₦airaland Forum

breathelove:
Rolando was only sending a message to his fans. His message is all about healthy living. He has no issue with Coca-Cola as a company but with the very unhealthy product.

He was sending a right message in the wrong manner and in the wrong place. Its wrong for him to send such message at an event paid for by the brand he was criticising. By being part of Euro 2020, he is a beneficiary of Coca-Cola a major sponsor. He should have used his social media accounts to send his fans message and not be forming holier than thou when these "evil" drinks are also sold in Ronaldo's hotels or will he force his customers not to take Soda and alcohol but only water? Where will he see revenue then?

Wisdom is critical in life application as he just unnecessarily made Coke an enemy for himself. He cannot outlast Coke.

colestephan86:
Bro, Coca-Cola is a brand sponsoring euro 2020, but they ain't sponsoring Ronaldo.
He has every right to remove the bottles. Why can't they Coca-Cola make a backdrop and have their logo on it?

What's the difference between the backdrop and the bottle? Isnt it the same coke logo that's on both. Note that he is not required to drink the Coke on the table.

blueAgent:
The dude always wants to be on the spot light even when not necessary.

Very very unnecessary reaction indicative of an attention seeker. If he did not like Coke, he could have even drank only the water and leave the Coke untouched which is subtle but understandable.

As if it's not enough removing the Coke, he then opens that his wide mouth to spew Opata meow yarns. Does he think that the immorality that his hotels are encouraging is acceptable to all? Is living healthy about only avoiding sugar? What about avoiding oloshos and limiting STDs?

How can Coke pay for an event and have a beneficiary slight their product publicly? That's unprofessional and I don't expect ignorant fans bereft of the workings of the professional corporate world to align at that mental level to be able to separate fandom from unethical behaviour.

Coke is worth 232bn dollars. CR is not even worth a billion dollars. It's not even a close contest at all.

Beverlyjean:
The pained bitter haters have arrived....cover ur drinks , the poison givers are here

Beverlyjean, I don't have your time here, engaging with you lowers my IQ. Adios no matter what your reply is.

Reference:
I think you need a broader understanding of what is happening here.
There is a growing global recognition of the harm done to public health by the consumption of excessive amounts of sugar to which the beverage industry has come under scrutiny and pressure in many climes.

In my report I likened it to the anti tobacco movements in the 80's and 90's leading to the global ban on open advertising and promotions. Then the big players were official sponsors of major events including the world cup with very generous commercial terms but met with increasing resistance first by influential personalities just as in this case before a total outbreak of adversity.

It is those who realise what this potentially means for Coca-Cola and big beverage that reacted that way in the markets, not necessarily because it was Cristiano Ronaldo. They more enlightened places of the world have seen the first shots fired from within big business that can threaten the brand and will look anxiously in the next weeks and months whether this will gain traction and snowball.

CR7 did admit later (if you followed the story) that he had reservations and anxiety about the effects the consumption of sugar and bad food had in the the life of his son and was totally against it as a sportsman.

So he has his convictions but he is not the ultimate catalyst for any eventuality. There has been a growing movement and a heating battle in modern societies that sugar be made a controlled substance. And folks out there will be nervous to see whether CR7 proves to be the rogue skier who started the avalanche.

I'm well aware of the growing anti-sugar sentiments globally and that's part of what birthed all these Coke-zero, "Low sugar" drink options in response to those sentiments by the big beverage companies. It's also clear that these options have not suppressed the sentiments. But that's not the point of my position.

Ronaldo is free to have his convictions without criticism as are many others. I've also severely cut down on my intake of sugary beverages.

However, the key point is that it's inappropriate to express these convictions during an event sponsored by these soft drink companies. However moral it may sound, it's in bad faith and actually an unprofessional behaviour. If he had made the statement on his social media account, I would not criticize him as he is entitled to his opinions on such a platform.

Like I said earlier, how would Ronaldo feel if, during the launch of any of his hotels, the Pope then wades in to advise the global catholic faithfuls not to patronize his hotels because they encourage immorality which is anti-Christian? Even though we all know this is morally true of the hospitality industry, such an action will be highly inappropriate.

If Cristiano wants to trigger an avalanche, let him do that from his SM accounts and not from an event paid for by a legitimate business concern.

Tonytonex:
Is he their brand ambassador?
Did they pay him for the advertisement of the brand. He's a super star. If the answer is no. Then he's wise for doing that.

Until someone publicly downgrades your personal business, I hope you'll accept the person was wise too.

Anyway Coke's loss is only temporary and it will bounce back asap

colestephan86:
If he wasn't their brand ambassador then he should remove it , if he didn't Coca-Cola would have had a very massively free publicity for having their product sit next to another very big product

Coca-cola is officially the number one most recognizable/popular brand in the world. It is therefore a statement of fallacy for you to imply that a less popular brand will give a more popular brand "massive" free publicity, as if Coke isnt also giving Ronaldo massive publicity.

The Coke bottles were there not because of Ronaldo but because Coke is the official sponsor of Euro 2020 so all players being interviewed would have Coke bottles on their table. What Ronaldo did is quite very pretty and the Euro organizers wouldn't be happy he is shading a major sponsor.

I can imagine if the Pope publicly says to his Catholic faithfuls that he can never stay in Cristiano's hotels because they encourage immorality. How would Ronaldo take that from a business perspective?

That we are fans doesn't mean one should lose sense of reasoning.

addexx:
it's both ways. The Coca-Cola in front of him would have also tarnished his personal brand and the numerous brand he represents as a healthy eating athlete. Also he doesn't have a deal with the company. So why the free advert?

It's not free advert. Coke is a major sponsor of Euro 2020 which Ronaldo is a part of.

And by the way the Coke brand is more recognizable and valuable than CR. So I think it's the other way round.

Lacash:
This is just a simple arithmetics, C/Ronaldo is a deal orientated person, so he knows what it means leaving those bottles in front of him while delivering his speech. He gat remove it as a sharp guy wey him be since he doesn’t have any deal with the company

Yeah he might have thought that way, but Coca-Cola is a major sponsor of Euro2020 of which CR is a part of. So definitely the Euro organisers will be displeased.

Jokerman:
My brother....congratulate the GOAT... No let am pain you too much....

You mean I should congratulate Messi? Anyway I already congratulated CR in my post, except you deliberately refused to see that.

And I didnt see you congratulate Messi yesterday for his magnificent free kick against Chile. See I even did better than you, cos I'm sure you were so pained by that goal that you became mute

Fun fact: Almost 40% of CR's goals in Euros have come against hapless Hungary.

You've got to give it to him. He's got a great taste for Hungarian delicacies

Congrats to him though. He is the best European player of all time. But he no reach the big 4 South American GOATs.

By the way, who else has noticed how Obi Asika has suddenly turned the most objective and analytical among the judges over the past few weeks. A refreshing change from the follow-follow style he was doing earlier on on the show.

I'm sure he got feedback from the online backlash then. Good to know that these guys read our comments.

Kudos to Obi. He's my favourite judge now.

Kingdom shaves it as the best performer of this week for me. His 2nd performance was one of the all time best performances on this season and I can only think of Francis' rendition of Sam Smith's writing on the wall competing in this regard.

I don't know what Mr. P was brought in on the show to do. An obviously biased judge he is. Imagine choosing Akunna as the best performer in all the contests which was an obviously influenced decision.

I like Comfort, she's got a soothing sweet voice, but she should go home abeg. Her performances while generally okay are too much in her comfort zone. It's like she's just cruising while the other contestants are fighting which isnt fair on them. She also appears to be unable to hit high notes without sounding cringey. She has improved alright but needs to leave. But knowing Nigerians, they might pull off an Efe on her.

HajiaNotu:
Later Someone will compare Ik to Ebuka..
Noo no no..
They aint mate.

Ik is fireee..

Like for Ik, Share for Ebuka.
Lets see

IK is spontaneous, funny and witty. Ebuka is more or less a by-the-book presenter, competent but predictable. IK anyday seven times a week for me.

djsjxjfjdisjdjb:
Now I can see that you are enjoying this and are in it for the scam. Nobody should pay any money to this guy. The ones he has received, he did not come here to randomly thank for it and acts like nobody gave him anything before. Now, he has even upped his request because he is observing that the little he is asking for, he is getting more than it. Send money to this account at your own risk.

Pls provide evidence that he has been begging before. Cos I just sent him some money.

Wapchrist1:
Pls assist a brother with 4k i fit paybk by month end. I have exhausted my saving am really really hungry now .
2175591653
Zenith
Christian N

Tried to send some token to you but didnt go through due to bank network. Will follow through as soon as the issue is resolved.

Cheers bro.

Modified: Sent but really hope you re not a scam.

Op Zimri, where's the Pekingese in your list? That's another popular cute petite fluffy dog .

To be candid, what's the point of having a Buhari-must-go protest. The old man will never resign no matter the clamour. NA cannot impeach him. He cannot be forcefully removed under a democracy. So what's the point? Twitter has been gagged so even if the Govt commits another massacre of protesters it wouldn't trend globally like EndSARS. Even during the EndSARS saga, the Buhari must go protests were futile and the Govt will even be more aggressive now to prevent any further heat.

Make we sit out the remaining 1.5 years of this calamity jeje.

Btw, what happened to Nairaland shutdown for 2 hours this morning. Hope say Mr Lai Lai never dey reason Seun's side after femming the bird app.

When you always have the need to explain the President's statement that was rendered in English, then it is an indication of a leader that is incapable of effective communication. It just shows that Buhari is not so mentally coordinated when his aides always have to interprete his statements.

Meanwhile, who else has noticed how Nairaland threads have recently been getting longer due to higher number of comments, I attribute that to the Buhari effect that redistributed several twitter fans back to base . As everybody dey complain complain, yet some other people like Seun will be licking their lips in delight.

jaxxy:
Whatever Kevin Hart said he should take responsibility if they were so bad and unreasonable and if not he should stand his ground. His comments should be looked at based on the context also. I remember the incident bt don’t remember his comment or details of what happened in the incident. If anybody saw any good in his comments I’m sure they wud have stood up for him. Kevin is still very loved in America till now bt Let’s not digress.


Atiku winning online doesn’t mean he can’t win offline. Did Apc not win online and offline against Jonathan?? I will blame the electoral system and the many irregularities for this so leave that story.


Muslims, Christians, traditional religion and even maybe Buddhism etc have coexisted for thousands of years, which issues and differences here and there. It takes tolerance and maybe even acceptance.

U must respect others rights to religious beliefs u can disagree bt not attack them for it bt if sm1 goes ahead to attack u for it, u follow the decent or legal part not attack them in a manner against the law. That will enforce ur rights or free speech as the case maybe.


Abortion is a question of laws. Every country has laws. U can’t go to Saudi Arabia and do as u like can u? They tell u b4 u come do it this way coz it’s our laws. U have to respect that.

Now if Apc want to control the masses like dogs and ban free speech or control/sensor free speech like China they can bt they will have to declare they are no more practicing DEMOCRACY bt want COMMUNISM or DICTATORSHIP . Once they do this constitutionally they can now go ahead and do whatever they like with Nigerians nobody can dare complain or na death like China.

Do u understand how it all works now?? Don’t mix up issues again.

Sorry to jump into the argument, but I feel compelled to do so because you did not address the very valid point AMINDA was making.

He is basically asking you who or what determines who is right in free speech when there are conflicting views especially on social media. He gave a very valid case in point. On Twitter, people often get banned when their opinion is against the popular stand when in most cases the opinion is not in itself offensive when a neutral party views it. But they get banned simply because majority did not like those tweets and reported them e.g some people who called for the endsars protest to end early to avoid degeneration into chaos were bullied and reported by most of the twitterati.

So the key question is is that not a gag on free speech on twitter? Who determined that the people who were banned did not have a right to freedom of their expression, and that the people who reported them had a right? Is it because they are in the majority? Meanwhile, he is also telling you that majority on twitter does not necessarily translate to majority in Nigeria in reality as seen in the presidential polls if the "majority" is the yardstick that twitter is using to determine who has a right to free speech.

sgtponzihater1:
Now I didn't say the contestants are not deserving, but I said the judges are playing politics.

I'll give you an example, make of this what you think. Dapo who sang let me love you went ahead to sing "I want to know", and that to me was the best performance of yesterday yet Darey was going to send him to the danger zone. There is no way that performance was a "danger zone " performance, but a master piece.

I agree and was extremely puzzled at first as to why Dare made that choice, because it was obvious Dapo was going to be stolen after that accomplished performance.

But then I understood why a moment later. If he had sent Dapo to the battles as deserved, He would have had no choice but to send Esther, his best and most promising singer, to the danger zone since he would have already sent 2 people to the battles before Esther performed. He was not willing to risk letting Esther get stolen, so he basically traded Dapo for Esther. Esther had the best blind audition (IMO) with her scintillating performance of "Arise" by Andra Day.

Many of the judges decisions are rarely based on the contestants' actual performances but on preconceived notions about how good the contestants were from the blinds which is really a shame.

Grace indeed!

That grace would soon turn the expired satellite into an asteroid-like missile hurtling towards earth.

