Sir Arthur Higgins
Dick Tooth (41)
surely not?
SBW set to walk out on NZRU
- Thread starter Gnostic
- Start date
- Status
surely not?
Hardtackle
Charlie Fox (21)
Nah, couldn't resist.
Hardtackle
Charlie Fox (21)
I reckon it's a great name too. I have actually spent a fortune on trademarking it here, NZ, USA, Europe and Canada for use on everything from clothing to footballs to fishing tackle and beyond. Fishing, fcuking and football brand - look out world here I come.
S
Skippy
Guest
The issue here in my opinion is not one of loyalty or respecting the All Black jersey.
And whilst I agree that his manager and Mundine are probably not helping the situation... the issue here is SBW's employer vetoeed a major sponsorship deal worth a lot of money because it was with a rival product to a All Blacks sponsor.
I'm not for or against SBW and I'm not interested in getting caught up in Mundine's involvement in his life, SBW walking out on the Bulldogs or anything like that.
I actually believe SBW has every right to be aggrieved and re-considering his options. His 'employer' has just cost him a hell of a lot of money in personal sponsorship.
So let's all consider if we would be slating Horwill or Samo to death if they were offered a contract to be the face of say... Gatorade and the Wallabies said sorry you can't do that, we have a deal to drink Powerade on the field after the game. So Horwill or Samo turns around and say 'poke it then I'm not interested in working for you anymore'...where would we all stand on that one?
Would Samo or Horwill as the face of Gatorade be such a big issue? Does anyone really care if Britney Spears is sponsored by Pepsi but enjoys a can of Coca-Cola?
Why could a compromise not be reached?
Lets not forget here that years ago when the Wallabies were sponsored by Reebok, players were still allowed to have their own boot sponsorship and be the face of other brands - but when playing for Australia they had to black out the distinctive 3 adidas stripes or Nike Swoosh on their boots so as not to clash with Reebok (a fair compromise).
So why has the NZRU been so firm in this situation and not found a compromise to allow SBW to maximise his earning potential (3rd party/sponsers etc)??/
Why? Well personally I think it's because they are quite happy to 'force him out' or too see him go. It will save them a lot of money... he hasn't cemented a starting 12/13 position and the NZRU has squeezed as much as they can from the SBW's product and know they won't get anymore if he's not in the starting team. So, I expect they have chosen to back him into a corner and won't be bothered if as a result he walks away.
And whilst I agree that his manager and Mundine are probably not helping the situation... the issue here is SBW's employer vetoeed a major sponsorship deal worth a lot of money because it was with a rival product to a All Blacks sponsor.
I'm not for or against SBW and I'm not interested in getting caught up in Mundine's involvement in his life, SBW walking out on the Bulldogs or anything like that.
I actually believe SBW has every right to be aggrieved and re-considering his options. His 'employer' has just cost him a hell of a lot of money in personal sponsorship.
So let's all consider if we would be slating Horwill or Samo to death if they were offered a contract to be the face of say... Gatorade and the Wallabies said sorry you can't do that, we have a deal to drink Powerade on the field after the game. So Horwill or Samo turns around and say 'poke it then I'm not interested in working for you anymore'...where would we all stand on that one?
Would Samo or Horwill as the face of Gatorade be such a big issue? Does anyone really care if Britney Spears is sponsored by Pepsi but enjoys a can of Coca-Cola?
Why could a compromise not be reached?
Lets not forget here that years ago when the Wallabies were sponsored by Reebok, players were still allowed to have their own boot sponsorship and be the face of other brands - but when playing for Australia they had to black out the distinctive 3 adidas stripes or Nike Swoosh on their boots so as not to clash with Reebok (a fair compromise).
So why has the NZRU been so firm in this situation and not found a compromise to allow SBW to maximise his earning potential (3rd party/sponsers etc)??/
Why? Well personally I think it's because they are quite happy to 'force him out' or too see him go. It will save them a lot of money... he hasn't cemented a starting 12/13 position and the NZRU has squeezed as much as they can from the SBW's product and know they won't get anymore if he's not in the starting team. So, I expect they have chosen to back him into a corner and won't be bothered if as a result he walks away.
ChargerWA
Mark Loane (55)
Maybe not to death, but I know I would. Pride in playing for your country should come before financial gain from your personal sponsors. That's just a nice little side gig you get from playing for your country/team. But playing comes first.
