      Why can’t they keep the game small like it has always been?

      Suddenly everyone in netball wants to be paid instead of loving the game.

      • SnakeCasablanca on 24/10/2022 - 17:01
        +16

        Because LeBron James makes lots of money, the women in the B grade ultimate frisbee competition also needs to make the same amount of money otherwise the world is sexist!

        • tonsta on 24/10/2022 - 18:14
          +5

          They got a sport no one wants to pay for…. That’s the fact and reality of things.

          That’s what happens when everyone get’s a gold medal.

        • MrFunSocks on 25/10/2022 - 12:00
          +4

          It was hilarious hearing some of the women NRL players call for equal pay with the men……………while having a 4 game season with attendance and viewership numbers in the hundreds lol.

  • AustriaBargain on 23/10/2022 - 14:54
    +25

    Lang Hancock infamously suggested in 1984 that Indigenous Australians should be sterilised to “breed themselves out” in coming years.

    Sounds like eugenics.

    Seems like OP thinks going to war with Hitler over the holocaust was "going woke"?

    • tsunamisurfer on 23/10/2022 - 15:13
      -2

      That was a different time.

      We cannot cancel a company because someone said something that was tolerated back then but deemed inappropriate today.

      Society has more than made things right with them.

      We have given them the Right to vote, welfare, native title payments to the billions.

      Why didn't they reject Mabo payments from Roy Hill?

      • DashCam AKA Rolts on 23/10/2022 - 16:19
        +36

        said something that was tolerated back then but deemed inappropriate today.

        It wasn't tolerated back then either.

        • AustriaBargain on 23/10/2022 - 17:38
          -1

          It's tolerated today, if you attend election parties for wealthy Liberal voters. After a few drinks some of them will tell you how they really feel about other races.

          • brendanm on 23/10/2022 - 17:39
            +14

            @AustriaBargain:

            if you attend election parties for wealthy Liberal voters.

            Been to plenty have you?

            • AustriaBargain on 23/10/2022 - 17:42
              +3

              @brendanm: Yes. Wealthy people throw the best parties. Free booze, they hire caterer's, and they are usually easy going hosts, what's not to like.

              And it happens as the night goes on in any wealthy conservative house party, not just election parties.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join