Radioshack-Leopard Trek

Page 50 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Aleajactaest said:
How big could their sponsorship have been when they had no naming rights. Pretty stealthy compared to say the Nissan signage or the RS-Nissan uniforms.
I'm with you let's get wild west law into cycling. Sponsorship contracts mean nothing. Highest bidder is everything. Did you ever stop to think that their marketing angle may have been providing the best road vechiles than naming rights on a jersey? Not cash but product?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Susan Westemeyer said:
It is still stupid and childish.

Susan
I think your assessment is prudish and ridiculous. Then again, that would describe what I think of most of your editorial decisions.
 
Jun 1, 2011
2,500
0
0
thehog said:
Well put yourself in Mercedes shoes. You put together a four year plan. Investment upfront in the hope of return in the latter two years. Now they've been dumped without warning. What of their investment? Gone. No chance to recuperate those costs. Teambus/team cars what now? I can't see how they wouldn't mind. Mercedes may sue.

The biggest problem I have is you a have a large European sponsor with a part American owner dumped out of the sport gives cycling a bad name.
I had no idea that you where a spokesperson for Mercedes. Perhaps you could provide a link that would show that they're really upset about being "dumped." I not saying that's not the case, but merely musing on the fact that I've come to no account of it in the press.

I can only imagine that the auto sponsor that had more commitment (in cash) won the day. That's just reality of risk in any business. If Mercedes felt wronged by the whole deal, then they could have most likely put a stop to the merger.:D
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
BillytheKid said:
I had no idea that you where a spokesperson for Mercedes. Perhaps you could provide a link that would show that they're really upset about being "dumped." I not saying that's not the case, but merely musing on the fact that I've come to no account of it in the press.

I can only imagine that the auto sponsor that had more commitment (in cash) won the day. That's just reality of risk in any business. If Mercedes felt wronged by the whole deal, then they could have most likely put a stop to the merger.:D
Guess you missed this

Mercedes not impressed by Radioshack-Nissan-Trek merger with Leopard Trek
 
Jun 1, 2011
2,500
0
0
Aleajactaest said:
How big could their sponsorship have been when they had no naming rights. Pretty stealthy compared to say the Nissan signage or the RS-Nissan uniforms.
Good research. This backs up my previous point. Perhaps the Mercedes end of the deal could have amounted to little more than team vehicles only. The amount signage does point the way to the truth. The more of it you see, the more the sponsor has paid in. Money talks. Period. And not just in the US of A.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
BillytheKid said:
The sponsor in question is Mercedez Benz Luxembourg, not the main corporation. This is most likely nothing more than a dealership about the size of the country itself. Refer to my previous post.
Then by all means screw them.

It is impressive the length some go to rational the actions of these dirtbags
 
Mar 17, 2009
1,863
0
0
BillytheKid said:
Good research. This backs up my previous point. Perhaps the Mercedes end of the deal could have amounted to little more than team vehicles only. The amount signage does point the way to the truth. The more of it you see, the more the sponsor has paid in. Money talks. Period. And not just in the US of A.
That doesn't excuse the apparent bulldozing of the sponsorship deal.

It's common courtesy to include the parties concerned, but Becca & Bruyneel seem to have done the deal without even mentioning it to anyone affected. Not the sponsors, not the riders, nor the support staff.

How can this look to potential sponsors? Contracts signed for several years are seemingly not worth the paper their written on. That comes across as one thing at best, unprofessional or worse, dishonourable.

It's fine to have merger talks that include the affected parties, such as existing sponsors however small. Jaguar sponsor Team Sky but don't feature on the jersey, nor do many bike sponsors. But that does not mean that they haven't made an investment in their team and deserve to be treated with respect.

It is interesting that the parties involved in arranging this merger/takeover didn't have the good grace to inform riders, staff & existing sponsors before releasing a press statement. As a result the enduring image I will have of the LeOpard/TRS affair is one of bungling mismanagement and callous disregard for the people most important to the project's success - the staff. Whatever team spirit LeOpard had has been compromised fatally IMO.
 
