Politics on Scarlets General

salmidach wrote: Wil Chips wrote: Read the thread Sal. It’s pretty clear what’s trying to be excluded. Welcome back by the way. Thanks, never went away just don't post as I'm disconnected from the club down here.

And something that concerns the WRU rather than the Scarlets is a general rugby topic..........

Read the thread Sal.

It’s pretty clear what’s trying to be excluded.

Welcome back by the way.

My concern is that our board is not packed with 45 year olds either and the generous group cannot go on for ever. I’m all for the environment but we need loyal sponsors like Green for Wales and I wish them well in their journey towards creating a clean energy brand and thank them for their valued support 👍

John wrote: Wil Chips wrote: I was being flippant there, sorry. I do think that's why I'm always a little agitated by the actual need for diluting the rugby pages with political commentary. I look at Scarlet Fever for rugby reasons, and Scarlets General specifically. It's a sanctuary for 15 minutes a day. Specifically, and to the point as it's an ongoing debate. We are, and have been, trading at a serious operating loss for many seasons, and exist only by the good graces of our benefactors and Board. Oil 4 Wales (and others) have been a key component in our survival too, and I doff my hat to them for that. They have decided that they will see out existing contracts with the Scarlets and WRU, but after that will cease supporting Welsh rugby (driven by the turmoil and controversy at the WRU over the last year).. They are going to be hard to replace. It's also an opportunity of course, and it's perhaps a thought that Crys could consider pitching some sponsorship 'guard rails' to the Board in the future? In the current climate it would be a 'balls out' decision to decline a significant sponsor investment of course, but it can be done. If indeed many, like Dai, won't buy the current replica shirt because of the logo, then it's an angle to raise. I'd caveat that by saying that this really is shark infested waters though, and more and more companies are seeing the down side of these types of shirt sponsorships. Anyone can find fault with a brand....and the brand, plus those associated with it, can suffer negative press as a consequence....a sample of that if I may.. If you are a Man City or Newcastle Season ticket holder or supporter, then by proxy you enter the world of Saudi Arabia's human right's record, can get accused of actively supporting the death sentence, and are anti LGBTQ and same sex marriage. Likewise, if you follow any of the 5 premiership teams that are currently sponsored by betting companies, (many based in the Far East and use young Asian girls in their company profiles), then you stand accused of endorsing betting and all it's associated afflictions, as well as some shady entities that have an opaque funding stream and lack regulatory compliance. As a sign of what is happening, the Premiership have actually banned front of shirt sponsorship by betting companies from the 26/27 season, but there are more this season than there ever have been. It's a sign that the traditional prestige brands (airlines, automotive companies etc) are being far more prudent in this space than previously. You can see what's happening with the likes of Budweiser, Adidas, Disney and others when they state their credentials on a sensitive subject. The new world order in this space is to lower your profile, reducing sponsorship is front and centre. In summary, as Reese suggests, finding a sponsor that doesn't court any controversy is challenging ( and by challenging I mean nigh on impossible given current levels of scrutiny). Exactly so..... I'm surprised that, as our main sponsor is apparently changing their name and their ethos, that our shirts do not carry their new name Green for Wales.

There has been an increase in the amount of topics that shift quickly towards blaming/discussing the WRU/Government/English in a very tenuous link to the actual topic, everything is connected to varying levels but it does feel like there's an eagerness to display political and historical knowledge and judgement at every turn which is off putting.

