Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Options

Anelka's 'Quenelle' .. W B A Given an Ultimatum by Their Sponsors

TalkSPORT have reported that Zoopla, who sponsor W B A and who's name appears on the club shirts, have told the W B A management/owners, if Anelka appears again for the club, all Zoopla sponsorship will be withdrawn.
For those who don't know, a quenelle is regarded, especially in France, as a new form of Nazi salute
«13

Comments

  • Options
    The gesture itself isn't actually anti-Semitic, and basically means 'up yours' in English.

    However, the creator is pretty anti-Semitic himself, so its worse than Anelka did it to support him rather than doing the gesture itself (like Nasri and Sakho have done).
  • Options
    "Sources" have said that if Anelka is picked to play Everton on Monday, it will axe its tie-up.

    Totally understandable that Zoopla would not want to be associated with photographs of a footballer wearing a shirt with their name on, while making such a gesture. Fascism, Nazism and the celebration of such regimes are foul and disgusting. I can very easily see why a company owned in part by Jewish investors would want to steer clear from such utterly pointless, hurtful and dangerous actions.

    At the same time, I am slightly concerned about a football club's sponsor dictating the team's selection policy.

    I can see Anelka being injured and thus unavailable for selection on Monday; and finding a new club during the transfer window.
  • Options
    Will just get a new sponsor.
  • Options
    MrOneLung said:

    Will just get a new sponsor.

    Possiby. But are they confident enough to search for and find a new, multi-million pound, long-term sponsor for next season? And hope that the new sponsor pays at least as much as Zoopla; and a new sponsor that is not too fussed about having someone wearing their logo, while giving the appearance of having far right sympathies; and be certain they won't succumb to the three-point gap that currently separates them from the Championship paupers?

  • Options
    It's complicated, I think. The comedian involved denies being anti-semitic, but claims to be anti-Israel and anti-establishment. However, since this all blew up people who are definitely anti-semitic have got on board, hence photos of people doing it outside synagogues, Jewish memorials and apparently even Auschwitz. So whatever it was, it is now an anti-semitic gesture.
    I don't know if Anelka is anti-semitic, but it was an unwise thing to do in the first place.
  • Options
    Have they paid for the season in advance? Extra cash for WBA if then get someone else in.
  • Options
    MrOneLung said:

    Have they paid for the season in advance? Extra cash for WBA if then get someone else in.

    They can't get a new sponsor, mid-season.

  • Options

    If i was West Brom i would tell Zoopla to stick their money where the sun does not shine. no way should a sponsor say who is or isn't in the team.

    Not unless you are Nike and you are playing in a world cup final
  • Sponsored links:


  • Options
    Kap10 said:

    If i was West Brom i would tell Zoopla to stick their money where the sun does not shine. no way should a sponsor say who is or isn't in the team.

    Not unless you are Nike and you are playing in a world cup final
    Good point
  • Options

    Uboat said:

    It's complicated, I think. The comedian involved denies being anti-semitic, but claims to be anti-Israel and anti-establishment. However, since this all blew up people who are definitely anti-semitic have got on board, hence photos of people doing it outside synagogues, Jewish memorials and apparently even Auschwitz. So whatever it was, it is now an anti-semitic gesture.
    I don't know if Anelka is anti-semitic, but it was an unwise thing to do in the first place.

    It's not complicated. The man has been repeatedly convicted for being an anti Semite. If another player made a racist gesture that offended blacks or Muslims, then Nic would be at the front of the queue commending a sponsor that made a stand against it. West Bromley should have sacked him on the spot for it. Why should fuckwits like anelka be allowed to be racist just because middle class whites are too limp to call it what it is?
    spot on.

    btw the west Bromley bit reminded me of an ex that agreed to take a few of us to west Brom thinking it was not too far to drive to Bromley, didn't correct her until the day.
  • Options

    Uboat said:

    It's complicated, I think. The comedian involved denies being anti-semitic, but claims to be anti-Israel and anti-establishment. However, since this all blew up people who are definitely anti-semitic have got on board, hence photos of people doing it outside synagogues, Jewish memorials and apparently even Auschwitz. So whatever it was, it is now an anti-semitic gesture.
    I don't know if Anelka is anti-semitic, but it was an unwise thing to do in the first place.

    It's not complicated. The man has been repeatedly convicted for being an anti Semite. If another player made a racist gesture that offended blacks or Muslims, then Nic would be at the front of the queue commending a sponsor that made a stand against it. West Bromley should have sacked him on the spot for it. Why should fuckwits like anelka be allowed to be racist just because middle class whites are too limp to call it what it is?
    Please tell which middle class whites (apart from those who are anti semitic) are colluding with Anelka regarding this?
  • Options
    I think he means those who will not say he is racist, when he clearly is?
  • Options

    I think he means those who will not say he is racist, when he clearly is?

    and who are they? By the way he's anti semitic which is slightly different as Jews are not all of one race.

