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

      • FlyingMiffy on 24/10/2022 - 11:16
        +8

        Mate the way you describe it is wrong already - "we gave them" - assumes that they needed to be given rather than it was their right from the beginning. Did you miss history? I sure hope you dont apply the same logic to the way the Jews feel about Nazi Germany or the way the Chinese feels about imperial Japan - sure, it was a long time ago - but it doesnt mean it didnt happen and it doesn't mean that it should be forgotten.

        • tsunamisurfer on 24/10/2022 - 11:36
          +4

          We DID give them with those rights.

          They were not recognised before that.

          They were not endowed with these 'unalienable rights'.

          • FlyingMiffy on 24/10/2022 - 12:42
            +7

            @tsunamisurfer: OK… land that was theirs was given back to them and the right to vote for a government that was imposed on them. I can tell you dont really appreciate history. For your sake, i hope you dont ever get on the wrong end of it.

        • cfuse on 24/10/2022 - 12:23
          +3

          You get to keep what you can defend. Nothing more, nothing less.

          The world owes you nothing. If you are so lucky and privileged as to live in a culture where you are awarded rights then you shouldn't take them for granted by acting as if they're some sort of default order rather than a thing that is both constructed and extremely fragile.

    • cookie2 on 23/10/2022 - 15:23
      +13

      You manage to turn one persons father, saying something in 1984 (note,almost 40 years ago) as twisted beliefs about eugenics and then made out like OP is a Hitler lover.

      • AustriaBargain on 23/10/2022 - 15:49
        +12

        What Hancock advocated for is literally is eugenics.

        • factor on 24/10/2022 - 12:00
          +9

          So? We continue to practice eugenics today, there's just been a change in how we evaluate who has a worthwhile life and who does not. How many people willingly have a down-syndrome kid these days?

        • Vater Woods on 25/10/2022 - 21:27

          By your logic, we should start WW3 because Hitler existed and not accepted again by current generation.

          And WW4 when next generation doesn't like him again.

          Never ending WWs.

          • AustriaBargain on 25/10/2022 - 21:36
            -1

            @Vater Woods: I think we should have gone to world war to kill Hitler and end the Nazi party forever, and we did do that. It was one of the best things we as a species ever did. If never ending world wars is what it takes to kill the Hitlers and end the Nazi parties forever then that's 100% what we should do every single time. You don't think that China or Russia would just be pulling a Hitler right now if they didn't know what we did to Hitler, they'd be all like "who's gonna stop me?" just like Hitler was, because he didn't have the benefit of knowing what we do to Hitlers.

            • Vater Woods on 26/10/2022 - 00:39
              +2

              @AustriaBargain: You're comprehension skill is concerning.

              So is you're history.

              • AustriaBargain on 26/10/2022 - 00:42
                +1

                @Vater Woods:

                You're comprehension skill is concerning.

                So is you're history.

                You are comprehension skill is concerning? So is you are history?

            • ozaym on 26/10/2022 - 12:52
              +1

              @AustriaBargain: You are aware that China and Russia was considered allies in WW2 right? And Russia had a massive impact on defeating hitler…Both current day China and Russia is result of many decisions made by the west to purposefully alienate communist countries, if hey my bottom dollar the relationship would be very different if they took a more collaborative approach.

            • Therealjohndoe on 28/10/2022 - 01:59

              @AustriaBargain: Pretty sure China's pulling a Hitler with the Uighurs RN and the enlightened Hitler knowing world doesn't give a shit.

    • Almost Banned on 23/10/2022 - 15:27
      +49

      Lang Hancock has been dead for 30 years mate. He has nothing to do with the company.
      This is just some netballer thinking they are clever and can make a point that a dead guy had terrible ideas a generation ago - and now they are all paying the price.
      Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
      It makes about as much sense as boycotting Volkswagen for the very reason your post mentions.

      • AustriaBargain on 23/10/2022 - 15:48
        +11

        Plenty of Jews do boycott Volkswagen and other companies that support the Nazi effort.

        • sharkyoz on 23/10/2022 - 16:04
          +30

          but plenty of them drive around in Porsches

          • cafeman on 24/10/2022 - 16:28

            @sharkyoz: More commonly Lexus, for obvious reasons.

            • tonsta on 24/10/2022 - 18:40

              @cafeman: What are you saying the Jews driving Lexus are supporting Japanese imperialism???

              • cafeman on 25/10/2022 - 10:07

                @tonsta: I'm saying that if you want a luxury car and don't want to buy from the companies that were associated with Nazis (i.e. Porsche, Benz, BMW, Volkswagen, etc) because they were involved with a regime that killed your ancestors, Lexus is the obvious choice.

