CLUB STATEMENT- BK8 CONTRACT TERMINATED

[canarydan23 4,060]

4 minutes ago, FatCanary said:

Nothing I hate more than all those female misogynists profiting from their sex on OnlyFans....

Reckon OnlyFans have a got a few quid. Get them on the front of our shirts?

[spindrift 23]

Just now, FatCanary said:

Nothing I hate more than all those female misogynists profiting from their sex on OnlyFans....

Strange too how the men who defend sexual exploitation enjoy boasting about their **** habits. 

 

Women have their choices limited by gender discrimination. If your argument is that participation indicates free choice then presumably you would claim that the existence of South East Asian brothels demonstrates that the women "chose" to have sex with old men.   Nobody's that naive.

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

19 minutes ago, FatCanary said:

I still don't, and can't see what was wrong with BK8s marketing by the standard of shady betting orgs- on the assumption that the women in their promotional material were remunerated accordingly and agreed to do it with good heart and were not coerced.

 

 

If you still don't understand what is wrong with a betting firm that uses 'ambassadors' to market itself to the hardcore  p o r n industry then I guess you will continue to be perplexed. No reputable UK company could possibly be seen to have any connection to such a firm, let alone it be their main sponsor.

I pointed out a day or so back that Norwich City's other sponsors would be pressing the board to scrap this deal, and it seems that was happening. The crude sexualisation of women and the soft core innuendo stuff was far enough beyond the pale by itself, but the hardcore p o r n connection was way way beyond.

[Wrathofthefarkely 54]

Just now, spindrift said:

Strange too how the men who defend sexual exploitation enjoy boasting about their **** habits. 

 

Women have their choices limited by gender discrimination. If your argument is that participation indicates free choice then presumably you would claim that the existence of South East Asian brothels demonstrates that the women "chose" to have sex with old men.   Nobody's that naive.

And there you go again, using on extreme situation to deny women the freedom of choice. 

You're a misogynist. 

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

1 minute ago, Wrathofthefarkely said:

Absolute nonsense. 

Its about prudish attitudes. You've all displayed them. 

Let's hope your woke pearl clutching doesn't have an impact on the transfer budget. 

Bunch of clowns. 

Aw, all triggered, are you? **** off, snowflake.

[Branston Pickle 3,657]

1 hour ago, sonyc said:

That's fair enough. But...am I the only poster that needs to be told something once and not twenty times. I can read and understand an issue and a poster's views. I'm reasonable enough and have am fair minded even to accept a view too I disagree with (like this issue) but I've found the constant barrage of views (not just by this poster) reminding me of the saying "methinks you do protest too much".

We all have morals and I suspect they are similar with each others concerning decency etc.

Absolutely spot on - saved me saying it.

I guess it’s the right decision for the wider community thing. I stand by the club’s right to have entered into the deal to start with, along with their right to back out of it once they realised it wasn’t quite what they thought.

Edited June 10, 2021 by Branston Pickle

[FatCanary 249]

1 minute ago, PurpleCanary said:

If you still don't understand what is wrong with a betting firm that uses 'ambassadors' to market itself to the hardcore  p o r n industry then I guess you will continue to be perplexed. No reputable UK company could possibly be seen to have any connection to such a firm, let alone it be their main sponsor.

I pointed out a day or so back that Norwich City's other sponsors would be pressing the board to scrap this deal, and it seems that was happening. The crude sexualisation of women and the soft core innuendo stuff was far enough beyond the pale by itself, but the hardcore p o r n connection was way way beyond.

I understand why the Club have terminated the sponsorship deal.

[The Real Buh 3,432]

The expected dress of all ladies at the ground next year according to the mob

Cover your ankles, this is a family friendly club. Anything else will be dealt with by a progressive mob response.

[Petriix 2,835]

3 minutes ago, FatCanary said:

This is very good from you. The most salubrious lubricant in town.

I would like to make it clear that I am glad the Club has listened to its fans.

I just won't be drawn in to virtue signalling. 

