NRL may Veteo Bulldogs sponsorship

[[furrycat]]

Well done on reading what my point is... I never mentioned the exclusivity agreement. I'm simply pointing out the potential conflicts in the game already. Given some of the above are direct conflicts and have been let fly, and the Strathfield one is indirect, I believe the NRL is nitpicking. The only reason now that anyone knows Strathfield are connected with Optus is due to this publicity.

Jesus is that it hard?

It isn't about conflicts between sponsors, its about a conflict of contract due to an exclusivity clause. Thers NOTHING to say clubs can't have similar sponsors or competitor sponsors to the ones the NRL has UNLESS there is a clause in place preventing it.

So why you are talking about potential conflicts is beyond me... unless they have exclusivity clauses in place too, its a stupid argument and has no bearing on the Strathfield-Telstra argument.

The Strathfield one is not indirect- that syour opinion. They are an optus contract and prepaid dealer and therefore can be seen as in breach of the exclusivity clause if they sign on officially. Stop making up facts to suit you.

 

[Timmah]

Look, I'm as pissed off as you Tim, but you're talking out of your arse and making up facts to make your argument stronger... saying that Vodafone is ok because Telstra aren't in NZ is a complete lie

That wasn't really the point I was trying to make and you know it... my point is that the fact the Vodafone sponsorship is still allowed to continue 8 years on including numerous renewals is surprising. I'm not big on law but surely that would be a difficult one to prove.

I stand by my assertion that the NRL & Telstra are clutching at straws here, we're being treated as if we went out and got Optus plastered all over the joint...

 

[Timmah]

The Strathfield one is not indirect- that syour opinion. They are an optus contract and prepaid dealer and therefore can be seen as in breach of the exclusivity clause if they sign on officially. Stop making up facts to suit you.

Of course it's indirect - as the chairman himself said it accounts for up to 15% of revenue, and Optus doesn't appear anywhere on the jersey. By definition that's indirect.

 

[[furrycat]]

That wasn't really the point I was trying to make and you know it... my point is that the fact the Vodafone sponsorship is still allowed to continue 8 years on including numerous renewals is surprising. I'm not big on law but surely that would be a difficult one to prove.

I stand by my assertion that the NRL & Telstra are clutching at straws here, we're being treated as if we went out and got Optus plastered all over the joint...

omfg, have you not read ANYTHING? I'll make it f**king clearer.

The Vodafone deal was made BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE the Telstra Exclusivity clause was put into place. Legally, the clause is not valid for that sponsorship deal and it CANNOT be vetoed or reversed. The Warriors had the deal way before that clause was put into place, so Telstra have to just live iwth it. You can't tell a sponsor they are sacked because someone wants them gone... its against the Trades Practices Act. If Vodafone signed AFTER the clause was in place for Telstra than yes, its a problem.. .but it was BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE.

There is a difference between a NEW contract and RENEWING... Vodafone can renew as much as they like, Telstra can't do sh*t because they originally signed before the clause was put in place. What is difficult to prove? Jesus christ you are harder to teach than an 8 year old.

Just get over it. Its in the contract with Telstra nad its up to Telstra to soften their stance, not the NRL.


So what other points have you got so I can shoot them down?

BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE

 

[[furrycat]]

Of course it's indirect - as the chairman himself said it accounts for up to 15% of revenue, and Optus doesn't appear anywhere on the jersey. By definition that's indirect.

By definition its indirect is it?

Show me a legal website or textbook that agrees with you. I'll stop posting on this forum if you can.

 

[[furrycat]]

Furthermore, If you dont understand contracts or civil law Tim, don't bullsh*t. Its simple as that. You make yourself look like a tool.

 

[Timmah]

Is it possible for you, at all, for once, to put your "Tim has to be wrong syndrome" aside and actually tell us your own thoughts on the matter for once?

 

[Timmah]

By definition its indirect is it?

Show me a legal website or textbook that agrees with you. I'll stop posting on this forum if you can.

:?

Strathfield are not Optus. Therefore - indirect. I never said anything about law.

 

[[furrycat]]

Is it possible for you, at all, for once, to put your "Tim has to be wrong syndrome" aside and actually tell us your own thoughts on the matter for once?

Already did. Read a bit further back

Are you going to admit that you are wrong about the Vodafone part now? Or are you just going to sidestep the matter. You are wrong, you've been proven wrong, but you can't admit it.

You look the fool because you've made up plenty of arguments, made arguments that have NO relevance to the issue (LOL... NAB in conflict with ANZ Stadium... right)

You're as bad as Razor- nfi.

Just admit you have nfi and you were wrong and move on.

 

[[furrycat]]

:?

Strathfield are not Optus. Therefore - indirect. I never said anything about law.

In the eyes of the law, it is still direct... thats my point you goose.

fmd, you're supposed to dig up.