But I agree on the backing him into the corner. They don't need him as Nonu is still better, so now he gets treated like the rest of the mortals.
waratahjesus
Greg Davis (50)
This is a load of shit. The All Blacks are a business SBW plays a team game not an individual one. The All Blacks like the wallabies, springboks and every other national team have sponsorship deals with exclusive companies (there were articles and tweets about the wallabies getting blackberrys for the cup for instance) the money earned from these deals goes to the company (All blacks for instance) that then use it to run there product and pay players. Each union has a players association that negotiates how much of this money goes to players. If SBW feels so agrieved by something that would have been in his contract from the start and his dick of a manager has chosen not to read or follow it then he should go into boxing full time or another solo sport where he can do what he wants.
I agree with it though. Like being a waiter and dividing your tips with the guy washing dishes it pays respect to those that do the unflashy stuff that allow people like SBW space in a game to ply his trade.
Iluvmyfooty
Phil Hardcastle (33)
Don't kid yourself the mungoes have short memories and a total lack of integrity. They would be lining up for him
A
antipodean
Guest
I'll tell you why skippy: Because the sponsorship that SBW was trying to get was only coming about because of his association with the All Blacks. So the NZRU aren't going to fist fuck themselves with sponsorship in the future by letting players align themselves with a competitor leveraging off the very brand the All Black sponsor pays good money for.
U
undercoverkiwi
Guest
The NZRU have bent over backwards to accommodate him, and as soon as he sees he's not good enough for the test 22, he's off. The sponsorship nonsense is a smokescreen.
Groucho
Greg Davis (50)
Absolutely. Players and the managers must plan to fit in with team sponsors. 'Competing' sponsors simply aren't available to do deals with. To feel 'aggrieved' and make demands when something like this happens is just showboating.
Groucho
Greg Davis (50)
I'm not talking abut integrity. I'm talking about a reasonable expectation that the contract will be honoured.
Hardtackle
Charlie Fox (21)
Mundine would be in his ear saying it's a conspiracy. He wouldn't see it as a competency issue. Choc is totally reliable for talking pure unadulterated shit. So long as you don't give a fuck, sit back relax and let the clowns entertain you.
U
undercoverkiwi
Guest
Indeed, when I say "he", I mean him and all his entourage of advisors.
Sandpit Fan
Nev Cottrell (35)
Best summary I've seen. Pencil me into the don't give a fuck category.
Sent using Tapatalk
S
Skippy
Guest
WaratahJesus, thank you kindly for saying it's a load of shit.
The point I was trying to make is not whether or not I agree or disagree, whether or not it's right or wrong, but that this sponsorship deal/denial was at the heart of the situation and not his manager, not Mundine, not SBW's loyalty and apparent lack of... and so on.
As for his contract apparently stating they can't have personal sponsors in conflict with All Black sponsors - I disagree entirely until proven otherwise. In an ideal world I'm sure the ARU and NZRU etc would like to be able to have such clauses in their contracts but it would never be accepted by the Players Association in my opinion. I mean, Mccaw, Carter and Ali Williams own a business together that provides health foods and water and I'm pretty sure you could argue being involved in a such a company and capitalising on their All Blacks 'image' flys in the face of similar or 'hydration' supplies for the All Blacks. So how is that any different to SBW's situation? Aside from the fact it disproves the counter arguements above that SBW's contract prohibits conflicting sponsors and so on.
as anitpodean states - 'Because the sponsorship that SBW was trying to get was only coming about because of his association with the All Blacks' - and how is this any different to Kevin Mealamu owning several Nando's franchises and using his image as an All Black and thus well known person to promote his business? Ditto McCaw and Carter etc with their water business?
Antipodean goes on to say - "So the NZRU aren't going to fist fuck themselves with sponsorship in the future by letting players align themselves with a competitor leveraging off the very brand the All Black sponsor pays good money for".
And I disagree completely with this analogy because its all about compromise... yet the NZRU are not compromising on this one with SBW's and that is contradictory and narrow sighted and is because of the 'agenda' mentioned previously about using this as the opportunity to try and force him out.
The truth is, there is no reason at all SBW's cannot reach a mutually agreeable personal sponsorship deal to be the face of a refreshement drink. If McCaw and co are allowed to own a company and be the face of that drink... then a workable agreement could be made to enable SBW's to maximise his earning potential without compromising the All Blacks sponsorships for example... not wear All Blacks clothing etc in any advertisement he does.
This is why I beleive the NZRU has simply drawn a different line in the sand for SBW's (contradicting their stance on Carter/McCaw/Williams) and are doing it for no other reason that they are trying to force SBW's to quit and leave... saving them a fortune in salary for a player who hasn't lived up to their expectations and has brought in as much revenue as he can over the past 2 years prior to the WC and his 'job' from the NZRU has been done.