I don't need to desperately be seen as a good person online.

Allow me to elucidate: it's about changing things for the better, not appearing to be a 'good person'. And while we know that we won't change the minds of the vocal minority who wish to defend their right to degrade and exploit women to the bitter end, we can at least hope to influence the wider debate so that the things which have been historically 'acceptable' will (slowly) stop being tolerated.

Let me be clear: me and 'my ilk' don't care what you think of us; we just want you to stop feeling so brave about spouting your out-dated views. And we'll continue to call them out.

[spindrift 23]

1 minute ago, Wrathofthefarkely said:

And there you go again, using on extreme situation to deny women the freedom of choice. 

You're a misogynist. 

You're a young Asian woman. You can have sex with old British men or allow yourself to be horribly sexually exploited or you can watch your own child starve to death. Explain to me why you reckon that's a free choice.

[FatCanary 249]

I'm still yet to see the proof of this connection to hardcore pornography, to be honest- fair play if it exists.

I still think even so, unless the pornography it is connected to is the type associated with sex trafficking, as opposed to confident women who are sufficiently remunerated and confident in their choices, then I still don't see why the angry mob.

As before, I'm glad those of you who are offended have been listened to.

[Canary Wundaboy 1,359]

Not going to get into the argument over the content itself etc.

Club made a choice, facts came to light, fans protested, other sponsors lodged their objections, club reversed course and cancelled the contract. Obviously the reputational damage and possible knock-on effect from other sponsors was enough to make that decision worthwhile.

It does leave the club £5m out of pocket and has generated a lot of negative PR around the club at a time we should be strengthening the team by attracting talent and players in order to battle relegation.

Time to draw a line under it and move on, I just hope another sponsor can be found who are willing to pay close to what BK8 were.

[FatCanary 249]

1 minute ago, Petriix said:

Allow me to elucidate: it's about changing things for the better, not appearing to be a 'good person'. And while we know that we won't change the minds of the vocal minority who wish to defend their right to degrade and exploit women to the bitter end, we can at least hope to influence the wider debate so that the things which have been historically 'acceptable' will (slowly) stop being tolerated.

Let me be clear: me and 'my ilk' don't care what you think of us; we just want you to stop feeling so brave about spouting your out-dated views. And we'll continue to call them out.

What is 'the better'? Is that some arbitrary tabula rasa you've created where we all join hands and sing ring a ring o roses?

It won't happen, and we will all die before it matters, so will our children, and our children's children.

It is possible to be tolerant of others and also shut the f*ck up about it.

As i have said, I am glad the club have changed their mind.

[FatCanary 249]

4 minutes ago, Petriix said:

Allow me to elucidate: it's about changing things for the better, not appearing to be a 'good person'. And while we know that we won't change the minds of the vocal minority who wish to defend their right to degrade and exploit women to the bitter end, we can at least hope to influence the wider debate so that the things which have been historically 'acceptable' will (slowly) stop being tolerated.

Let me be clear: me and 'my ilk' don't care what you think of us; we just want you to stop feeling so brave about spouting your out-dated views. And we'll continue to call them out.

I'm just looking forward to the football starting.

I'm sorry that you feel that I have to be a crusader for the common good to be worth listening to.

It must be hard, living with having to shout at so many clouds every day.

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

Just now, Canary Wundaboy said:

Not going to get into the argument over the content itself etc.

Club made a choice, facts came to light, fans protested, other sponsors lodged their objections, club reversed course and cancelled the contract. Obviously the reputational damage and possible knock-on effect from other sponsors was enough to make that decision worthwhile.

It does leave the club £5m out of pocket and has generated a lot of negative PR around the club at a time we should be strengthening the team by attracting talent and players in order to battle relegation.

Time to draw a line under it and move on, I just hope another sponsor can be found who are willing to pay close to what BK8 were.

We don't know the exact figures, but when put in perspective we basically bought Angus Gunn for what was going on the shirt. In other words, shirt sponsors are often not huge income streams. If we find another one for, say, £3.5million then the net loss re. just that sponsor would be £1.5million.

