Clubs Financials 2010

[doggies4eva]

Interesting information CSB.

The information about the Foxtel Cup is consistent with what my club has been saying about this comp. Despite some posters on the other thread stating that there were no problems with sponsorships etc it would seem that there are some significant issues to be resolved - in particular the OH & S. This is different to simply being the chance that a player may be injured as stated by others!

[The Sleeping Giant]

I swear reading in here that teams competing in the Foxtel Cup would be able to wear their sponsors name.

[doggies4eva]

I swear reading in here that teams competing in the Foxtel Cup would be able to wear their sponsors name.

So I take that you think that a naming right sponsor will be happy to lose their contacted rights of a large logo for a small patch that may not be able to be seen on TV?

Go back to sleep

[redandblack]

Excellent summary, csb.

I'm still not sure about sponsors being a problem.

They contracted to sponsor in the SANFL.

This is an extra comp and the major sponsor will, repeat will, have exposure on the guernsey to a much wider audience than they contracted for, so what's the problem?

It's extra exposure, no matter how big the name on the jumper.

[doggies4eva]

Excellent summary, csb.

I'm still not sure about sponsors being a problem.

They contracted to sponsor in the SANFL.

This is an extra comp and the major sponsor will, repeat will, have exposure on the guernsey to a much wider audience than they contracted for, so what's the problem?

It's extra exposure, no matter how big the name on the jumper.

The problem is R&B you haven't read the sponsorship contracts. What if the agreement is that everytime a team plays it will wear a logo of an agreed size - which is bigger than Foxtel are allowing? And believe me this is the usual way that major contracts are written up.

[JK]

Excellent summary, csb.

I'm still not sure about sponsors being a problem.

They contracted to sponsor in the SANFL.

This is an extra comp and the major sponsor will, repeat will, have exposure on the guernsey to a much wider audience than they contracted for, so what's the problem?

It's extra exposure, no matter how big the name on the jumper.

Im sure the clubs would have undertaken the diligence of discussing it with their sponsors, sponsors who's contributions to the clubs are of vital importance.

[on the rails]

The sponsorship logo allowance / change of jumper issue is annoying but in a world where it appears the AFL control everything then who is suprised? Will there be room on the jumpers for a smaller main sponsor logo after Foxtel get theirs on it? My mail is that the shorts and jumpers will be branded as AFL and that really pisses me off and that will take up one breast of the jumper along with the foxtel logo so not much room left for club sponsors?

[redandblack]

Imagine you're a sponsor.

You contract with an SANFL club for exposure in the SANFL.

The club comes to you and says you'll still get everything you contracted for, but you can also have a smaller exposure to a national TV audience, as well as early crowds at AFL games.

You'd say NO, because the logo isn't big enough

[Big Phil]

Imagine you're a sponsor.

You contract with an SANFL club for exposure in the SANFL.

The club comes to you and says you'll still get everything you contracted for, but you can also have a smaller exposure to a national TV audience, as well as early crowds at AFL games.

You'd say NO, because the logo isn't big enough

Do you know what the difference in logo size will be then on these AFL supplied jumpers R&B?

[JK]

Imagine you're a sponsor.

You contract with an SANFL club for exposure in the SANFL.

The club comes to you and says you'll still get everything you contracted for, but you can also have a smaller exposure to a national TV audience, as well as early crowds at AFL games.

You'd say NO, because the logo isn't big enough

Why do you bother discussing this when you have your mind so clearly closed on it?

[redandblack]

Mate, if someone would answer my question, I'd happily stop.

If you'd like to point out where it's not logical, I'll accept it.

I agree that I have a strong opinion on it, but I'm not sure why you think my mind is more closed than any of the posters putting the opposite view?

[doggies4eva]

Imagine you're a sponsor.

You contract with an SANFL club for exposure in the SANFL.

The club comes to you and says you'll still get everything you contracted for, but you can also have a smaller exposure to a national TV audience, as well as early crowds at AFL games.

You'd say NO, because the logo isn't big enough

First I must stress that I am not talking about any of the doggies current sponsors or those of any other SANFL club. My comments are from experience as a sports administrator who has seen lots of sponsorship contracts and dealt with big sponsors.