And finally for ChargerWA - in an ideal world yes... but it's not an ideal world and "Pride in playing for your country should come before financial gain from your personal sponsors" is a nice little catch phrase but its just not the way the world works.
SBW's like every other player in league or union or AFL or soccer is entitled to maximise his earning potential both from contracts and personal sponsorships etc. Just like you and I are entitled to leave our contract of employment at any time to accept a job elsewhere because its closer to home/pays more/have better prospects for promotion etc etc.
SBW's did nothing wrong by leaving the Bulldogs if... he left to maximise his earning potential and to pursue other interests. If he came out and said that i think everyone would respect him more, with the exception of letting down his team mates bit.
Sadly however, because of his advisors/manager and people like Mundine he put out dumb things like 'being owned' and not bring rewarded for what he brings into the club financially, racism, undervalued and so on.
At the end of the day I think we can all agree SBW's is a very immature person in many ways. He is easily led, easy prey for people like Mundine and his manager who are all smoke and mirrors and SBW's is probably just not very intelligent either in his own right. I support him in trying to earn his maximum income and whilst I deplore it, I accept loyalty went out the window many many years ago (let's remember loyalty from the clubs to players has been a myth for 30 plus years now), and I don't begrudge anyone the opportunity to be a 'personality' to appease their fragile ego by trying to be a 'revolutionary' player on and off the field, and try and earn as much as they can in their short careers - all I ask in return is a little intelligence. But sadly SBW's doesn't have a lot of it and Mundine's has been corrupted for far too long with racial propaganda and fuelled by unjustified prejudices.
The point I was trying to make is not whether or not I agree or disagree, whether or not it's right or wrong, but that this sponsorship deal/denial was at the heart of the situation and not his manager, not Mundine, not SBW's loyalty and apparent lack of... and so on.
As for his contract apparently stating they can't have personal sponsors in conflict with All Black sponsors - I disagree entirely until proven otherwise. In an ideal world I'm sure the ARU and NZRU etc would like to be able to have such clauses in their contracts but it would never be accepted by the Players Association in my opinion. I mean, Mccaw, Carter and Ali Williams own a business together that provides health foods and water and I'm pretty sure you could argue being involved in a such a company and capitalising on their All Blacks 'image' flys in the face of similar or 'hydration' supplies for the All Blacks. So how is that any different to SBW's situation? Aside from the fact it disproves the counter arguements above that SBW's contract prohibits conflicting sponsors and so on.
as anitpodean states - 'Because the sponsorship that SBW was trying to get was only coming about because of his association with the All Blacks' - and how is this any different to Kevin Mealamu owning several Nando's franchises and using his image as an All Black and thus well known person to promote his business? Ditto McCaw and Carter etc with their water business?
Antipodean goes on to say - "So the NZRU aren't going to fist fuck themselves with sponsorship in the future by letting players align themselves with a competitor leveraging off the very brand the All Black sponsor pays good money for".
And I disagree completely with this analogy because its all about compromise... yet the NZRU are not compromising on this one with SBW's and that is contradictory and narrow sighted and is because of the 'agenda' mentioned previously about using this as the opportunity to try and force him out.
The truth is, there is no reason at all SBW's cannot reach a mutually agreeable personal sponsorship deal to be the face of a refreshement drink. If McCaw and co are allowed to own a company and be the face of that drink... then a workable agreement could be made to enable SBW's to maximise his earning potential without compromising the All Blacks sponsorships for example... not wear All Blacks clothing etc in any advertisement he does.
This is why I beleive the NZRU has simply drawn a different line in the sand for SBW's (contradicting their stance on Carter/McCaw/Williams) and are doing it for no other reason that they are trying to force SBW's to quit and leave... saving them a fortune in salary for a player who hasn't lived up to their expectations and has brought in as much revenue as he can over the past 2 years prior to the WC and his 'job' from the NZRU has been done.
And finally for ChargerWA - in an ideal world yes... but it's not an ideal world and "Pride in playing for your country should come before financial gain from your personal sponsors" is a nice little catch phrase but its just not the way the world works.
SBW's like every other player in league or union or AFL or soccer is entitled to maximise his earning potential both from contracts and personal sponsorships etc. Just like you and I are entitled to leave our contract of employment at any time to accept a job elsewhere because its closer to home/pays more/have better prospects for promotion etc etc.
SBW's did nothing wrong by leaving the Bulldogs if... he left to maximise his earning potential and to pursue other interests. If he came out and said that i think everyone would respect him more, with the exception of letting down his team mates bit.
