RMT Not Happy with Hull KR

[Dave T]

5 hours ago, Worzel said:

It's possible to criticise the club for taking the sponsorship in the first place, and also to recognise that they've done a good job in recognising their mistake and correcting it. Life isn't black & white.

I criticised them at the time, and also emailed people I know there in the back office team directly. I'm pleased that they reviewed their thinking around this, and chose values and the preferences of fans and small-scale commercial partners like me over the money. What would you prefer? For me, I respect that. 

There are lots of organisations with questionable ethics who sponsor sports teams, including many rugby league ones. My issue with P&O was one localised to East Hull community, and I'm glad the club listened. 

 

 

Firstly, it was a tongue in cheek post, but I would add that your post stood out as maybe the only one I've read here that absolutely could be read as any kind of defence of P&O's actions (or downplaying rather). 

So all the above is commendable, but the defence of P&O was jarring. 

[Dave T]

5 hours ago, Worzel said:

 

Let's be honest, a lot of the "will nobody think about the children..." hand-wringing around here is just fans of other clubs taking an opportunity to have a crack. It's a bit nauseating really, but good luck to them. 

Hmm. So this sponsorship was such a bad decision that you wrote to the club to complain, but anyone else complaining about this sponsorship is just having a dig at your club? 

Edited May 6 by Dave T

[Damien]

17 minutes ago, Worzel said:

No, it's all wholly factual. I'm open to any correction, and not deflecting.

My position is simple, and consistent. Others is demonstrably hypocritical, and cynical opportunism. I'm calling it out. 

1. Rovers should never have accepted this sponsorship. I said so, still say so, and I acted at the time to influence change.

2. The club reconsidering after fan feedback and cancelling the agreement was a good thing, to be respected albeit it should never have been needed. Others may not have done that, and I appreciate it. 

3. Many sponsors have questionable ethics. Hull FC fans have been very noisy about this one, as if they had some high ground, when in fact they have also been sponsored by the very same organisation at a time when they were no better. DP World and P&O has done, and still does, far worse things than laying some people off without following the proper process. 

I'm very happy that my position here is balanced and reasonable. That's far more than I could say for others. 

Cry me a tear. People are commenting on RMT rightly criticising the deal and giving their own opinions on that deal. That's it. I'm sure most people really don't care enough about Hull KR to see this as an opportunity to just have a dig.

Hull FC really have nothing to do with this, you seem obsessed with them, and what they did over a decade ago in a different time is irrelevant. This is all on Hull KR, no amount of spin or deflection changes that.

[M j M]

Hull FC agreed a sponsorship deal when P&O Ferries were a large local employer of good standing.

Hull KR agreed a sponsorship deal after P&O had sacked all the local workforce in scandalous circumstances.

Trying to equate the two is amazing.

[Just Browny]

12 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Hmm. So this sponsorship was such a bad decision that you wrote to the club to complain, but anyone else complaining about this sponsorship is just having a dig at your club? 

 

 

[Worzel]

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

Firstly, it was a tongue in cheek post, but I would add that your post stood out as maybe the only one I've read here that absolutely could be read as any kind of defence of P&O's actions (or downplaying rather). 

So all the above is commendable, but the defence of P&O was jarring. 

I’ve not defended P&O, that is a straw man wholly of your invention. Agree or disagree on my points, but you don’t usually do that sort of nonsense. Surprised at you. 

[Worzel]

1 hour ago, M j M said:

Hull FC agreed a sponsorship deal when P&O Ferries were a large local employer of good standing.

Hull KR agreed a sponsorship deal after P&O had sacked all the local workforce in scandalous circumstances.

Trying to equate the two is amazing.

P&O were owned by Dubai Ports at the time, and indeed were employing foreign workers on sub-UK contracts where they could (and indeed far worse things). Feel free to correct me on that, or on my assessment of Dubai Ports business ethics. I’m happily waiting. 

I’m not drawing an equivalence. Merely pointing out how nauseating the whole “will nobody think of the children…” FC fans holier-than-thou act is. Just doesn’t wash. 

