Pets Paradise Sponsorship

[BlackLodge 0]

Hi guys,

I've been a regular reader of these forums for a few years now, but obviously my first post. So firstly, thank-you so much to all the contributors. You've given me hours of pleasure reading about the team I've loved for my three decades.

Now down to business. Firstly my question, and then briefly why.

Question: Do you think Cameron Schwab is the best person to write to to propose that the MFC ends its relationship with Pets Paradise? If so, what's his email address? Or else, what better way would there be to contact him? I wouldn't have thought Twitter would be a very good way.

Why: For those of you who don't know, the vast majority of pet stores (and especially places like Pets Paradise) directly support puppy farms and also demand that kittens and puppies be taken away from their mother's before they are ready so that these animals look as small and cute as possible in their windows for sales purposes. Often mothers are tied down, kept in small enclosures, never see sunlight and/or receive no medical treatment their entire lives. For more information you can go to this website.

http://www.oscarslaw...dex.php?id=3162

Now that we are at base camp with multi million dollar deals coming from our major sponsors like Energy Watch (and another), surely we can also be fully socially responsible as we climb Everest? We surely don't need Pets Paradise's sponsorship.

If anyone can help me with my question and/or help at the above link, it'd be greatly appreciated.

Warm regards, and CARN THE DEES!!!

[Gorgoroth 12,942]

I agree with you 100%.

Just took pics of my puppy yesterday wearing the Oscars law scarf.

I care more for animals than humans, lets face it people are [censored].

[mauriesy 7,284]

For those of you who don't know, the vast majority of pet stores (and especially places like Pets Paradise) directly support puppy farms and also demand that kittens and puppies be taken away from their mother's before they are ready so that these animals look as small and cute as possible in their windows for sales purposes. Often mothers are tied down, kept in small enclosures, never see sunlight and/or receive no medical treatment their entire lives.

I'm in no way supporting cruel 'puppy farms', but do you have evidence that PP does this? Do you know exactly where PP sources their puppies and kittens?

I think you need to confirm that before starting a campaign against them (and the MFC). I also don't want to see this site propogating slander.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

If I recall correctly they tipped in the $25k(?) needed to get Flash on to the senior list at a time when we didn't have the cash to do it. They are supporters of the club and run a legal business if you don't like what they do contact your local member; I'm sure you already have.

[Pink Freud 364]

I admire your position with respect to caring for animals but should we also end our association with the Age if we don't like it's editorial views, sever our connection with Deesbet because it encourages gambling, Tyrell's Wines because we could all end up drunkards?

I don't think so.

If you have an issue with a particular sponsor, you don't have to use its product but before you accuse Pets Paradise of that sort of conduct you need some harder evidence than what you've produced above and then it's up to the authorities to act if there is any wrongdoing.

I've patronised Pets Paradise in the past and never seen anything remotely resembling cruelty to animals there.

[BlackLodge 0]

@condemned - ;-)

@maurie - http://www.prisoners...t.org.au/?p=385

http://www.facebook....149678251747589

http://www.theage.co...1210-1oos5.html

http://deathrowpets....om-live-animals

http://www.savingpet...egory/pet-shops

@robbie So if James Hardie were the ones to sponsor instead of Pets Paradise you'd still want to accept their money?

http://www.heraldsun...2-1226228731644

@pink There's a difference between freedom of choice (to gamble/drink) and no freedom of choice (to be in a puppy farm). But you're right, I probably shouldn't have used the words "fully socially responsible".

Edited December 23, 2011 by BlackLodge

[Jarka 767]

I'm probably going to get smashed for this but I agree with BL, I'd also like to see us not dependant on income from gambling sources because of the effect to the community.

Sadly at this stage we can't afford to [censored] off our sponsors, that's the price of capitalism I guess.

[jnrmac 20,058]

Gee whiz this wouldn't be a new 'member' from PETA or some such other organisation would it?

"I've been a reader for years...." Sounds like Letters to the Penthouse Editor...

[Dee Fan 3,247]

@condemned - ;-)

@maurie - http://www.prisoners...t.org.au/?p=385

http://www.facebook....149678251747589

http://www.theage.co...1210-1oos5.html

http://deathrowpets....om-live-animals

http://www.savingpet...egory/pet-shops

@robbie So if James Hardie were the ones to sponsor instead of Pets Paradise you'd still want to accept their money?

http://www.heraldsun...2-1226228731644

@pink There's a difference between freedom of choice (to gamble/drink) and no freedom of choice (to be in a puppy farm). But you're right, I probably shouldn't have used the words "fully socially responsible".

A. This should be on the general board

B. Last time I heard Pets Paradise weren't responsible for the death of hundreds of Human Beings so that was a rather stupid analogy.

Pretty ordinary first post on here perhaps next time you should say something about football.

I think this thread should be allowed to PETA out.

[Little Goffy 14,514]

I have to admit, I was a little uncomfortable when the Pets Paradise sponsorship was announced, for the reasons shared in the links you provided. (Thanks for the refresher)

As other's have pointed out and I'm sure you know already, it is very difficult for the club to knock back sponsors at the moment, and for the near/forseeable future, given the delicate balance of our finances. It's a reality I've accepted to the extent of recognising the temporary necessity.

It is also one of my motivations to help build this club up to a position of true financial strength, a position where we have the independence to make these choices.

I used to work for a medium-sized social/market research company, affiliated with a much larger one. They point-blank refused to do any work at all with smoking, gambling, or alcohol promotion. As well as a preference by the leadership and the staff, this 'teetotaler' position was a deliberate choice in order to be able to honestly and credibly tender for public health camaign tracking and the like. It proved to be a more than sound commercial choice as well as an ethical one.

