Guinness to sponsor pro 12 rugby

[Redhand Santa]

Haven't heard any outcry against this. Where is the doctors coming out telling us how many people this will kill. Why no media outcry to think of the children etc? That's the two main rugby competitions irish teams play in sponsored by drinks companies. Very different attitude from the Dublin press to rugby than gaa in the country.

[deiseach]

It must be very comforting for the IRFU to know that, should they ever lose a sponsor, Guinness or one of the banks will be there to pick up the pieces.

[macdanger2]

Maybe the fact that it's a nothing competition explains it??

After all, if Guinness were to sponsor a 10k roadrace in Ballynowhere it wouldn't be a big deal but if they sponsored the Dublin marathon it probably would be.

[Redhand Santa]

Maybe the fact that it's a nothing competition explains it??

After all, if Guinness were to sponsor a 10k roadrace in Ballynowhere it wouldn't be a big deal but if they sponsored the Dublin marathon it probably would be.

For a nothing competition it gets plenty of coverage by the southern press. The draw for it relating to games next autumn gets greater news coverage than the championships which are in full swing. The European Cup is also sponsored by a drinks company. Very strange that not a negative word about it when you consider the amount of abuse the gaa took and quotes from experts etc.

[foxcommander]

I've never understood why drinks or fag companies were being banned from sponsorship. Unless they are handing out freebies whats the problem. Doesnt make me want to smoke Marlboro or drink heineken.
In fact if anyone is stupid enough to do so then they deserve to leave the gene pool.

Even at that I have just a big a problem with the likes of Coca-Cola, Kellogs, Heinz and many others with all their dodgy goods linked to GMO's. Are these healthy for you and your kids?

When are these lot going to be banned?

[johnneycool]

never liked Coca-Cola or McDonalds sponsoring Feíle's etc etc, as they peddle pure muck and tagging their brands onto childrens competitions is just wrong.

[Walter Cronc]

I've never understood why drinks or fag companies were being banned from sponsorship. Unless they are handing out freebies whats the problem. Doesnt make me want to smoke Marlboro or drink heineken.
In fact if anyone is stupid enough to do so then they deserve to leave the gene pool.

Even at that I have just a big a problem with the likes of Coca-Cola, Kellogs, Heinz and many others with all their dodgy goods linked to GMO's. Are these healthy for you and your kids?

When are these lot going to be banned?

Ah jeez the aul Bran Flakes arent bad for ye.

Agree with Coke and Mc Donalds should be banned!!

[deiseach]

I've never understood why drinks or fag companies were being banned from sponsorship. Unless they are handing out freebies whats the problem. Doesnt make me want to smoke Marlboro or drink heineken.
In fact if anyone is stupid enough to do so then they deserve to leave the gene pool.

Even at that I have just a big a problem with the likes of Coca-Cola, Kellogs, Heinz and many others with all their dodgy goods linked to GMO's. Are these healthy for you and your kids?

When are these lot going to be banned?

Those drink and fag companies must be pretty stupid, spending money that makes no difference to consumption of their product. Or maybe it's possible that they know something about marketing that you don't?

[foxcommander]

I've never understood why drinks or fag companies were being banned from sponsorship. Unless they are handing out freebies whats the problem. Doesnt make me want to smoke Marlboro or drink heineken.
In fact if anyone is stupid enough to do so then they deserve to leave the gene pool.

Even at that I have just a big a problem with the likes of Coca-Cola, Kellogs, Heinz and many others with all their dodgy goods linked to GMO's. Are these healthy for you and your kids?

When are these lot going to be banned?

Those drink and fag companies must be pretty stupid, spending money that makes no difference to consumption of their product. Or maybe it's possible that they know something about marketing that you don't?

Marketing works if people are suggestible to their offerings. Marketing is based product placement - trying to appear as the leading brand whether their product is good or not. Tie-ins with sports, entertainment, etc enhances this notion. The population seems to fall for it. Fair play to the simpletons, you're living life like the stars do.

Enjoy your Heineken. It tastes like piss.

[deiseach]

Marketing works if people are suggestible to their offerings. Marketing is based product placement - trying to appear as the leading brand whether their product is good or not. Tie-ins with sports, entertainment, etc enhances this notion. The population seems to fall for it. Fair play to the simpletons, you're living life like the stars do.

Enjoy your Heineken. It tastes like piss.

So now you are saying that marketing does work. Therefore would you not agree that it would be a good idea to regulate it?

