Tweet
Wasn't impressed by this at all. I don't think most supporters, irrespective of their political views, want the club giving de facto endorsement to a candidate during a federal campaign. Note this thread isn't a political forum!
-
He had observed that people who did lie were, on the whole, more resourceful and ambitious and successful than people who did not lie. -
Yes, you have to wonder about this statement from Sharma.
Mr Sharma said on social media on Tuesday that he had "promised Netball NSW and the Sydney Swans that I’d fight for the $15 million they need from the federal government" last week.
"I fought hard, and today the Treasurer announced that funding,"
So, what role did he have, that allowed him to do some fighting? And if he was boldly fighting for funding, who would he have to fight, in order to get funding? Those next to him in the photo: Sports Minister, Bridget McKenzie and Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg? -
Awful.Comment
-
Nice one, deja!
I agree with you too, barry.
I think the Swans have been sucked in to something that makes us look partisan which would certainly have been better avoided on our part. However I don't think I would go so far as to say the Club has endorsed Mr Sharma - still, it wouldn't hurt for them to clarify that.All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated, and well supported in logic and argument than others. -Douglas Adams, author (11 Mar 1952-2001)
Comment
-
The Swans best option would have been to refuse to participate in the event. But I'm sure the $15m would be hard to turn down.Comment
-
It was money that was already allocated to "sport".
The grab for it had been six months in the making. The club announced they'd be going for the funding when they announced the plans for the move to the RHI.
It would have been much better for the "sitting member" to have been there... not someone who is vying for her position.
This looks like an endorsement of Sharma. Whoever he is.Wild speculation, unsubstantiated rumours, silly jokes and opposition delight in another's failures is what makes an internet forum fun.
Blessed are the cracked for they are the ones who let in the light.Comment
-
Then they've willingly endorsed a Liberal candidate. Don't try and tell me the Swans didn't realise what they were doing. That's pretty disappointing to put it mildly. Anyone fancy writing to the club? I did over the Qatar Airways trip they did and got one of those meaningless responses.Comment
-
Wild speculation, unsubstantiated rumours, silly jokes and opposition delight in another's failures is what makes an internet forum fun.
Blessed are the cracked for they are the ones who let in the light.Comment
-
The money is already committed by the sitting government. It's not an election pledge - "you get it if we win". In that context I think it is cunning by the government to wrap it up in the election campaign, but it would have been foolish by the club to reject the funding, and maybe churlish to refuse to make a public announcement that the funding had been secured.
Yes, I'd much prefer they hadn't participated in an announcement wrapped up as a campaign event. But accepting the committed funds now, doesn't mean they are endorsing either the Liberal Party or the local Liberal Party candidate (Sharma).Comment
-
That's implying a trade off that never existed. Of course they should accept the funding but it wasn't contingent on a joint announcement with the liberal party during an election campaign.
Simply, the right thing to do was to accept the funding and not appear to be partisan. It's not that hard to tell a politician to stay clear when the need to do so is so obvious.
.He had observed that people who did lie were, on the whole, more resourceful and ambitious and successful than people who did not lie.Comment
-
For the Swans it's a "good news" story at a time when they need good news stories - ie because the team isn't travelling so well onfield. I'm not so convinced as you are that it's easy to tell politicians to get stuffed. Not during an election campaign that seems to be being fought (by both parties) not on major issues and values but cash splash promises to emotionally charged targets.
If this had been an election pledge, I'd 100% agree with you. Since it's committed funding that just happens to have been committed during an election campaign, I'm 75% with you (but prepared to cut the club a little slack).Comment
Comment