Tony Rowe - Shouting To Himself

[ilovelamp]

Bizarre stuff from Tony Rowe and the Chiefs!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union ... emiership/

[Which Tyler]

https://archive.is/1F8Op

Exeter notably parted ways with respected media manager Mark Stevens last summer

It shows

[Puja]

Exeter notably parted ways with respected media manager Mark Stevens last summer

It shows

Yeah, I was going to pull that bit out of the article as well. Somewhere, Mr Stevens is crying with laughter and saying, "I told you that you couldn't just get the workie to do my job."

Embarrassing from Chiefs. They really do make themselves very difficult to like.

Puja

[twitchy]

Exeter notably parted ways with respected media manager Mark Stevens last summer

It shows

Yeah, I was going to pull that bit out of the article as well. Somewhere, Mr Stevens is crying with laughter and saying, "I told you that you couldn't just get the workie to do my job."

Embarrassing from Chiefs. They really do make themselves very difficult to like.

Puja

I mean I'd take that over this any day.

[Oakboy]

Embarrassing from Chiefs. They really do make themselves very difficult to like.

Puja

Interesting comment, Puja. Without getting into a pro/anti debate about Exeter or Rowe, I just found myself thinking about why NEW fans of the game would take to a club - leaving aside tradition, geography, bias etc.

Some reasons (in no particular order) might be:

Real pitch (i.e. NOT artificial).
Nice 'rugby' ground - i.e. not shared with football.
Underdog background.
Personable, English DoR with good TV manner.
Good youth policy/record.
Solid financial structure.
Good EQP base.
Good connection with city/community.
Good area support base.
Strong university connection.


Might it mean that Exeter SHOULD be easier to sell than one or two others? It does rather make your point, I suppose!

[Puja]

Embarrassing from Chiefs. They really do make themselves very difficult to like.

Puja

Interesting comment, Puja. Without getting into a pro/anti debate about Exeter or Rowe, I just found myself thinking about why NEW fans of the game would take to a club - leaving aside tradition, geography, bias etc.

Some reasons (in no particular order) might be:

Real pitch (i.e. NOT artificial).
Nice 'rugby' ground - i.e. not shared with football.
Underdog background.
Personable, English DoR with good TV manner.
Good youth policy/record.
Solid financial structure.
Good EQP base.
Good connection with city/community.
Good area support base.
Strong university connection.


Might it mean that Exeter SHOULD be easier to sell than one or two others? It does rather make your point, I suppose!

Absolutely agree - they should be everyone's favourite second team and indeed were for a while. As with so many of English rugby's problems, it started with the Saracens salary cap scandal. Rowe's graceless public responses to that lost a chunk of goodwill and then it's been PR blunder after blunder since then, ironically fuelled by him being upset that they're not better liked.

It shows

Yeah, I was going to pull that bit out of the article as well. Somewhere, Mr Stevens is crying with laughter and saying, "I told you that you couldn't just get the workie to do my job."

Embarrassing from Chiefs. They really do make themselves very difficult to like.

Puja

I mean I'd take that over this any day.

Damning with faint praise, but your point is a good one. No Rowe, no Exeter and then there were 9. I may not care for him, but he is a vital part of rugby in this country and I have to respect what he's done and his commitment.

Puja

[p/d]

I like ‘em

[Oakboy]

I like ‘em

Oh, me too, but I agree that their PR is naff sometimes. For example, they could and should have reinvented their public image by dropping the 'Chiefs' label. There was more to be gained than lost by doing that and it could have been prepared in such a way as to convince their members.

[Puja]

I like ‘em

Oh, me too, but I agree that their PR is naff sometimes. For example, they could and should have reinvented their public image by dropping the 'Chiefs' label. There was more to be gained than lost by doing that and it could have been prepared in such a way as to convince their members.

Played right, they would've been absolute heroes and got a massive boost of public opinion - middle of the BLM protests and the pandemic, they would've looked so good to say, "We never meant any hurt or harm by appropriating Native American imagery and using harmful stereotypes, but now we've been made aware (and now it's profitable), we're going to pivot to Devonish style chiefs and remove all the 'savages brandishing weapons' branding."

As it is, they had to be dragged kicking and screaming to do the absolute bare minimum, complaining all the way, and they're still playing that damned Cowboys and Indians chant over the PA at games.

Puja

[morepork]

I like ‘em

Oh, me too, but I agree that their PR is naff sometimes. For example, they could and should have reinvented their public image by dropping the 'Chiefs' label. There was more to be gained than lost by doing that and it could have been prepared in such a way as to convince their members.

