[BTCC] BTCC 2022 season discussion, News and Rumours!

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by S griffin

It seems even having Rich Energy on the car is no guarantee of there being any proper sponsorship

You might be surprised how many ‘sponsorship’ deals are like that. There are lots.

[Robshillito1990]

No idea why anyone would want anything to do with that company. It just screams dodgy and the fact they both say the bearded one has no involvement then why has he attended both bsb meetings and btcc meetings?

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Robshillito1990

No idea why anyone would want anything to do with that company. It just screams dodgy and the fact they both say the bearded one has no involvement then why has he attended both bsb meetings and btcc meetings?

They say he has no involvement with the sponsorship deal. It's still the Rich Energy brand being displayed though, and he is inextricably linked to Rich Energy.

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by peebee2

You might be surprised how many ‘sponsorship’ deals are like that. There are lots.

Go on then, name them

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Go on then, name them

The specifics are between the teams and the brands, but there are at least six teams on the grid this season that feature a brand as title sponsor, but received no financial support directly from that brand.

[billy bleach]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

The specifics are between the teams and the brands, but there are at least six teams on the grid this season that feature a brand as title sponsor, but received no financial support directly from that brand.

Fascinating who?

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Go on then, name them

I’ve finally worked it out, from all your posts.

You’re William Storey aren’t you?

I claim my £5.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by billy bleach

Fascinating who?

As I said - the details are between the teams and the brands. It's not for the public domain unless they choose to reveal the details.

I'm sorry - but sometimes things are 'commercial in confidence'.

[billy bleach]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

As I said - the details are between the teams and the brands. It's not for the public domain unless they choose to reveal the details.

I'm sorry - but sometimes things are 'commercial in confidence'.

Ah that old story. Honestly what nonsense ….:

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by peebee2

I’ve finally worked it out, from all your posts.

You’re William Storey aren’t you?

I claim my £5.

I've worked out from your posts you clearly don't know what you're on about

[antnee]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

The specifics are between the teams and the brands, but there are at least six teams on the grid this season that feature a brand as title sponsor, but received no financial support directly from that brand.

So you are saying that 6 teams (and therefore 12+ drivers) get no financial benefits from the sponsorship deals? Those potential 12+ drivers still have to foot the entire bill despite not having the entire car and team name options to 'sell'?

Or are you again trying to confuse that 'BMW' feature on cars despite BMW AG provide zero funds, when everyone knows it is the UK sales company who will be providing the funds as they have the rights to the BMW name in the UK.

[billy bleach]

Originally Posted by antnee

So you are saying that 6 teams (and therefore 12+ drivers) get no financial benefits from the sponsorship deals? Those potential 12+ drivers still have to foot the entire bill despite not having the entire car and team name options to 'sell'?

Or are you again trying to confuse that 'BMW' feature on cars despite BMW AG provide zero funds, when everyone knows it is the UK sales company who will be providing the funds as they have the rights to the BMW name in the UK.

Or is it just a load of nonsense ?

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by antnee

So you are saying that 6 teams (and therefore 12+ drivers) get no financial benefits from the sponsorship deals? Those potential 12+ drivers still have to foot the entire bill despite not having the entire car and team name options to 'sell'?

No, I am saying that there are (at least) six team names on the grid that include a brand which doesn't provide financial support to the team in question.

It doesn't mean that the brand is not supporting the team in some other capacity.

For example (taking your 12 drivers reference) - how much of the name 'Car Gods with Ciceley Motorsport' was able to be 'sold' by George Gamble?

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by antnee

So you are saying that 6 teams (and therefore 12+ drivers) get no financial benefits from the sponsorship deals? Those potential 12+ drivers still have to foot the entire bill despite not having the entire car and team name options to 'sell'?

Or are you again trying to confuse that 'BMW' feature on cars despite BMW AG provide zero funds, when everyone knows it is the UK sales company who will be providing the funds as they have the rights to the BMW name in the UK.

I’ll give you a non-BTCC example, to show that ‘sponsorship’ is far from a simple subject.

There are F1 young driver academies, for selected up and coming young drivers. This is something you generally pay handsomely to be a member of. The idea is you then take that ‘patronage’ and use it to impress other potential sponsors who are then more likely to want to spend with you.

And, also, yes - there are plenty of fully branded top-end cars where the driver still brings a full budget. It’s called prestige.

[Evantra]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

how much of the name 'Car Gods with Ciceley Motorsport' was able to be 'sold' by George Gamble?

Apparently he's a great ambassador for alcohol, though.

[crmalcolm]

How much of their respective team names do we think the following drivers 'sold':

Lloyd,
Collard,
Shedden,
Edwards,
Hand.

Now I'm not saying that those teams are included in the six that I referred to previously - but they are examples of where a brand in the team name is not related related to the driver in the seat.

[billy bleach]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

How much of their respective team names do we think the following drivers 'sold':

Lloyd,
Collard,
Shedden,
Edwards,
Hand.

Now I'm not saying that those teams are included in the six that I referred to previously - but they are examples of where a brand in the team name is not related related to the driver in the seat.