  • Options
    Surely there would be terms in the sponsorship deal (which would have been looked over by top Lawyers) and they can't just walk away without paying the money due to West Brom selecting a player, think it's Talksport trying to cause a stir.
  • Options
    there will be clauses about bringing the company's reputation into disrepute, their lawyers would piss all over WBA's if WBA took them to court tbh.
  • Options

    there will be clauses about bringing the company's reputation into disrepute, their lawyers would piss all over WBA's if WBA took them to court tbh.

    You may or may not know that Ironside is a West Brom fan
  • Sponsored links:


  • Options

    Surely there would be terms in the sponsorship deal (which would have been looked over by top Lawyers) and they can't just walk away without paying the money due to West Brom selecting a player, think it's Talksport trying to cause a stir.

    There will be clauses about actions by the club making the sponsors look bad through bad publicity. Same as certain singers and sports stars have lost sponsors for things they have done. As you say, lawyers game now.

  • Options
    BIG_ROB said:

    there will be clauses about bringing the company's reputation into disrepute, their lawyers would piss all over WBA's if WBA took them to court tbh.

    You may or may not know that Ironside is a West Brom fan
    Decent wheelchair facilities?
  • Options
    The other thing to consider is what if WBA sack Anelka to please their sponsor and then get relegated - partly because they can't replace him? Don't forget they've only just sold Shane Long to Hull.

    That will be a big problem on a number of fronts, Anelka would sue WBA for wrongful dismissal and they'd be in the Championship.
  • Options

    The other thing to consider is what if WBA sack Anelka to please their sponsor and then get relegated - partly because they can't replace him? Don't forget they've only just sold Shane Long to Hull.

    That will be a big problem on a number of fronts, Anelka would sue WBA for wrongful dismissal and they'd be in the Championship.

    IF West Brom sack him, it could be on the basis that his actions have risked their relationship with their most important sponsor. Which sounds like it would be grounds for dismissal. But I can't imagine they'd sack him if they could sell him...
  • Options
    iainment said:

    I think he means those who will not say he is racist, when he clearly is?

    and who are they? By the way he's anti semitic which is slightly different as Jews are not all of one race.

    The same would apply to Muslims then, not all of one race, but so many are happy to cry racism (ridiculously) when others criticise or comment on Muslim issues.
    Totally agree with Mortmertician, Anelka, the FA, EUFA, FIFA and god knows what other self interested groups would be all over this if it were deemed, even slightly (given the many differing opinions on the gesture) anti Islamic.

  • Options

    If i was West Brom i would tell Zoopla to stick their money where the sun does not shine. no way should a sponsor say who is or isn't in the team.

    I disagree. The shirt sponsor has every right to have an opinion on this. I would be very surprised indeed if there was not something in the sponsorship contract which gives the sponsor an opt-out (and possible refund?) in the event that either the club or an individual connected with the club did something which may bring their association into disrepute and harm the sponsor's business.

    Zoopla was founded by Alex Chesterman and Simon Kain - I don't know what they put down on the census forms regarding their religion/race but are they not entitled to have an opinion on this? What cannot be disputed is that the business operates in the property market and will not want to offend any potential customers.

    In the same way, it was widely reported that Standard Chartered Bank, which has very significant operations in Africa, had a "very robust conversation" with Liverpool FC regarding the Suarez incidents.

    Let's face it supporters have been known to have a say on who is or isn't in the team by voicing their opinions (abusing players) from the stands. Why are shirt sponspors any different?
  • Options
    se9addick said:

    The whole Quenelle thing IS much, much more complex than if appears and it is absolutely not solely a "Nazi Salute" it goes way back before that.

    To properly understand it you really need to understand French society and politics and the way in which the country is basically run by a very, very narrow elite - who are essentially the graduates of the Grande Ecoles, the French equivalent of Oxbridge.

    The lack of social mobility in France causes huge frustration to those outside of if, not just those in Les Banlieus of North African origin but also ordinary people who consider themselves outside "the system" and are very unhappy about it.

    Dieudonne has been doing La Quenelle since about 2005 and it's original meaning was to say "Up Yours" to authority and the government or, more accurately, "This is how far you can stick it up your arse" it was kind of an anti- establishment gesture of resistance.

    However, for some reason some idiots have performed the gesture in certain sensitive sites to Jews such as Auschwitz, Yav Shem and Dachau and the powerful Jewish lobby groups in France have tried to portray anyone doing La Quenelle as anti-Semitic which is something many people find ridiculous.

    As for Dieudonne himself, he strongly denies being anti-Semitic and argues he is and anti-Zionist which is something very different indeed.

