Allianz

[Milltown Row2]

You talk pure keek! Either they are or they are not! If they are not involved then Aviva isn't under any pressure. You can't have well percentage wise Allianz is higher..

And now it's sports washing? When did that change?

Key Aspects of Aviva's Connection to Israel:
Investments: Aviva holds investments (stocks, bonds) in various global companies, some of which have operations or ties to Israel or settlements, drawing criticism from pro-Palestinian groups.
Ethical & ESG Policies: As a large investor, Aviva has environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria, and campaigns pressure them to align these with Palestinian rights, leading to divestment announcements from specific companies.
Specific Divestments: In late 2023/early 2024, Aviva pledged to sell holdings in companies like Elbit Systems (Israeli defense tech) and others with links to settlements, responding to pressure.

[SCFC]

In an ideal world, we wouldn't drink Coca-Cola, use Caterpiller plant machines, visit the Aviva, have Allianz as a sponsor or insurer, use Facebook, use HP, Siemens or Motorola products etc...
Can't see any of this happening on a concerted level so GAA shouldn't react to being singled out here.

How many of those companies are large investors in war bonds and arms companies?

I can't answer that. Probably not all of them.
Is there some sort of hierarchy largest institutional investor in war bonds
Should the IRFU be thinking about renaming their main stadium for instance?

I thought it was clear from the context, the answer is none.

If you can't tell the difference between a company that sells into Israel and a company that is the largest institutional investor in war bonds and provided capital for Elbit, there isn't much more to be said.

What rugby do and don't do is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. But on the basis soccer has been far more proactive, if Aviva was slightly as bad as Allianz we would have heard about it by now. My reading is they aren't.

But the simple reality is Croke Park are going along with a sports wash.

So there isn't a hierarchy to decide who we ban and who we don't? That's fine.
Coca Cola can continue to be sold behind GAA and soccer club bars across the country and the profits indirectly fund the Israeli war effort? Aviva can continue to insure homes and cars and sports clubs across the country? Happy days...

[Truthsayer]

The rationales not to get Allianz dumped from the GAA are off the charts here. Is impossible to chase down every individual and club selling Coca Cola and every car and home owner.. can only make people aware and hope individuals use their conscience. Our organisation the GAA (with 10s of 1000s of members) employing a company complicit in genocide we can force to stop.
The old whataboutary...

[Milltown Row2]

The rationales not to get Allianz dumped from the GAA are off the charts here. Is impossible to chase down every individual and club selling Coca Cola and every car and home owner.. can only make people aware and hope individuals use their conscience. Our organisation the GAA (with 10s of 1000s of members) employing a company complicit in genocide we can force to stop.
The old whataboutary...

There's not.. just ban them all?

[Baile Brigín 2]

In an ideal world, we wouldn't drink Coca-Cola, use Caterpiller plant machines, visit the Aviva, have Allianz as a sponsor or insurer, use Facebook, use HP, Siemens or Motorola products etc...
Can't see any of this happening on a concerted level so GAA shouldn't react to being singled out here.

How many of those companies are large investors in war bonds and arms companies?

I can't answer that. Probably not all of them.
Is there some sort of hierarchy largest institutional investor in war bonds
Should the IRFU be thinking about renaming their main stadium for instance?

I thought it was clear from the context, the answer is none.

If you can't tell the difference between a company that sells into Israel and a company that is the largest institutional investor in war bonds and provided capital for Elbit, there isn't much more to be said.

What rugby do and don't do is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. But on the basis soccer has been far more proactive, if Aviva was slightly as bad as Allianz we would have heard about it by now. My reading is they aren't.

But the simple reality is Croke Park are going along with a sports wash.

So there isn't a hierarchy to decide who we ban and who we don't? That's fine.
Coca Cola can continue to be sold behind GAA and soccer club bars across the country and the profits indirectly fund the Israeli war effort? Aviva can continue to insure homes and cars and sports clubs across the country? Happy days...

How exactly does Coca-Cola fund the war effort? Their local affiliate built a warehouse on an illegal settlement. That's bad, but nowhere near Allianz levels.

[Baile Brigín 2]

The rationales not to get Allianz dumped from the GAA are off the charts here. Is impossible to chase down every individual and club selling Coca Cola and every car and home owner.. can only make people aware and hope individuals use their conscience. Our organisation the GAA (with 10s of 1000s of members) employing a company complicit in genocide we can force to stop.
The old whataboutary...

Interesting that they all sat on the fence until head office made the call...

[Milltown Row2]

In an ideal world, we wouldn't drink Coca-Cola, use Caterpiller plant machines, visit the Aviva, have Allianz as a sponsor or insurer, use Facebook, use HP, Siemens or Motorola products etc...
Can't see any of this happening on a concerted level so GAA shouldn't react to being singled out here.

How many of those companies are large investors in war bonds and arms companies?

I can't answer that. Probably not all of them.
Is there some sort of hierarchy largest institutional investor in war bonds
Should the IRFU be thinking about renaming their main stadium for instance?

