Manly Inclusive Pride jersey backlash

[liltiger]

No, you think they "feign" concern. You don't know this for a fact. Maybe Scott Penn has a dear gay relative or maybe they wanted to honour the contribution of Ian Roberts.

Maybe Manly wanted to be the first club to formally broach the issue.

I'll tell you what is feigned - the feigned indignation that putting on a rainbow jersey overshadows the Women in League round, as if the same people would have been fine with the inclusion jersey had it been any other round.

It's all a p.r stunt plain and simple, you cannot as an organisation have it both ways, it's totally hypocritical. You cannot say you support a cause then use that cause as a way to generate revenue.
As far as being indignant for me it's simple wether it's women of league round or not, I don't want anything to do with it, what people do in the privacy of their homes is their business not mine, doesn't matter what round they want to talk about it, it's none of my business. I watch league to see league. Nothing else.

 

[Kaito]

That argument does not make sense. Scott Penn injects the most money into Manly, i.e. he owns them. So he can do what he pleases. So if he chooses to do an inclusion jersey, then that's it: Manly are doing an inclusion jersey.

Reports this morning saying Manly got $6 million for a 6 year deal from apparel maker Dynasty, and that they knew about the proposed pride jersey since February

 

[tiger_one]

Reports this morning saying Manly got $6 million for a 6 year deal from apparel maker Dynasty, and that they knew about the proposed pride jersey since February

We're all taken for patsies.
The truth is a lemon.

 

[jirskyr]

It's all a p.r stunt plain and simple, you cannot as an organisation have it both ways, it's totally hypocritical. You cannot say you support a cause then use that cause as a way to generate revenue.

As far as being indignant for me it's simple wether it's women of league round or not, I don't want anything to do with it, what people do in the privacy of their homes is their business not mine, doesn't matter what round they want to talk about it, it's none of my business. I watch league to see league. Nothing else.

That first paragraph - you could not be more incorrect if you tried.

Firstly, of course you can support a cause and also derive revenue in relationship to that cause. There's nothing hypocritical about it at all if you are up-front about it. For example McDonalds drives their children's charities but they obviously make revenue first, before giving a dividend to the charity.

Every single company that is not a charity or is not a non-profit will generate some revenue in support of any cause. It's allowed to be win-win for the company and the charity.

Secondly, there is no way to entirely split revenues from charitable causes in rugby league, not unless you direct 100% of gate receipts, 100% of game-week merchandise and 1/24th of your entire annual NRL grant (a single round %) to that charity.

It's not reasonable. Every single rugby league club with a game-day "cause" will somehow derive revenue from that day, because it's baked into the rugby league model.

Thirdly, there's nothing to say that Manly intended to generate extra or novel revenues at the expense of the cause they were supporting. Releasing a new game-day jersey is pretty standard for most clubs. We have no data to suggest that magically 1000s of LGBTI-identifying persons descended on Brookvale Oval this week because Manly were wearing a rainbow stripe. If they really wanted to generate revenue they would have done it the weekend of Mardi Gras.

Second paragraph - so you don't support indigenous round or women's round either?

If you are so worried about football and only football, nothing else, then the simple advice is: avoid the news and the forum threads about topics that don't interest you. It's really quite easy. You don't need to venture into these discussions about a club you don't support, in a match that we didn't play, for a cause you don't appear to care about.

 

[jirskyr]

Reports this morning saying Manly got $6 million for a 6 year deal from apparel maker Dynasty, and that they knew about the proposed pride jersey since February

I do not understand what this indicates? The did a deal with an apparel maker, ok. Every club does it.

 

[old_man_tiger]

Toby Rudolph FTW lol just saw his comments

 

[earl]

I do not understand what this indicates? The did a deal with an apparel maker, ok. Every club does it.

I think this comment goes back to everyone complaining the players weren't consulted. I assume that this means that there was enough time to consult the players.

The problem is the players are stating they won't wear the jersey period. Consulting is useless and completely pointless in this instance.

You don't consult unless you are prepared to compromise. I assume from hearing the Manly owner he is not willing to compromise on this issue.

 

[earl]

Toby Rudolph FTW lol just saw his comments

It was pretty funny right.

 

[liltiger]

That first paragraph - you could not be more incorrect if you tried.

Firstly, of course you can support a cause and also derive revenue in relationship to that cause. There's nothing hypocritical about it at all if you are up-front about it. For example McDonalds drives their children's charities but they obviously make revenue first, before giving a dividend to the charity.

Every single company that is not a charity or is not a non-profit will generate some revenue in support of any cause. It's allowed to be win-win for the company and the charity.

Secondly, there is no way to entirely split revenues from charitable causes in rugby league, not unless you direct 100% of gate receipts, 100% of game-week merchandise and 1/24th of your entire annual NRL grant (a single round %) to that charity.

It's not reasonable. Every single rugby league club with a game-day "cause" will somehow derive revenue from that day, because it's baked into the rugby league model.