Sadly however, because of his advisors/manager and people like Mundine he put out dumb things like 'being owned' and not bring rewarded for what he brings into the club financially, racism, undervalued and so on.
At the end of the day I think we can all agree SBW's is a very immature person in many ways. He is easily led, easy prey for people like Mundine and his manager who are all smoke and mirrors and SBW's is probably just not very intelligent either in his own right. I support him in trying to earn his maximum income and whilst I deplore it, I accept loyalty went out the window many many years ago (let's remember loyalty from the clubs to players has been a myth for 30 plus years now), and I don't begrudge anyone the opportunity to be a 'personality' to appease their fragile ego by trying to be a 'revolutionary' player on and off the field, and try and earn as much as they can in their short careers - all I ask in return is a little intelligence. But sadly SBW's doesn't have a lot of it and Mundine's has been corrupted for far too long with racial propaganda and fuelled by unjustified prejudices.
EVERYFWDTHINKTHEYREA6OR7
Syd Malcolm (24)
Well from the evidence that has been presented thus far by SBW i find it perplexing as to why you rate him higher than Nonu.
waratahjesus
Greg Davis (50)
Skip - there are people on here with more marketing prowess than me.
But basically as I stated, the NZRU has key sponsors who's money they divide and pay all players. It rewards everyone and a players union would be all over it.
What your proposing would lead to three or four players having a shitload of sponsorship and earning millions while the front rowers get the minimum team payment thus creating a class system and dividing rather than promoting a cohesive brand.
There was an article earlier in the year about an ad that only featured SBW, the NZRU blocked it as they have a rule that any ad featuring the "All Blacks" brand had to feature three or more players and not individuals.
The NZRU should be applauded for putting the team ahead of individuals. There not pushing SBW out, they offered him a contract, in fact, they wanted to sign him long term, he only wanted a year and now after they bent over and provided him with what he wants he wants more. Fark him, no one should be bigger than the national team.
But basically as I stated, the NZRU has key sponsors who's money they divide and pay all players. It rewards everyone and a players union would be all over it.
What your proposing would lead to three or four players having a shitload of sponsorship and earning millions while the front rowers get the minimum team payment thus creating a class system and dividing rather than promoting a cohesive brand.
There was an article earlier in the year about an ad that only featured SBW, the NZRU blocked it as they have a rule that any ad featuring the "All Blacks" brand had to feature three or more players and not individuals.
The NZRU should be applauded for putting the team ahead of individuals. There not pushing SBW out, they offered him a contract, in fact, they wanted to sign him long term, he only wanted a year and now after they bent over and provided him with what he wants he wants more. Fark him, no one should be bigger than the national team.
Sir Arthur Higgins
Dick Tooth (41)
Agree.
The NZRU and ARU need these major corporate sponsors to pay all the bills and wages. Gate attendance and tv rights deals don't cover all of the costs. The minute SBW gets sponsored by a competing corporation, the NZRU sponsor can look at that and say "well if i give the all blacks $100m, what am i getting for it? there's no control over their players and who promotes our brand" they will either cancel their sponsorhip or significantly reduce it. That means the NZRU has less money coming in and that all his teammates can't get their wages paid. Or the NZRU takes a loss and has to reduce wages due to lower corporate sponsorship down the line.
His actions are tantamount to him saying "I want as much money as I can get and if that means my teammates who've been in this sport longer will end up getting less money as a result, that's fine and if i can't get all the money i want, then i'll walk"
he's big and amazingly athletic. but he's a moron surrounded by, if you can believe it, bigger morons. Anthony Mundine is a joke in everything. self promoting himself as "the man" always cracks me up, considering how far off any real boxers radar he is. really getting sick of the guy(s). Send him back to league and chalk him up in the annals of all black history as the guy the same size and strength of lomu who did 1/200th of what the big man did.
The NZRU and ARU need these major corporate sponsors to pay all the bills and wages. Gate attendance and tv rights deals don't cover all of the costs. The minute SBW gets sponsored by a competing corporation, the NZRU sponsor can look at that and say "well if i give the all blacks $100m, what am i getting for it? there's no control over their players and who promotes our brand" they will either cancel their sponsorhip or significantly reduce it. That means the NZRU has less money coming in and that all his teammates can't get their wages paid. Or the NZRU takes a loss and has to reduce wages due to lower corporate sponsorship down the line.