                FYI I used to work at GM and it was a known and targeted segment for our Cadillac sales - primary competitor was Lexus.

        • brendanm on 23/10/2022 - 17:45
          +4

          Henry ford got a birthday card from Hitler, we should ban ford from operating in Australia.

          • AustriaBargain on 23/10/2022 - 17:46
            +2

            @brendanm: I wouldn't fault someone for not driving a Ford due to Henry Ford's support of Adolf Hitler, among other reasons.

            • brendanm on 23/10/2022 - 17:50
              +15

              @AustriaBargain: Hahahahaha

              You are going to have to stand naked in a field with no possessions if that's your standard.

              • SpainKing on 24/10/2022 - 13:26

                @brendanm: Henry Ford was kind of the father of planned obsolescence so I think we, as bargain hunters, should be grumpy with him

                • smartazz104 on 25/10/2022 - 07:18
                  +1

                  @SpainKing:

                  Henry Ford was kind of the father of planned obsolescence so I think we, as bargain hunters, should be grumpy with him

                  You mean because he sold the same Model T for 19 years? Or you meant to say it was GM who started the yearly model updated BS?

                  • SpainKing on 25/10/2022 - 11:13
                    +1

                    @smartazz104: I was mistaken and should have said Alfred Sloan of General Motors. Thank you for your correction

                    I'm quite sure I heard an anecdote about how Henry Ford sent his engineers to find which parts of his cars wore out fastest, not because he wanted to improve them in line with the other components, but because he saw an opportunity to use cheaper parts/manufacturing when it came to the parts that hadn't worn out. This is probably false but I thought I'd share what made me think the original statement

              • moar bargains on 25/10/2022 - 03:46

                @brendanm: It'll have to be someone else's field too

            • Scrooge McDuck on 24/10/2022 - 19:25
              +2

              @AustriaBargain: Hitler owned a dog…

      • ProlapsedHeinous on 24/10/2022 - 11:53

        Volkswagen are a bunch of monkey gassers though.

        • tonsta on 24/10/2022 - 18:41

          They got good fuel injection programmers that solve problems.

    • cfuse on 24/10/2022 - 12:06
      +9

      More like punishing every German alive today for what Hitler did.

      You hold people to account for what they do, not for what their dead parents did.

    • gromit on 24/10/2022 - 12:49
      +9

      except he didn't actually suggest sterilisation of all aboriginals, what he suggested was he would sterilise the half casts that are causing a lot of trouble in society. Still horrendeous but context does matter.

      • AustriaBargain on 24/10/2022 - 13:37
        +9

        Ohhh, that's much better then. I wonder why we as a nation didn't set up these forced sterilisation centres and remove all the mud bloods from the gene pool, they could have bred themselves out of existence like Dr. Hancock wanted.

      • AustriaBargain on 24/10/2022 - 16:17
        +2

        Here is Mr. Hancock's words straight from the horses mouth that you seem to be defending https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMaRuk6pGOc

        • gromit on 24/10/2022 - 16:22
          +1

          WTF? not defending at all. simply pointing out the BS from the OP that was claiming he was out to eradicate aborigines or that it was somehow similar to the Nazi's. He made a moronic hateful/evil comment, but a lot of morons can't seem to differentiate between that and actually acting to wipe out a community.

    • DashCam AKA Rolts on 24/10/2022 - 14:16
      +4

      For reference: this a video of Lang Hancock saying exactly this: https://youtu.be/pMaRuk6pGOc

    • Dogsrule on 24/10/2022 - 14:17
      +8

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

      Precisely 0 countries went to war with Hitler because of the holocaust. Australia entered after the UK declared war on Germany after they invaded Poland which violated a treaty signed between the UK, France and Poland. The US declared war after the attack on Pearl Harbour. Knowledge of the extent of the holocaust only became public after the war was over - sorry to say but nations care about power, not human rights

  • kanmen on 23/10/2022 - 15:02
    +33

    I mean here's the other side of the coin- how much of your soul and values are you willing to sell for money?

    I stand with the players for choosing their values over money. There has to be a line we as individuals and as a society draw with harmful industries. If that's being too woke then so be it.

    • tsunamisurfer on 23/10/2022 - 15:18
      +5

      One person's insignificant feelings over the whole sport?

      Yeah so be it.

