Play Nice Is it time to replace Woodside as sponsor?

[88mph]

Of course they do. Ask North or a few other Vic clubs who have struggled for years financially if big paying sponsors make a difference.

I would have to check the numbers but from memory FFC 2019 had a revenue of ~50 million.

Profit share with WAFC meant a profit of 2-3million for FFC. I think it was lower than that and happy to be corrected.

Woodside sponsorship ~$2 million.

Do I need to say more about the importance of a big financial sponsor when you look at the bottom line each year? One of the reasons WCE are ridiculously strong is the ongoing high level sponsorships that have become an institution. They can reliably ask for more $ at every tier of there sponsorship packages due to the price anchors of their major sponsors.

People often think it would work the other way around. I will throw some numbers around here, however I have seen some of the tier options for FFC. I know they are higher at almost every tier at WCE.

If they have a major sponsor at $3.2 million. the number two sponsor will be ~2.8. Every bracket below that top line is between 15-25% higher than ours apart from the very base bracket which is more like 8-10% higher.

To think that sponsors don't affect on field performance is madness. Why do you think Eddie celebrated so hard when they landed Lexus and Etihad? It not only secures the future of the club, facilities, talent acquisition on and off field, it creates a new price anchor that flows through every tier of sponsorship.

It is why who you accept as a major sponsor is such an important decision. Clubs as big as essendon have been weakened in part due to top tier sponsorships changing regularly. They would love a Woodside as a sponsor. The truth is that most businesses of 200 million plus revenue are not guaranteed a place in the market long term. Big resource companies that are established can commit for a far longer term than most companies.

Freo should go back to woodside and ask to extend for 7 years. Have a yearly increase built in that is slightly in their favour from a market conditions perspective. Ask them if we can help promote any big RE projects with them and push on to secure the future of the club long term.

7 years? lol

We have all but stated we won’t be renewing with Woodside “talks off until end of 2023”

Woodside is done.

 

[poshman]

7 years? lol

We have all but stated we won’t be renewing with Woodside “talks off until end of 2023”

Woodside is done.

We have not stated that at all. Do you disagree with the majority of my post and the important of price anchors set by major sponsors? Or do you refuse to acknowledge the importance or not see it?

I didn't read what he said as they are done. I read it as the contract is ongoing and will be discussed next year.

 

[Yeti]

When it comes to Gina Rinehart, actions speak louder than words

Lately there have been a lot of headlines about Mrs Gina Rinehart, Hancock Prospecting and the $15 million sponsorship of Netball Australia�...

www.nit.com.au

Interesting read

 

[arsesmart]

You are either naive or not being an honest broker. The Australian mens cricket team is far more valuable from a sponsorship POV than the womens netball team. Will the netball team find a sponsor? I hope so. I think it is a great sport. Is it a definite based on a sport getting sponsorship that has millions more fans, tv exposure, international exposure and that exceeds its popularity with adults by a long way? No it is not guaranteed.

4 degrees? Your thoughts on the scientists who wrote your article quoting that study incorrectly?

Why would cricket be more valuable from a sponsorship angle than netball? Hmmm...more participants, more spectators...why? It's a mystery.

 

[Square Peg]

When it comes to Gina Rinehart, actions speak louder than words

Lately there have been a lot of headlines about Mrs Gina Rinehart, Hancock Prospecting and the $15 million sponsorship of Netball Australia�...

www.nit.com.au

Interesting read

He makes some important points, and I suspect it won't be long before the author is accused of taking blood money and called a coconut, or worse, on social media.
Having said that, this raises an interesting debate about government priorities, taxation and philanthropy probably more suited to the politics thread. I don't think indigenous education is akin to sports sponsorship and it shouldn't be left to the whim of the rich to fund schemes like this.

 

[poshman]

Why would cricket be more valuable from a sponsorship angle than netball? Hmmm...more participants, more spectators...why? It's a mystery.

So again you struggle to interact with the content of the post.

Asking why the NBA is more valuable from a sponsorship POV than Lacrosse is a conversation we weren't having. You used Cricket as an example of why Netball which is drowning in losses would get another major sponsor. I am stating the comparison isn't a good one due to the level of exposure and value for a sponsor in cricket vs Netball.

Do you understand that?

I take it from your response that you agree that cricket is more valuable from a sponsorship POV than Netball?

