Play Nice Is it time to replace Woodside as sponsor?

[arsesmart]

If you have the contacts and the means you should offer an alternative solution and not just complain, certainly not seeking to leverage the public to get social status damage revenge on your enemy.

You think someone with connections like them couldn't have arranged a sponsorship cooperative solution to have an environmental message on the Dockers for years to come?

Of course they could.

WTF. What sort of critical thinking brings you to the conclusion that you would think a lobby group would go there from outside the clubs four walls. How do you think a sponsor would put themselves out there for that?

But really I wanted to confirm whether you stood by your gross generalising and rigid thinking on all activism and where that fit into your canon of critical thinking skills.

 

[muckypup]

Exactly, until we find a replacement. Companies aren't going to go out and find a replacement if there is no benefit in them doing so nor disadvantage if they don't. That's the whole ******* point.

Firstly our (that's us here in WA and Australia generally) are utterly dependant on mining income for our standard of living and that includes oil and gas. If you discount that sponsorship there is very little else at scale to go around. Property developers, banks and government would make up the rest. But government gets most of its revenue from .... guess where! Mining!!!

That to one side why is it Fremantle Football Clubs job to sort out an existential crisis like this. It's not like tobacco you Wally. This will bring the house crashing down if you go to fast.

 

[sherrif]

I believe the extraction of the gas produces a lot more green house gasses than the extraction of coal too but people tend to cut that bit out.

The extraction of lithium produces a lot more emissions than coal and gas combined in terms of the per unit of energy produced. RE is a disaster all over Europe not just for price but because the cut in emissions expected from RE has not occurred in reality and that's without even taking into account the production emissions that occur in the places manufacturing solar panels and car batteries. Nuclear is the long term answer.

 

[arsesmart]

How funny. Yeah it's shock jocks that are making stuff up. Ive worked with refugees and taught with a ton of indigenous educators who all say the same thing. Cancel culture is 100% nothing more than a bunch of white caucasians telling people what they can and can't say and nothing to do with calling out racism, bigotry or anything the self righteous supporters claim it is about. Just like this call to cancel a sponsor has nothing to do with improving the environment. If Australia stopped selling gas or fossil fuels currently world emissions would go up as all over the world brown coal power plants are being put back online as there is such an energy shortage.

It's just a question of who the club should have as it's major sponsor though. That's it.

 

[Taylor]

WTF. What sort of critical thinking brings you to the conclusion that you would think a lobby group would go there from outside the clubs four walls. How do you think a sponsor would put themselves out there for that?

But really I wanted to confirm whether you stood by your gross generalising and rigid thinking on all activism and where that fit into your canon of critical thinking skills.

I've never been speaking in such general terms. You're the one doing that to avoid the details of this, which I've previously explained is what these people want because when people find out the influence they could muster to arrange an environmental alliance sponsorship and instead chose to not do that it shows everyone what they are really all about.

Please powerful daddy make them do what I want. Wah wah wah

There's millions of dollars of green money out there, they could have used their influence to line up a deal ready to offer Freo in place of Woodside.

 

[Taylor]

They spent a lot of time and money fighting in court and lost. Now they just want to whack Woodside and use Freo as the bat.

 

[arsesmart]

The extraction of lithium produces a lot more emissions than coal and gas combined in terms of the per unit of energy produced. RE is a disaster all over Europe not just for price but because the cut in emissions expected from RE has not occurred in reality and that's without even taking into account the production emissions that occur in the places manufacturing solar panels and car batteries. Nuclear is the long term answer.

Nuclear plants take 10 years on average to build. Even ignoring the problems of waste and security, that's not likely to cut it.

 

[myfreodom]

How funny. Yeah it's shock jocks that are making stuff up. Ive worked with refugees and taught with a ton of indigenous educators who all say the same thing. Cancel culture is 100% nothing more than a bunch of white caucasians telling people what they can and can't say and nothing to do with calling out racism, bigotry or anything the self righteous supporters claim it is about. Just like this call to cancel a sponsor has nothing to do with improving the environment. If Australia stopped selling gas or fossil fuels currently world emissions would go up as all over the world brown coal power plants are being put back online as there is such an energy shortage.

There are so many contradictions in this post I am pretty sure the world might have folded in on itself and you have discovered a self-sustaining energy source. Problem solved!

 

[arsesmart]

I've never been speaking in such general terms. You're the one doing that to avoid the details of this, which I've previously explained is what these people want because when people find out the influence they could muster to arrange an environmental alliance sponsorship and instead chose to not do that it shows everyone what they are really all about.

Please powerful daddy make them do what I want. Wah wah wah

There's millions of dollars of green money out there, they could have used their influence to line up a deal ready to offer Freo in place of Woodside.