      • kanmen on 23/10/2022 - 15:28
        +16

        If it was just one person that was the impediment, why wouldn't Netball Australia just let that person go and stand by the deal? Clearly the organisation decided it wasn't just about one person's 'insignificant feelings' but also about their values as a whole.

        Why are people expecting an organisation to disregard it's values for the sake of money? Is it not hypocritical to have values if they're just as easily disregarded for money?

        Or are people not allowed to stand for things they believe in if they don't agree with what YOU think?

        • tsunamisurfer on 23/10/2022 - 15:32
          +23

          You are right, there is an element of hypocrisy there.

          Shouldn't aboriginals then hand back all forms of welfare, public housing and native title payments? It's dirty money from invaders after all?

        • sakurashu on 24/10/2022 - 12:28
          +2

          I'd be willing to bet it has nothing to do with their "values" and everything to do with pandering to the public

          • SpainKing on 24/10/2022 - 13:30
            +2

            @sakurashu: I was thinking it may be because kicking out a player that's protesting and making a fuss over racism/eugenics would be a field day for social media/news outlets

      • AustriaBargain on 23/10/2022 - 16:06
        +1

        I'm sure they will find another sponsor. Maybe they won't get as much money, but netball won't just die. It's played in every school in the country.

        • MrFunSocks on 25/10/2022 - 12:07
          +2

          It's played in every school in the country.

          So is handball and "tiggy", doesn't mean it's going to have a national sporting competition with tv rights etc. Netball Australia very well could die, they're bleeding money and they're clearly not a sport that people actually care about watching or attending.

        • 2ndeffort on 25/10/2022 - 21:40
          +1

          Most big companies have at least some type of skeleton in their historical closet. Whoever stepped up to save Netball would be front page news for a day or 2 and the collective social justice crowd of the combined interwebs will definitely find any hidden skeletons. What type of CEO would sign up for that. Already they have Toyota on the books, my Dad's uncle was captured in Singapore and tortured for years in Japanese POW camps. Toyota made vehicles for the Japanese military during the war, I'd refuse to wear the Toyota logo in memory of my dad's uncle.

          • AustriaBargain on 25/10/2022 - 21:53
            +1

            @2ndeffort: Hancock is a bit different, it's a private owned company and is still owned by the same family. Not all companies are like that. Hancock Prospecting is also not publicly listed, it's not publicly owned like many companies are. The board works for the Hancock family who own the controlling stake, Gina Rinehart in particular owns the controlling stake. It's really not fair to say that Hancock Prospecting is the typical company and any other company would face the same problems.

            Honestly, 15 million for the ability to use the national netball organisation for as much marketing as you want for your own brand is probably not as bad a proposition as everyone is making it out to be. If you check Google search trends you'll find that interest in netball in the last few weeks is at an all-time high.

    • Almost Banned on 23/10/2022 - 15:29
      +21

      Choosing what values?
      This is all about something that was said 40 years ago by a guy who has been dead for 30 years.
      No part of it is relevant to Hancock Prospecting today.
      It is just like refusing CSR sponsorship because some sugar plantations blackbirded in 1900.

      • mrvaluepack on 24/10/2022 - 10:46
        +3

        Exactly, its like saying I'm going to boycott all american products & services because of their history of slavery.

    • MessyG on 24/10/2022 - 15:58
      -1

      Well said.

    • MrFunSocks on 25/10/2022 - 12:06
      +1

      I stand with the players for choosing their values over money.

      What value are they standing up for? That something a dead guy, who lived when slavery and the stolen generation and all that was fine, said 40 years ago hurts their values? It makes no sense. Is the company line right now that they should sterilize aboriginals? No? Then what's the issue?

  • tsunamisurfer on 23/10/2022 - 15:07
    +50

    I sincerely hope Netball Australia goes under.

    Here is a $15m gift from one of the most benevolent people in Australia, and it was knocked back because ONE player from ONE team got triggered by what Lang said in 1984.

    Because of that player and the rest of the team supporting stupidity, the whole sport suffers.

    Let the records reflect that Donnell Hallam's feelings cost the sport $15m.

    I personally love the press release from Hancock Prospecting, F you without saying F you.

    • parsimonious one on 23/10/2022 - 15:32
      +25

      Tend to agree.

      I’m no fan of Rinehart, but from what I gather, netball Australia was in desperate need of cash and she provided the funds via a sponsorship arrangement

      Perhaps Hallam can now find a suitable source of funding to keep the enterprise afloat?

