sponsors getting scared

On Jun 18, 7:47 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Looks like High Road and Slipstream have been scared by all the doping
talk and are no longer title sponsors

http://www.velonews.com/article/77889/garmin-is-the-new-title-sponsor...

http://www.velonews.com/article/77752/

Garmin-Chipotle presented by H30? I think they would have done better
to get that toilet tissue manufacturer to sponsor, Charmin-Chipotle
flushed by H30. It has a better ring to it and they could have some
really catchy advertising slogans.

Charmin-Chipotle - we've got you covered at both ends.
Etc.

R

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Looks like High Road and Slipstream have been scared by all the doping
talk and are no longer title sponsors

http://www.velonews.com/article/77889/garmin-is-the-new-title-sponsor-of-the-slipstream-chipotle

http://www.velonews.com/article/77752/

Hizark's Rule, there is no sponsor risk.

Bob Schwartz

On Jun 18, 4:47 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Looks like High Road and Slipstream have been scared by all the doping
talk and are no longer title sponsors

http://www.velonews.com/article/77889/garmin-is-the-new-title-sponsor...

http://www.velonews.com/article/77752/

Or openly anti-doping teams are attractive to sponsors. Conscious
action (i.e. buying into a team), opposed to inertial (word?) denial
("there's no proof, we have a clause..."😉, suggests it's the more
powerful phenomenon.

On Jun 18, 9:20 am, Bob Schwartz <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Looks like High Road and Slipstream have been scared by all the doping
talk and are no longer title sponsors

Quoted message said:

http://www.velonews.com/article/77889/garmin-is-the-new-title-sponsor...

Quoted message said:

http://www.velonews.com/article/77752/

Hizark's Rule, there is no sponsor risk.

dumbass,

there is big a risk, which is that the team gets excluded from the
Tour and they don't get the exposure they were anticipating.

saxo, columbia and garmin all signed on mid-season and will begin
their sponsoship at the tour - once those teams had secured spots in
the big show.

On Jun 18, 12:46 pm, Bob Schwartz

Quoted message said:

I'd bet the house there is language in the contract regarding
that. There is no risk for the sponsor, all the risk is on
the riders. As it has always been.

dumbass,

your definition of risk is different than the rest of the world. risk
is what you stand to lose.

the only risk a rider faces from a doping scandal or exclusion is that
their team becomes insolvent and they aren't paid the salary they are
owed.

if a sponsor pays $10 million for a team hoping to get exposure at the
tour or develop a certain corporate identity and the team experiences
a scandal or are excluded how is it that "all the risk is on the
riders" ?

Amit Ghosh said:

On Jun 18, 9:20 am, Bob Schwartz <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Looks like High Road and Slipstream have been scared by all the doping
talk and are no longer title sponsors

Quoted message said:

http://www.velonews.com/article/77889/garmin-is-the-new-title-sponsor...

Quoted message said:

http://www.velonews.com/article/77752/

Hizark's Rule, there is no sponsor risk.

dumbass,

there is big a risk, which is that the team gets excluded from the
Tour and they don't get the exposure they were anticipating.

saxo, columbia and garmin all signed on mid-season and will begin
their sponsoship at the tour - once those teams had secured spots in
the big show.

dumbass

yes

"Amit Ghosh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

dumbass,

there is big a risk, which is that the team gets excluded from the
Tour and they don't get the exposure they were anticipating.

saxo, columbia and garmin all signed on mid-season and will begin
their sponsoship at the tour - once those teams had secured spots in
the big show.

Secured spots?

NGC Medical-OTC Industria Porte

Carl Sundquist said:

"Amit Ghosh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

dumbass,

Quoted message said:

there is big a risk, which is that the team gets excluded from the
Tour and they don't get the exposure they were anticipating.

Quoted message said:

saxo, columbia and garmin all signed on mid-season and will begin
their sponsoship at the tour - once those teams had secured spots in
the big show.

Secured spots?

NGC Medical-OTC Industria Porte

dumbass,

according to bob sponsors don't take any risk.

mtb Dad said:

On Jun 18, 4:47 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Looks like High Road and Slipstream have been scared by all the doping
talk and are no longer title sponsors

http://www.velonews.com/article/77889/garmin-is-the-new-title-sponsor...

http://www.velonews.com/article/77752/

Or openly anti-doping teams are attractive to sponsors. Conscious
action (i.e. buying into a team), opposed to inertial (word?) denial
("there's no proof, we have a clause..."😉, suggests it's the more
powerful phenomenon.

To do a proper comparison we should also look at openly
pro-doping teams. Who would that be, other than Rock
Racing?

You appear to not grasp the irony of an openly anti-
doping team run by Vaughters.