I thought it was clear from the context, the answer is none.

If you can't tell the difference between a company that sells into Israel and a company that is the largest institutional investor in war bonds and provided capital for Elbit, there isn't much more to be said.

What rugby do and don't do is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. But on the basis soccer has been far more proactive, if Aviva was slightly as bad as Allianz we would have heard about it by now. My reading is they aren't.

But the simple reality is Croke Park are going along with a sports wash.

So there isn't a hierarchy to decide who we ban and who we don't? That's fine.
Coca Cola can continue to be sold behind GAA and soccer club bars across the country and the profits indirectly fund the Israeli war effort? Aviva can continue to insure homes and cars and sports clubs across the country? Happy days...

How exactly does Coca-Cola fund the war effort? Their local affiliate built a warehouse on an illegal settlement. That's bad, but nowhere near Allianz levels.

Sport washing is using sport to clean up a tarnished image.. Israel ain't bothered so it's not trying or even close to doing that.

Have you a list of acceptable products that Israel profit from? Aviva seems to be ok, so we'll start with that one

[Truthsayer]

The rationales not to get Allianz dumped from the GAA are off the charts here. Is impossible to chase down every individual and club selling Coca Cola and every car and home owner.. can only make people aware and hope individuals use their conscience. Our organisation the GAA (with 10s of 1000s of members) employing a company complicit in genocide we can force to stop.
The old whataboutary...

Interesting that they all sat on the fence until head office made the call...

Tbh I don't understand your comment. Who all sat on the fence? Which head office? You've lost me 🤷

[Baile Brigín 2]

In an ideal world, we wouldn't drink Coca-Cola, use Caterpiller plant machines, visit the Aviva, have Allianz as a sponsor or insurer, use Facebook, use HP, Siemens or Motorola products etc...
Can't see any of this happening on a concerted level so GAA shouldn't react to being singled out here.

How many of those companies are large investors in war bonds and arms companies?

I can't answer that. Probably not all of them.
Is there some sort of hierarchy largest institutional investor in war bonds
Should the IRFU be thinking about renaming their main stadium for instance?

I thought it was clear from the context, the answer is none.

If you can't tell the difference between a company that sells into Israel and a company that is the largest institutional investor in war bonds and provided capital for Elbit, there isn't much more to be said.

What rugby do and don't do is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. But on the basis soccer has been far more proactive, if Aviva was slightly as bad as Allianz we would have heard about it by now. My reading is they aren't.

But the simple reality is Croke Park are going along with a sports wash.

So there isn't a hierarchy to decide who we ban and who we don't? That's fine.
Coca Cola can continue to be sold behind GAA and soccer club bars across the country and the profits indirectly fund the Israeli war effort? Aviva can continue to insure homes and cars and sports clubs across the country? Happy days...

How exactly does Coca-Cola fund the war effort? Their local affiliate built a warehouse on an illegal settlement. That's bad, but nowhere near Allianz levels.

Sport washing is using sport to clean up a tarnished image.. Israel ain't bothered so it's not trying or even close to doing that.

Have you a list of acceptable products that Israel profit from? Aviva seems to be ok, so we'll start with that one

Allianz are.

We are talking about Allianz, their sponsorship of the GAA and the GAA's refusal to review it. If you want to play whataboutery open another thread

[Baile Brigín 2]

The rationales not to get Allianz dumped from the GAA are off the charts here. Is impossible to chase down every individual and club selling Coca Cola and every car and home owner.. can only make people aware and hope individuals use their conscience. Our organisation the GAA (with 10s of 1000s of members) employing a company complicit in genocide we can force to stop.
The old whataboutary...

Interesting that they all sat on the fence until head office made the call...

Tbh I don't understand your comment. Who all sat on the fence? Which head office? You've lost me 🤷

This was discussed on the GPA thread.not one poster defended Allianz or the GAA's relationship with them.

Then Burns defends the deal, using claims even Alluanz didn't make and suddenly a group of posters, some very infrequent contributors, are vehemently defending Croke Park.

It's unusual.

[Milltown Row2]

In an ideal world, we wouldn't drink Coca-Cola, use Caterpiller plant machines, visit the Aviva, have Allianz as a sponsor or insurer, use Facebook, use HP, Siemens or Motorola products etc...
Can't see any of this happening on a concerted level so GAA shouldn't react to being singled out here.

How many of those companies are large investors in war bonds and arms companies?

I can't answer that. Probably not all of them.
Is there some sort of hierarchy largest institutional investor in war bonds
Should the IRFU be thinking about renaming their main stadium for instance?

I thought it was clear from the context, the answer is none.

If you can't tell the difference between a company that sells into Israel and a company that is the largest institutional investor in war bonds and provided capital for Elbit, there isn't much more to be said.

What rugby do and don't do is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. But on the basis soccer has been far more proactive, if Aviva was slightly as bad as Allianz we would have heard about it by now. My reading is they aren't.

But the simple reality is Croke Park are going along with a sports wash.