Yeah sure. Likely.

So when you said:
"But it's how activism works. Always appealing to another power to achieve their goals.

No solution."
You weren't speaking in general terms? Ok.

 

[Taylor]

Yeah sure. Likely.

So when you said:
"But it's how activism works. Always appealing to another power to achieve their goals.

No solution."
You weren't speaking in general terms? Ok.

That's exactly how activism works these days, yes.

These people could be very different but they didn't bother. They'd rather use people to get their social standing wins.

They are some seriously well connected people.

 

[sherrif]

There are so many contradictions in this post I am pretty sure the world might have folded in on itself and you have discovered a self-sustaining energy source. Problem solved!

No contradictions. If you can't comprehend the point I'm making that's not my issue. You've insulted others here already when in reality the only point you've actually made is that basic comprehension ain't your thing.

 

[arsesmart]

They spent a lot of time and money fighting in court and lost. Now they just want to whack Woodside and use Freo as the bat.

But the question of who we should have as a major sponsor is a valid one.

 

[myfreodom]

Firstly our (that's us here in WA and Australia generally) are utterly dependant on mining income for our standard of living and that includes oil and gas. If you discount that sponsorship there is very little else at scale to go around. Property developers, banks and government would make up the rest. But government gets most of its revenue from .... guess where! Mining!!!

That to one side why is it Fremantle Football Clubs job to sort out an existential crisis like this. It's not like tobacco you Wally. This will bring the house crashing down if you go to fast.

No need to be an alarmist about it. I'm pretty sure Fremantle finding an alternate sponsor to Woodside isn't going to result in people losing their jobs at Woodside. Nor is Freo sourcing an alternative sponsor the key to solving climate change.

Freo needs to do what is best for it. Like finding a new head coach, a new S&C leader, a new CEO, etc. Ensuring it has the right sponsors for now and into the future. It shouldn't be swayed by Carmen Lawrence and the other nine. But the question they raised is still a valid one to consider. Is Woodside the right sponsor for Freo? Does it fit the Freo brand and particularly their commitment to sustainability? Would a different sponsor be more valuable both tangibly and intangibly?

I think they should pose the same question about all their sponsors, not just Woodside. And the AFL definitely needs to as well.

I have a feeling we already know Woodside will be replaced by another sponsor next year. Almost certainly also from the resources sector. I have a feeling it will be a more valuable sponsor both immediately and into the future when that happens. Assuming so I'm not expecting Woodside to suddenly realise they need to have a plan for Phase 3 emissions. - but if it contributes even slightly to them pushing forward with a better climate plan then that's great imo. Like I said from the start I'm not anti-Woodside or using oil and gas right now. But ffs we need to plan for a future without reliance on O&G and Woodside doesn't seem to sense the urgency at all. Now I'm being an alarmist

 

[sherrif]

Nuclear plants take 10 years on average to build. Even ignoring the problems of waste and security, that's not likely to cut it.

Try telling anyone in Europe now RE works for base load power. Its a provable massive failure now and if you check emissions across Europe and cost of energy jumped significantly due to how brown coal stations were brought back online to meet the energy requirements. But yeah ignore all those issues and pretend their's no issues with relying on RE without actually checking the real world examples across Europe. Nuclear energy is the only long term solution for Australia to reduce it's emissions and not have massive issues with power reliability. RE waste technology has improved massively in recent times and there is far more issues with the toxic waste per unit of energy produced with solar panels and wind turbines.

 

[Taylor]

But the question of who we should have as a major sponsor is a valid one.

In the context of available options and the financial circumstances it absolutely is

 

[sherrif]

No need to be an alarmist about it. I'm pretty sure Fremantle finding an alternate sponsor to Woodside isn't going to result in people losing their jobs at Woodside. Nor is Freo sourcing an alternative sponsor the key to solving climate change.

Freo needs to do what is best for it. Like finding a new head coach, a new S&C leader, a new CEO, etc. Ensuring it has the right sponsors for now and into the future. It shouldn't be swayed by Carmen Lawrence and the other nine. But the question they raised is still a valid one to consider. Is Woodside the right sponsor for Freo? Does it fit the Freo brand and particularly their commitment to sustainability? Would a different sponsor be more valuable both tangibly and intangibly?

I think they should pose the same question about all their sponsors, not just Woodside. And the AFL definitely needs to as well.

