LDM V's CandyShopMansion

[GTRMagic]

Story Here



$6m sponsorship deal?

Wow!

[peckstar]

wow

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by The Article

Candyman revved up over sour V8 sponsorship deal

Greg Stolz, Jeremy Pierce, The Courier-Mail
July 7, 2016 12:00am

PLAYBOY businessman Travers “The Candyman” Beynon has sought a Supreme Court injunction to stop a Supercar team from racing in the Townsville 400 this weekend in his corporate colours.

The Gold Coast tobacco tycoon has accused Lucas Dumbrell Motorsport of reneging on a $6 million sponsorship deal to launch a Candyman-branded team in the Virgin Australia Supercar Championship.

Mr Beynon’s Freechoice cigarette empire on Tuesday launched action against Dumbrell seeking unspecified damages, recovery of $250,000 in sponsorship money allegedly paid so far and an injunction to stop LDM from using any of his black and gold livery.

The multi-millionaire famous for his hedonistic lifestyle at his luxurious “Candy Shop Mansion” on the Glitter Strip claims he had a contract with LDM to enter a “racy” team in the Supercar event, complete with Travers Beynon Racing grid girls and “exclusive” after-parties.

He alleges LDM has failed to deliver on what it promised in return for his sponsorship, “leaving the pit crew and drivers in limbo, dozens of casual employees out of a job and the sport without a new spectacle”.

“LDM approached Mr Beynon on numerous occasions to become a major sponsor of their motorsport team, an opportunity he had been considering for some time as the sport is a perfect fit for his various brands,” a spokesman said.

“The team, to be known as Travers Beynon Racing, was sanctioned by V8 Supercars administration and Mr Beynon spent a considerable amount of additional money to prepare the team, grid girls, crew and extra staff to debut in Townsville.

“Unfortunately LDM has not only reneged on the contract, but … (it) has repeatedly refused to enter into any negotiations with Mr Beynon to resolve the issue.’’

LDM did not respond to requests for comment but in court documents its lawyers contended that the contract was “expressly” for Free*choice branding which had been prohibited by V8 Supercars. They denied Dumbrell had agreed to use Travers Beynon Racing branding instead and said the contract “must be terminated”.

Court documents reveal a terse war of words between the Dumbrell camp and Beynon’s celebrity legal firm Nyst Lawyers.

Mr Beynon’s spokesman said the “Candyman” had planned a tasteful yet “racy” approach to his racing team, “including a squad of Travers Beynon Racing grid girls and exclusive after parties at selected events”.

“More glamour and characters like the Candyman will only take the industry to a larger audience locally and worldwide,” he said.

“Supercars is a serious business but ... the ticket paying public always wants more, and that’s what Travers Beynon Racing would have provided.’’

Lawyer Brendan Nyst said his client was seeking an *urgent injunction hearing before the Townsville race.

[Axeman444]

Its seems there is an update to the story that he has won an injunction, however story is behind a paywall

[Mixer]

Wow that is umm, interesting.

So LDM is the new Larkham?

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by updated Article

Candyman revved up over sour V8 sponsorship deal

Greg Stolz, Melanie Petrinec, Jeremy Pierce, The Courier-Mail
July 7, 2016 1:20pm

“CANDYMAN” Travers Beynon has won an injunction to stop a Supercar team from racing in the Townsville 400 this weekend in his corporate colours.

Mr Beynon has accused Lucas Dumbrell Motorsport of reneging on a $6 million sponsorship deal to launch a Candyman-branded team in the Virgin Australia Supercar Championship.

He appeared in the Brisbane Supreme Court today, and a judge ordered he be paid back $250,000 he has already given the team for sponsorship.

But the costs of removing the detailing from the cars is expected to be deducted from that amount.

Mr Beynon did not comment on the case outside court.

[GTRMagic]

Speedcafe Finally Catch Up

[racer69]

The interesting part for me is this bit

From Speedcafe article
The Freechoice branding was, however, blocked by Supercars in the lead-up to Townsville on the grounds of it promoting tobacco sales.

Surely this is a government legislation problem (ie... it is either legal to advertise this product or it isn't), rather than Supercars problem?

Are Supercars blocking this sponsorship because it is illegal? Or are they blocking it because they don't want the series to be associated with that product?

You really don't want to turn away sponsors willing to pump this much money into the series surely, especially one of the "lower" (for want of a better word) teams, especially if the sponsorship is legal in the eyes of the government?

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by racer69

Surely this is a government legislation problem (ie... it is either legal to advertise this product or it isn't), rather than Supercars problem?

There is no grey area here, Freechoices appears to be the brand of Tobacco and as such it seems LDM thought it could use a "version" of the branding (think Pack Leader Racing), but V8Supercars torpedoed the idea.

[Tourer]

Racer69 it is very much Supercars problem - the govt legislation would probably hurt the series more than any individual team if it went ahead.

