sponsors getting scared

John Forrest Tomlinson

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/778...stream-chipotle

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

RicodJour

On Jun 18, 7:47 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
wrote:
> 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/778...w-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

Bob Schwartz

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> 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/778...stream-chipotle
>
> http://www.velonews.com/article/77752/

Hizark's Rule, there is no sponsor risk.

Bob Schwartz

mtb Dad

On Jun 18, 4:47*am, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
wrote:
> 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/778...w-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.

Amit Ghosh

On Jun 18, 9:20 am, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net>
wrote:
> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> > 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/778...w-title-sponsor...
>
> >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.

Amit Ghosh

On Jun 18, 12:46 pm, Bob Schwartz

> 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" ?

John Forrest Tomlinson

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:29:19 -0700 (PDT), Amit Ghosh
<amit.ghosh@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jun 18, 9:20 am, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net>
>wrote:
>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> > 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/778...w-title-sponsor...
>>
>> >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

Carl Sundquist

"Amit Ghosh" <amit.ghosh@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c203dbec-8299-4c98-adb1-cc132c34b574@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>
> 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

Amit Ghosh

On Jun 18, 1:32 pm, "Carl Sundquist" <carl...@cox.net> wrote:
> "Amit Ghosh" <amit.gh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:c203dbec-8299-4c98-adb1-cc132c34b574@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > 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.

Bob Schwartz

mtb Dad wrote:
> On Jun 18, 4:47 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
> wrote:
>> 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/778...w-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/N...ils.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

Bob Schwartz

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> 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/778...stream-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

Bob Schwartz

Amit Ghosh wrote:
> On Jun 18, 1:32 pm, "Carl Sundquist" <carl...@cox.net> wrote:
>> "Amit Ghosh" <amit.gh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:c203dbec-8299-4c98-adb1-cc132c34b574@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>> 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

Bob Schwartz

mtb Dad wrote:
> 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

Amit Ghosh

On Jun 18, 2:05 pm, Bob Schwartz

> 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.