      The precedent seemingly though, is the sponsoring organisation or anyone associated with it (past or present) cannot have offended anyone in netball Australia

      Good luck to them 🤦‍♂️

      • Maxxjet on 24/10/2022 - 20:08
        -1

        As even Vatican is guilty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_c…, let's see who the the true Angel chosen in the end!

      • Deridas on 25/10/2022 - 13:56

        Actually, I was no fan of Rinehart either, though this fiasco actually bought up the millions of dollars that she has given not only to Netball Australia when the were in trouble, but Volleyball, Swimming, and support of Women's sport financially; and then there were nunerous indigenous community groups tham have received millions from Rinehart - all without fanfare, all without expectations of any return, all low-key. If it weren't for this I wouldn't have known about it.

        There's a special place for heaven for these people, a lot of respect from me goes out to true philanthropists without fanfare.

    • FlyingMiffy on 24/10/2022 - 18:59
      +10

      Benevolent? OK… you must be reading the PR stuff. Rinehart wanted to reduce Australian miner wages to match the $2 per day paid to miners on the African continent while making a case for poor people to stop complaining about the rich and just work "harder". Look, i'm sure shes an OK person but i reserve the word benevolent to people like Mother Theresa… and shes not that.

      • Deridas on 25/10/2022 - 13:57
        +2

        May we see your news article about your claims about Rinehart?

        I'm sure there is an exaggeration somewhere as you can't actually pay someone $2/day here in Australia.

    • dengziyi on 25/10/2022 - 14:25
      +5

      Gina Rinehart is one of the most benevolent people in Australia? Surely that's an insult to Australians. Rinehart's net worth is ~$35bn. 15mill is probably only half a days work for her! Yes, she has made many donations, but calling her benevolent is so out of touch.

      Aside from the argument that billionaires are rarely benevolent people (because exploitation is what brought them this immense wealth) here are some other reasons why I don't think she's deserving of most benevolent title:

      (From the Wiki page only)

      • Single largest landowner in Australia
      • Mining mogul, intense exploitation of the land
      • Anti-climate change and part of the anti-campaign to carbon tax
      • Bought Fairfax media shares to gain a board seat, and when she could not, sold all her shares.
      • Thinks that Australia's tax system is too high and people should just work harder to get money.

      Obviously I'm biased, perhaps she isn't a terrible person, but there's nothing benevolent about someone who profits of the Earth, yet does nothing to regenerate it. She has more money than she'll ever be able to use in her lifetime, her children's lifetimes, yet still complains about tax.

      • tsunamisurfer on 25/10/2022 - 14:47
        -2

        Yes, she has made many donations, but calling her benevolent is so out of touch.

        So she has made many donations but thats not benevolent? What would be deemed benevolent?

        Single largest landowner in Australia

        Is this a crime of some sort? Or even immoral?

        Mining mogul, intense exploitation of the land

        I see, she should stop doing that. Stop all mining and let's see what happens.

        Anti-climate change and part of the anti-campaign to carbon tax
        Thinks that Australia's tax system is too high and people should just work harder to get money.

        Isn't she allowed to have a position on those matters? Australia's progressive taxation is too high.

        • dengziyi on 25/10/2022 - 15:18
          +2

          Benevolence: Marked by or disposed to doing good

          Plenty of things she does is not good.
          One can argue that owning huge amounts of land pushes other people out of that land (aka owning heaps of properties) but also, there's land rights and land ownership problems in Australia.

          I didn't say stop mining. I'm just saying that huge amount of mining does not make her disposed to doing good. She could mine heaps and also invest in climate change tech. Or have voluntarily filled in the giant holes in the ground so the land can be reused in the future.

          97% of scientists agree climate change exists. For context, 99.9% of scientists agree that gravity exists. Both theories are the prevailing theories in their field. Her opinion on climate change is dangerously misinformed and she's manipulated the public to follow suit - that is not 'doing good'. And along with axing of carbon tax, this has real repercussions for Australia's future.

          Countries with high tax systems are lower in poverty and have better quality of life and development. Imagine not having HECS. But she can say what she wants

  • GordonD on 23/10/2022 - 15:11
    +21

    Everyone else loves the deal, but one single player, who identifies as Aboriginal, doesn't like having to wear a uniform that has a particular name on it. So the sporting organisation, which is deeply in debt, and needs the money to pay that team's members, gives up a multi-year multi-million dollar sponsorship. Its silliness and ingratitude and wokiness to the extreme.

    But they've gotten the publicity, and that will get them sponsorship from someone else sympathetic. Quite likely you and me. Taxpayers.

      • Tomcruise on 23/10/2022 - 19:08
        +38

        Values of Netball.

