sydthebeat wrote: » his father is a fundamentalist preacher... and he was brought up in a community that, while on the australian mainland, was actually very similar to what he would have had on the islands.. imagine the life he was brought up in... what he heard every day. hes a product of his upbringing
NeonWolf wrote: » Daniel Leo the ex samoan player( and current pacific rugby player welfare official) was on second captains podcast when this story broke and you could read between the lines from his comments that plenty of the islanders agreed with Folau's views.Eoin McDevitt pushed him on it but he gave it a relatively straight bat.
joseywhales wrote: » Isn't there some kind of internet rule where if you mention Hitler or the Nazis your argument is automatically considered false?
sydthebeat wrote: » yeah i dont think thats any surprise.... they 'live' their religion a lot more than we do in the west
is_that_so wrote: » Companies redefine themselves all the time and it's really not a fast process. Sure they often grow a conscience but once it's there they need to stand over it.
All of this was utterly predictable.
There's no denying it has rumbled on just as one cannot deny that it was very poor behaviour on his part vis a vis the texts. The case may still split people but that isn't really the case in terms of the text carry-on. The issues around it will remain to the fore until he steps away from rugby.
Yeah_Right wrote: » I find it interesting because the Christian values that a lot of PI people espouse when it comes to homosexuality and transgender actually conflict with PI culture. Men living as women is an accepted part of PI culture going back centuries. Its called different names on the different islands but in Samoa they are called fa'afafine. One of Manu Tualagi's brothers is one. I wonder if any of Folau's (or his wife's) relatives are one of these.
Foxtrol wrote: » Are you expecting with this new ‘conscience’ that they’ll soon pull out of their sponsorship of the Pro14? Surely, they can’t stand over the binge drinking session their champions went resulting in violence, hospitalization, and serious anti-social behaviour. Oh I agree, in the age of mob rule most brands will fold under any pressure and the mob is never going to get over Jackson being found not guilty. Who texted worse things Jackson or Gilroy? If people want to pretend that a sizeable proportion of the young people today (including players) don’t speak like this to friends in private that’s fine, but it is completely hypocritical for people to hound Jackson years later and claim it to be over texts, while not protesting someone who sent worse. People who are claiming texts are why they are still hounding Jackson are either uneducated on what was texted, hypocritical, or flat out lying.
is_that_so wrote: » I don't what they'll do but they've in all likelihood spent a lot of cash working out where they want to position themselves. It certainly will involve them doing things they haven't done in the past. As for the texts well you either see how appalling his behaviour was or you don't. Whether that extends to people taking positions on him is their own prerogative. You seem to be making a lot of excuses for bad behaviour in this and it is pretty disappointing that his behaviour is as you claim widely replicated. It's still wrong. I have no issues with him pursuing or resuming his career, as tempestuous as that is likely to be, but he really has an awful lot of work to do as a human being.
Dog Botherer wrote: » Interestingly, the only other time recently I’ve heard the term “mob rule” is from right wing commentators in the USA complaining about people daring to protest their vile policies. Make of that what you will. Anyway, mostly I’m just astonished at how badly London Irish have ****ed this. Returning Jackson to the English speaking media so soon was always a risk, but for it to be costing them some of their biggest sponsors and still standing by him is... questionable, at best. I’m no fan of corporations or big money ruling sport but if a company is getting bad press because of a sponsorship they’re going to cut ties every time. That’s just capitalism baby. Assuming LI even have sufficient cash flow to get through the season, it’s going to have to be an incredible one to avoid serious financial issues. Champion’s Cup qualification has got to be an absolute minimum, a very tough ask for a recently promoted club, never mind one with off field pressures.
Squidgy Black wrote: » They weren't some of their biggest sponsors though. From what I can tell Diageo's sponsorship was based more around the bar side of things as opposed to team funding itself, and cash converters were a small bit sponsor who allegedly withdrew before Jackson's signing was announced, using the get out clause of promotion as the sponsorship rates would've increased significantly. Powerade is the main sponsor for LI who haven't said a peep on the situation, nor have any of their other 'elite' sponsors all listed on their website. The only big one is Paddy Irish Whiskey, which it turns out that Facebook page where the comment was screenshot from saying they'd review the sponsorship isn't confirmed as being an official Paddy Irish Whiskey social media page and the comment has since been removed. PR reps for the brand have refused to comment if there's a review of sponsorship also.
irishbucsfan wrote: » The main sponsor isn't Powerade. It's Powerday. Which is Michael Crossan's company, who is the owner and chairman of London Irish. They're not going anywhere.
