• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Official Sponsors and Partners Thread

Lilbaz said:
Yes. He's not unhappy but some people in sa are complaining that the money should be spent on sport in sa. Not sure how that's him whinging, he's just reporting. The deal isn't done yet, it was leaked. If the unhappiness in sa is loud enough it could scupper it. Hopefully it isn't.
Click to expand...
People are always unhappy about something. Generally Gold focuses on the negatives too much sometimes. Loves a big sigh.
 
Lilbaz said:
And you never thought to convince them to sponsor our sleve. Shame.
Click to expand...
Haha not on the budget we had, scrutiny from Ottawa and the tax payer also wouldn't have allowed it. We got our arse kicked hosting clients who were sending tourists to Canada at Wimbledon. Hugely under the gaze of the tax payer

Sent from my SM-A127F using Fapatalk
 
JerusalemMan said:
Can you comment on the relative wisdom or likely success of spending money to raise awareness through association with a massive sports brand with significant global exposure (for that is what Tottenham Hotspur is) as opposed to using it for smaller internal projects that would specifically fall under the same legislative mandate that Khumalo refers to?

I would be intrigued to know whether the Rwandan tourism agency have seen any notable benefit from their sleeve sponsorship deal.
Click to expand...
45m is alot of tourism and probably unable to peg who came to SA because of the Sponsorhip

I would imagine without looking that the country has some kind of mission statement on rising tourism figures by 2025 or 2030 or something similar, they would suggest the sponsorship works along side that "vision" but it would be impossible to prove what heads on beds came from Spurs sponsorship



Sent from my SM-A127F using Fapatalk
 
The South African Tourist Board have a budget to spend, e.g. £250m.

They might earmark £50m to spend with NBC and £50m to spend with McDonalds and £50m to spend with DairyCrest and £50m to spend with the Miami Dolphins and £50m to spend with Spurs.




There is no story really... they are going to spend the money somewhere, so why not with Spurs?
 
Bullet said:
The South African Tourist Board have a budget to spend, e.g. £250m.

They might earmark £50m to spend with NBC and £50m to spend with McDonalds and £50m to spend with DairyCrest and £50m to spend with the Miami Dolphins and £50m to spend with Spurs.




There is no story really... they are going to spend the money somewhere, so why not with Spurs?
Click to expand...

It's like when I was younger my mates older brother was porking this bird that was not the best looking, but he explained that he wanted a quick one and she was going to get it from someone, and it may as well of been him.
 
metalgear said:
thought he used to be more balanced a few years ago, presenting different perspectives, but lately more opinionated and taking sides
Click to expand...
I agree, he seems to be adding more “opinion” to his pieces nowadays rather than just fact, I noticed it about 2/3 years ago. Might have been marginalized a bit and just venting nowadays?
 
Grays_1890 said:
Gonna pull out ain't they
Click to expand...

Tbh yes i get there might be a bit of wanting a bit of hospitality at spurs. But it might be a good deal for them £14m a year for world wide adevertising (you'd know better than me). Their tourism has dropped massively in recent years and to get it back up to where it was would be worth far more than what they are spending. Would this deal do that? Not sure, but the media around the deal itself has put sa in a lot of peoples minds.
 
Lilbaz said:
Tbh yes i get there might be a bit of wanting a bit of hospitality at spurs. But it might be a good deal for them £14m a year for world wide adevertising (you'd know better than me). Their tourism has dropped massively in recent years and to get it back up to where it was would be worth far more than what they are spending. Would this deal do that? Not sure, but the media around the deal itself has put sa in a lot of peoples minds.
Click to expand...

I would have to read up on what the main opposition reasoning is but I agree with what you say in terms of global reach for a destination thats suffering. I imagine the issue being that sponsoring football has always been perceived frivolous but it might also be the roll of the dice that the destination needs to kick start its awareness again.

There will always be political objection to this sort of thing, especially the scale of the deal
 
Grays_1890 said:
I would have to read up on what the main opposition reasoning is but I agree with what you say in terms of global reach for a destination thats suffering. I imagine the issue being that sponsoring football has always been perceived frivolous but it might also be the roll of the dice that the destination needs to kick start its awareness again.

There will always be political objection to this sort of thing, especially the scale of the deal
Click to expand...

It's meant to be 1/3 of their budget, but is the scale that big in comparrison to say making and running an advert in 188 countries (the amount of countries the prem is shown) for 3 years?
 
Lilbaz said:
It's meant to be 1/3 of their budget, but is the scale that big in comparrison to say making and running an advert in 188 countries (the amount of countries the prem is shown) for 3 years?
Click to expand...

Yeh it would cost more in ad runs in those countries, its just a perception thing that gets people upset. Running just one advert across those countries would cost 1m (based on average cost of an advert being 5k) and it would be nonsensical running just one, so 45m would not get you very far in the year
 
Grays_1890 said:
Yeh it would cost more in ad runs in those countries, its just a perception thing that gets people upset. Running just one advert across those countries would cost 1m (based on average cost of an advert being 5k) and it would be nonsensical running just one, so 45m would not get you very far in the year
Click to expand...

I started work at channel 4 when i was 19 (25 years ago). Even then they made £750m a year from adverts. It is insane.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back