• 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

Gotta wonder if it would be the same outcome if it were Liverpool or man u.

I was close to the executive team when standard chartered first reviewed the sponsorship deal internally. Could see there were more fans rooting for it, more neutrals against and the level of passion in their arguments/counter arguments influenced the final decision.

Easy to say as an outsider, group think and biases can be supercharged easily when a leading football brand is involved.

Unlikely ENIC's failing but here, but from experience, corporate sponsorships can be very emotional decisions and people pay can convince themselves to pay a lot more to be associated with winners.

Sent from my SM-T865 using Fapatalk
 
Lilbaz said:
Click to expand...
This guy's argument doesn't really stack up.
He says it isn't a good idea to spend 38% of the budget on the Spurs sleeve sponsorship because Europe already knows SA, and they need to raise awareness in Asia. Well Spurs and the Prem are huge in Asia. And it is only 38% anyway, so there is plenty left to spend in Asia.

He is miffed because somebody did a quick deal without consulting partners, and suggest there could be some alleged bent aspect to the deal, which is a good reason to complain, but his above reason doesn't stack up.
 
metalgear said:
Gotta wonder if it would be the same outcome if it were Liverpool or man u.

I was close to the executive team when standard chartered first reviewed the sponsorship deal internally. Could see there were more fans rooting for it, more neutrals against and the level of passion in their arguments/counter arguments influenced the final decision.

Easy to say as an outsider, group think and biases can be supercharged easily when a leading football brand is involved.

Unlikely ENIC's failing but here, but from experience, corporate sponsorships can be very emotional decisions and people pay can convince themselves to pay a lot more to be associated with winners.

Sent from my SM-T865 using Fapatalk
Click to expand...
Or its going to likely fall through because of public and government perception of spending money on a sports sponsorship.

It wouldn't matter who they were looking to sponsor the opposition are citing the poverty and economic/energy crisis.

I know you like to cite the clubs standing or lack of it in your mind for a number of failings, but you are barking up the wrong tree with this one.

Stark difference in spending private and government money

Sent from my SM-A127F using Fapatalk
 
Will the same level of scrutiny now be replied to Visit Rwanda or is there something intrinsically different about that relationship?

Also was Cinch expiring or have we now unsettled that relationship?!
 
MKSpur said:
Will the same level of scrutiny now be replied to Visit Rwanda or is there something intrinsically different about that relationship?

Also was Cinch expiring or have we now unsettled that relationship?!
Click to expand...
Well each country will have a different view and level of Bureaucracy to deal with.

Loads of factors why some countries may go for such a deal and some won't

Sent from my SM-A127F using Fapatalk
 
MKSpur said:
Will the same level of scrutiny now be replied to Visit Rwanda or is there something intrinsically different about that relationship?

Also was Cinch expiring or have we now unsettled that relationship?!
Click to expand...
What has Rwanda got to do with SA? If England pulled a sponsorship deal because of political unrest at home should Austria do the same when they don't have any unrest and it's benefiting them?
 
Grays_1890 said:
Or its going to likely fall through because of public and government perception of spending money on a sports sponsorship.

It wouldn't matter who they were looking to sponsor the opposition are citing the poverty and economic/energy crisis
Click to expand...
This is the start and end of the conversation.

The SA government needed a nudge to get their priorities right.
 
Gazza said:
Don't see what the issue is "Visit Abu Dhabi" has never seen so much positivity
Click to expand...

Its not so much it being an issue, its more how easy is it to get the deal ratified by the subsequent governments which will change from country to country. Easier for Abu Dhabi to do a deal as the heads of Abu Dhabi Tourism Authority is effectively the same as the owners and the owners of Etihad etc and there is no parliamentary process to free up the cash. With South Africa the deals been presented and their representatives have said they don't see the value based on other issues the country are seeing in terms of energy crisis and poverty and based on their government set up they have that right to question the deal. You can bet your life if Visit Britain was to sponsor the Yankees for 55m there would be discussions in the UK press, the public and parliament with staunch opposition from the opposing party because thats the nature of the beast.

Its frustrating from our perspective but I do kinda get it and why its happened like this, the positives are we now know the benchmark for sleeve sponsors and our value.
 
Grays_1890 said:
Its not so much it being an issue, its more how easy is it to get the deal ratified by the subsequent governments which will change from country to country. Easier for Abu Dhabi to do a deal as the heads of Abu Dhabi Tourism Authority is effectively the same as the owners and the owners of Etihad etc and there is no parliamentary process to free up the cash. With South Africa the deals been presented and their representatives have said they don't see the value based on other issues the country are seeing in terms of energy crisis and poverty and based on their government set up they have that right to question the deal. You can bet your life if Visit Britain was to sponsor the Yankees for 55m there would be discussions in the UK press, the public and parliament with staunch opposition from the opposing party because thats the nature of the beast.

Its frustrating from our perspective but I do kinda get it and why its happened like this, the positives are we now know the benchmark for sleeve sponsors and our value.
Click to expand...

Which would be utter stupidity. By 2025 tourism is estamated to be worth £257bn to the uk economy. Sustaining millions of jobs. £55m is nothing.
 
Lilbaz said:
Which would be utter stupidity. By 2025 tourism is estamated to be worth £257bn to the uk economy. Sustaining millions of jobs. £55m is nothing.
Click to expand...
Indeed but just an example of the bureaucracy and infighting on such things

When we were running successful campaigns for Canada and could even peg the ROI we would still have to jump through hoops when it was asked for justification in Ottawa and parliament.



Sent from my SM-A127F using Fapatalk
 
Grays_1890 said:
Indeed but just an example of the bureaucracy and infighting on such things

When we were running successful campaigns for Canada and could even peg the ROI we would still have to jump through hoops when it was asked for justification in Ottawa and parliament.



Sent from my SM-A127F using Fapatalk
Click to expand...

Yeah politics makes me sick. Just use common sense. Have a cost benefit analysis and go with that. Too much, you are for that so we should be against it. Well come up with a better alternative then or shut up.
 
Grays_1890 said:
Or its going to likely fall through because of public and government perception of spending money on a sports sponsorship.

It wouldn't matter who they were looking to sponsor the opposition are citing the poverty and economic/energy crisis.

I know you like to cite the clubs standing or lack of it in your mind for a number of failings, but you are barking up the wrong tree with this one.

Stark difference in spending private and government money

Sent from my SM-A127F using Fapatalk
Click to expand...
sponsoring a football club is emotionally divisive and hence is easier supporting winners. In the decision making process, inevitably comparisons will be made with other clubs and its hard even for top level executives to remain neutral.

Source: part of the team that that handled due diligence and execution of a major epl club sponsorship for a global Bank.

Not saying SA tourism board is innocent - the buy-in process proved to be ineffective with very complicated stakeholder demands.
 
Winning a big trophy - CL - would not only sate the fans but make this kind of deal far easier. Sissoko and that handballl!!!!

Maybe we can do it this year. Our defence is probably not quite good enough playing out or defending. But in cup competitions anything is possible. And to be fair we have kept clean sheets against City and in the last 3 games.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back