Check this out:

http://www.astana-cyclingteam.com/NewsAndPressRel_details.aspx?Code=8

"We are spending 460,000 Euros on internal anti-doping
efforts for 2008. What more can we do?"

The team with the worst history of doping offenses is
openly anti-doping. Just like Slipstream. How does that
happen?

Bob Schwartz

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Looks like High Road and Slipstream have been scared by all the doping
talk and are no longer title sponsors

http://www.velonews.com/article/77889/garmin-is-the-new-title-sponsor-of-the-slipstream-chipotle

http://www.velonews.com/article/77752/

This is great news. It means that High Load will have
to design new kit to replace their current ugly-ass
kit. First Hincapie got new sunglasses, now this. Things
are looking up.

Bob Schwartz

Amit Ghosh said:

Carl Sundquist said:

"Amit Ghosh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

dumbass,
there is big a risk, which is that the team gets excluded from the
Tour and they don't get the exposure they were anticipating.
saxo, columbia and garmin all signed on mid-season and will begin
their sponsoship at the tour - once those teams had secured spots in
the big show.

Secured spots?

NGC Medical-OTC Industria Porte

dumbass,

according to bob sponsors don't take any risk.

According to you, people sign inescapable contracts
for flower delivery that they can't get out of, no
matter what.

Bob Schwartz

mtb Dad said:

How much of an itellectual disability do you have to have to think the
team owners have enough money to pay it all back if it goes sideways,
or to wait until the season is over, or not cover their asses with a
"it's the rider acting alone..." clause?

An "it's the rider acting alone..." clause?

You're saying the contracts are written so that sponsors
can't back out?

Again, look at Liberty Mutual. When Puerto hit the fan
they were gone. No convictions, no suspensions. Just
investigations and innuendo. Still, they were gone.
Because they wanted to be gone. That's all it took.

If Astana had not stepped in the paychecks would have
stopped coming. Because Liberty Mutual had no obligation
to continue sending money.

You know, most people would look at repeated instances
of sponsors terminating contracts to avoid damage to
their businesses and conclude that a sponsor can terminate
a contract and avoid damage to their business. And that
there was thus, no risk to the sponsor.

But I can tell you're special.

Bob Schwartz

On Jun 18, 2:05 pm, Bob Schwartz

Quoted message said:

What did it cost Liberty Mutual to bail after Puerto?

dumbass,

they (both liberty and t-mobile) were paying for a certain image and
got something else.

in your mind there is no "cost" associated with that.

but if a cycling team can bill a company for the exposure and image it
helps foster there is a price that can be put on that service, so if
that service isn't performed the money spent on it is a loss.

whether that affects the company's finances is not relevant.

Bob Schwartz said:

You appear to not grasp the irony of an openly anti- doping team run by
Vaughters.

That's subtle.

On Jun 18, 2:19 pm, Bob Schwartz

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

dumbass,

Quoted message said:

according to bob sponsors don't take any risk.

According to you, people sign inescapable contracts
for flower delivery that they can't get out of, no
matter what.

dumbass,

a sponsor can try to get their money back, or sue for damages. that is
not the same thing as "no risk".

On Jun 18, 4:49 pm, Bob Schwartz

Quoted message said:

If Riis Cycling self destructed tomorrow, Saxo would
still receive the benefit of increased visibility. With
no cost because they would terminate the contract.

dumbass,

the claim that a scandal has "no cost" is not self evident.

when a team has a scandal the sponsor may even decide to sue the team
management for damages to their image.

Amit Ghosh said:

when a team has a scandal the sponsor may even decide to sue the team
management for damages to their image.

Name one, just one sponsor that has suffered damage
to their image after a doping scandal.

Just one.

That may explain why this never happens.

If you close your eyes and wish really hard, I'm
sure the world will be exactly as you wish it to
be.

Bob Schwartz

On Jun 18, 5:16 pm, Bob Schwartz

Quoted message said:

Name one, just one sponsor that has suffered damage
to their image after a doping scandal.

Just one.

dumbass,

t-mobile paid stapleton's company for a certain type of marketing and
with the sinkewitz positive and subsequent confessions they got
another. that is a damage.

in fact they are still paying for a team that no longer carries their
name.

Quoted message said:

That may explain why this never happens.

it never happens because there usually isn't a worthwhile party to
pursue for damages.

but this was a reason that armstrong didn't want to be involved with a
team - since he (like stapleton) has a large personal fortune and
would be a target of lawsuits if the team didn't live up to marketing
promises.

On Jun 18, 3:16 pm, Bob Schwartz <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Name one, just one sponsor that has suffered damage
to their image after a doping scandal.

On a hunch I started googling for evidence of a slump in Festina watch
sales after 1998. Instead I found this:

“The response to Festina products in the past year has been
overwhelming.” (1999)

http://jck.polygon.net/archives/1999/11/jc11-080.html

Bret