Comments on: Bankers can’t kick the sporting habit Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 By: Terry Thu, 05 Mar 2009 00:19:00 +0000 It is amazing that some of you do not understand the need for marketing. It’s what defines success for most corporations. Sponsorship isn’t to blame and is in place to succeed in serving business objectives. This class warfare has created a “mob mindset” that enjoys listening to the sharpening of the guillotine. There are successful sponsorships and not-so-successful sponsorships. Just like advertising and other marketing mediums. Those of you who stereotype naming rights deals are not privy to the ROI/ROO measurements. The aforementioned Advisor Perspective study of financial success tied to naming rights is irresponsible. It’s like saying those companies that invested in television advertising are wasting their money. Please do not get caught up in this irrational line of thinking – you advancing the chaos.

I agree and despise excess, but most of the sponsorships by financial corporations are necessary for them to compete. For every $1 Bank of America spends on sports sponsorship, it receives $3 back.

The U.S. government spends hundreds of billions of dollars from taxpayers and yet wants to curtail some of the country’s major industries including sports & entertainment, hospitality, travel, food & restaurants, hotel, conventions, media. Not very smart to follow this line of thinking.

If you are unhappy with ticket prices, don’t pay them – but don’t blame sponsors. 90% of the International Olympic Committees revenues from the last quadrenium came from corporate support (50% advertising & 40% sponsorship) – do you want to cancel the Olympics because you don’t appreciate sponsors?

By: James Thu, 26 Feb 2009 14:45:03 +0000 Deductions allowed to corporations for sports and entertainment events have an insidious economic result for taxpayers unlucky enough not able to take a deduction for the same event. Demand for tickets is artificially higher than it should be because corporations hold many of the box seats and better seats on an annual basis for these events. As a result everyone has to pay higher ticket prices.
Nor is the problem limited to economic effects. A certain percentage of the beneficiaries of corporately owned tickets are not real fans but go only because it is free or only go to playoff or championship games.

By: patrick Thu, 26 Feb 2009 06:05:01 +0000 as a student of law school,it is easy to understand that any agreement signed by the two parties according to the law cannot be repealed solely,and with the exception of the drastly-changing situation of the performance based on the contract,then you can do that modification or cancellation.
like citibank’s naming right on the venue,northrock choose to cotinue supporting newcastle united entirely regarding the credit in the comercial deal and perhaps to some extent it will help that sort concerns out of the meltdown caused by this financial crisis.
furthermore,for the sporting partners,many benifits will come from this performance of the deal such as the transaction of the michal owen operated by the new castle united and the real madrid in spain.

By: Oliver Chettle Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:45:42 +0000 Kitty, it’s all very well saying don’t buy a ticket, but some of us have family connections with clubs in our communities that go back several generations. Why should we be expected to sever our connections with our clubs, which our ancestors created before sponsorship even existed? That’s just handing over our heritage to the barbarians. I don’t have a solution, but it is not “simple”. Sport is a legitimate and healthy activity, and it should be protected from corporations. Tell them to go away, not the fans.

By: Laz Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:05:41 +0000 There certainly is a lot of arrogance out there among supposed responsible leaders of banks and all kinds of other business.
However, I think it is a mistake to look at sports sponsorships solely as another undeserved and overpaid for perk for top company executives. More than anything, it’s advertising and as such, the money will be spent/wasted on some other form of it if this were to become illegal. In other words, not a penny more will be used for anything we may find more worthwhile. It could be debated whether advertising budjets are used effectively, I for one wouldn’t be competent to comment on it. My point is, we don’t have to like bank executives, but we should remain fair and objective in our judgement.
One more thing. A lot of people like us work at regular jobs associated with those events. Their families depend on those jobs and, therefore, on those companies doling out sponsorship moneys. Kinda like an ongoing stimulus program, if you will :)

By: Warwick Mon, 16 Feb 2009 05:04:23 +0000 “In the case of Newcastle United, any damage caused by ending the sponsorship agreement with Northern Rock and alienating a fiercely loyal soccer fan base would have far outweighed the cost savings of scrapping the deal.”

I don’t want to nitpick but that’s not necessarily true. The main reason Northern Rock won’t pull out is because the money is already spent.

Northern Rock is a different story to some of the other financial institutions that have sponsored the sporting arena during the credit crunch and are paying by the year for these rights – and therefore not the best illustration for your point.

Rather than an ongoing agreement, Northern Rock’s long-term sponsorship deal was paid for upfront so the money could be used by Newcastle United to sign Michael Owen from Real Madrid – long before a credit crunch showed signs of appearing.

By: lostbucks Mon, 16 Feb 2009 02:42:56 +0000 Lets go to the game!!
$80.00 for ticket
$20.00 park the car
$20.00 hot dog & beer
$120.00 for a game

Not many people I know can even afford to see a game!

It’s easy to see why these exec’s and players claim they are underpaid… GREED!

By: Guy Malboeuf Fri, 13 Feb 2009 13:34:57 +0000 Although no scientifically “bullet proof”, the sponsoring of major commercial sports activity reveals a state of mind for the management, the desperate need to be part of the “game”, which is being gossly overpaid to “entertain the “people”.

As Mao said (and maybe the only thing I agree with !) : Sport is the opium for the people … and the last summer olympics games in Beijing prove it !!!

We are scandalized by the banks, next should be professional sports. And then, what about the entertainment industry with all those singers complaining we are “stealing” their authors’rights … and ask for ridiculous concert ticket prices, and where we still pay for the agent of the agent of the agent … and finally the authors’rights for the only three good songs of the album !!!

This financial crisis should help us ask our “corporate” to go back for what they are paid for : management, not entertainment.

By: Pete Thu, 12 Feb 2009 17:56:18 +0000 I agree that we need a society where Tiger isn’t a king and we aren’t all paupers.

And marketing, whether through a sports team or Superbowl commercial may be overpriced. The true value of marketing is debatable, especially compared to investing in customer support or business infrastructure.

But this article and the whole “bankers and sports/movie stars” make too much money discussion misses one point.

The problem is when CEOs and bankers of any industry WANT to be sports and movie stars. They’re not. They don’t compete in one-on-one or team sporting situations. They don’t depend on their unique athletic or artistic abilities where THEY themselves become a product. They may have fans in their industry, but they’ll never be Tiger.

No one golfer is as good as Tiger. But a well-lead team of 20 executives can probably run circles around any single CEO. And the leader of the team of 20 executives should admit that it’s all the people who work for him that bring success.

Egos and narcissism, self-importance and selfishness, are behind the problems we are facing today.

By: Jerry Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:46:00 +0000 It Makes for good reading to point to the Bankers about what they are doing, but until someone makes the point and it sticks and the congressman are told to look in the mirror to see who created this dam problem it will never get solved.