[Worzel]

1 hour ago, Damien said:

Cry me a tear. People are commenting on RMT rightly criticising the deal and giving their own opinions on that deal. That's it. I'm sure most people really don't care enough about Hull KR to see this as an opportunity to just have a dig.

Hull FC really have nothing to do with this, you seem obsessed with them, and what they did over a decade ago in a different time is irrelevant. This is all on Hull KR, no amount of spin or deflection changes that.

Nope. Doesn’t wash. My response was to a specific poster, with a specific pont. My later response to you was to dispute your attempt to paint that reply as a deflection. It wasn’t, it was directly relevant to that chain of debate. It was a fact-based response to a specific point. 

[Worzel]

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

Hmm. So this sponsorship was such a bad decision that you wrote to the club to complain, but anyone else complaining about this sponsorship is just having a dig at your club? 

Again, it is possible to believe that much of the criticism is fair and earned, whilst also pointing out that some of it is cynically club-based and not coming from a position of genuine reflection. 

Those two things are not inherently contradictory. But then you know that. 

[Dave T]

30 minutes ago, Worzel said:

I’ve not defended P&O, that is a straw man wholly of your invention. Agree or disagree on my points, but you don’t usually do that sort of nonsense. Surprised at you. 

Suggesting that what they have done wasn't that bad compared to others does nothing other than defend them. There is literally no other reason to post that. 

[Dave T]

21 minutes ago, Worzel said:

Again, it is possible to believe that much of the criticism is fair and earned, whilst also pointing out that some of it is cynically club-based and not coming from a position of genuine reflection. 

Those two things are not inherently contradictory. But then you know that. 

Most people posting here have little to no real rivalry with KR. I have to assume that RMT's criticism isn't driven by club rivalries. 

I'm not sure why you are trying to turn this into an FC v KR thing. 

Edited May 6 by Dave T

[Old Frightful]

7 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Most people posting here have little to no real rivalry with KR. I have to assume that RMT's criticism isn't driven by club rivalries. 

I'm not sure why you are trying to turn this into an FC v KR thing. 

Unless, of course, "RMT" stands for "Richie Myler's Taunting".

That would explain quite a lot.

Fair play to Worzel, I reckon he'd make an impressive defence lawyer.

[Damien]

10 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Suggesting that what they have done wasn't that bad compared to others does nothing other than defend them. There is literally no other reason to post that. 

Indeed. For the majority on here it certainly isn't anything to do with being anti Hull KR. As far as I can tell two Hull KR fans posted on here, one was a very reasonable post, quoted below, which no one took issue with. The other has taken a very different route of trying to defend it with spin and deflection then has taken umbrage when called out on that.

9 hours ago, up the robins said:

I'm pleased the club have listened to the fans and ended the deal that shouldn't really have ever got to the negotiation table.

The club made a mistake and corrected it.

A lot of people compared this to no different to ethics of beer companies,betting or vape sponsorship of clubs, for me this was different because, people have a choice if they want to use those products. Nobody chose to be made redundant so the company can effectively use a legal loophole to employ a foreign workforce on far reduced wages.

 

[ATLANTISMAN]

3 hours ago, M j M said:

Hull FC agreed a sponsorship deal when P&O Ferries were a large local employer of good standing.

Hull KR agreed a sponsorship deal after P&O had sacked all the local workforce in scandalous circumstances.

Trying to equate the two is amazing.

The deal was done with the Dover office alongside a smaller one for Kent cricket at the time.

All from our little office in St Esteve France:)

Chris Beattie wife Kelly pitched them and i closed it. (That's the old FC one i am referring to:)

Happy days 

Edited May 6 by ATLANTISMAN

[Padge]

Let's face it, it was a stupid idea.

People on either side of the deal must really be naïve if they they didn't see this getting a backlash.

 

[Ullman]

20 hours ago, Worzel said:

Here's Hull FC's kit, 6 years after P&O had been bought by Dubai Ports. That company had at that time used bonded labour in its ports for years (locking immigrants in to their contracts), and was serially using cheap labour across its shipping workforce. The White House almost didn't allow the transaction to take place, such was the level of US concern at DP operating critical US port infrastructure.