Mar 17, 2009
1,863
0
0
BillytheKid said:
Perhaps the Mercedes end of the deal could have amounted to little more than team vehicles only. The amount signage does point the way to the truth. The more of it you see, the more the sponsor has paid in. Money talks. Period. And not just in the US of A.
When a team bus costs anywhere from £100K upwards before it's been converted, not to mention the phalanx of cars & lorries needed to support the mechanics, soigneurs & directeur sportifs, you're looking at a sizeable investment. 2 Coaches, 2 trucks & 4 or 5 cars and you're not far of a £1M investment in goods alone. When you bear in mind most bike companies pay for the privilege of supplying a team, it's not much of a stretch to assume that car companies may have to do the same.
 
Jun 1, 2011
2,500
0
0
Race Radio said:
Then by all means screw them.

It is impressive the length some go to rational the actions of these dirtbags
I consider by your fall to name calling, that your conceding the point.

Really, I imagine many here have never been in business for themselves. The deal was out of necessity. Nobody set out to "screw" anyone. Sponsorship's come and go. The current economic conditions do not help.

I consider this whole thread an embellishment. It only serves to satisfy the needs of those who see RS as the Anti-Christ. You most certainly have the right to your opinion, but it's the redundancy over dramatization of it all that sometimes draws me into the fray. You'll find that I don't go on and on demonizing a team that I don't care for. The facts here don't back up the verbiage.
 
Jun 1, 2011
2,500
0
0
thehog said:
I'm with you let's get wild west law into cycling. Sponsorship contracts mean nothing. Highest bidder is everything. Did you ever stop to think that their marketing angle may have been providing the best road vechiles than naming rights on a jersey? Not cash but product?
Clever, "wild west law." Clever, very clever.:D
 
Jun 1, 2011
2,500
0
0
ultimobici said:
When a team bus costs anywhere from £100K upwards before it's been converted, not to mention the phalanx of cars & lorries needed to support the mechanics, soigneurs & directeur sportifs, you're looking at a sizeable investment. 2 Coaches, 2 trucks & 4 or 5 cars and you're not far of a £1M investment in goods alone. When you bear in mind most bike companies pay for the privilege of supplying a team, it's not much of a stretch to assume that car companies may have to do the same.
Perhaps Nissan is putting up five times that amount? The size and scope of the advert on the jersey is paid for. Nissan appears to have outbid the smaller concern of MBL.
 
BillytheKid said:
I consider this whole thread an embellishment. It only serves to satisfy the needs of those who see RS as the Anti-Christ. You most certainly have the right to your opinion, but it's the redundancy over dramatization of it all that sometimes draws me into the fray. You'll find that I don't go on and on demonizing a team that I don't care for. The facts here don't back up the verbiage.
Has anybody here said that the Radioshack team is doing anything dishonourable? I'm as much a Lance hater as anybody, but I think they are making a great deal here, especially for their sponsors. It's the Leopards whose dealings are questionable here.
 
Mar 17, 2009
1,863
0
0
BillytheKid said:
The facts here don't back up the verbiage.
I beg to differ.

The first anyone knew of this merger/takeover was when Becca & Bruyneel released their respective press releases. Up until then it had been the rumour mill.

In the wake of these statements, there were numerous riders and then Mercedes Benz who appeared to be no more aware than the public about what was happening.

It's a mess however you paint it. As I said earlier, what potential sponsor in their right mind would open up their chequebook to sponsor a team when at any moment their agreement could be torn up in front of them?

With teams struggling to find new sponsors despite successful seasons it is reckless of Bruyneel & Becca to conduct this affair in the manner that they have.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
BillytheKid said:
Good research. This backs up my previous point. Perhaps the Mercedes end of the deal could have amounted to little more than team vehicles only. The amount signage does point the way to the truth. The more of it you see, the more the sponsor has paid in. Money talks. Period. And not just in the US of A.
I was wondering were you being naive or obtuse - having had "your point" rebuffed yet claiming it backs up your point it seems you are being the latter.

So, "money talks"? And what about legal contracts?
 
Mar 17, 2009
1,863
0
0
BillytheKid said:
Perhaps Nissan is putting up five times that amount? The size and scope of the advert on the jersey is paid for. Nissan appears to have outbid the smaller concern of MBL.
It's akin to selling something to Customer A for £10, taking payment & agreeing a delivery date. Having delivered the goods Customer B calls offering £20, so you drive round to Customer A, remove the goods, give him the tenner and say "Sorry".
 