So, if we can get ourselves to the point of being able to make the transition safely and keep a handle on things like cash flows, I think it would actually work out nicely in our favour longer term. The trouble is reaching the point where we can manage the disruption.

I feel like the club will get there, steadily.

[Whispering_Jack 29,933]

I've just unapproved a post whereby the person suggested he had Cam Schwab's mobile number and was prepared to give it out to someone else.

Please be aware that Cam has on a previous occasion asked that his personal details not be published. The CEO's job is busy enough without having to take random calls from people.

If anyone has any issues with the club, the melbournefc.com.au has sufficient contact details - I'm sure an email will get an appropriate response in due course.

The office is closed till early January so please don't expect a quick answer at this time of year.

BTW - I've always found the club's staff very prompt and obliging whenever I've had to deal with them.

[Pink Freud 364]

@condemned - ;-)@pink There's a difference between freedom of choice (to gamble/drink) and no freedom of choice (to be in a puppy farm). But you're right, I probably shouldn't have used the words "fully socially responsible".

Oh, so now I should advise the wife not to go to the butcher shop and I should become a vegetarian because some abbatoirs might use cruelty to the animals they slaughter.

I'm not satisfied that Pets Paradise are implicated and in any event, when I bought a puppy from them I gave her a warm and friendly environment which it might not otherwise have had.

Robbie's right - this isn't a proper subject for the football board irrespective of the merits of the poster's campaign against people who are cruel to animals. The Pets Paradise people I've come across certainly are not.

[Slartibartfast 17,255]

A. This should be on the general board

No, it relates to sponsorship of the MFC and to this point the discussion relates to whether the MFC should accept the sponsorship. If it was a discussion about puppy farming I'd agree and move it.

[jabberwocky 2,301]

Most corporations are involved in practices that someone would find objectionable. While I find the mistreatment of animals deplorable I am far more affected by the way some treat human beings on this Earth.

But then we could be venturing into political and social arguments that don't belong here.

[Whispering_Jack 29,933]

No, it relates to sponsorship of the MFC and to this point the discussion relates to whether the MFC should accept the sponsorship. If it was a discussion about puppy farming I'd agree and move it.

I disagree.

Whilst I am in sympathy with those who seek to stamp out some of the cruel practices that the OP mentions, I haven't seen sufficient evidence that Pets Paradise condones these activities. We've been given one reference in the form of a 13 month old blog which contains accusations against the company but no substantiation of Pets Paradise's involvement with the particular puppy farm and no suggestion that it engages in any cruelty towards animals at all. There was no right of reply or response given to Pets Paradise whatsoever in the blog.

Until a direct link is made between the company and the cruelty complained about in the OP, I don't think it should be treated as something directly special to the interests of the MFC but rather, a matter for the general discussion board. I'm referring this to the moderators for a majority decision.

And in the interests of some fairness and balance, I found this on the Pets Paradise website:-

Pets Paradise helped to donate over $50,000 worth of pet food, toys and accessories to The Lost Dogs Home, helping all of pet friends have a Merry Christmas.

No, it doesn't excuse cruelty to pets but unless a direct link involving the company with such conduct is found it is not deserving of our condemnation.

[Demon_spurs 1,846]

Pets Paradise stores, publicly state on their premises that they don't support Puppy farms, I don't know how much credence we can give a sign in the window, but I have not seen any evidence to the contrary!

[Freddy Fuschia 741]

Why: For those of you who don't know, the vast majority of pet stores (and especially places like Pets Paradise) directly support puppy farms and also demand that kittens and puppies be taken away from their mother's before they are ready so that these animals look as small and cute as possible in their windows for sales purposes. Often mothers are tied down, kept in small enclosures, never see sunlight and/or receive no medical treatment their entire lives. For more information you can go to this website.

Hold it right there.

Is there any evidence of this so called "direct support" or the demands that are being alleged here?

If not this is an unwarranted slur on a club sponsor and there's no place for it on this site.

[Slartibartfast 17,255]

I disagree.

I'm happily outranked!!

Initially I looked at his as a discussion on "ethical sponsorships" but it now seems to be focusing on a particular club sponsor where the allegation is unfounded.

[Whispering_Jack 29,933]

Fan, I think BL does raise the issue of ethical sponsorships and it's an important one for any organisation that relies partly or wholly on sponsorship funds.

At the MFC Summit which many of us attended in the early days of the Stynes administration, Cameron Schwab spoke on that very issue and explained that, while the club was struggling to secure a sponsor at the time, he would not entertain having a particular fast food chain known for its unhealthy food products.

I think if the debate was on that discrete issue, it would be fine on the football club page (and perhaps someone might want to start something in that vein) but since it's about the alleged activities of a company which we don't know for certain are even taking place, I can't endorse it or support its continuing to be in this section of the site.

[Striker475 696]

I like the 'ethical' sponsorship idea but it's hard to draw the line. Because, well, define ethical? We were all delighted to see the EnergyWatch sponsorship yet they're currently being taken to court by the ACCC. Does having a sponsor that could be in breach of trading and/or consumer regulations constitute as ethical? Are Pets Paradise breaking the law? Can it be proven that they are?

I hate the idea of puppy farms. We have just gotten a second dog, and we were very, very careful to select a dog that was not from a puppy farm but rather from a long-term, well-rated breeder. I fully intend on doing the same with future dogs. However, unless it can be proven that Pets Paradise have interacted with puppy farms (and by the way, define a puppy farm - because what an animal activist will define a puppy farm as and what a regular person will could be two very different things) then I'm not willing to agree with this train of thought.