|
|
Post by voice of reason on Jun 30, 2006 9:32:32 GMT 10
I see myself as an intelligent and critical thinking person (hell, that's why I support the Mariners, and England for the cup).
So that is why I feel slightly uncomfortable with overblown political rhetoric being forced upon me at a game - at a charity game, no less.
Don't get me wrong. I believe that John Howard has had his day. I believe his government is unjust and uncaring and has exposed the most vulnerable workers to extreme abuse from 'scumbag' employers. That's not the point.
The point is that I go to a football match to escape from all outside worries. And the football ground is not the place to be taking political sides - it is the place for political boundaries to dissolve.I don't need some union official telling me that Howard eats babies and rapes grannies when I'm there to watch a game! I can make my own mind up about such things from any number of sources outside the stadium, in my own time.
So CCF has a sponsorship deal with Electrical Trades Union. That's good. Their money will no doubt help to pay the bills. It should not give them the right to use football games as a platform for ideas which might polarise society. It's bad enough having to put up with commercial sponsorship without political sponsorship entering the game.
When the game is trying to get rid of racism, discrimination and negative nationalism, don't let political partiality in through the back door.
I would be interested to know if this sponsorship arrangement, or the public address at the Mariners v Lightning game contravenes any FIFA or FFA rules. The best I could come up with was Article 3 of FIFA's Standard Statutes which calls on associations to exercise political and religious neutrality, but I can't work out whether these statutes were ever enacted or are enforceable.
|
|
|
|
Post by dibo (pron. "DIB-OH") on Jun 30, 2006 12:22:23 GMT 10
quelle surprise - dibo stands up for the unions!
i think that union officials have as much right to tell people about the things that are happening to working people around the country at a football game as do charities who tell people about the bad things that are happening overseas or in indigenous communities or even in our own suburbs.
rallying people to a cause is no big deal, and many charities have leanings one way or another, especially some of the larger religious ones. i have serious issues with some of the things the salvo's do in the political sphere, especially concerning some of their comments around drug law reform, but i don't think they should be stopped from attempting to raise money at football games. it's just that my hand stays in my pocket.
ditto the increasing presence of the defence force at sporting events. i honestly can't count the number of times elite paratroopers have shown up carrying the matchball or trophy for whatever game is on, or fa/18's go blasting overhead (scaring the crap out of any unwitting people nearby), or marchpasts by army bands, etc.
i mean i get the whole support the troops thing, but this whole "let's spare a thought [wipes a tear from the eye] for our brave boys in baghdad" crap really irks me. but it's there, and the defence force are seeking to recruit and putting money through the sports i follow so i swallow my annoyance and wait for the game.
and that's before i even start on the whole registered clubs campaign about the pokie tax...
all messages are political to an extent. futureschool sell the idea that you need their software for your kids to do well (in turn propagating the notion that schools aren't good enough). healthe sells the idea that you need private health cover (in turn propagating the idea that public health and medicare aren't good enough).
in simple marketing terms though, it makes sense for trade unions to be trying to reach the people who go to sporting fixtures - especially families and young people. they're the people who are often very hard to reach through other methods of advertising and who are relying on having a bit of disposable income and a bit of free time to follow their sports. the ir changes threaten that by threatening take home pay and threatening reasonable hours of work. there's a logical link.
it might irk some, but i think it's not really that much different to some other campaigns that have already been in operation around sporting events, and it would appear to betreated by CCF as just another sponsorship deal. i don't reckon there's much wrong with that.[/essay]
|
|
|
|
Post by Auburn Mariner on Jun 30, 2006 14:31:30 GMT 10
The Canberra Raiders did the same thing with the CFMEU on the weekend as well.
So that I am not accused of sitting on the fence, I'm with Dibo on this one. I heard what the bloke from the ETU said, in fact I listened intently, and he was spot on. I do not believe that the majority of Australians realise how insidious WorkChoices really is, and if it takes Union reps getting on a mike at the footy to inform all of us, then so be it.
The thing with WorkChoices is, if things progress in the same direction they are now, we not be able to watch football or, more importantly, watch our sons and daughters play football because we have to work ridiculous hours just to pay our ever-increasing mortgages and rents!!
The absolute highlight of my winter is watching Auburn Junior play for Rutherford Under 8's. Like MarinerMick, this Govt could very well cost me that opportunity very soon. The more Aussies that know what's really going on, the better, in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by dibo (pron. "DIB-OH") on Jun 30, 2006 14:45:20 GMT 10
the CFMEU (the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, one of Australia's biggest) will be Canberra's jersey sponsor next year.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenpoleffc on Jun 30, 2006 17:23:10 GMT 10
Regardless of the merits of the debate (and I am happy to cast my vote for the party that repeals them - listening Kim??) I thought that to launch into a passionate tirade against JH at half time in a charity game was cringeworthy and he sounded far too desperate for someone who thinks he has right and morality on his side (and I think he does).