Many sponsors are quite specific about what they want. Remember that the sponsors are reporting to boards interestate or overseas who have no interest in local footy but want a business case to show that investors money is being well spent. So if they pay big bikkies for naming rights of a team or a stadium then every time that team or stadium is in front of the media they expect their company to get exposure. It may well be a problem if other entities will have larger exposure than them - imagine in Foxtel gets sponsorship from a major competitor to your sponsor and the Foxtel associate gets major positioning and the club sponsor gets minor. This sort of thing causes major grief - to the point that contacts can be lost.

[redandblack]

Sorry Phil, I don't know what size it will be.

I presume, as people are saying, that Foxtel and the AFL, as the sponsors of the comp will have prominent logos and the club sponsor will have a smaller logo on the jumper.

[Barto]

Focusing on the sponsorship issue is missing the elephant in the room: OH&S. Who compensates the player if they're injured in this comp?

Claridge Holden wouldn't really gain much by having their name plastered on the national stage being a local car dealer anyway. As much as I'd love to see Sturt in the comp, they've fully justified their reasons for staying out.

[JK]

Mate, if someone would answer my question, I'd happily stop.

I would have thought that taking the word of any club that felt it was an issue was fair enough, given they would be the ones in negotiation and regular contact with the sponsors and SANFL. However if that isn't good enough for you try Dominic Shepley - 8362-7878 and he might at least provide one club's perspective.

I agree that I have a strong opinion on it, but I'm not sure why you think my mind is more closed than any of the posters putting the opposite view?

Where did I say that?

[G]

I agree totally with Red and Black.

Sponsors signed on for the 2011 SANFL season obviously including finals and that is exactly what companies like Mistral [in North's case] will be getting BUT as an added bonus they will receive SOME exposure on National TV.
Now the size of their logo is irrelevant because its a virtual extra freebie for sponsoring the clubs involved and any exposure is a plus.

ps. Did you expect the Club CEO to say we have made a mistake and should have joined

[redandblack]

Well, CP, on point one, if we just accept each club's position without debate, we might as well close the SANFL forum. I thought discussion of these issues is what the forum is about.

I was originally told I was wrong about the sponsor's logo, now everyone is accepting it.

I also know what my club's sponsor's attitude is and they are very positive. However, I accept other clubs may have different ideas.

On point 2, yes, you said my mind was closed, but didn't refer to anyone else, so you're correct. I suppose I was just the unlucky one to be told I had a closed mind

PS: Thanks, G.

[JK]

Well, CP, on point one, if we just accept each club's position without debate, we might as well close the SANFL forum. I thought discussion of these issues is what the forum is about.

It's certainly an issue for discussion, but the points or questions don't appear to be changing they just got plonked on different threads.

However, I accept other clubs may have different ideas.

My mistake, the impression I get is that you don't accept this.

[Grahaml]

The sponsors sign on to get their name on the club's jumpers of a certain size. They in a sense rent the space for the contract period. By your logic a club could sell the space for finals to someone else on the basis there was no guarantee of that club even playing finals.

The other part is the clubs want to let their sponsors know they are loyal to them, too. If a club doesn't protect the interests of their sponsors when appropriate then sponsors will be more likely to not bother. This is one reason why clubs always insist on things being named correctly, like ovals. Even going to the point of changing every little sign they find out about. Like when it was revealed the crows had a sign in their change rooms calling AAMI stadium football park. The SANFL made sure the name got changed even though it was only ever really seen by 50 people.

[doggies4eva]

The point that CP was making was that we are only speculating - the clubs are the ones with the knowledge of their sponsorship agreements.

Take the doggies - their sponsor Holdens is a national company and could be embarressed in Fotel get Ford to sponsor the comp.

But I agree that the O H& S issue is a major one - what if a player receives a career ending injury with lots of hospital bills etc - who picks up the bill?

The clubs that said no were not prepared to take the level of risk and the ones that said yes were. Maybe that explains why the lower clubs are particpating!