I have a feeling we already know Woodside will be replaced by another sponsor next year. Almost certainly also from the resources sector. I have a feeling it will be a more valuable sponsor both immediately and into the future when that happens. Assuming so I'm not expecting Woodside to suddenly realise they need to have a plan for Phase 3 emissions. - but if it contributes even slightly to them pushing forward with a better climate plan then that's great imo. Like I said from the start I'm not anti-Woodside or using oil and gas right now. But ffs we need to plan for a future without reliance on O&G and Woodside doesn't seem to sense the urgency at all. Now I'm being an alarmist

How does Woodside not sense the urgency? The world desperately needs the oil and gas they mine to power the transition to RE and that's for the next 5 years at least. Ive got cousins living in Europe. Have you actually checked how the RE reliant countries are doing recently? There is a massive need for more fossil fuels and I mean for te next 5 years at least or the transition won't happen.

 

[myfreodom]

No contradictions. If you can't comprehend the point I'm making that's not my issue. You've insulted others here already when in reality the only point you've actually made is that basic comprehension ain't your thing.

In fairness I did consider responding to the mess of points you were trying to make but it became obvious you didn't comprehend the post of mine you replied to at all so it would have been a very futile exercise. So um... GO NUCLEAR!!!

 

[sherrif]

In fairness I did consider responding to the mess of points you were trying to make but it became obvious you didn't comprehend the post of mine you replied to at all so it would have been a very futile exercise. So um... GO NUCLEAR!!!

That's a pretty funny response coming from someone who writes sentences the way you do.

My point was astronomically clear and if you can't comprehend it then that's still your issue. I was making a seperate point that clearly you don't get how the whole activism thing online never represents the views of those actually effected by the issues in the real world.

 

[arsesmart]

Try telling anyone in Europe now RE works for base load power. Its a provable massive failure now and if you check emissions across Europe and cost of energy jumped significantly due to how brown coal stations were brought back online to meet the energy requirements. But yeah ignore all those issues and pretend their's no issues with relying on RE without actually checking the real world examples across Europe. Nuclear energy is the only long term solution for Australia to reduce it's emissions and not have massive issues with power reliability. RE waste technology has improved massively in recent times and there is far more issues with the toxic waste per unit of energy produced with solar panels and wind turbines.

Saying it's a failure is ridiculous. Renewables are gaining % every year. It takes time of course. But converting to nuclear is not viable and creates quite a number of problems with waste and security etc.

 

[myfreodom]

How does Woodside not sense the urgency? The world desperately needs the oil and gas they mine to power the transition to RE and that's for the next 5 years at least. Ive got cousins living in Europe. Have you actually checked how the RE reliant countries are doing recently? There is a massive need for more fossil fuels and I mean for te next 5 years at least or the transition won't happen.

ffs mate. Read my posts before you hit the reply button and start jumping on keys.

My issue with Woodside is not their current production of gas (I'm not sure I've read a single post on here saying we don't currently need gas to meet energy needs! Please stop pretending that is what you are responding to). My problem is that their climate plan is appalling. It has been heavily criticised by anyone and everyone with an ounce of knowledge on the topic. All resource companies need to be considering their total impact on the environment, including the impact by their consumers (phase 3). To say "we want to do something on that but we haven't thought about it yet" is not good enough in 2022. It's why ~49% of their own investors told them their climate plan isn't acceptable. They aren't alone on an island with this criticism but they are in the name of this thread and the others aren't.

 

[BanjoRules]

ffs mate. Read my posts before you hit the reply button and start jumping on keys.

My issue with Woodside is not their current production of gas (I'm not sure I've read a single post on here saying we don't currently need gas to meet energy needs! Please stop pretending that is what you are responding to). My problem is that their climate plan is appalling. It has been heavily criticised by anyone and everyone with an ounce of knowledge on the topic. All resource companies need to be considering their total impact on the environment, including the impact by their consumers (phase 3). To say "we want to do something on that but we haven't thought about it yet" is not good enough in 2022. It's why ~49% of their own investors told them their climate plan isn't acceptable. They aren't alone on an island with this criticism but they are in the name of this thread and the others aren't.

Does that 49% include the views of only individual investors?

 

[myfreodom]

Does that 49% include the views of only individual investors?

Does the other 51%?

 

[Taylor]

Saying it's a failure is ridiculous. Renewables are gaining % every year. It takes time of course. But converting to nuclear is not viable and creates quite a number of problems with waste and security etc.

I believe Germany has spent half a trillion dollars to have more expensive power without reducing their emissions.

All in the time they could have built over 30 nuclear power plants and be running cheaper, reliable and totally green.

Thats what people talk about it not working

 

[arsesmart]

In the context of available options and the financial circumstances it absolutely is

I'm sure we'll be just fine. We can be a little more discretionary with our choices and apply some real critical thinking with them.

 

[Taylor]

I'm sure we'll be just fine. We can be a little more discretionary with our choices and apply some real critical thinking with them.

Mock it all you wish. Freo doesn't have the luxury of being too picky with sponsors. We get the scraps.

It makes it easy to fund an alternative if you care enough to.