 

[Timmah]

Already did. Read a bit further back

"I'm as pissed off as you are"... that's hardly sharing your feelings :lol:

Are you going to admit that you are wrong about the Vodafone part now? Or are you just going to sidestep the matter. You are wrong, you've been proven wrong, but you can't admit it.

When? LeagueNut illustrated that I was incorrect a number of pages back. I wasn't aware it was part of the forum guidelines that each person who is wrong in an argument must concede as such.

You look the fool because you've made up plenty of arguments, made arguments that have NO relevance to the issue (LOL... NAB in conflict with ANZ Stadium... right)

Conflicts of interests are relevant IMO. Maybe I'm not looking at it in the same black and white way as you and that's my prerogative. In the end none of what I posted is likely to be relevant. So what? Why do you need to endeavour to address me and me only on this issue?

You're as bad as Razor- nfi.

Now you're just being mean

Just admit you have nfi and you were wrong and move on.

Yes sir, sorry sir, three bags full sir.

Now you've got your way, are you going to resume not posting, or actually share your FULL thoughts on the matter?

 

[bobmar28]

What about Harvey Norman

They sell mobile broadband connected with optus

Don't they also sell Telstra phones? Strathfield don't, they should, then this would all be over.

 

[brokendigit]

I've got no problem with the NRL stepping in here.
If it was still the Winfield Cup, do you think sides would be able to be sponsored by a rival tobacco product? No chance.

Why is it that the Bulldogs always seem to take a position that is at direct odds with the NRL? Is it coincidence that it always seems to be "someone else's fault?"

 

[Timmah]

Yes, it's all deliberate :lol: You f**king dunce.

 

[[furrycat]]

Conflicts of interests are relevant IMO. Maybe I'm not looking at it in the same black and white way as you and that's my prerogative. In the end none of what I posted is likely to be relevant. So what? Why do you need to endeavour to address me and me only on this issue?


Now you've got your way, are you going to resume not posting, or actually share your FULL thoughts on the matter?

Firstly, I wasn't aware I had to share my full thoughts. If you post bullsh*t, then I'm going to flag you for it and shame you. Thats how I post but hey, "I wasnt aware the forum guidelines said I can't do that"... douche :lol:

Secondly, conflicts of interest are relevant to you and only you. The law won't see that as relevant in terms of the contract...

Why do I need to address it? Because you say stupid things like that then talk like you're a legal genius who has solved the case.

 

[bobmar28]

How exactly does the Bulldogs signing a deal with Strathfield "put Telstra's money at stake"...?

I've asked it before and the naysayers have continually ignored it - does ANYONE genuinely believe that Strathfield's sale of mobile phones (a maximum of 15% of their total revenue, according to the chairman) will actually impact Telstra's bottom line?

The way Telstra are currently behaving is as if we've gone out and become the Optus Bulldogs, and this simply isn't the case.

Why won't Strathfield offer Telstra phones as well as Optus? That would solve the problem.

 

[Timmah]

Firstly, I wasn't aware I had to share my full thoughts. If you post bullsh*t, then I'm going to flag you for it and shame you. Thats how I post but hey, "I wasnt aware the forum guidelines said I can't do that"... douche :lol:

Says far more about your character than anything else, never said anything about it being against forum guidelines, just calling you out on it. Other people seem to have said incorrect things in this thread but I don't see you jumping on their case. ;-)

 

[bobmar28]

Never mind Tim, in a few years time Telstra won't be sponsoring NRL anymore. Then the NRL can try to find a company willing to part with 100 million dollars and have their signage on a Rugby League feild (considered uncool in certain circles) and have sh*t dumped on them on this forum.

I'm sure companies are lining up... Not.

 

[Alex28]

Strathfield used to sell Telstra - Telstra stopped supplying them a few years ago. Strathfield might not be direct competition to Telstra (the corporation), but they are direct competition to the Telstra Licenced Shop which is fully owned by Telstra. Therefore Strathfield is direct competition to Telstra in some form.

Has the thought crossed your mind that the Bulldogs purposely did not disclose the sponsorship to the NRL so they could announce it and then try to convince/shame the NRL and Telstra to allow it? The way the Bulldogs have handled this is either incompetant, or they have knowingly tried to deceive the NRL.

There is no point in talking to Timmah about this. He purposely ignores the facts because they do not suit his arguement. He needs to learn when to back out of an arguement and admit when he is wrong because otherwise he just looks like an idiot - which he looked on about page 2...

 

[Timmah]

:lol:

Right, there's only one side to the story and it's yours.

I'll believe it when the facts come out.

bobmar - do you find it at all possible that MANY MANY people have had unpleasant experiences with Telstra? Or are you truly that naive? As for what's said on this forum, do you really think Telstra are going to shed tears over some comments from nobodies like us on this forum? :?