        Last i heard it was getting a ball through a hoop.

        • 2024 on 24/10/2022 - 09:24
          +5

          *Working as a team to get the ball through a hoop

      • pformag on 24/10/2022 - 14:52
        +2

        Did yo just compare Gina to Trump?

    • Techie4066 on 27/10/2022 - 12:53

      doesn't like having to wear a uniform that has a particular name on it.

      Your thoughts on boycotting uniforms with a rainbow stripe, please?

  • Switchblade88 on 23/10/2022 - 15:14
    +26

    Remember, this isn't an anonymous donation, it's buying an advertising spot and the endorsement of the players/teams/group at large.

    If Hancock really supported the sport they'd pay the money without any form or return i.e. a gift. Since they withdrew the funding then it shows that it was a business decision and not a philanthropic one as originally implied by Hancock.

    • tsunamisurfer on 23/10/2022 - 15:22
      +16

      What additional revenue does Hancock Prospecting hope to achieve?

      Will it make you and I suddenly want to buy their tenements?

      What additional revenue does Roy Hill hope to achieve?

      Who here was in the market for Iron ore but decided to buy from Roy Hill instead of BHP?

      • Switchblade88 on 23/10/2022 - 15:30
        -8

        Maybe it's less advertising and more ownership. They couldn't care less about the $15m loose change, it's the power they hold over the teams. Just like the name tags on school uniforms - your cash paid for your child's jumper, and the nametag just proves it.

        'We own you now. If you don't cooperate we'll pull your funding and you'll go broke."

        • parsimonious one on 23/10/2022 - 15:36
          +12

          You’ve not heard of the expression “he who pays the piper calls the tune”?

          Also you are being a bit dramatic, sponsoring a sports team rarely, if ever, means the sponsor controls or as you put it “owns” the teams and players

        • tsunamisurfer on 23/10/2022 - 15:38
          +5

          Yes but were there any reports that the sponsorship deal required Netball Australia were required to do XY and Z other than having the logo of a naming sponsor?

          Go to any league in Australia and see if any cancel their naming sponsor.

          Some even have sports betting agencies as a sponsor.

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

        Companies can advertise for good publicity/employee recruitment. I saw an ad for a mining company recently - all about benefits they bring to the community and their comittment to the environment.

      • [Deactivated] on 24/10/2022 - 15:49
        +1

        Same reason all resource companies advertise - positive PR. They aren't expecting anything from the public at large, they are buying goodwill to stack up against the ecological damage they cause.

        Think about what BHP has to gain running TV commercials, fuel is practically the textbook definition of an inelastic good - people buy it regardless of the cost.

        And before you think it may influence which petrol station people attend, that is almost entirely based on the convenience of the location

    • Almost Banned on 23/10/2022 - 15:30
      +7

      Sure, let's take Optus and Telstra and Marvel and every other sponsor's name off stuff and see how philanthropic they really are.

  • Derrick Crane on 23/10/2022 - 15:21
    +15

    Looks like they have bitten the hand (or Hancock) that feeds them.

  • bobbieb on 23/10/2022 - 17:00
    +9

    There's a reason why sport has a history of dubious sponsorship arrangements, the names may have changed over the decades, but the motivation remains pretty much the same.

    Given the sum of money involved, the only companies that are going to be willing to pony up as a major sponsor are gonna be those with something serious to gain. Go back a few decades it was the alcohol and tobacco companies peddling their wares to the fans. Now, it's other mega corps with an agenda (banks, online betting, etc)… hoping that aligning with sports will make them look somewhat less evil. The deal is that we get well funded sports, in return they have us all pretending that they a wonderful, well regarded members of society.

    These folk broke their side of the deal, yet we're surprised that the company pulled out?

    Next up… sporting body files for bankruptcy and can't pay player salaries. Who woulda expected? LOL🤷‍♂️

  • Ryk on 23/10/2022 - 17:21
    +21

    odd, but they seem to be happy wearing a made in china shirt, using a made in china ball, and using their made in china phone.

    • Stopback on 23/10/2022 - 20:11
      +2

      Because China hasnt demeaned first Nations people…

      • AdosHouse on 23/10/2022 - 20:49
        +26

        China is more of a "can't demean a race that doesn't exist", kinda country.

        • nephilim on 24/10/2022 - 16:59
          +2

          USA Lobby groups funded by the USA government ran anti-Aboriginal ads 1980s due to risk of American companies losing land due to Indigenous land rights.
          Irony that people are turning this into anti-China,

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join