 

[masai tu]

When it comes to Gina Rinehart, actions speak louder than words

Lately there have been a lot of headlines about Mrs Gina Rinehart, Hancock Prospecting and the $15 million sponsorship of Netball Australia�...

www.nit.com.au

Interesting read

Clinton Wulff.

Legend amongst unco-ordinated players.

 

[Kram]

He makes some important points, and I suspect it won't be long before the author is accused of taking blood money and called a coconut, or worse, on social media.
Having said that, this raises an interesting debate about government priorities, taxation and philanthropy probably more suited to the politics thread. I don't think indigenous education is akin to sports sponsorship and it shouldn't be left to the whim of the rich to fund schemes like this.

Posted that on GD and it only took the 2nd reply for someone to take that angle haha.

 

[arsesmart]

So again you struggle to interact with the content of the post.

Asking why the NBA is more valuable from a sponsorship POV than Lacrosse is a conversation we weren't having. You used Cricket as an example of why Netball which is drowning in losses would get another major sponsor. I am stating the comparison isn't a good one due to the level of exposure and value for a sponsor in cricket vs Netball.

Do you understand that?

I take it from your response that you agree that cricket is more valuable from a sponsorship POV than Netball?

Hey, your responding to my posts and trying to take them down irrelevant pedantic side alleys.

My main point is that when tobacco was out as an industry, I'm sure at the time there were the same absolving, denying and minimising arguments claiming cricket (and sport in general) would struggle to get sponsors without tobacco money.

It shows us it's a very changeable and fluid area.

Sponsors do it because it serves them. If it serves Woodside it'll serve someone else.

We adapt and move on, sometimes seamlessly, sometimes with a few wobbles, but before too long people forget it even happened.

 

[wakojako]

These conversations about sponsorships, while I don't necessarily agree with, are a step in the right direction. We are starting to demand more from corporations responsible for past, present, and future atrocities. In reality, climate change is the fault of corporations and not the individual. The concept of 'carbon footprint' and reducing individual footprints was created by PR firms for oil companies in the early 2000s. Dropping the Woodside sponsor I do feel like is virtue signaling just like debates around changing the date.

 

[holy diver]

These conversations about sponsorships, while I don't necessarily agree with, are a step in the right direction. We are starting to demand more from corporations responsible for past, present, and future atrocities. In reality, climate change is the fault of corporations and not the individual. The concept of 'carbon footprint' and reducing individual footprints was created by PR firms for oil companies in the early 2000s. Dropping the Woodside sponsor I do feel like is virtue signaling just like debates around changing the date.

Climate change is the fault of corporations?

Which company is over 4 billion years old?

Maybe being more selective for club sponsors is a step in the right direction, maybe not - especially if entwined with ideology. Netball Australia are learning this because some woke players wanted to virtue signal.

Would people be happy if Raytheon Technologies sponsored the club? Mining corporations in a resources/mining state are not evil.

Nothing is wrong with having the discussion, I agree, but in the current political environment of climate hysteria I doubt it will amount to anything meaningful but maybe result in the same people cheering this silliness bemoaning when their professional team is on the bread line because sponsorship dollars in sports in Australia is very competitive.

Do those that support this woke sponsorship push think that the North Melbourne's or Illawarra Hawks in the NBL (which struggle for stable $$$$) would be upset to be sponsored by Woodside?

 

[wakojako]

Climate change is the fault of corporations?

Which company is over 4 billion years old?

Maybe being more selective for club sponsors is a step in the right direction, maybe not - especially if entwined with ideology. Netball Australia are learning this because some woke players wanted to virtue signal.

Would people be happy if Raytheon Technologies sponsored the club? Mining corporations in a resources/mining state are not evil.

Nothing is wrong with having the discussion, I agree, but in the current political environment of climate hysteria I doubt it will amount to anything meaningful but maybe result in the same people cheering this silliness bemoaning when their professional team is on the bread line because sponsorship dollars in sports in Australia is very competitive.

Do those that support this woke sponsorship push think that the North Melbourne's or Illawarra Hawks in the NBL (which struggle for stable $$$$) would be upset to be sponsored by Woodside?

What does 4 billion years have to do with anything? 100 companies are responsible for 71% of emissions. 20 companies are responsible for half of single use plastic waste. Corporate greed is destroying the planet.

Again I don't support dropping the Woodside sponsor and most freo fans I've spoken to don't either. Pat Cummins dropping Alinta energy was virtue signaling but I don't know if the Netball Australia decision was? It was dropped due to historical treatment of indigenous peoples which is fair enough. I don't necessarily agree with the large mining companies being innocent either. They are vital to our economy but they are far from innocent. Look at the indigenous historical sites they have blown up for profit.