    I speak OK French and have listened to him talking about Palestine and so on and he is by no means an idiot like Nick Griffin he makes some very salient points about how nobody can discuss the huge injustice of Palestine without the Jewish lobby shutting them down as as Anti-Semite.

    You can compare this to the left in the UK labelling anyone who wants to talk about problems with immigration as being a "racist" - it's a cheap and easy way of getting out of a debate that you really don't want to have.

    On the other hand Dieudonne has also said some pretty dumb things about individual Jews and gone pretty out there, even linking Jews with the slave trade which is obviously nonsense.

    As for West Brom, I would tell the sponsors to feck off, they have no right interfering in team affairs at all.

    On 1 December 2003, Dieudonné performed a sketch on a TV show about an Israeli settler whom he depicted as a Naz

    Dieudonné approached Jean-Marie Le Pen, leader of the National Front political party that he had fought earlier in his life, and the men became political allies and friends, with Le Pen even becoming the godfather of one of Dieudonné's daughters

    Dieudonné's provocations culminated in the appearance of holocaust denier Robert Faurisson in one of his shows in 2008.[6][7] He described Holocaust remembrance as "memorial pornography"

    After Dieudonné was recorded during a performance mocking a Jewish journalist, suggesting it's a pity he was not sent to the gas chambers

    French Interior Minister Manuel Valls stated that Dieudonné was "no longer a comedian" but was rather an "anti-Semite and racist"

    He was convicted in court eight times on antisemitism charges

    - - - - -

    I'm pretty sure this guy's anti-Semitic.

    God knows what Anelka's doing getting caught up in all this - it's hardly as if he's an impressionable youngster trying to act outrageously as a way of rebellion. He should know better, particularly as a devout follower of a religion which is also attacked by extremist idiots.
    Dieudonne is a Muslim by birth but by no means a devout Muslim, I am not sure he even practices his faith, he actually criticises every aspect of French life in his shows not just Jews - his first full-time comedy partner was actually Jewish and they are still friends.

    The point he tries to make, and like I say he often makes it very stupidly as you have quoted above, is that in France nobody can be critical of Israel of its position regarding Palestine without immediately being called anti-Semitic.

    The point being that you can be an anti-Zionist without being anti-Semitic - although as you point out some - not all - of his statements are more anti-Semitic in their nature.

    As I said earlier this situation in the French context is very, very complicated.

    The reason the French 'establishment' cracks down so hard on anything which they consider remotely anti-Semitic is because they are still deeply ashamed by their wartime past in which some French rounded up Jews with plenty of enthusiasm - a part of their history they are desperate to distance themselves from.

    Therefore, in modern day France both establishment parties - left and right - take a bi-partisan approach to fully supporting Israel no matter what and clamping down on any dissent at all.

    This causes plenty of problems for them as the Israelis approach towards Palestine gets increasingly indefensible - especially when you consider France's big Muslim population.

    So, the point Dieudonne tries to make - and he has been out of order in some of what he has said - is that people should be free to criticise Israel and it's policies without being called anti-Semitic, which is the classic tactic of AIPAC in the US and it's international equivalents.

    Let's be honest here, nobody gets elected in America - including Obama - unless they swear undying devotion to Israel, if you don't then AIPAC will make sure you lose your election.

    As I said earlier, it is plain wrong to shut down debate by labelling your opponents, this is a classic left-wing tactic regarding immigration where under Labour and even now you can't question UK immigration policy without being labelled a racist or Little Englander, you can have genuine concerns about immigration levels without being a racist or Xenophobe.

    This is Dieudonne's point, that Israel and it's supporters use the past atrocities like the Holocaust as camouflage to protect themselves against any criticisms of Israel's modern day policies by labelling any critics as Jew haters.

    It's a very complex and emotive debate and he does say some stupid things but that does not make all of his arguments invalid by any means.
  • Options
    There are some valid points made here but surely the key is that even if you accept the more innocent explanation for his actions (anti-establishment or anti-Israel), why the hell should fans paying to watch a football match live or on TV care about Nicolas Anelka's political views?

    Just go out there and show us how you play football - talk about your political views in an interview or on a talk show.
  • Options

    se9addick said:

    The whole Quenelle thing IS much, much more complex than if appears and it is absolutely not solely a "Nazi Salute" it goes way back before that.

    To properly understand it you really need to understand French society and politics and the way in which the country is basically run by a very, very narrow elite - who are essentially the graduates of the Grande Ecoles, the French equivalent of Oxbridge.

    The lack of social mobility in France causes huge frustration to those outside of if, not just those in Les Banlieus of North African origin but also ordinary people who consider themselves outside "the system" and are very unhappy about it.

    Dieudonne has been doing La Quenelle since about 2005 and it's original meaning was to say "Up Yours" to authority and the government or, more accurately, "This is how far you can stick it up your arse" it was kind of an anti- establishment gesture of resistance.