Sounds like Supercars have done the right thing to block this but it days make you wonder what on earth LDM were thinking to even consider tobacco sponsorship.

[racer69]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Racer69 it is very much Supercars problem - the govt legislation would probably hurt the series more than any individual team if it went ahead.

Sounds like Supercars have done the right thing to block this but it days make you wonder what on earth LDM were thinking to even consider tobacco sponsorship.

My point was that if this sponsorship contravenes the law on tobacco advertising, why do Supercars need to step in to block it, the law already does so?

Originally Posted by Mixer

LDM thought it could use a "version" of the branding (think Pack Leader Racing), but V8Supercars torpedoed the idea.

Is "Pack Leader Racing" branding illegal by law? If not, then why would Supercars torpedo the idea?

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by racer69

Is "Pack Leader Racing" branding illegal by law? If not, then why would Supercars torpedo the idea?

The Act defines ‘tobacco advertisement’ more broadly than the everyday meaning of the term. Section 9 of the Act defines a ‘tobacco advertisement’ to be any writing, still or moving picture, sign, symbol or other visual image that gives publicity to, or otherwise promotes or is intended to promote, smoking or the purchase or use of tobacco products.

Pretty broad...

[Senna05]

"FreeChoice" is a retailer - that sells admittedly primarily cigarettes and tobacco products, but also retails gifts and the such.

Ergo, I wonder if this actually is against the anti tobacco legislation? Or have Supercars deemed that the potential sponsorship of one of it's REC's was against it's vision statement?

[Mixer]

As one of the largest specialist retailers of tobacco and related products, with 255 stores across the country, FREECHOICE is the right choice for you.

Given how impossibly broad the legislation is, I believe a lawyer is going to say that sponsorship of a retailer that promotes itself as per the above cannot be guaranteed to comply with that legislation.

Seems our candyman doesn't mind a bit of court action:

http://www.businessnewsaus.com.au/ar...ion-plans.html

3 cases in the last 12 months.

[D.R.T.]

Where does it stop though? 7 Eleven and Bottle O shops retail tobacco and related products don't they?

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by D.R.T.

Where does it stop though? 7 Eleven and Bottle O shops retail tobacco and related products don't they?

Whether it is a 'tobacco advertisement' I guess comes down to "otherwise promotes or is intended to promote the sales of tobacco"

Unfortunately given what Freechoices does - I can't see how it does comply with the legislation.

Personally I think the legislation is over reaching, despite my personal distaste for smoking.

[Langers]

This will be a blessing in disguise for LDM. The sport doesn't need sponsors like these, particularly when it is trying to promote a family-friendly image.

[one five five]

Originally Posted by Langers

This will be a blessing in disguise for LDM. The sport doesn't need sponsors like these, particularly when it is trying to promote a family-friendly image.

If it were legal, I would say the sport certainly does need sponsors like that

The sport happily welcomes & promotes sponsorship from alcohol and betting agencies, how is that for your "family-friendly" image?

[GTRMagic]

She's a bit naked now..

[pug205]

Originally Posted by one five five

The sport happily welcomes & promotes sponsorship from alcohol and betting agencies, how is that for your "family-friendly" image?

I agree there is some hypocrisy there and when the owners of those alcohol and betting companies start leading bikini clad women around their houses on their hands and knees with chains I would imagine V8's will probably step in and put an end to those deals too.

The man is a grub and not worth trashing your corporate image over for the money he is willing to spend.

[Sandgroper]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

She's a bit naked now..

Looks better

[one five five]

Originally Posted by pug205

I would imagine V8's will probably step in and put an end to those deals too.

So Supercars should be able to pick and choose who is allowed to sponsor cars in the series?

REC owners need alot of money these days to put the cars on the grid, and the series is not swimming with sponsors at the moment.

Sets a dangerous precedent too, what happens of Qantas or Tiger want to sponsor a team, would that be blocked because Virgin Australia backs the series?

Originally Posted by pug205

The man is a grub and not worth trashing your corporate image over for the money he is willing to spend.

Are all the business owners who sponsor Supercar teams squeaky clean?

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by one five five

Sets a dangerous precedent too, what happens of Qantas or Tiger want to sponsor a team, would that be blocked because Virgin Australia backs the series?

This has happened in Nascar before.

Anyway the point being there is no law against gambling or booze advertising, there is an explicit law against tobacco advertising that someone has tripped over.

[one five five]

Originally Posted by Mixer

This has happened in Nascar before.

Has happened for years in NASCAR, cost some teams sponsors when Nextel took over in 2004 which forbid competing companies from signing new deals backing cars (eg.. Childress weren't allowed to renew their sponsorship with Cingular after the deal ended)

It didn't happen in Australia thankfully when Shell backed the ATCC and SCS.

[ForumNick]

Didn't it happen @ Bathurst, when Denyer had to remove program/network branding as it clashed with the broadcaster?