Quote:
Originally Posted by peebee2
Lol, I’m not sure if you’re doing this deliberately but I simply pointed out the McLaren looks very light on sponsors, as it has for a number of years now, despite the sponsor guru being at the helm.
You’ve countered that by pointing out how many partners there are but I’ve explained how sponsors and partners are very different.
They have a lot of outgoings but comparatively few cash sponsors. True, they had a driver who was paying millions even before he raced for them, but now in his third year as a race driver I’m not sure he’s still paying the big bucks.
This year they’ve got an expensive new lead driver, an expensive new customer engine and much reduced FOM income, despite their great finishing position last year.
Their biggest sponsor seems to be issued share capital which cannot be sustainable forever.
Maybe they have a massive deal to be announced, but the pot has been low for quite a long time now.
Comparing spending shareholders funds to Red Bull GmbH, a drinks company with a billion dollar marketing budget, is ridiculous.
|
I don't see how I've countered that. Is there a difference between sponsors and partners? The only difference I see is in the nomenclature. Whether one uses the term partner or sponsor, the same role is being fulfilled, which is to provide funding. I suppose using the word partner, has a more business partner/team player feel to it, rather than sponsor.
Red Bull GmbH doesn't trade on the stock market and is privately owned, unlike BAT. In 2019 Red Bull GmbH had a global revenue of around €6.07 billion. BAT's global revenue for 2019 was around £25.877 billion. The average exchange rate in 2019 was €1.140 - £1.000. BAT also had an operating income of £9.016 billion. I don't know what Red Bull GmbH's operating income was for the same period. However, as their revenue was less than BAT's one could presume that their operating income might also be less.