Opinion Cancelwood Magpariahs

Remove this Banner Ad

76woodenspooners said:
We have no right to be that arrogant.

Our training centre went without a naming rights sponsor for 14 months.

The Melbourne sporting sponsorship landscape is one of the most crowded in the world.

Huge amounts of marketing dollars are moving out of traditional channels like sponsorship, and into modern channels like Facebook, Google and other social media platforms that can better target and offer a better ROI of marketing $.
Click to expand...
Except of course we are still the only club in the AFL not to accept handouts even though we had bottomed out in a big way. Statistically the best. The media target us for a reason, Collingwood news (good or bad) gets clicks…we are the most popular and revered club in the league…in any other league or country we would rule the roost. I’m not saying I want a lopsided EPL type competition, I just want some equity for Collingwood.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
76woodenspooners said:
+ IIRC didn’t TAC simply move their sponsorship to Richmond?

So they retained the exposure of a big AFL club but got the added publicity of taking it off Collingwood.
Click to expand...
There is no bigger club than Collingwood, hence why they landed there in the first place.

The important point is that we found another sponsor and thrived. Collingwood owns the AFL, we should not have to bow the way we do.
 
Last edited:
Dynamics said:
The club and playing group will have their own sets of expectations for players. Key to handling all of this external garbage is for the club to keep its eye fixed very much on those expectations and communicate that clearly and repeatedly to the players. Take care of their welfare and the culture of the group and club from within.

News Limited in particular is clearly targeting our players. If it wasn't clear before to everyone on this board that they have less than zero concern for what's in the public interest when determining what to cover, it should be abundantly clear now. And if you have any lingering doubt, just ask a Liverpool supporter about Murdoch's stain of a newspaper, The Sun.

And don't have ANY expectation of a change of stance on this over the long term, regardless of any embargo the club may consider. To be clear, I 100% agree that the club should prohibit access for the likes of Scott Gullan and his pals as a matter of principal. But we're talking about a media behemoth that thinks nothing of steering the election results of multiple countries as they see fit. The lives of our young footballers mean less than nothing to those who truly set the agenda at a paper like the Herald Sun. And they certainly aren't alone. There are "journalists" working directly for the AFL who are answerable to some of this garbage. Employed by the custodians of the game no less.

All that talks for Murdoch and his minions is the bottom line. If it generates clicks and in any way drives up subscription numbers, and they can manage any PR/legal concerns it might throw up, they WILL run with it.

So do your bit... Don't click on their stories. Don't visit their site, don't buy their papers. You won't miss a thing.
Click to expand...
Exactly because they have figured it out, it delivers profits.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Log in to remove this ad.

Dynamics said:
I don't identify with any "side" in this false fight between the "left" and "right". And here's my two cents on why (in part) it's bad for Rupert's organisation to take a concerted political stance in anything.

Because ANY media outlet that presents itself as a genuine news service while peddling their own agenda (left, right, whatever) is damaging to the public discourse. When it's as globally powerful as News Limited is, you have yourself an organisation yielding massive influence for its own ends but with zero accountability to the public they baffle with their bullshit.

The argument that the ABC needs to be left leaning to balance out the likes of News Limited buys into the very same partisan garbage that's used to divide, distract and manipulate consumers and keep them in a constant state of of either clicking outrage or backslapping echo-chamberism.

Theyre two sides of the same rusty coin.
Click to expand...
Great post
 
magpies42 said:
Except of course we are still the only club in the AFL not to accept handouts even though we had bottomed out in a big way.
Click to expand...

Of course we accept handouts - all clubs do - we’ve received around $93 million in ‘handouts’ from the AFL (through the broadcast distribution) over the last 10 years.
 
76woodenspooners said:
Of course we accept handouts - all clubs do - we’ve received around $93 million in ‘handouts’ from the AFL (through the broadcast distribution) over the last 10 years.
Click to expand...
Don’t we receive less than other clubs?
 
domus said:
It's a problem in all of the MSM. Carolina Wilson has made a living out iof destroying footballers and football administrators lives.
Click to expand...

Which footballers has Caroline Wilson destroyed the lives of? Sure, she went hard at Swanny (for example), but he’d be the first to agree that she was justified - and it hardly ‘destroyed’ him, probably reinforced his brand.

As for administrators - yeah, she had been calling for Ed to stand down for years. Some Collingwood folks agreed with her at the time. And she was vindicated with the benefit of hindsight.
 
76woodenspooners said:
+ IIRC didn’t TAC simply move their sponsorship to Richmond?

So they retained the exposure of a big AFL club but got the added publicity of taking it off Collingwood.
Click to expand...

Can you point to any talk anywhere regarding sponsors and this current situation? Or is your whole sponsorship schtick just a piece of idle speculation?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
76woodenspooners said:
Of course we accept handouts - all clubs do - we’ve received around $93 million in ‘handouts’ from the AFL (through the broadcast distribution) over the last 10 years.
Click to expand...

The handouts ppl refer to (maybe unknowingly) is the “variable funding” from the AFL. We have received none of it in the last 10 years.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
gouki88 said:
Curse the young people (Collingwood players included) and being “woke AF”
Click to expand...
The curse of the young people will be the addiction to gambling (among other things).

This generation will have far more to worry about than any previous generation, and it's driven by organisations such as the AFL, who çondone bombarding the community with betting ads.