However, what would we have lost from sponsors raising objections? It's feasible, but not absolutely certain, that we could have lost more than that from those smaller sponsors when all added together. As you rightly said, reputational damage and possible knock-on effects could have had a far greater impact down the line.

I suspect sponsors carried far more weight than fans, but either way, it is very much to the club's credit that they changed course. No need for heads to roll, mistakes can easily be made, particularly across cultures. Mistake was admitted, owned, let's move on.

[yellow_belly 226]

1 hour ago, Feedthewolf said:

And respect to you, Lakey, for standing your ground on the issue. It's not about Mary Whitehouse prudishness, it's about protecting the reputation of the club and the brand we've built around it.

👌👏

[FatCanary 249]

12 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

Reckon OnlyFans have a got a few quid. Get them on the front of our shirts?

Supports financial remuneration for women empowering themselves by owning what they do with their sexuality.

One of my friends does it, and is absolutely transformed by the confidence it has given her. 

You aren't necessarily submitting to the will of men just by deriving confidence from people finding you attractive.

[FatCanary 249]

7 minutes ago, spindrift said:

You're a young Asian woman. You can have sex with old British men or allow yourself to be horribly sexually exploited or you can watch your own child starve to death. Explain to me why you reckon that's a free choice.

This assumes this was the situation these young Asian women were in.

How do you know they weren't well paid models who signed contracts to appear in promotional material?

[Canary Wundaboy 1,359]

5 minutes ago, spindrift said:

You're a young Asian woman. You can have sex with old British men or allow yourself to be horribly sexually exploited or you can watch your own child starve to death. Explain to me why you reckon that's a free choice.

Please provide the evidence for the following:

• The young women in the videos/content being forced to have sex with British men
• The young women in the videos/content being horribly sexually exploited
• The young women having starving children

What does any of this have to do with a video of attractive influencers eating sausages in a betting company video?

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

Just now, FatCanary said:

Supports financial remuneration for women empowering themselves by owning what they do with their sexuality.

One of my friends does it, and is absolutely transformed by the confidence it has given her. 

You aren't necessarily submitting to the will of men just by deriving confidence from people finding you attractive.

All true, but it's very tangential to the main point, namely as a club that strives to be inclusive and family-friendly, simulated sex acts in the advertising is very incongruous. A neighbour of mine is also on OnlyFans and she's loaded because of it. Nothing wrong with them choosing that, but the crux is that as a family-friendly club, choosing to collaborate with them is incongruous and flies in the face of what we strive for. That's all.

[spindrift 23]

Just now, FatCanary said:

Supports financial remuneration for women empowering themselves by owning what they do with their sexuality.

One of my friends does it, and is absolutely transformed by the confidence it has given her. 

You aren't necessarily submitting to the will of men just by deriving confidence from people finding you attractive.

So the sexual exploitation of women and children is acceptable if money changes hands? 

 

How much money makes it acceptable to you? 

[FatCanary 249]

Just now, spindrift said:

So the sexual exploitation of women and children is acceptable if money changes hands? 

 

How much money makes it acceptable to you? 

That is not what I've said and I have no idea how you've got that from what I have written at all.

That is massive extrapolation and quite journalistic really.

[Branston Pickle 3,657]

1 minute ago, Canary Wundaboy said:

Not going to get into the argument over the content itself etc.

Club made a choice, facts came to light, fans protested, other sponsors lodged their objections, club reversed course and cancelled the contract. Obviously the reputational damage and possible knock-on effect from other sponsors was enough to make that decision worthwhile.

It does leave the club £5m out of pocket and has generated a lot of negative PR around the club at a time we should be strengthening the team by attracting talent and players in order to battle relegation.

Time to draw a line under it and move on, I just hope another sponsor can be found who are willing to pay close to what BK8 were.