    However, for some reason some idiots have performed the gesture in certain sensitive sites to Jews such as Auschwitz, Yav Shem and Dachau and the powerful Jewish lobby groups in France have tried to portray anyone doing La Quenelle as anti-Semitic which is something many people find ridiculous.

    As for Dieudonne himself, he strongly denies being anti-Semitic and argues he is and anti-Zionist which is something very different indeed.

    I speak OK French and have listened to him talking about Palestine and so on and he is by no means an idiot like Nick Griffin he makes some very salient points about how nobody can discuss the huge injustice of Palestine without the Jewish lobby shutting them down as as Anti-Semite.

    You can compare this to the left in the UK labelling anyone who wants to talk about problems with immigration as being a "racist" - it's a cheap and easy way of getting out of a debate that you really don't want to have.

    On the other hand Dieudonne has also said some pretty dumb things about individual Jews and gone pretty out there, even linking Jews with the slave trade which is obviously nonsense.

    As for West Brom, I would tell the sponsors to feck off, they have no right interfering in team affairs at all.

    On 1 December 2003, Dieudonné performed a sketch on a TV show about an Israeli settler whom he depicted as a Naz

    Dieudonné approached Jean-Marie Le Pen, leader of the National Front political party that he had fought earlier in his life, and the men became political allies and friends, with Le Pen even becoming the godfather of one of Dieudonné's daughters

    Dieudonné's provocations culminated in the appearance of holocaust denier Robert Faurisson in one of his shows in 2008.[6][7] He described Holocaust remembrance as "memorial pornography"

    After Dieudonné was recorded during a performance mocking a Jewish journalist, suggesting it's a pity he was not sent to the gas chambers

    French Interior Minister Manuel Valls stated that Dieudonné was "no longer a comedian" but was rather an "anti-Semite and racist"

    He was convicted in court eight times on antisemitism charges

    - - - - -

    I'm pretty sure this guy's anti-Semitic.

    God knows what Anelka's doing getting caught up in all this - it's hardly as if he's an impressionable youngster trying to act outrageously as a way of rebellion. He should know better, particularly as a devout follower of a religion which is also attacked by extremist idiots.
    Dieudonne is a Muslim by birth but by no means a devout Muslim, I am not sure he even practices his faith, he actually criticises every aspect of French life in his shows not just Jews - his first full-time comedy partner was actually Jewish and they are still friends.

    The point he tries to make, and like I say he often makes it very stupidly as you have quoted above, is that in France nobody can be critical of Israel of its position regarding Palestine without immediately being called anti-Semitic.

    The point being that you can be an anti-Zionist without being anti-Semitic - although as you point out some - not all - of his statements are more anti-Semitic in their nature.

    As I said earlier this situation in the French context is very, very complicated.

    The reason the French 'establishment' cracks down so hard on anything which they consider remotely anti-Semitic is because they are still deeply ashamed by their wartime past in which some French rounded up Jews with plenty of enthusiasm - a part of their history they are desperate to distance themselves from.

    Therefore, in modern day France both establishment parties - left and right - take a bi-partisan approach to fully supporting Israel no matter what and clamping down on any dissent at all.

    This causes plenty of problems for them as the Israelis approach towards Palestine gets increasingly indefensible - especially when you consider France's big Muslim population.

    So, the point Dieudonne tries to make - and he has been out of order in some of what he has said - is that people should be free to criticise Israel and it's policies without being called anti-Semitic, which is the classic tactic of AIPAC in the US and it's international equivalents.

    Let's be honest here, nobody gets elected in America - including Obama - unless they swear undying devotion to Israel, if you don't then AIPAC will make sure you lose your election.

    As I said earlier, it is plain wrong to shut down debate by labelling your opponents, this is a classic left-wing tactic regarding immigration where under Labour and even now you can't question UK immigration policy without being labelled a racist or Little Englander, you can have genuine concerns about immigration levels without being a racist or Xenophobe.

    This is Dieudonne's point, that Israel and it's supporters use the past atrocities like the Holocaust as camouflage to protect themselves against any criticisms of Israel's modern day policies by labelling any critics as Jew haters.

    It's a very complex and emotive debate and he does say some stupid things but that does not make all of his arguments invalid by any means.
    I understand the differences between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism (although, as Israel the worlds only Jewish state I don't think there's a huge leap from one to the other) but I also understand that many people use the more politically correct anti-Zionism as a cover for their anti-Semitic views. I think, based on the nonsense he's spouted, Dieudonne is one of those. Let's be clear, this is a chap who's been convicted of anti- Semitism not once, not twice, but eight times.

    Anelka's an idiot for getting caught up in this and Zoopla are well within their rights to be upset that their brand is now associated with this debacle.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!