 

[Tony_Clifton]

I figure that if you can't grow something you have to mine it. That applies to every product you've ever bought. What would get me upset if there was corporate lobbying to influence government policy on dealing with climate change. That being said, I am too apathetic to find out.

 

[wakojako]

I figure that if you can't grow something you have to mine it. That applies to every product you've ever bought. What would get me upset if there was corporate lobbying to influence government policy on dealing with climate change. That being said, I am too apathetic to find out.

Don't know about Australia but definitely the case in the US. Don't forget that oil companies knew about climate change in the 80s but the research was buried.

 

[Tony_Clifton]

Don't know about Australia but definitely the case in the US. Don't forget that oil companies knew about climate change in the 80s but the research was buried.

All this stuff in Iran can be linked back to BP not wanting their books audited to see whether they were paying their due royalties.

 

[Paracleet]

No that was not what I was saying at all. I am simply asking for someone to define how that extraction is different to mining? No need to be pretentious.

I was told that it was not mining. Having worked with Oil and Gas companies and having friends who work at Woodside and with other large Oil and Gas companies, I can let you know they all consider it mining or part of the mining/resources sector. I am trying to understand why someone would think it isn't mining.

Oil and Gas is not mining and it is not part of the mining industry. The hint is in the name: "The oil and gas industry".

Nobody ever ever says what you say they said. It is ludicrous and you sound ridiculous trying to push this shit up hill.

 

[Kram]

Mining, oil and gas = Resource industry.

 

[Tony_Clifton]

Oil and Gas is not mining and it is not part of the mining industry. The hint is in the name: "The oil and gas industry".

Nobody ever ever says what you say they said. It is ludicrous and you sound ridiculous trying to push this s**t up hill.

Disagree.

 

[wakojako]

All this stuff in Iran can be linked back to BP not wanting their books audited to see whether they were paying their due royalties.

What stuff in Iran are you referencing?

 

[Paracleet]

Mining, oil and gas = Resource industry.

Yep I would agree with that, an umbrella term. Not really relevant though as he was specifically calling oil and gas mining, not resources. Or do you also think the timber industry is equivalent to oil and gas and / or mining. It is a resource industry after all.

This is the dumbest debate I have ever been sucked into. Oil and gas is not mining ffs.

 

[Tony_Clifton]

What stuff in Iran are you referencing?

1953 Iranian coup d'état - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

This started the ball rolling in the Shah being replaced by the Ayatollah, the repressive state and the current revolution.

 

[wakojako]

1953 Iranian coup d'état - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

This started the ball rolling in the Shah being replaced by the Ayatollah, the repressive state and the current revolution.

Oh you were talking about that haha. British empire didn't want to lose their monopoly over Iranian oil due to the push for nationalization.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Can’t we go back to Hard Yakka?

Freo fans froth at retro gear. We’ll make up in merch sales what we lose in sponsorship. Lol.

Hard Yakka, I remember them as Pie fan when I was a kid in the late 70's

Problem with that mob is that they produce clothing, manufacturing clothing is bad for the planet....................... just like everything else.

 

[Purple_Turtle]

If Hancock Prospecting can't donate to save Netball because Lang Hancock was a horrible racist in the 1980s just wait till Geelong are informed of what Henry Ford said about the Jews.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I'm sick to death of the extreme povs on both sides of debates like these. You get the extreme greenies saying we should just abolish anything and everything that can be seen as bad for the environment which obviously isn't realistic. And then you get the RWs thinking they are oh so clever with zingers like "well if you wear glasses then you can't have a negative opinion on the oil and gas industry because glasses are made using oil". It's ******* immature and moronic on both sides.

I can simultaneously get on a plane to get somewhere and want the aviation industry to not * up our planet as much as they currently do. I also shouldn't have to create my own aviation company that only flies solar powered planes to have a legitimate opinion on the matter. Just like I don't have to have set up my own football club to have an opinion on the Freo Dockers.

You know this is a good definition of hypocritical right?

I understand what you're saying, 'as I can't actually produce an environmentally friendly airline doesn't mean I can't have an opinion'

Sure, you can have an opinion, opinion away friend! Doesn't make it valid or consistent.

And this is what rubs people the wrong way - the ones who want us to all live in bamboo tents and turn the power off don't wanna give up their emission contributing lives. Just blame and no rational discussion on a solution.