Jun 1, 2011
2,500
0
0
spalco said:
Has anybody here said that the Radioshack team is doing anything dishonourable? I'm as much a Lance hater as anybody, but I think they are making a great deal here, especially for their sponsors. It's the Leopards whose dealings are questionable here.
The two parties (teams and sponsors) cut the deal. Both are implied as villains when it could be quite possible that without the merger a lot more riders could be out of work. Economic shambles!
 
Mar 17, 2009
1,863
0
0
BillytheKid said:
The two parties (teams and sponsors) cut the deal. Both are implied as villains when it could be quite possible that without the merger a lot more riders could be out of work. Economic shambles!
It's not about the deal itself, but the way in which they have handled it.

I bet Gregory Rast is seriously hacked off, having thought he'd gone to a team that would be more rewarding he finds that he's signed for the team he left!
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
BillytheKid said:
The two parties (teams and sponsors) cut the deal. Both are implied as villains when it could be quite possible that without the merger a lot more riders could be out of work. Economic shambles!
Why would more riders be out of work when both teams had entered in to a 4 year commitment with the UCI?
 
BillytheKid said:
The two parties (teams and sponsors) cut the deal. Both are implied as villains when it could be quite possible that without the merger a lot more riders could be out of work. Economic shambles!
But it's not Radioshack's responsibility to look out for Leopard's business partners. They look out for their own.
 
Jun 1, 2011
2,500
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
I was wondering were you being naive or obtuse - having had "your point" rebuffed yet claiming it backs up your point it seems you are being the latter.

So, "money talks"? And what about legal contracts?
I bow out now for the sake of time, but I rebuke your accusations. If it's a legal matter is to arise of the contracts, then it will. We simply don't have all the facts yet. To assume that there is some malicious intent behind this is absurd. Some here are good at writing nothing more than a narrative.
 
Mar 17, 2009
1,863
0
0
spalco said:
But it's not Radioshack's responsibility to look out for Leopard's business partners. They look out for their own.
True, Becca is the guiltier party here. But Bruyneel & Co would have been aware of an overlap in time & interest with MB & Nissan. Surely they'd have raised it?
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
BillytheKid said:
I bow out now for the sake of time, but I rebuke your accusations. If it's a legal matter is to arise of the contracts, then it will. We simply don't have all the facts yet. To assume that there is some malicious intent behind this is absurd. Some here are good at writing nothing more than a narrative.
As you haven't provided any "facts" you didn't rebuke the point too well.

'We' have the important fact that Mercedes have a valid contract with Leopard.
 
Mar 17, 2009
1,863
0
0
BillytheKid said:
I bow out now for the sake of time, but I rebuke your accusations. If it's a legal matter is to arise of the contracts, then it will. We simply don't have all the facts yet. To assume that there is some malicious intent behind this is absurd. Some here are good at writing nothing more than a narrative.
No one was suggesting nefarious intent, rather bungling incompetence or irresponsibility.

Rebuke? Do you mean rebut?
 
Jun 1, 2011
2,500
0
0
ultimobici said:
I beg to differ.

The first anyone knew of this merger/takeover was when Becca & Bruyneel released their respective press releases. Up until then it had been the rumour mill.

In the wake of these statements, there were numerous riders and then Mercedes Benz who appeared to be no more aware than the public about what was happening.

It's a mess however you paint it. As I said earlier, what potential sponsor in their right mind would open up their chequebook to sponsor a team when at any moment their agreement could be torn up in front of them?

With teams struggling to find new sponsors despite successful seasons it is reckless of Bruyneel & Becca to conduct this affair in the manner that they have.
Is is possible all might have worked it out with all parties including UCI before hand? Contracts can be renegotiated or simply bought out. That could have been a lengthy negotiation. Nor sponsor in their right-mind would also sign on to the new agreement unless it had the backing of the UCI or would land themselves legal trouble. Agreed, somewhat of a mess. Not unlike the all Aussie upstart last year in some ways. Obviously more facts will arrive in time. Your points could be proven out.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY