Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

NHL could lose Air Canada sponsorship over headshots


  • Please log in to reply
78 replies to this topic

#41 GSBrooks13

GSBrooks13

    1st Line All-Star

  • Bronze Booster
  • 1,095 posts
  • Location:Halifax, NS

Posted 10 March 2011 - 04:35 PM

get rid of the instigator rule, prob solved (or at least helped extremely)


Problem solved.. unless you are talking about the Chara hit.. Because.. well.. it's Chara.. and the first person to come up to him on Montreal was Scott Gomez..

"Push the dirt off your jersey then go for the cup or the trophy or the ring, champion no matter what."


#42 Lovin Jiri Fischer

Lovin Jiri Fischer

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,444 posts
  • Location:Hockeytown

Posted 10 March 2011 - 04:38 PM

I'm completely fine with this. Companies do not HAVE to spend their money on the NHL or any other organization. If they see something they don't like, then they can spend their money on a different organization. It is their right to do so. And I think the reason they made it public is because I can see people saying things like "Air Canada took their money from the NHL...what assholes." But they made their reason why very clear, and can get the customers on their side by explaining it.

#43 Electrophile

Electrophile

    Ipsa scientia potestas est.

  • Silver Booster
  • 9,390 posts
  • Location:North Carolina

Posted 10 March 2011 - 05:09 PM

lol if only that were the case, if it that was the case why is it banned in so many places?


I don't know and frankly, I don't care. If you're about to go into some kooky conspiracy theory spiel about how fluoridated water causes insanity or something, spare the rest of us the trip.

electrophilewingsfloyd.jpg

"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff."  -- The Doctor


#44 Wing Across The Pond

Wing Across The Pond

    Gabriel's Wings

  • Silver Booster
  • 744 posts
  • Location:LONDON, UK

Posted 10 March 2011 - 05:22 PM

I'm completely fine with this. Companies do not HAVE to spend their money on the NHL or any other organization. If they see something they don't like, then they can spend their money on a different organization. It is their right to do so. And I think the reason they made it public is because I can see people saying things like "Air Canada took their money from the NHL...what assholes." But they made their reason why very clear, and can get the customers on their side by explaining it.

I agree, I think it was a good decision to make it public. Some people are saying its childish but I think its pretty darn brave for a major company to do something like this. It gets us, as fans, talking about it and its reasons - in this case hits to the head. Its delivering a public ultimation to the league that they need to do something before something REALLY serious happens to a player. If there was a private chat you can imagine things would take longer to get sorted out when the public don't know about shady negotiations from the league. This way that process is cut out.

Posted Image



Check out my blog -The Heid-Out- a cynical mans take on everyday life


#45 RedFX

RedFX

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,182 posts
  • Location:Franklin, TN

Posted 10 March 2011 - 05:49 PM

I'm confused as to why everyone is applauding this. Do you really want a corporation having this much control over how the league is run? This is like a mother telling her teenage son "do this or I'm taking away your allowance." This is something the LEAGUE needs to address, not corporations.

Oh and for the record....

How long have headshots been a problem in the league?

And when did Air Canada suddenly become concerned with them?
-15-
Posted Image
"I don't like to be the pony. I like to be on top." -Pavel Datsyuk

#46 esteef

esteef

    Legend

  • HoF Booster
  • 8,874 posts

Posted 10 March 2011 - 05:51 PM

The fact that the league is apparently incapable of properly managing itself warrants this type of action from major sponsors. If Bettman and Campbell and the rest of the clowns were on top of things, corporations wouldn't need to do this.

esteef
"The Wings haven't won a Cup without Darren McCarty since 1955."

#47 Wing Across The Pond

Wing Across The Pond

    Gabriel's Wings

  • Silver Booster
  • 744 posts
  • Location:LONDON, UK

Posted 10 March 2011 - 05:54 PM

I'm confused as to why everyone is applauding this. Do you really want a corporation having this much control over how the league is run? This is like a mother telling her teenage son "do this or I'm taking away your allowance." This is something the LEAGUE needs to address, not corporations.

Oh and for the record....

How long have headshots been a problem in the league?

And when did Air Canada suddenly become concerned with them?

Fully understand what you're getting at and to a certain extent I agree. Just when the league doesn't seem to be addressing the point its nice to have someone with a substantial "interest" (term used very loosely) in the league to air their concerns. I'm never going to stop watching the Wings, regardless of how pathetically the league is run so their not really going to listen much to fans, unless it makes them money.
If anything its made a talking point.

Posted Image



Check out my blog -The Heid-Out- a cynical mans take on everyday life


#48 vladdy16

vladdy16

    The rest are neophytes.

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 6,168 posts

Posted 10 March 2011 - 05:54 PM

While I wouldn't make decisions like that, you'd be surprised what others might decide.

This is no different from certain sponsors who decided that they no longer want to be associated with Tiger Woods (well, different reasons)

It is different - they took action first and then announced those actions; they didn't hold his personal life hostage. I would have no problem with them pulling their sponsorship; I DO have a problem with threats, and public ones at that. It seems like a cause de celebre.
Can't wait to read the "Phoenix: I still think it's a hockey market" chapter of Gary Bettman's autobiography. I'm guessing it's going to be chapter 11.

- mjlegend 3/9/2011

#49 haroldsnepsts

haroldsnepsts

    "Classy"

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 16,904 posts

Posted 10 March 2011 - 05:58 PM

I'm confused as to why everyone is applauding this. Do you really want a corporation having this much control over how the league is run? This is like a mother telling her teenage son "do this or I'm taking away your allowance." This is something the LEAGUE needs to address, not corporations.

Oh and for the record....

How long have headshots been a problem in the league?

And when did Air Canada suddenly become concerned with them?

This.

Talk about spot picking.

Maybe Air Canada and Mario can go start a new league.

#50 Lovin Jiri Fischer

Lovin Jiri Fischer

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,444 posts
  • Location:Hockeytown

Posted 10 March 2011 - 06:06 PM

I'm confused as to why everyone is applauding this. Do you really want a corporation having this much control over how the league is run? This is like a mother telling her teenage son "do this or I'm taking away your allowance." This is something the LEAGUE needs to address, not corporations.

Oh and for the record....

How long have headshots been a problem in the league?

And when did Air Canada suddenly become concerned with them?


Mothers do not HAVE to give their teenage kids allowances, especially if the kid does something wrong or gets in any kind of trouble. Say the kid is failing all his classes. Then the mother can tell him that she will not be giving him allowance until he gets his grades up. It's the same for corporate sponsors. Air Canada does not HAVE to continue to support the NHL if the league does something they don't like. Air Canada is allowed to tell the league that they will continue to support the NHL only if they address and fix the issue.

#51 vladdy16

vladdy16

    The rest are neophytes.

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 6,168 posts

Posted 10 March 2011 - 06:25 PM

Mothers do not HAVE to give their teenage kids allowances, especially if the kid does something wrong or gets in any kind of trouble. Say the kid is failing all his classes. Then the mother can tell him that she will not be giving him allowance until he gets his grades up. It's the same for corporate sponsors. Air Canada does not HAVE to continue to support the NHL if the league does something they don't like. Air Canada is allowed to tell the league that they will continue to support the NHL only if they address and fix the issue.

You are absolutely correct, and I don't think anyone would have a problem with Air Canada actually pulling their money or making a phone call to the league; it's all in the timing and the way they went about it. It seems like whining this way, or bullying on the playground.
Can't wait to read the "Phoenix: I still think it's a hockey market" chapter of Gary Bettman's autobiography. I'm guessing it's going to be chapter 11.

- mjlegend 3/9/2011

#52 Electrophile

Electrophile

    Ipsa scientia potestas est.

  • Silver Booster
  • 9,390 posts
  • Location:North Carolina

Posted 10 March 2011 - 06:28 PM

If you want a business, and the NHL is a business, to change some of their practices, you hit them where it hurts -- their wallets. Sports rely a lot on sponsorship deals or other such arrangements, and if said sport is doing something or promoting something that X sponsor thinks is unacceptable, it's perfectly reasonable for X sponsor to say "Hey, either knock this s*** off and/or do something about it, or we're taking our business elsewhere." Do any of you understand that this is how business are at times, forced to change and adapt?

Some of you are acting like this is some new-fangled thing, and it's never ever happened before.

Edited by Electrophile, 10 March 2011 - 06:29 PM.

electrophilewingsfloyd.jpg

"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff."  -- The Doctor


#53 Wing Across The Pond

Wing Across The Pond

    Gabriel's Wings

  • Silver Booster
  • 744 posts
  • Location:LONDON, UK

Posted 10 March 2011 - 06:34 PM

If you want a business, and the NHL is a business, to change some of their practices, you hit them where it hurts -- their wallets. Sports rely a lot on sponsorship deals or other such arrangements, and if said sport is doing something or promoting something that X sponsor thinks is unacceptable, it's perfectly reasonable for X sponsor to say "Hey, either knock this s*** off and/or do something about it, or we're taking our business elsewhere." Do any of you understand that this is how business are at times, forced to change and adapt?

Some of you are acting like this is some new-fangled thing, and it's never ever happened before.

I think what people are trying to get at is that they suddenly come out with it after the hit to a Habs player (and some of the people involved are most likely Habs fans). That being said it may well have just been a "the next hit to the head and we're taking action" situation. I think its right what they did, but I can't rightly comment on their reasons for doing it. Just glad they did.

Posted Image



Check out my blog -The Heid-Out- a cynical mans take on everyday life


#54 chuklz

chuklz

    Rookie

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 140 posts
  • Location:Denver, CO

Posted 10 March 2011 - 06:37 PM

I am not threatening to pull my funding out...

And how the hell do you know I dont contribute to Red Wings charities?

I dont have my name on arenas... or I did not go public with a statement to " take my puck and go home"
I donate lots of time to USA hockey - that I do not expect to or asked to get paid for. You know my screen name,
dont act like you know me!

I also use tools that I have at my disposal to help the city I live in.. please. Dont assume you know me... I am not asking Air Canada
to sponsor the NHL like Sprint does with Nascar and take over the sport.... Just asking them to add a helpful piece of input before
you decide to do a drastic action like they have threatened to do. If you are going to hold your money over their heads... maybe try and assist
in the resolving of the issue you have. thats all I am saying.


And I'm saying your statement is irrational based on it being irrational. (Not because I think I know you). The exchange of sponsorship money for publicity is all that's being exchanged. If your (meaning NHL) game/actions reflect poorly on me (Air Canada) then I have the right to tell you that I dislike it, and will end said arrangement if you don't do something about it. You (Hockeytown Ryan) saying that's wrong is an opinion that I (Chuklz) disagree with, and that's fine. But you (Hockeytown Ryan) saying that Air Canada should do more for the NHL because they have the capacity to do so is damn silly, its as silly as me (Chuklz) demanding you (Hockeytown Ryan) tithe to the charity of my choice.

I appreciate you clarifying your statement, though it makes more sense that being helpful is better for everyone over being reactionary, even if the arrangement is simply money/services for publicity.

#55 vladdy16

vladdy16

    The rest are neophytes.

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 6,168 posts

Posted 10 March 2011 - 06:41 PM

If you want a business, and the NHL is a business, to change some of their practices, you hit them where it hurts -- their wallets. Sports rely a lot on sponsorship deals or other such arrangements, and if said sport is doing something or promoting something that X sponsor thinks is unacceptable, it's perfectly reasonable for X sponsor to say "Hey, either knock this s*** off and/or do something about it, or we're taking our business elsewhere." Do any of you understand that this is how business are at times, forced to change and adapt?

Some of you are acting like this is some new-fangled thing, and it's never ever happened before.

And that's FINE. No one has a problem with them doing with their money as they please - it's the threatening via the media that's at issue. Do it or don't, but don't announce it unless you've actually done it. I say Bravo for sticking up for their, and I'm using the term loosely in this circumstance, ideals. This would have been better handled behind closed doors, not in the newspaper.
Can't wait to read the "Phoenix: I still think it's a hockey market" chapter of Gary Bettman's autobiography. I'm guessing it's going to be chapter 11.

