Jump to content

Talk:Frasers Group/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Clothing and equipment

In this section, are we meaning those sold in store, or those owned by Sports Direct? Some such as Diesel have been added, which is sold in store, but not owned by Ashley. 92.13.80.9 (talk) 13:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It's supposed to be those owned by Sports Direct, so I've removed those it doesn't own. Gr1st (talk) 13:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Sports World Merge

Would a merge make sense? 92.9.86.174 (talk) 07:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it does any harm to have the website as a seperate article: after all the Lillywhites article is seperate Dormskirk (talk) 21:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


Important non-marketing issues

It is an insult on the collective intelligence of 1 billion people who rely on wikipedia as a source of information to educate them on global matters, if wikipedia pages are being used for self promotion by businesses. This page should not serve as an advertisement platform for SportsDirect and its businesses, but as an educative platform for the over one billion people who make reference to wikipedia.

The origianal article as composed, denies readers the chance of understanding, debating and discussing the principal factors that define and identify Sportsdirect as a brand. Hence, the article can best be described as incomplete, inaccurate, intentionally misleading and not upto date.

Sports Direct is a brand that identifies with discounts, [1] selling discounted [2]products all year round. Readers need to be aware of the issues related to the choice they make when they shop [3]with sports direct. This page is not a page to promote sportsDirect as a business, but to inform and educate readers on the identity of [4]SportsDirect.

SportsDirect business identity[5] and practices reflects all that is wrong with the world as it today with regards to [6]child labour and deprived childhood. Capitalist tendencies that promotes the cheap production of goods [7]and services. There are many dangers associated with SportsDirect's business identity and what the [8]company stands for. Discounted and cheap products are the end results of a long chain of negative inactions that defy any sense of justice and fairness in the world that we live in.

Through this article page, we are able to educate persons on the choices that they make and the direct consequences of this [9]choice. Cheap and discounted products from cheap labour sources in third world countries imply underpaid children workers[10], deprived of their childhood[11] ,fundamental liberty [12]and a beffiting future[13]. The sports direct article should reflect the choices that people make by patronising these businesses, in the hope that millions would be delivered from capitalism induced [14]child slavery.


Absolutely, its high time that buyers are educated on the choices that are made. This does not involve casting aspersions on the image of the company, but presenting an unbiased view to the public.Laurachalk (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Refs

  1. ^ [1]Sports Direct Official website, About Us page
  2. ^ [2]
  3. ^ [3]
  4. ^ [4]
  5. ^ [5]
  6. ^ []
  7. ^ [6]
  8. ^ [7]
  9. ^ [8]
  10. ^ [9]
  11. ^ [10]
  12. ^ [11]
  13. ^ [12]
  14. ^ [13]

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to merge zazpot (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Many recent press reports (e.g. here) have not disambiguated between SportsDirect.com and Sports Direct International plc. This makes it unclear for which of those two articles such reports should be used as sources. That, and some other factors, beg the question: should these two articles be merged?

Some possible reasons in favour of merging:

In favour of not merging:

  • SportsDirect.com and Sports Direct International plc are apparently distinct legal entities (the former is a subsidiary of the latter), and should therefore potentially have separate articles;
  • just because conflation of them is widespread does not mean this confusion should be perpetuated within Wikipedia.

Please state below whether you are in favour of merging the articles, against this, or neutral. Thanks! zazpot (talk) 20:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Castore

An IP has on several occasions added material suggesting that Castore is a subsidiary of Frasers. This article date 31 October 2019 suggests that it is owned by Tom and Phil Beahon. If the Beahon brothers have sold out to Frasers that needs to be properly sourced. Dormskirk (talk) 09:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

This page probably needs protection: it has been the subject of extensive edit waring over the above subject in the last 24 hours. It may be there is some commercial dispute at the bottom of this - but that is no reason to spread false information about the ownership of the Castore business and brand. Dormskirk (talk) 08:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
I've reverted recent edits and semi-protected this page for a month in the hope that a discussion and some sources will be forthcoming, rather than disruptive edit-warring from multiple Scotland-based IPs. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks for that. Dormskirk (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frasers_Group/Archive_1&oldid=1093765451"