Yes and no. Definitely draw a line under it but outside the Norwich bubble most people couldn’t care less or are rather bemused by all the fuss (particularly when you consider a soft p0rn baron actually owns one of the other PL clubs).
The club realised it made an error and rectified it, no harm done imo. 

[FatCanary 249]

1 minute ago, TheGunnShow said:

All true, but it's very tangential to the main point, namely as a club that strives to be inclusive and family-friendly, simulated sex acts in the advertising is very incongruous. A neighbour of mine is also on OnlyFans and she's loaded because of it. Nothing wrong with them choosing that, but the crux is that as a family-friendly club, choosing to collaborate with them is incongruous and flies in the face of what we strive for. That's all.

....you seem an intelligent chap, surely youve seen how many times i've said I approve of the Club's decision in this thread

[Petriix 2,835]

2 minutes ago, FatCanary said:

What is 'the better'? Is that some arbitrary tabula rasa you've created where we all join hands and sing ring a ring o roses?

It won't happen, and we will all die before it matters, so will our children, and our children's children.

It is possible to be tolerant of others and also shut the f*ck up about it.

As i have said, I am glad the club have changed their mind.

I see that you need to create a straw man before you can mount any kind of argument to support your views. Thankfully the world is changing, no thanks to people like you. All I want is a fair and equal society. I genuinely don't care what people do, as long as they're not causing harm to others. It's pretty simple.

Tolerance is a double-edged word. Yes, we need to be tolerant of different cultures and ways of life, but we need to be extremely intolerant of intolerance itself. Claiming to be supporting freedom of choice and freedom of speech in order to perpetuate discrimination and exploitation is a common tactic and doesn't fool anybody.

[Orly 277]

7 minutes ago, Petriix said:

Allow me to elucidate: it's about changing things for the better, not appearing to be a 'good person'. And while we know that we won't change the minds of the vocal minority who wish to defend their right to degrade and exploit women to the bitter end, we can at least hope to influence the wider debate so that the things which have been historically 'acceptable' will (slowly) stop being tolerated.

Let me be clear: me and 'my ilk' don't care what you think of us; we just want you to stop feeling so brave about spouting your out-dated views. And we'll continue to call them out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_views_on_prostitution#Pro-sex_worker_perspectives

So you want people to be afraid to voice their opinions?  Even entirely reasonable opposing views?  What about the feminists quoted in the above link, women, who disagree with your viewpoint?  Let's hope you don't find yourself in a similar position against a mob with a different opinion to you.

I don't actually have a particular view on this either way.  Didn't really see the fuss before, and don't really care that it's been cancelled (it was the sacking witch hunt I didn't like).  But I do find the viewpoint that there is NO OTHER acceptable opinion on this more than a little concerning.

Cue ad hominem attacks.

[g00se 21]

12 minutes ago, The Real Buh said:

The expected dress of all ladies at the ground next year according to the mob

Cover your ankles, this is a family friendly club. Anything else will be dealt with by a progressive mob response.

Yes- we must defend the fuming gammons' right to oggle underage cleavage at all cost...

[spindrift 23]

2 minutes ago, Canary Wundaboy said:

Please provide the evidence for the following:

• The young women in the videos/content being forced to have sex with British men
• The young women in the videos/content being horribly sexually exploited
• The young women having starving children

What does any of this have to do with a video of attractive influencers eating sausages in a betting company video?

So you agree that citing the mere participation of young women in degrading sexual exploitation is far from confirming a free choice.

 

We got there in the end.

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

1 minute ago, FatCanary said:

....you seem an intelligent chap, surely youve seen how many times i've said I approve of the Club's decision in this thread

Sure, just clarifying amongst the discussions what I strongly suspect the primary reason behind it is.

[Mello Yello 2,289]

I wonder if it was the fact that our other club sponsors took umbrage to the BK8 sponsorship that the decision was then made to bin them, rather than the whatever percentage outraged support kickin' off?.....I mean it was initially the detective work of others and folk on here that brought it to our and the supposed club's attention.....