[Rossfan]

Haven't heard any outcry against this. Where is the doctors coming out telling us how many people this will kill. Why no media outcry to think of the children etc? That's the two main rugby competitions irish teams play in sponsored by drinks companies. Very different attitude from the Dublin press to rugby than gaa in the country.

+1.
Rubby is of course above reproach.

[foxcommander]

Marketing works if people are suggestible to their offerings. Marketing is based product placement - trying to appear as the leading brand whether their product is good or not. Tie-ins with sports, entertainment, etc enhances this notion. The population seems to fall for it. Fair play to the simpletons, you're living life like the stars do.

Enjoy your Heineken. It tastes like piss.

So now you are saying that marketing does work. Therefore would you not agree that it would be a good idea to regulate it?

If you read what I said - it works on the suggestible. Does the nanny state have to intervene or shouldn't people take responsibility to inform themselves?

If you're stupid enough to buy into it without considering the consequences then you should have no comeback when you try to sue them later on.

As for the GMO food companies I would say that they should be upfront about what they are selling. No need to regulate if they tell people that they are peddling poison to the masses. Again, freedom of choice once you've been made aware of the consequences.

They should be putting those "Eating Kelloggs Frosties are part of a balanced diet but can kill or cause side effects. They're Grrrrrrrrrreat!" stickers on the side of every box.

[deiseach]

If you read what I said - it works on the suggestible. Does the nanny state have to intervene or shouldn't people take responsibility to inform themselves?

If you're stupid enough to buy into it without considering the consequences then you should have no comeback when you try to sue them later on.

As for the GMO food companies I would say that they should be upfront about what they are selling. No need to regulate if they tell people that they are peddling poison to the masses. Again, freedom of choice once you've been made aware of the consequences.

They should be putting those "Eating Kelloggs Frosties are part of a balanced diet but can kill or cause side effects. They're Grrrrrrrrrreat!" stickers on the side of every box.

Thanks for the libertarian spiel. You might think that the solution to the problem of people consuming too many toxins such as alcohol is to ensure that they are well-informed enough about the dangers and if they fall for it, that's their lookout. And I guess that's fine in isolation. But I think not everyone should be treated in such a Darwinian fashion. Some people are 'susceptible' because they're young or they're mentally vulnerable due to loss or poverty. Yes, it is nannyish, I'll admit that. But I think we can have the discussion of what is appropriate levels of 'nannying' without seeing all regulation as an infringement on liberty.

[foxcommander]

If you read what I said - it works on the suggestible. Does the nanny state have to intervene or shouldn't people take responsibility to inform themselves?

If you're stupid enough to buy into it without considering the consequences then you should have no comeback when you try to sue them later on.

As for the GMO food companies I would say that they should be upfront about what they are selling. No need to regulate if they tell people that they are peddling poison to the masses. Again, freedom of choice once you've been made aware of the consequences.

They should be putting those "Eating Kelloggs Frosties are part of a balanced diet but can kill or cause side effects. They're Grrrrrrrrrreat!" stickers on the side of every box.

Thanks for the libertarian spiel. You might think that the solution to the problem of people consuming too many toxins such as alcohol is to ensure that they are well-informed enough about the dangers and if they fall for it, that's their lookout. And I guess that's fine in isolation. But I think not everyone should be treated in such a Darwinian fashion. Some people are 'susceptible' because they're young or they're mentally vulnerable due to loss or poverty. Yes, it is nannyish, I'll admit that. But I think we can have the discussion of what is appropriate levels of 'nannying' without seeing all regulation as an infringement on liberty.

Survival of the fittest? Part of the problem with today's society is making exceptions for these cases and propping them up. This is a whole different thread!

So to get back to the topic - I don't see why the GAA or any organisation should have to exclude any sponsors except in the case of sponsorships relating to minors. If ruggers can do it then why are the GAA not? It's not like people won't drink or smoke because of it.

[deiseach]

Survival of the fittest? Part of the problem with today's society is making exceptions for these cases and propping them up. This is a whole different thread!

So to get back to the topic - I don't see why the GAA or any organisation should have to exclude any sponsors except in the case of sponsorships relating to minors. If ruggers can do it then why are the GAA not? It's not like people won't drink or smoke because of it.

But people will drink and smoke because of it! If you think people shouldn't be insulated from the consequences of their own actions, fine. We can agree to differ on that one. But you can't say in one breath that it doesn't matter then in the next that it doesn't happen.