Played right, they would've been absolute heroes and got a massive boost of public opinion - middle of the BLM protests and the pandemic, they would've looked so good to say, "We never meant any hurt or harm by appropriating Native American imagery and using harmful stereotypes, but now we've been made aware (and now it's profitable), we're going to pivot to Devonish style chiefs and remove all the 'savages brandishing weapons' branding."

As it is, they had to be dragged kicking and screaming to do the absolute bare minimum, complaining all the way, and they're still playing that damned Cowboys and Indians chant over the PA at games.

Puja

That persistent nonsense is inexcusable. Simply should not still be happening.

[Oakboy]

Oh, me too, but I agree that their PR is naff sometimes. For example, they could and should have reinvented their public image by dropping the 'Chiefs' label. There was more to be gained than lost by doing that and it could have been prepared in such a way as to convince their members.

Played right, they would've been absolute heroes and got a massive boost of public opinion - middle of the BLM protests and the pandemic, they would've looked so good to say, "We never meant any hurt or harm by appropriating Native American imagery and using harmful stereotypes, but now we've been made aware (and now it's profitable), we're going to pivot to Devonish style chiefs and remove all the 'savages brandishing weapons' branding."

As it is, they had to be dragged kicking and screaming to do the absolute bare minimum, complaining all the way, and they're still playing that damned Cowboys and Indians chant over the PA at games.

Puja

That persistent nonsense is inexcusable. Simply should not still be happening.

At the time, a really good 'ideas' man could have come up with a new West Country/Devon image that took them right away from it. The marketing potential - new kit, new image, new name, new era . . . - was there to be grabbed. Tradition does rugby no favours sometimes. The game is now professional. Even Leicester have numbers on their shirts now!

[Spiffy]

I like ‘em

Oh, me too, but I agree that their PR is naff sometimes. For example, they could and should have reinvented their public image by dropping the 'Chiefs' label. There was more to be gained than lost by doing that and it could have been prepared in such a way as to convince their members.

They should have acknowledged their unique regionality and rebranded themselves The Wurzels when they had the chance; and replaced that silly feathered head dress logo with a good honest turnip.

[Which Tyler]

They should have acknowledged their unique regionality and rebranded themselves The Wurzels when they had the chance; and replaced that silly feathered head dress logo with a good honest turnip.

Exeter's in Devon, not Somerset!

[Crash Hamster]

I rahter like the Chiefs' new branding; it both capitulates to, and cocks a snook at, people squawking about cultural appropriation.

[Oakboy]

I rahter like the Chiefs' new branding; it both capitulates to, and cocks a snook at, people squawking about cultural appropriation.

I understand that view but it's just the wrong approach in today's PR environment, IMO. It may make a few diehards happy but it does not sell the club in a modern way. Arguing that things should not be as they are won't work. The club could have been cleverer, basically.

[morepork]

I rahter like the Chiefs' new branding; it both capitulates to, and cocks a snook at, people squawking about cultural appropriation.

Why would you want to "cock a snook at" a genuine criticism of using a cliched racial stereotype associated with hundreds of years of oppression of a culture that existed thousands of years prior to this marketing homage to fuckwittery?

[Crash Hamster]

I rahter like the Chiefs' new branding; it both capitulates to, and cocks a snook at, people squawking about cultural appropriation.

Why would you want to "cock a snook at" a genuine criticism of using a cliched racial stereotype associated with hundreds of years of oppression of a culture that existed thousands of years prior to this marketing homage to fuckwittery?

Obviously, it's the Chiefs who have cocked a snook, rather than me personally, but I might suggest because not everyone cares about cultural appropriation. You can find it terrible if you like, I find it amusing.

155,000 people die each day and no-one gives each person a second's thought. If you wish to die on the hill of 'Chiefs are evil for previously having had a badge which depicts someone from another culture' crack on. Don't forget to be consistent in your dislike for all forms of cultural appropriation by any and all cultures, though...

[morepork]

I rahter like the Chiefs' new branding; it both capitulates to, and cocks a snook at, people squawking about cultural appropriation.

Why would you want to "cock a snook at" a genuine criticism of using a cliched racial stereotype associated with hundreds of years of oppression of a culture that existed thousands of years prior to this marketing homage to fuckwittery?

Obviously, it's the Chiefs who have cocked a snook, rather than me personally, but I might suggest because not everyone cares about cultural appropriation. You can find it terrible if you like, I find it amusing.

155,000 people die each day and no-one gives each person a second's thought. If you wish to die on the hill of 'Chiefs are evil for previously having had a badge which depicts someone from another culture' crack on. Don't forget to be consistent in your dislike for all forms of cultural appropriation by any and all cultures, though...

Rah! Crack on. The cultures being appropriated care.

I’ll leave it there but you are not supporting your weight at the ruck on this hill to die on. Rely on a bad ref to score points if you want. Your choice of focus is up to you.