His actions are tantamount to him saying "I want as much money as I can get and if that means my teammates who've been in this sport longer will end up getting less money as a result, that's fine and if i can't get all the money i want, then i'll walk"
he's big and amazingly athletic. but he's a moron surrounded by, if you can believe it, bigger morons. Anthony Mundine is a joke in everything. self promoting himself as "the man" always cracks me up, considering how far off any real boxers radar he is. really getting sick of the guy(s). Send him back to league and chalk him up in the annals of all black history as the guy the same size and strength of lomu who did 1/200th of what the big man did.
Sir Arthur Higgins
Dick Tooth (41)
skippy - kevin mealamu owning nandos franchises is worlds apart from SBW being sponsored by let's say Nike and promoting Nike on a regular basis despite the all blacks being sponsored by adidas.
I'm not sure, but do the all blacks have a fast food sponsor? Mcdonald's or anything? if not, then Mealamu couldn't possibly be in conflict. and if they do, this is his own business and im not sure to what extent he promotes it, or just owns it and is promoting it purely by association.
re DC, RM and AW - a chocolate milk company is not classified as the same as powerade. its not a performance drink nor is it advertised as such. so from an advertisers perspective, an image of dan carter in regular garbs drinking chocolate milk for breakfast is a different promotion than dan carter kicking the winning field goal, playing in the bledisloe and drinking a powerade to improve his onfield performance.
SBW's was in direct competition with an All Blacks sponsor. Like Nike to Adidas, or Coke to Pepsi or Powerade to Gatorade, or Qantas to ANZ.
The point is mainly that the sponsor for the NZRU would have a clause in the contract saying we will pull our sponsorship if you let other all blacks promote a competing business (all of them are probably spelled out in the sponsorship conflict as well). the NZRU can't afford that, so within the contracts with SBW there is most likely a clause allowing the NZRU to approve any individual sponsorship.
They've reviewed this particular case and seen it is in blatant conflict with an NZRU sponsorship. As such, it can't go ahead.
He's tried to go against the contract clauses. Is unhappy the nzru won't release him from that clause and is having a sook.
And re the bulldogs. He walked out on his contract. if he left when it was over, there's no problem. But he's signed on for the full term of the contract and walked out on it. I agree people would have more respect if he said, I just want more money. Instead he made up a bunch of shit about racism and being bullied etc. Neither here nor there really as the main point on that issue is he put pen to paper and gave an organisation his word. The only reason he wasn't chased after in a legal sense is because Toulon paid the bulldogs....so what does sonny do shortly there after? leaves toulon for the next big pay cheque. granted its a bad business decision by Toulon, but the guy has zereo loyalty or integrity.
That all being said, I agree that I think the NZRU is happy to be rid of him. If he continues to not make the all blacks, he's not worth much to them.
I'm not sure, but do the all blacks have a fast food sponsor? Mcdonald's or anything? if not, then Mealamu couldn't possibly be in conflict. and if they do, this is his own business and im not sure to what extent he promotes it, or just owns it and is promoting it purely by association.
re DC, RM and AW - a chocolate milk company is not classified as the same as powerade. its not a performance drink nor is it advertised as such. so from an advertisers perspective, an image of dan carter in regular garbs drinking chocolate milk for breakfast is a different promotion than dan carter kicking the winning field goal, playing in the bledisloe and drinking a powerade to improve his onfield performance.
SBW's was in direct competition with an All Blacks sponsor. Like Nike to Adidas, or Coke to Pepsi or Powerade to Gatorade, or Qantas to ANZ.
The point is mainly that the sponsor for the NZRU would have a clause in the contract saying we will pull our sponsorship if you let other all blacks promote a competing business (all of them are probably spelled out in the sponsorship conflict as well). the NZRU can't afford that, so within the contracts with SBW there is most likely a clause allowing the NZRU to approve any individual sponsorship.
They've reviewed this particular case and seen it is in blatant conflict with an NZRU sponsorship. As such, it can't go ahead.
He's tried to go against the contract clauses. Is unhappy the nzru won't release him from that clause and is having a sook.
And re the bulldogs. He walked out on his contract. if he left when it was over, there's no problem. But he's signed on for the full term of the contract and walked out on it. I agree people would have more respect if he said, I just want more money. Instead he made up a bunch of shit about racism and being bullied etc. Neither here nor there really as the main point on that issue is he put pen to paper and gave an organisation his word. The only reason he wasn't chased after in a legal sense is because Toulon paid the bulldogs....so what does sonny do shortly there after? leaves toulon for the next big pay cheque. granted its a bad business decision by Toulon, but the guy has zereo loyalty or integrity.
That all being said, I agree that I think the NZRU is happy to be rid of him. If he continues to not make the all blacks, he's not worth much to them.
- Status