I work for a large financial institution who have made an ethical decision not to embrace a return to 19th century employment law. Sadly, it seems that those least able to defend themselves are the ones getting screwed.
|
|
|
|
Post by brett on Jun 30, 2006 17:37:58 GMT 10
Far out. I'm not taking any sides in the political argument but what the hell? Get over it?
A sponsor said some words at half time. What if corn chips were the sponsor? Or toothpaste? Does the ETU have less right to a say because it's politically orientated?
They can advertise anything at half time in the world cup coverage on TV. Pele can come out and talk about viagra. It doesn't interest me so I dont listen. Just like on Wednesday night.
Looking at the title bar it says Central Coast Mariners FC fans forum but maybe Mountains out of Molehills forum would be more appropriate in recent times. Cheer up buttercups, there's more important things to worry about!
|
|
|
|
Post by pieman on Jul 1, 2006 11:25:21 GMT 10
I agree with VOR there is a time and a place for everything and that wasn't the time or place for that.
Good on them for Sponsoring the lightning but could you imagine Future school getting up at half time and telling everyone that thier children need better education and should sign up with them.
No
|
|
|
|
Post by Jesus on Jul 2, 2006 13:19:19 GMT 10
I dont think it can be justly said, when any other form of advertising would be tolerated.
|
|
marinermick
Moderator 
Coming to Bay 16 Soon
Posts: 8,657
|
Post by marinermick on Jul 3, 2006 18:35:32 GMT 10
Far out. I'm not taking any sides in the political argument but what the hell? Get over it? A sponsor said some words at half time. What if corn chips were the sponsor? Or toothpaste? Does the ETU have less right to a say because it's politically orientated? They can advertise anything at half time in the world cup coverage on TV. Pele can come out and talk about viagra. It doesn't interest me so I dont listen. Just like on Wednesday night. Looking at the title bar it says Central Coast Mariners FC fans forum but maybe Mountains out of Molehills forum would be more appropriate in recent times. Cheer up buttercups, there's more important things to worry about! exactly right no difference to mrs macs getting shoved into our faces that night with the objections on here it looks like the government is becoming very successful in shutting down free speech and vilifying anti-government sentiment the lib's foot soldiers certainly bleat and carry on every time a little incidnet like this occurs strike another blow against australian democracy |
|
marinermick
Moderator
Coming to Bay 16 Soon
Posts: 8,657
|
Post by marinermick on Jul 3, 2006 18:37:34 GMT 10
would be interesting to see if the sponsor was medicare or some other government institution
just as political
|
|
|
|
Post by dibo (pron. "DIB-OH") on Jul 3, 2006 18:42:07 GMT 10
would be interesting to see if the sponsor was medicare or some other government institution just as political the mariners have the Motor Accidents Authority (a nsw government entity) as a sleeve sponsor. |
|
marinermick
Moderator
Coming to Bay 16 Soon
Posts: 8,657
|
Post by marinermick on Jul 3, 2006 18:51:09 GMT 10
fact of the matter is that most sporting organisations and events rely on one sort of government funding or another
rightly or wrongly, but to say there is no politics in sport is just burying your head in the sand
|
|
|
|
Post by voice of reason on Jul 3, 2006 19:16:25 GMT 10
I don't regard myself as a foot soldier of the government. As I said in my opening statement, I am opposed to the IR legislation, as it victimises the most vulnerable. I would like to see Beazley overturn this objectionable legislation. I would like to see Bush tried as a war criminal along with Blair and Howard. How are those for left-leaning credentials? I don't want to see football influenced by politics, least of all by a union leader who treats his audience like children, ramming cliches and hyperbole down their throats. It is insulting to my intelligence and is embarrassing and the man should have been booed from the ground, like Morris Iemma or JH would have been if they had been speaking.
By the way, while I accept that sports sponsorship by commercial bodies is a necessary evil, it doesn't mean that I'm taken in by the ideological messages behind the adverts. Brazil would still be Brazil, even without Nike, and Nike's History ads were devilishly clever in manipulating our feelings of national identity. We should be wary of such tactics.
Perhaps what I'm trying to say is that a subtle approach is needed. The man could have easily introduced himself and invited his audience to inform themselves of the dangers behind this legislation.
In reply to Tiger, I promise not to listen to this man again, if he promises only to come to Pluim Park to watch the football
|
|
|
|
Post by Jesus on Jul 3, 2006 23:31:18 GMT 10
I have no objections to being told not to drink drive on my way home by the government. UNfortunately, with free speech, if you dont want to have to put up with politics, then there is only one place for you to escape it. The grave.
|
|