So no, it's not unusual for sponsors to have ethical question marks about them. P&O did in 2012 when they sponsored you, I don't recall any concerns at the time. Doubt you gave it a second thought. Yes, they then later terminated 80 Hull-based employees without proper consultation (although with compensation beyond what they'd have got had a process been followed), but personally I put no greater value on a Hull worker's rights than I do the lives of Indian or Pakistani workers held to contracts against their will in the UAE. In fact, I'd say the latter was far, far worse behaviour. That's before we even start to look at the actions of the UAE government, who wholly own DP and so owned P&O at the time.

Like I said, all this holier-than-thou nonsense doesn't get past 5 minutes of thought. I objected to Rovers sponsorship, and complained to the club directly. You did nothing about yours. 

 

 

19 hours ago, M j M said:

Hull FC agreed a sponsorship deal when P&O Ferries were a large local employer of good standing.

Hull KR agreed a sponsorship deal after P&O had sacked all the local workforce in scandalous circumstances.

Trying to equate the two is amazing.

Exactly.

[JohnM]

17 hours ago, Padge said:

Let's face it, it was a stupid idea.

People on either side of the deal must really be naïve if they they didn't see this getting a backlash.

 

Spot on. It's that simple.

[Worzel]

On 06/05/2024 at 20:04, Dave T said:

Suggesting that what they have done wasn't that bad compared to others does nothing other than defend them. There is literally no other reason to post that. 

No, that isn't a defence. 

You know that murder is worse than stealing a packet of lemon sherberts from the local newsagent, right? This concept isn't a hard one to grasp. Gradation of misbehaviour is pretty standard in civil society. Everyone is going on about P&O like they're Hannibal Lecter. That doesn't mean I think that stealing lemon sherberts from Brian on the corner is justified, which is what "defending them" would mean. So like a say, a straw man of your construction. 

Life isn't black & white. Well, for some unfortunates it is, but the least said about that lot this season the better 

[Worzel]

7 hours ago, Ullman said:

 

Exactly.

I look forward to you contesting the facts in my prior message. You've not managed it so far. I mean, I appreciate reality can be challenging at times, but still. 

Tick tock, tick tock...

[Worzel]

On 06/05/2024 at 20:57, Padge said:

Let's face it, it was a stupid idea.

People on either side of the deal must really be naïve if they they didn't see this getting a backlash.

 

Agreed. I said that from the get-go. In public, and to the club directly. 

[Worzel]

On 06/05/2024 at 20:23, Damien said:

Indeed. For the majority on here it certainly isn't anything to do with being anti Hull KR. As far as I can tell two Hull KR fans posted on here, one was a very reasonable post, quoted below, which no one took issue with. The other has taken a very different route of trying to defend it with spin and deflection then has taken umbrage when called out on that.

Your imagination is running wild again. Instead of inventing stuff I haven't done, and then arguing against that, how about contest the specific things I have said? I know that's harder, but that's life. Here is what I said again, to save you looking it up....

 

"My position is simple, and consistent. Others is demonstrably hypocritical, and cynical opportunism. I'm calling it out. 

1. Rovers should never have accepted this sponsorship. I said so, still say so, and I acted at the time to influence change.

2. The club reconsidering after fan feedback and cancelling the agreement was a good thing, to be respected albeit it should never have been needed. Others may not have done that, and I appreciate it. 

3. Many sponsors have questionable ethics. Hull FC fans have been very noisy about this one, as if they had some high ground, when in fact they have also been sponsored by the very same organisation at a time when they were no better. DP World and P&O has done, and still does, far worse things than laying some people off without following the proper process."

 

Let me know what part of this is incorrect. I'm genuinely intrigued. 

 

 

Edited May 7 by Worzel
Typo

[Ullman]

11 hours ago, Worzel said:

I look forward to you contesting the facts in my prior message. You've not managed it so far. I mean, I appreciate reality can be challenging at times, but still. 

Tick tock, tick tock...

I'd drop it if I were you, mate, and let it slide down the forum.

Your posts are beginning to look desperate and obsessive now.

[John Drake]

Aaaaand locked.