So there isn't a hierarchy to decide who we ban and who we don't? That's fine.
Coca Cola can continue to be sold behind GAA and soccer club bars across the country and the profits indirectly fund the Israeli war effort? Aviva can continue to insure homes and cars and sports clubs across the country? Happy days...

How exactly does Coca-Cola fund the war effort? Their local affiliate built a warehouse on an illegal settlement. That's bad, but nowhere near Allianz levels.

Sport washing is using sport to clean up a tarnished image.. Israel ain't bothered so it's not trying or even close to doing that.

Have you a list of acceptable products that Israel profit from? Aviva seems to be ok, so we'll start with that one

Allianz are.

We are talking about Allianz, their sponsorship of the GAA and the GAA's refusal to review it. If you want to play whataboutery open another thread

It's not it's basically a thread made by someone who consistently batters the GAA. That's fair enough. Open a thread on that.

The GAA has plenty of knockers on here and have plenty saying Allianz need to go, but that's across the board of all sports.

You suit yourself with regards to soccer and its faults and use plenty of whataboutery when pulled on it.

But that's ok

[Baile Brigín 2]

In an ideal world, we wouldn't drink Coca-Cola, use Caterpiller plant machines, visit the Aviva, have Allianz as a sponsor or insurer, use Facebook, use HP, Siemens or Motorola products etc...
Can't see any of this happening on a concerted level so GAA shouldn't react to being singled out here.

How many of those companies are large investors in war bonds and arms companies?

I can't answer that. Probably not all of them.
Is there some sort of hierarchy largest institutional investor in war bonds
Should the IRFU be thinking about renaming their main stadium for instance?

I thought it was clear from the context, the answer is none.

If you can't tell the difference between a company that sells into Israel and a company that is the largest institutional investor in war bonds and provided capital for Elbit, there isn't much more to be said.

What rugby do and don't do is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. But on the basis soccer has been far more proactive, if Aviva was slightly as bad as Allianz we would have heard about it by now. My reading is they aren't.

But the simple reality is Croke Park are going along with a sports wash.

So there isn't a hierarchy to decide who we ban and who we don't? That's fine.
Coca Cola can continue to be sold behind GAA and soccer club bars across the country and the profits indirectly fund the Israeli war effort? Aviva can continue to insure homes and cars and sports clubs across the country? Happy days...

How exactly does Coca-Cola fund the war effort? Their local affiliate built a warehouse on an illegal settlement. That's bad, but nowhere near Allianz levels.

Sport washing is using sport to clean up a tarnished image.. Israel ain't bothered so it's not trying or even close to doing that.

Have you a list of acceptable products that Israel profit from? Aviva seems to be ok, so we'll start with that one

Allianz are.

We are talking about Allianz, their sponsorship of the GAA and the GAA's refusal to review it. If you want to play whataboutery open another thread

It's not it's basically a thread made by someone who consistently batters the GAA. That's fair enough. Open a thread on that.

The GAA has plenty of knockers on here and have plenty saying Allianz need to go, but that's across the board of all sports.

You suit yourself with regards to soccer and its faults and use plenty of whataboutery when pulled on it.

But that's ok

I opened this to gauge opinion on the members here and try and look at other points of view. I do not give a shit about soccer or rugby.

This conversation on a GAA board about the GAA is about the GAA. Saying 'but look at soccer' especially when objectively they haven't the same exposure is pathetic and convientely lets Croke Park off the hook.

[SCFC]

It's not about "look at soccer" though.
It's look at all other aspects of society that deal with Israel in some form or another.
The question posed at the start of the thread asks if the GAA should or shouldn't drop its deal with Allianz.
It's easy enough to acknowledge that what's happening in Israel is wrong while at the same time maintain the opinion that, no, the GAA shouldn't be pressured (either internally or externally) into taking some sort of lead in discontinuing its dealings with a company who profit from dealing with Israel.

[Milltown Row2]

It wouldn't take me long to find your whataboutety on the soccer/GAA topics.

But I'll not embarrass you

Just be up front and say you have serious problems with the GAA, as in you don't like them? Saves you all the hassle of of trying to be smart

[Baile Brigín 2]

It's not about "look at soccer" though.
It's look at all other aspects of society that deal with Israel in some form or another.
The question posed at the start of the thread asks if the GAA should or shouldn't drop its deal with Allianz.
It's easy enough to acknowledge that what's happening in Israel is wrong while at the same time maintain the opinion that, no, the GAA shouldn't be pressured (either internally or externally) into taking some sort of lead in discontinuing its dealings with a company who profit from dealing with Israel.

Internally? Members opinions don't count and by definition should be ignored? There will be pickets at league games, and some members won't pass them.

But the core point is Allianz are an outllier. Their level of funding of the war is bigger than any other company. Complaining that soccer has a naming deal with Aviva, who 'merely' sell insurance in Israel is a deliberate missing of the point. And interestingly only became a talking point on here after Burns used the line that they are all as bad as each other.