Of course, protecting a poster boy after taking cocaine is typical of this corrupt organisation. There's no way anyone will ever convince me the cocaine issue started as a mental health issue - it started when a party-boy's antics went public.
 
domus said:
It's a problem in all of the MSM. Carolina Wilson has made a living out iof destroying footballers and football administrators lives. And there are many others who don't work for the scummy Murdoch media who are just as bad.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. I'll never forget the way she tried to ruin Dane Swan's career by calling for him to resign without presenting any material evidence for her accusations.

Lift the rug of the majority of media organisations these days and you'll see a lot of cockroaches running from the light.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

What is a cakewalk said:
This is getting bad now. There just seems to be no voice in the media that provides balance to defend collingwood in the same way every second journo does for richmond, carlton, essendon. Apparently 3AW asked the police commissioner about the tik tok thing. Just ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Pardon the intrusion everyone, but I agree with all the sentiments posted in this thread. I would just like to add that we shouldn’t create an “us” and “them” mentality amongst clubs, just because it’s Collingwood this season it could be xxxxxx club next season.

Club CEO’s should meet and band together on this issue because they have the numbers (800plus players), and dictate terms that will protect their brand and sponsorship - not put it at risk by unnecessarily dragging players through the mud like the media have been doing!

And there’s another issue, the AFLPA appear to have the weakest bunch of board members going round.
 
sideswipe said:
Can you point to any talk anywhere regarding sponsors and this current situation? Or is your whole sponsorship schtick just a piece of idle speculation?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
Click to expand...

We never know “current situation” about anything (apart from, perhaps, whose belly button Jordan DeGoey has his tongue in at the time)

So how to understand what’s going on? We could look at history as an indicator, and in this case we do know CGU and TAC are past sponsors who publicly aired their displeasure at things our club was involved in.

Of course past performance is not an indicator of future earnings, but what else have we got to go on?
 
76woodenspooners said:
We never know “current situation” about anything (apart from, perhaps, whose belly button Jordan DeGoey has his tongue in at the time)

So how to understand what’s going on? We could look at history as an indicator, and in this case we do know CGU and TAC are past sponsors who publicly aired their displeasure at things our club was involved in.

Of course past performance is not an indicator of future earnings, but what else have we got to go on?
Click to expand...

TAC a different kettle of fish - wouldn’t compare them to “standard” commercial sponsors. Wasn’t CGU just a bit of posturing from an outgoing sponsor at the end of an agreed term? Meaningless.

The news feed this week shows how big Collingwood is - see it as a sponsor positive. KFC had their logo plastered all over the evening news. That exposure of the logo is what they want.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
sideswipe said:
TAC a different kettle of fish - wouldn’t compare them to “standard” commercial sponsors.
Click to expand...

That was certainly true back then, but these days are a bit different.

We now live in an era when a consumer movement can spring out of nowhere and try to “cancel” an organisation and their sponsors over moral issues.

sideswipe said:
Wasn’t CGU just a bit of posturing from an outgoing sponsor at the end of an agreed term? Meaningless.
Click to expand...

It was 10 months before the contract ended. And they clearly chose not to renew. Obviously we have no idea why.

sideswipe said:
The news feed this week shows how big Collingwood is - see it as a sponsor positive. KFC had their logo plastered all over the evening news. That exposure of the logo is what they want.
Click to expand...

Looking at it from a classical PR point of view? 100% !!

But how many KFC consumers follow #jordandegoeybozo ? Dunno.
 
76woodenspooners said:
Which footballers has Caroline Wilson destroyed the lives of? Sure, she went hard at Swanny (for example), but he’d be the first to agree that she was justified - and it hardly ‘destroyed’ him, probably reinforced his brand.

As for administrators - yeah, she had been calling for Ed to stand down for years. Some Collingwood folks agreed with her at the time. And she was vindicated with the benefit of hindsight.
Click to expand...
Sorry?

I thought she targeted swanny because some mates of his had a scuffle with Wilson's son at the races?
Not a scuffle with Swanny just his mates.

Totally biased targeting from a journo not reporting a conflict of interest and not noting that it wasn't even the player himself.
 
76woodenspooners said:
That was certainly true back then, but these days are a bit different.

We now live in an era when a consumer movement can spring out of nowhere and try to “cancel” an organisation and their sponsors over moral issues.



It was 10 months before the contract ended. And they clearly chose not to renew. Obviously we have no idea why.



Looking at it from a classical PR point of view? 100% !!

But how many KFC consumers follow #jordandegoeybozo ? Dunno.
Click to expand...

All in your imagination.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
Couch Coach said:
Sorry?

I thought she targeted swanny because some mates of his had a scuffle with Wilson's son at the races?
Not a scuffle with Swanny just his mates.

Totally biased targeting from a journo not reporting a conflict of interest and not noting that it wasn't even the player himself.
Click to expand...

Swanny himself admitted that he was involved in an incident where a hotel room got trashed, and that if that got out into the papers he would have been cut from Collingwood. (Sadly, rock and roll is dead, but I digress)

When stories like that (amongst others) come out, we can hardly blame the big bad Caroline Wilson for picking on the poor innocent squeaky clean Dane Swan.
 
76woodenspooners said:
Of course we accept handouts - all clubs do - we’ve received around $93 million in ‘handouts’ from the AFL (through the broadcast distribution) over the last 10 years.
Click to expand...
That’s like saying you go to work do your job and get a handout instead of a wage.

Not only do we not receive handouts, we get less than our fair share from the AFL.
 
I would encourage anyone considering boycotting the game this weekend to instead turn up and give the most deafening cheer for Ginni and Quaynor. They will notice.

De Goey won’t notice the change in crowd numbers at a game he may not be present at.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top