-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
10,000,000 Cousins threads [Merged]
- Thread starter momentai
- Start date
Disco Stu said:
They lost TAC sponsorship die to one to many of these incidents (*coughs* like us *coughs* more to the point FINALLY!)
Zoso said:
I would have thought being in a car with a bloke shooting at the cops & a week later that same guy mudering a person & attempted murder of 2 others slightly more serious than being a drug addict as far as image goes.
My point was though, when these press conferences were held the background was full of sponsors logos.
DD, I forgot they were sponsored by TAC.... drink driving cost them that. They lost that due to the incident being exactly what their (TAC) message is all about. Emirates, Sony, Crazy John, Lexus & who ever else is on board down their didn't jump ship.
A well known saying in advertising is any exposure is good exposure. I'm not saying sponsors would want to be associated with a ('recovering') drug addict, drink driver or anything esle on the wrong side of the law, though they still had their logos up the back when these press conferences were on & haven't terminated sponsorships (TAC aside for obvious reasons) since.
No prob Disco Stu, I don't really have a opinion on it. Was merely addressing your statement that you didn't believe they lost sponsors over it is all.
Dyer Disciple said:
You were spot on, it slipped my mind.
The point I have been trying to make is all the sponsors logos were present at those press conferences which I find odd considering all the recent talk in the media, forums about sponsors wanting everyone well behaved. If that was the case wouldn't they have asked that they not have their company names up behind these bad boys!
I also don't have an opinion on it too much. I hope Cousins sorts himself out. If RFC picked him up I'd be happy that we got a very good player. I just find all the sponsor talk a tad baffling/amusing.
Disco Stu said:
It's a good point you make but there are different degrees to everything.
For instance. If the Bulldogs had a player getting into trouble at a nightclub and be found to be under the influence of a illegal substance, that would be a little different to what would happen if a Wst Coast player did it.
Equally, the return a sponsor gets for their investment in Collingwood, would be very different to the return a North Melbourne sponsor would get.
Simply put, you earn more, you put up with more. However, when there are clouds already hanging over clubs or not the biggest return compared to bad publicity. You get VERY wary being associated with such.
Some sponsors throw their weight about wrongly too, wether that is appropriate or not is another discussion, fact is some very much stick there head in on such.
Take Devine Homes at Brisbane on Cousins. There true influence doesn't matter, they have made a clear statement publically they would not be happy about it.
It's all a bit messy. Which is why I don't have a opinion on it, it is very much club by club basis and what your intel/judgement on Cousins is.
Leysy's gunna be in the minority here, but reckon the Saints made an error on the Cousins No-go.
They have a plethora of draft choices this year of which Cousins would be last. They will recruit everyone they want before him. On-field he would be an exceptional addition for what they need. Perfect fit.
The media would be all forgetting his past if he string few good games together. The media & the fans are an amazingly forgiving lot when things are going well.
& if it goes pear shaped, honestly how many are going to blame the saints & what will it cost them. He would be sacked within a flash & Cousins would be the one facing the brunt.
Reckon they might have missed a good opportunity here, especially considering the team needs.
They have a plethora of draft choices this year of which Cousins would be last. They will recruit everyone they want before him. On-field he would be an exceptional addition for what they need. Perfect fit.
The media would be all forgetting his past if he string few good games together. The media & the fans are an amazingly forgiving lot when things are going well.
& if it goes pear shaped, honestly how many are going to blame the saints & what will it cost them. He would be sacked within a flash & Cousins would be the one facing the brunt.
Reckon they might have missed a good opportunity here, especially considering the team needs.
Leysy Days said:
Agree with your on field view of the fit for the Saints.
Off field, I disagree.
They have players there already under some question marks, "apparently" have just got rid of that culture, have Gardiner at the club and more importantly faced a financial loss this year I suspect is looking more dire next year.
They can't afford to take risks with sponsorship dollars. There are a few things that could still raise their head at the Saints in the next year or two off field drama wise.
All of that is not to mention the delicate way their current Board moved in and how quickly the wolves would circle if they got this decision wrong, political enemies wise.
I can't blame the Saints myself, it's a shame because he was a good fit for them list wise, but not other ways in my view.
Leysy Days said:
Agree completely. I find all this interference from sponsors disturbing. What next?. Do the sponsors veto a potential new coach because they don't like the style of football he plays, and don't want their product associated with them
Definitely agree sponsors should not be actively commenting/interfering. Very against that.
St Kilda has had one sponsor voice their approval of Cousins, another one of their sponsors, UD Trucks (imagines all SEN listeners cringing) was on SEN this morning and talking about how we believe in backing Westaway, the Board and their team of professionals to make the right decision.
What a novel concept! Every sponsor should be like them.
Devine Homes are going to be in a very awkward place if Brisbane do sign Cousins. Though there is a theory some sponsors might use Cousins as a scapegoat to withdraw their committment due to the current financial environment.
St Kilda has had one sponsor voice their approval of Cousins, another one of their sponsors, UD Trucks (imagines all SEN listeners cringing) was on SEN this morning and talking about how we believe in backing Westaway, the Board and their team of professionals to make the right decision.
What a novel concept! Every sponsor should be like them.
Devine Homes are going to be in a very awkward place if Brisbane do sign Cousins. Though there is a theory some sponsors might use Cousins as a scapegoat to withdraw their committment due to the current financial environment.
Good article by Caro on the Aints decision today. If true the sponsors disapproval wasn't the only reason they made their decision. Other factors like his avoidance of the hair test and the people he continues to associate with were also taken into account.
Don't reckon Ricky Nixon helped his cause any either. Thought he managed the whole process poorly.
gustiger12 said:
Couldn't agree more, started a new thread because i thought if discussion got onto Nixon would be off topic, maybe the mods like to merge that with this one? Only saw this now, apologies!
As a strong advocate for bringing Ben to Richmond I am very disappointed in what has been going on over the last two weeks, and what it says about Bens life over recent months.
The inference which has been drawn concerning the shaving and what it means about his current status as a recovering addict is not unreasonable and has clearly had a huge impact on his prospects of being picked up, by anyone.
I still believe that we could have helped him and that working in a football club environment was the most likely way for him to clean up his act. I also think that if we had committed early to that cause a better outcome was achievable and that footy's collective failure to support him is a tragedy in the making.
And I fear for his future.
The inference which has been drawn concerning the shaving and what it means about his current status as a recovering addict is not unreasonable and has clearly had a huge impact on his prospects of being picked up, by anyone.
I still believe that we could have helped him and that working in a football club environment was the most likely way for him to clean up his act. I also think that if we had committed early to that cause a better outcome was achievable and that footy's collective failure to support him is a tragedy in the making.
And I fear for his future.
Ben Cousins is a cocky drug addict that thinks his sh!t doesn't stink, why on earth would you want that cancer around the place.
The way he's gone about it by shaving his head says two things
1. I've taken drugs in the last three months and you can't catch me, or
2. Don't mess with me I'm clean but"I'm Ben Cousins".
Either way he's that full of himself it's unbelievable.
He's making a documentry about himself, doesn't that say it all.
Let him go back to Perth and strut around like he's God's gift to the earth in his own little backyard.
The way he's gone about it by shaving his head says two things
1. I've taken drugs in the last three months and you can't catch me, or
2. Don't mess with me I'm clean but"I'm Ben Cousins".
Either way he's that full of himself it's unbelievable.
He's making a documentry about himself, doesn't that say it all.
Let him go back to Perth and strut around like he's God's gift to the earth in his own little backyard.
