Play Nice Is it time to replace Woodside as sponsor?

Is it time to replace Woodside as sponsor?

  • Yes

    Votes: 29 18.2%
  • No

    Votes: 130 81.8%

  • Total voters
    159

Remove this Banner Ad

The length of the extension tells me this will be the last and if we hadn't managed to drop out of finals this year I doubt it would have happened at all.

That would be sad. I thought it was more to do with the broadcast rights and other things kicking in so they are backing themselves to be worth more in 2 years.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

The two year extension is great and will help the club. Most members are in favour of it. The others wish it wasn't the majority view to accept the cash but I know deep down they would be horrified if a minority view was foisted in the entire club.

Climate change is real, it is dangerous and the commitment to net zero will help. We all need to plan for Net Zero by 2050 and make deep cuts to emissions by 2030. Fossil fuels are part of the economy during the transition and it is fine to take their money. It will not jeopardise the transition.
 
The two year extension is great and will help the club. Most members are in favour of it. The others wish it wasn't the majority view to accept the cash but I know deep down they would be horrified if a minority view was foisted in the entire club.

Climate change is real, it is dangerous and the commitment to net zero will help. We all need to plan for Net Zero by 2050 and make deep cuts to emissions by 2030. Fossil fuels are part of the economy during the transition and it is fine to take their money. It will not jeopardise the transition.
Carbon dioxide accounts for .04% of the atmosphere
Humans are responsible for 3% of the. .04%
Australia is responsible for 1.3% of the 3%
 
Carbon dioxide accounts for .04% of the atmosphere
Humans are responsible for 3% of the. .04%
Australia is responsible for 1.3% of the 3%

So you don’t understand science. It isn’t a debate anymore and hasn’t been for literally decades. Whether we take Woodside’s money aside.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I'm not sure the sponsorship makes any actual difference to the problem, but you're taking the **** if you think that climate change isn't a top 3 problem for the human race.

If you're young enough, you're going to get some good first hand evidence to change your mind in your lifetime.

If you really care, read some scientific papers or get your scientifically literate friend/family member to translate for you.
 
Climate change is real. Every rational person wants to do the right thing. Successful big companies want to contribute to mitigation. The FFC needs corporate support to achieve its objective of playing beautiful footy and bringing joy to the enlightened (ie non-West Coast) masses.
 
You know it's possible to believe in anthropological climate change and not think it's going to result in the end of the human race in 20, 50, 100 years right?

Holy s**t, it's amazing how quickly the term "science denier" gets whipped out when you say that maybe we're not going to all literally burn to death in 10 years if we don't stop oil now.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I clearly have NFI about these things (well, most things tbh) but I would have thought $2m a year is chump change for a big business like an AFL club. Would anyone know where a deal of this size ranks in Australian sport?
 
I clearly have NFI about these things (well, most things tbh) but I would have thought $2m a year is chump change for a big business like an AFL club. Would anyone know where a deal of this size ranks in Australian sport?
For half a major sponsorship I would have thought that's pretty reasonable. Especially since we cop Fox coverage 90% of the time outside WA.
 
Good to see a number of different views from our supporters. Not sure about the snide little potshots.
 
You know it's possible to believe in anthropological climate change and not think it's going to result in the end of the human race in 20, 50, 100 years right?

Holy s**t, it's amazing how quickly the term "science denier" gets whipped out when you say that maybe we're not going to all literally burn to death in 10 years if we don't stop oil now.
The problem is we don't know what it is going to do. Some of the models are pretty dire though.

You don't decide to play Russian roulette because there's a 5/6 chance you'll be fine, if you have a choice not to play at all.
 
Last edited:
You know it's possible to believe in anthropological climate change and not think it's going to result in the end of the human race in 20, 50, 100 years right?

Holy s**t, it's amazing how quickly the term "science denier" gets whipped out when you say that maybe we're not going to all literally burn to death in 10 years if we don't stop oil now.
It's the classic reactionary path though.

Step 1 "It's not real and I'm going to mock you for saying it is. No change needed."

Step 2 "It may be real in part, but it's not why you say it is. No change needed."

Step 3 "It may be real, but it's no big deal. No change needed."

Step 4 "I guess it's too hard to keep saying it's not real, although you're exaggerating it. Somebody else needs to change."
 
The interesting question for me, and this goes for BHP, Chevron, Santos, Hancock Prospecting etc, is why would they want to sponsor teams like Freo and WC in the first place?

I get why Maccas, HJs, Toyota and co do, they obviously need to sell their wares to the average punter. But what are the big resource companies selling?

I've got a rough idea, but I'm interested in what others think.
They're buying positive community sentiment to make it easier for the pollies to look favourably upon them.
 
I clearly have NFI about these things (well, most things tbh) but I would have thought $2m a year is chump change for a big business like an AFL club. Would anyone know where a deal of this size ranks in Australian sport?
2-million is a massive deal when it comes to sporting sponsorships.

Not many clubs would have that as there major sponsor.
 
There's a
They're buying positive community sentiment to make it easier for the pollies to look favourably upon them.
There's a further step beyond this... Financially ingratiate as many people/groups as feasible, create a sense of dependency, so you increase a feeling of coalition with your continued operating at max profit.

The whole idea of "being grateful for their sponsorship". Screw that. They wouldn't do it if it didn't benefit them.
 
Back
Top