Sponsorship post. Controversial?

[manike]

Originally posted by duffistuta
/Even saving £5 per box can make a big difference to some teams especially when starting out./

Yes, but that's not sponsorship, it's incentivised buying.

Yep, but isn't that 99% of what people in Europe like to call sponsorship to make themselves feel better?

There is very little 'true' sponsorship here. Most of it is discounts and incentivised (glad I don't have to say that out loud!) buying.

Heck most of the time even after teams get these 'sponsorships' the manufacturer is still making a profit.

 

[duffistuta]

Exactly - which renders Sam's initial point null and void also.

We got there in the end then.

 

[Dazdread]

Speaking from a novice teams perspective and with regards to sponsorship, our biggest problems with progressing our game this year falls into Robbo's list.

1) We could not get a full roster of players

2) The players we had have too many outside drains on time (Family, bike racing, sailing National chaimionships) but are all dedicated to the team and are good players, but as a result of the above two could not train properly.

We had no sponsorship of any kind and did not think we deserved any as our results were not consistent enough to climb up a division even (2nd a few times in the series 2003 Div D)

For 2004 however we have been delighted by the offer of a support package from SEVERE which will be welcomed as we are commited to playing both series and P.A..

This coupled with an expanded roster, somewhere to train and the time to train will hopefully make 2004 a great year for us.

 

[Hotpoint]

Originally posted by duffistuta

Yes, but that's not sponsorship, it's incentivised buying.

Sorry Duff but I think that's semantics. In his opening post sjt19 was talking about removing "sponsorship" from the lower divisions and giving this this support to the Pro's. Since as Robbo rightly pointed out this support is in the form of merely discounts/incentives then I assume that is what sjt19 meant by sponsorship... ie no more discounts and direct additional profits into sponsorship of the upper echelons of the game

Originally posted by Robbo
I'll let you argue the marginals.....and I'll concern myself with the majorities.... ]

Given how small the number of players is in Europe I think we need to keep as many as possible of them playing.

Originally posted by Manike
Heck most of the time even after teams get these 'sponsorships' the manufacturer is still making a profit.

True enough

 

[duffistuta]

Sorry Duff but I think that's semantics.



See above.

 

[duffistuta]

Just to clarify my above post some more...

/Sorry Duff but I think that's semantics. In his opening post sjt19 was talking about removing "sponsorship" from the lower divisions and giving this this support to the Pro's. Since as Robbo rightly pointed out this support is in the form of merely discounts/incentives then I assume that is what sjt19 meant by sponsorship... ie no more discounts and direct additional profits into sponsorship of the upper echelons of the game/




Either you're arguing for the sake of it now, or you're on drugs.

 

[Robbo]

Originally posted by Hotpoint
Given how small the number of players is in Europe I think we need to keep as many as possible of them playing.

See above.....(my last post)

 

[Hotpoint]

Just to clarify my above post some more...

Originally posted by duffistuta
Either you're arguing for the sake of it now, or you're on drugs.

Honestly neither. I've got to assume sjt19 knows the teams at the lower end don't get handed free money or Angels so surely he must have meant reducing incentive discounts

If not what do you think he meant by sponsorship?

Hang-on lets go to the source... sjt19 what did you mean by "sponsorship"?

 

[duffistuta]

Sam has two choices:

1. Acknowledges he meant the mythical 'real sponsorship' that is as common as 4-leafed clovers

2. Claims he meant incentivised buying, in which case he is on the other end of your crack pipe.

 

[sjt19]

If you just give me a second to put the pipe down where it ownt burn the carpet...oops, i mean ....

Incentivised buying then, if a company sells a 10 boxes of paint to a team per event they play, they will get a reasonable discount, while the seller still makes a profit. If the paint sellers were to sell the paint to normal players on teams they do not sponsor they make more of a profit. The difference in profit is fairly sezeable when taken into account that if each team plays 15 events per year, at 10 boxes per event with a saving of £5 per box, then the team will save over the year £750 per year. So eaach vendor is making say £750 less than they would normally make. If one seller supports many teams they have that arrangement with, then that is a huge difference in profit at the end of the year. if the seller gives 10 teams a £750 discount per year thats a huge £7500 profit difference. That £7500 could be given straight to a pro team who would be able to train more frequently and would improve accordingly. That £7500 could be used to pay for flights to train against other teams, hotels etc.....and would make a huge difference.