- mjlegend 3/9/2011

#56 Electrophile

Electrophile

    Ipsa scientia potestas est.

  • Silver Booster
  • 9,390 posts
  • Location:North Carolina

Posted 10 March 2011 - 07:47 PM

And that's FINE. No one has a problem with them doing with their money as they please - it's the threatening via the media that's at issue. Do it or don't, but don't announce it unless you've actually done it. I say Bravo for sticking up for their, and I'm using the term loosely in this circumstance, ideals. This would have been better handled behind closed doors, not in the newspaper.



I already said in my first post in this thread that Air Canada should have done this more professionally, and not taken it to the press. However I'm honestly surprised that there's that many people who don't understand that this happens all the time (albeit not in the press) and has happened for as long as there's been businesses and sponsors of those businesses. Air Canada is a major NHL sponsor. The NHL is in the eyes of Air Canada, promoting or condoning behavior they think is beyond what's acceptable in the normal course of a hockey game. So they said publicly (which they shouldn't have done) that if Gary Bettman and Co. don't do something about the excessive headshots, they're pulling their sponsorship and taking their business elsewhere. Which would be a bad thing if it does in fact happen.

You can argue about whether or not they did it in the right way, but I see no argument that says they have or had no legal standing to do it. Look at all the sponsors that pulled advertisements from Glenn Beck's program -- they didn't like the message he was peddling, so they yanked their ads. This is no different in concept, it's just a sport and a sponsor, rather than a TV program/network and its sponsor.

electrophilewingsfloyd.jpg

"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff."  -- The Doctor


#57 dirtydangles

dirtydangles

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,696 posts

Posted 10 March 2011 - 07:51 PM

get rid of the instigator rule, prob solved (or at least helped extremely)

THIS and regulate equipment more so they are protected, but not weapons.

Is there a kickstarter campaign for Jakub Kindl to never play another NHL game?


#58 Hockeytown_Ryan

Hockeytown_Ryan

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,806 posts
  • Location:Saint Clair Shores, MI

Posted 10 March 2011 - 08:54 PM

And I'm saying your statement is irrational based on it being irrational. (Not because I think I know you). The exchange of sponsorship money for publicity is all that's being exchanged. If your (meaning NHL) game/actions reflect poorly on me (Air Canada) then I have the right to tell you that I dislike it, and will end said arrangement if you don't do something about it. You (Hockeytown Ryan) saying that's wrong is an opinion that I (Chuklz) disagree with, and that's fine. But you (Hockeytown Ryan) saying that Air Canada should do more for the NHL because they have the capacity to do so is damn silly, its as silly as me (Chuklz) demanding you (Hockeytown Ryan) tithe to the charity of my choice.

I appreciate you clarifying your statement, though it makes more sense that being helpful is better for everyone over being reactionary, even if the arrangement is simply money/services for publicity.


I understand your point much better as well. My only point was if you (chuklz) likes the sport (NHL) and believe it can be resolved with a few minor decisions,
would you not want to be apart of the solution?

I just don't want to see Advertising on the jerseys... Please no!!!!!!!!

#59 HadThomasVokounOnFortSt

HadThomasVokounOnFortSt

    Hi

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,075 posts
  • Location:Cloudy Town, Minnesota. 762.20 miles from the Joe Louis Arena

Posted 10 March 2011 - 09:04 PM

I just don't want to see Advertising on the jerseys... Please no!!!!!!!!


I will seriously quit watching the NHL, I could see teams being named after companies. F that.
hadthomasvokounonfortst.jpg
Follow me on Twitter: @W2G4U

#60 wingfan1991

wingfan1991

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,738 posts

Posted 10 March 2011 - 09:28 PM

Oh and for the record....

How long have headshots been a problem in the league?

And when did Air Canada suddenly become concerned with them?

I have the answer; Air Canada head office is in Montreal, obviously the guy Vandal is a huge Habs fan.







Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users