Thirdly, there's nothing to say that Manly intended to generate extra or novel revenues at the expense of the cause they were supporting. Releasing a new game-day jersey is pretty standard for most clubs. We have no data to suggest that magically 1000s of LGBTI-identifying persons descended on Brookvale Oval this week because Manly were wearing a rainbow stripe. If they really wanted to generate revenue they would have done it the weekend of Mardi Gras.

Second paragraph - so you don't support indigenous round or women's round either?

If you are so worried about football and only football, nothing else, then the simple advice is: avoid the news and the forum threads about topics that don't interest you. It's really quite easy. You don't need to venture into these discussions about a club you don't support, in a match that we didn't play, for a cause you don't appear to care

I disagree with your sentiment. I think it's totally hypocritical and purely a p.r stunt, I'm not looking for your approval or for you to agree.

 

[Curly_Tiger]

If Penn is saying the players are open to wearing it next time around after being consulted and that isn’t a true representation of their feelings on the matter, he may well have to let some or all of the 7 go or it will become apparent the boss here is telling porkies
These are some quality players, we should be circling quickly
Olakauatu, Koula, Schuster would all be great acquisitions

 

[old_man_tiger]

It was pretty funny right.

He's a real character. The criticism of his "pull something " comments looks funnier now.

 

[sleeve]

So simple, this is a professional sport,- Business! Play or no pay. I'm sick of all of this bullshit. Sponsors pay your wages-- beer , gambling and another dozen that upset a small minority. Cancel contracts of those that don't comply. Union won't touch them after the Falou fiasco, nor will Super League. Lets see how religous they are,working 40hr weeks labouring for under $800 per week. Giving up $500,000 a year contracts will see a change in attitude very quickly.

 

[jirskyr]

I disagree with your sentiment. I think it's totally hypocritical and purely a p.r stunt, I'm not looking for your approval or for you to agree.

I'll say it again - if all you want on a weekly basis is footy and nothing else, then don't come in here and start complaining / engaging about these sensitive topics.

You didn't even answer my question about whether or not you support women's round or indigenous round.

Of course you don't need my approval.

 

[jirskyr]

I think this comment goes back to everyone complaining the players weren't consulted. I assume that this means that there was enough time to consult the players.

The problem is the players are stating they won't wear the jersey period. Consulting is useless and completely pointless in this instance.

You don't consult unless you are prepared to compromise. I assume from hearing the Manly owner he is not willing to compromise on this issue.

Scott Penn is under no obligation to consult with his players. He'd probably be wise to do so, but he's the boss and is not obliged to do so.

I am entirely unclear how match-quitting Christians are going to agree to wear a gay pride jersey so long as they are consulted in future. Did they want input on the design or something? There's not supposed to be any wiggle room with bible-based fundamentalism and acceptance of homosexuality, because the bible is clear-cut about it. So I don't know what Scott Penn is supposed to do in 2023 to make it somehow palatable to his conscientious objectors.

 

[Tim Sheens]

if they are fair dinkum,the LBQT's etc players should standup -its the 2020,s,who gives a rats

Yes, it is the 2020's, but who gives a rats? Well, the shrinking minority that are still stuck in previous centuries. Being nearly all the very same people that will vote no to an indigenous voice in the upcoming referendum, for a start.

The numbers in favour will likely be much higher than the recent plebiscite on marriage freedom showed, as basically only knuckle draggers, the far right loonies or religious extremists will remain as no voters.

 

[liltiger]

I'll say it again - if all you want on a weekly basis is footy and nothing else, then don't come in here and start complaining / engaging about these sensitive topics.

You didn't even answer my question about whether or not you support women's round or indigenous round.

Of course you don't need my approval.

I don't support any thing that exploits a cause to generate revenue, so if that's women's round, indigenous round or any other round containing fake platitudes. If they hold a round where all profits were donated to the cause being promoted I'm all in.

 

[The SHADOW]

It’s been dealt with , move on. Carrying on doesn’t help anyone. Respect

 

[earl]

containing fake platitudes

What should we as a society do to state that homophobia is unacceptable ?

Should we sack any player who is a bigot ? Do we test them prior to playing ? Do we test everyone in society ?

Are you that strong in your opinions ?

I know it's wrong but I don't know how far you go.

 

[earl]

If Penn is saying the players are open to wearing it next time around after being consulted and that isn’t a true representation of their feelings on the matter, he may well have to let some or all of the 7 go or it will become apparent the boss here is telling porkies
These are some quality players, we should be circling quickly
Olakauatu, Koula, Schuster would all be great acquisitions

This is pretty funny. I feel strongly that the NRL should take a stand against bigotry and religion is not an excuse.

There are some good players in that list though.

 

[earl]

So simple, this is a professional sport,- Business! Play or no pay. I'm sick of all of this bullshit. Sponsors pay your wages-- beer , gambling and another dozen that upset a small minority. Cancel contracts of those that don't comply. Union won't touch them after the Falou fiasco, nor will Super League. Lets see how religous they are,working 40hr weeks labouring for under $800 per week. Giving up $500,000 a year contracts will see a change in attitude very quickly.

I think this is what they call cancel culture. It also sounds like the only ethical thing to do. In most companies if you displayed homophobic behavior you would be sacked.