Dog Botherer wrote: » Ah okay, assumed since DIAGEO are so huge they would be a major sponsor. Things might not be so bad as all that then. Still think there’s potential for things to snowball to that point though. The real test will be attendances, really. While I would like to think there would be a significant drop in turnout in protest, I don’t think that likely. LI have a strong and committed fanbase, it would take a lot to damage it.
Dog Botherer wrote: » Anyway, mostly I’m just astonished at how badly London Irish have ****ed this. Returning Jackson to the English speaking media so soon was always a risk, but for it to be costing them some of their biggest sponsors and still standing by him is... questionable, at best.
sydthebeat wrote: » i didnt know that, thats very interesting
mfceiling wrote: » I don't think they've handled it badly at all tbh. They've signed a very good 10 (if he gets back to his previous playing form). I think it would have been a bigger mess if they'd signed him then caved in to pressure from the sponsors. Where does that lead to in the future? Sponsors having a bigger say on the size of their logos on jerseys? Sponsors looking for more input into things that they've no real business in? Sponsors dictating rules to the club based on threats of pulling funding? I'm glad that they've stood up for PJ and I hope it stands to him this season.
troyzer wrote: » He was found not guilty. This isn't the same as being found innocent.
Nobody has an inalienable right to an extremely privileged and lucrative rugby career which is highly dependent on your value to sponsors who want positive brand association.
deezell wrote: » Yes it is. "Innocent until proven guilty" or presumption of same. I would have thought it was dependent on your ability to play rugby. Diageo and Paddy whisky are virtue signalling. The hypocrites. They can f*** off with their chemical beers and sh*te moonshine. I'd love to see drinks companies banned from sport advertising and sponsorship.
irishbucsfan wrote: » Your first point is completely incorrect.
It’s not just drink companies who don’t want anything to do with him.
deezell wrote: » OBJECTION ,M'lud That's right. Loan sharks also.
deezell wrote: » troyzer wrote: » He was found not guilty. This isn't the same as being found innocent. Yes it is. "Innocent until proven guilty" or presumption of same. Nobody has an inalienable right to an extremely privileged and lucrative rugby career which is highly dependent on your value to sponsors who want positive brand association. I would have thought it was dependent on your ability to play rugby. Diageo and Paddy whisky are virtue signalling. The hypocrites. They can f*** off with their chemical beers and sh*te moonshine. I'd love to see drinks companies banned from sport advertising and sponsorship.
deezell wrote: » If you want to get into legalities, innocent means innocent. Maybe in Scotland you can have a verdict of Not Proven, but acquitted means just that. Treating a person unfavourably otherwise is extreme prejudice, and you could sue. We've just had that lady in the news who was threatened with being Charged and Dismissed for, having a baby? I'm sure the patriarchs of the day were sure they held the legal and moral high ground. As for Diageo, banks, and other dubious sponsors deciding to become selectors and directors of rugby, what were LI's lawyers thinking if the contracts didn't specifically ban all commentary and opinion on team, individual and rugby matters. If they have such clauses, sue Diageo. If they haven't change their legal people. Then if a sponsor wants to go, he goes, silently and with no damaging comment. Instead Diageo tried to use this as a marketing vehicle (i.e, people who drink 20 pints of our stuff would NEVER do anything criminal or out of character). I've drank my last Guinness, Harpic etc.
troyzer wrote: » Legally he's innocent. But people claiming we shouldn't have a negative opinion of him because the jury didn't find enough evidence to convict are not being realistic. People get away with **** all the time. In this case, we saw some of the evidence that was excluded on technicalities such as pictures of bloody sheets which were somehow allowed to be photoshopped? If you think the value of an athlete is purely determined by their ability to play their sport, then I have a bridge to sell you.... Formula 1 is the sport probably most transparent in how teams will regularly sign drivers who can bring more sponsors than another, more gifted driver. It's why you have utter ****e like Maldonado, Bottas and Kyvat
troyzer wrote: » The irony of you criticising a company boycotting a club by boycotting their product is too much.
connemara man wrote: » OK What constitutes guilt and innocence is OT from General Rugby Discussion as possible Move the chat along to actual rugby issues
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/ad289898c0c6dda7e667bf900ae26d0c.svg)