Haha, this country can be a joke ehn.

ikenna44:
the minute u lose control of a company, u seize to be the owner. the key word is control... which u can only have if u own 50.1%. where all shareholders own less than 20%, 18% etc... then there's no clear owner... the board can play them against each other. \

This is totally on point. I only wanted you to consider other possible scenarios that didn't fit in to your initial comment and you have addressed that now.

emmanuelewumi:
Once board of directors have made up their mind on removing a non executive director who does not have a controlling share, it is a forgone conclusion. What happen at the Annual General Meeting is just for formalities

That one is boardroom/shareholder politics and has transcended the scope of the OP's question even though valid. Officially, BODs alone don't have documented powers to remove a non-executive owner.

emmanuelewumi:
Shareholders and directors can join forces to sack a founder/CEO. Reason why it is important to have at least 50.1% ownership if you cherish control

True.

emmanuelewumi:
Shareholders can remove him at the Annual General Meeting

Shareholders are different from BOD. The question asked by the OP relates to BOD and your previous comment also referenced BOD not shareholders.

BODs alone cannot remove a non-executive owner of a company.

UnabashedIPOB:
To have a Board of Directors, a company MUST have shareholders or stockholders, hence a Private Limited company and NOT a Sole Proprietorship. So, if a company has Board of Directors, the person who started the company (technically the OWNER) can be fired by the Board of Directors. For your information, CEO is only a title, so the owner or who started the company can be come a CEO, President, VP, CFO or COO. But the question that was asked was whether a Board of directors can FIRE the OWNER and the answer still remains ABSOLUTELY YES!

If the owner does not function in an executive capacity for the company i.e as MD or CEO, the Board of directors cannot sack him/her.

ikenna44:
You can't deal the "owner" of the company. For you to be the owner, you must have controlling interest... Forget about the founder of the company.
The founder and the owner of a company are not usually the same person(s).

The owner of a company at any given point in time is the person or organization that controls the vote. The own at least 50.1% of the share capital.

And no... You can't sack them!

What if no individual shareholder owns more than 20% equity? In such case, the highest shareholder will not have controlling votes and can be voted out by other shareholders or the BOD if he holds an executive function in the company.

ddippset:
It's getting clearer they will cancel this Copa America.

Why? Is it because Brazil players are objecting?

Jokerman:
Why didn't villa win any laliga golden boot or European golden boot, any difference between villa and Benzema in laliga only?

Golden boot is a question of how competition fares at a point in time. Villa also scored the same 25 liga goals that won Forlan European golden boot but had tighter competition that year.

Can't get into a Villa vs Benzema argument right now.

Debroslink:
Villa 186 goals in 354 games ( with Xavi, Iniesta, Silva and Aimar backup)

Forlan 128 goals in 240 games. No real super midfielder backup. (Riquelme was a Barca reject)

If you watch the Forlan video posted above, you'll realise most of Forlan's goals were GOLAZO and long range shots. He didn't receive killer passes before scoring.

Because he often missed the easy ones passed to him. Make no mistake, Forlan is a Golazo expert and I can't take that positive away from him and he trumps Villa in this area.

But if you look carefully enough, for example, I also watched the Forlan video posted and noted that majority of his paltry Man Utd goals were there as Golazos. Now that can be misleading, because for someone who scored less than 15 league goals for United over 3 seasons, then anybody who watches 10 of those goals as golazos in a video would say wow this guy was f*cking mad for Man utd, yet the truth was that he was one of their worst signings ever.

Matt Le Tissier of Southampton was a prolific midfielder and probably the best EPL golazo scorer ever. Yet, a Robert Pires or Giofranco Zola would always be ranked ahead of him due to consistency and effectiveness.

To be candid, if Forlan had been more consistent in goalscoring in his career, I wouldn't be saying all these. But he was poor from 2001 - 2004, very good in 05, poor in 06 - 08, very good in 09 and 10 and poor from then onwards. Golazos cannot mask these gaps.

Debroslink:
Villa is elite no doubt. Let me remind you once again that we are talking about La Liga exploits, not really overall career play.

Be sincere. Villa at Valencia, Barcelona and Atletico VS Forlan at Villarreal and Atletico. Look at their individual performances minus team glory. Who's the Daddy?

Hmm, me I will choose Villa at Valencia o. Forlan had 2 very good La liga seasons interrupting several poor liga seasons, while Villa delivered goals more consistently across 5 seasons at Valencia. Didnt feel Villa much at Barca and ATM though.

Villa scored 186 liga goals. Forlan scored 128.