Wil Chips wrote: I was being flippant there, sorry. I do think that's why I'm always a little agitated by the actual need for diluting the rugby pages with political commentary. I look at Scarlet Fever for rugby reasons, and Scarlets General specifically. It's a sanctuary for 15 minutes a day. Specifically, and to the point as it's an ongoing debate. We are, and have been, trading at a serious operating loss for many seasons, and exist only by the good graces of our benefactors and Board. Oil 4 Wales (and others) have been a key component in our survival too, and I doff my hat to them for that. They have decided that they will see out existing contracts with the Scarlets and WRU, but after that will cease supporting Welsh rugby (driven by the turmoil and controversy at the WRU over the last year).. They are going to be hard to replace. It's also an opportunity of course, and it's perhaps a thought that Crys could consider pitching some sponsorship 'guard rails' to the Board in the future? In the current climate it would be a 'balls out' decision to decline a significant sponsor investment of course, but it can be done. If indeed many, like Dai, won't buy the current replica shirt because of the logo, then it's an angle to raise. I'd caveat that by saying that this really is shark infested waters though, and more and more companies are seeing the down side of these types of shirt sponsorships. Anyone can find fault with a brand....and the brand, plus those associated with it, can suffer negative press as a consequence....a sample of that if I may.. If you are a Man City or Newcastle Season ticket holder or supporter, then by proxy you enter the world of Saudi Arabia's human right's record, can get accused of actively supporting the death sentence, and are anti LGBTQ and same sex marriage. Likewise, if you follow any of the 5 premiership teams that are currently sponsored by betting companies, (many based in the Far East and use young Asian girls in their company profiles), then you stand accused of endorsing betting and all it's associated afflictions, as well as some shady entities that have an opaque funding stream and lack regulatory compliance. As a sign of what is happening, the Premiership have actually banned front of shirt sponsorship by betting companies from the 26/27 season, but there are more this season than there ever have been. It's a sign that the traditional prestige brands (airlines, automotive companies etc) are being far more prudent in this space than previously. You can see what's happening with the likes of Budweiser, Adidas, Disney and others when they state their credentials on a sensitive subject. The new world order in this space is to lower your profile, reducing sponsorship is front and centre. In summary, as Reese suggests, finding a sponsor that doesn't court any controversy is challenging ( and by challenging I mean nigh on impossible given current levels of scrutiny).

I was being flippant there, sorry.

I do think that's why I'm always a little agitated by the actual need for diluting the rugby pages with political commentary. I look at Scarlet Fever for rugby reasons, and Scarlets General specifically. It's a sanctuary for 15 minutes a day.

Specifically, and to the point as it's an ongoing debate.

We are, and have been, trading at a serious operating loss for many seasons, and exist only by the good graces of our benefactors and Board.

Oil 4 Wales (and others) have been a key component in our survival too, and I doff my hat to them for that. They have decided that they will see out existing contracts with the Scarlets and WRU, but after that will cease supporting Welsh rugby (driven by the turmoil and controversy at the WRU over the last year)..

They are going to be hard to replace.

It's also an opportunity of course, and it's perhaps a thought that Crys could consider pitching some sponsorship 'guard rails' to the Board in the future?
In the current climate it would be a 'balls out' decision to decline a significant sponsor investment of course, but it can be done. If indeed many, like Dai, won't buy the current replica shirt because of the logo, then it's an angle to raise.

I'd caveat that by saying that this really is shark infested waters though, and more and more companies are seeing the down side of these types of shirt sponsorships. Anyone can find fault with a brand....and the brand, plus those associated with it, can suffer negative press as a consequence....a sample of that if I may..

If you are a Man City or Newcastle Season ticket holder or supporter, then by proxy you enter the world of Saudi Arabia's human right's record, can get accused of actively supporting the death sentence, and are anti LGBTQ and same sex marriage.

Likewise, if you follow any of the 5 premiership teams that are currently sponsored by betting companies, (many based in the Far East and use young Asian girls in their company profiles), then you stand accused of endorsing betting and all it's associated afflictions, as well as some shady entities that have an opaque funding stream and lack regulatory compliance.
As a sign of what is happening, the Premiership have actually banned front of shirt sponsorship by betting companies from the 26/27 season, but there are more this season than there ever have been.

It's a sign that the traditional prestige brands (airlines, automotive companies etc) are being far more prudent in this space than previously.

You can see what's happening with the likes of Budweiser, Adidas, Disney and others when they state their credentials on a sensitive subject.

The new world order in this space is to lower your profile, reducing sponsorship is front and centre.

In summary, as Reese suggests, finding a sponsor that doesn't court any controversy is challenging ( and by challenging I mean nigh on impossible given current levels of scrutiny).






Edited by Wil Chips - 04 August 2023 at 6:18am