But that’s not what you said. ……

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by billy bleach

But that’s not what you said. ……

That post you quoted was in response to the question regarding 'potential 12+ drivers still have to foot the entire bill despite not having the entire car and team name options to 'sell'?

They are examples of cases where the driver does not have the entire car and team name options to sell - but as I clarified they are not specifically cases where the brand on the car does not provide financial support to the team.

Hopefully the following clears things up - these are independent statements:

A - There are (at least) six teams on the current BTCC grid with a brand in their entered name, where that brand does not provide a direct financial contribution to the team.

B - There are drivers on the grid who, through the nature of their deal, have no involvement with the naming rights for that team.

C - There are forum posters who seem to get upset because the full details of running a team or championship are not in the public domain -and seem to think it is their right to full transparency.

In regards to the latter statement - that could be technical specifications, financial details or contractual matters. Others have commented in the past they they are appreciative of insights into how things are run in the BTCC - even if the full details are not able to be shared.

[antnee]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

That post you quoted was in response to the question regarding 'potential 12+ drivers still have to foot the entire bill despite not having the entire car and team name options to 'sell'?

They are examples of cases where the driver does not have the entire car and team name options to sell - but as I clarified they are not specifically cases where the brand on the car does not provide financial support to the team.

Hopefully the following clears things up - these are independent statements:

A - There are (at least) six teams on the current BTCC grid with a brand in their entered name, where that brand does not provide a direct financial contribution to the team.

B - There are drivers on the grid who, through the nature of their deal, have no involvement with the naming rights for that team.

C - There are forum posters who seem to get upset because the full details of running a team or championship are not in the public domain -and seem to think it is their right to full transparency.

In regards to the latter statement - that could be technical specifications, financial details or contractual matters. Others have commented in the past they they are appreciative of insights into how things are run in the BTCC - even if the full details are not able to be shared.

You are changing and twisting things again.

Are you saying that the likes of Gamble (with Car Gods), Shedden (with Cataclean), etc still have to pay the full budget of running a car despite not having a full 'car' to sell for sponsorship? We both know that isn't the case, if a seat costs £400k for the season, the likes of Car Gods/Cataclean/Bristol Street/etc will reduce that bill significantly so the seat may only cost 250-300k (just figures pulled out of the air to illustrate )

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by antnee

Are you saying that the likes of Gamble (with Car Gods), Shedden (with Cataclean), etc still have to pay the full budget of running a car despite not having a full 'car' to sell for sponsorship? We both know that isn't the case, if a seat costs £400k for the season, the likes of Car Gods/Cataclean/Bristol Street/etc will reduce that bill significantly so the seat may only cost 250-300k (just figures pulled out of the air to illustrate )

Not changing or twisting anything.

There are sponsorship deals that see a brand on a car, and there has been no financial exchange to make that happen.

You linked that to drivers not being able to 'sell' naming rights for a team. I was demonstrating why the link is not relevant to the initial point - that (at least) six teams have brands in their name without having seen a financial payment to the team from the brand.

To take it all the way back to the original brand in question - RICH Energy.
How much of Plato's, Cook's and Edwards' drives have been funded by money from RICH Energy (direct or a company that owns brand rights)?

You have already said that the money to subsidise the seats is coming from Dudman's other ventures

Originally Posted by antnee

From Dudman's other companies into BTC

So I think you have already proven my point - that a team on the grid (BTC Racing) has a brand in the name (RICH Energy) - but has not received any funding from the brand.

It's true that a subsidised seat from a sponsor may make it a cheaper seat for a driver to take. But not all deals are as simple as: Seat costs X, Sponsor pays Y, X-Y = driver's contribution.

There are far too many permutations on the grid to simplify it down to 12 drivers are unable to sell sponsorship.

Hypothetical examples of where a naming right might not be a financial contribution:

A - Car marque (dealer network - e.g Alfa Romeo) wants to see their brand in the manufacturers' championship. They approach a team (e.g. HMS Racing) and offers to pay the entry for for the manufacturer's championship entry and to provide marketing and promotional support to the entry in return for the marque to be included in the team name. HMS Racing receive no financial reward from the deal. Team enters as 'Alfa Romeo with HMS Racing'.

B - Company associated with automobiles (e.g JCT600) acquires the assets of a team in the BTCC, which includes a TBL. The company want to promote their brand, and approach another team that is currently short of a TBL (e.g. HARD.). They offer to provide (loan) the TBL for the entry, in return for having their brand in the team name. Team enters as 'Team HARD. with JCT600'.


To reiterate - these are hypothetical examples of how a brand can be part of a team name without providing financial sponsorship in the traditional sense.

[billy bleach]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Not changing or twisting anything.

There are sponsorship deals that see a brand on a car, and there has been no financial exchange to make that happen.

You linked that to drivers not being able to 'sell' naming rights for a team. I was demonstrating why the link is not relevant to the initial point - that (at least) six teams have brands in their name without having seen a financial payment to the team from the brand.

To take it all the way back to the original brand in question - RICH Energy.
How much of Plato's, Cook's and Edwards' drives have been funded by money from RICH Energy (direct or a company that owns brand rights)?

You have already said that the money to subsidise the seats is coming from Dudman's other ventures
So I think you have already proven my point - that a team on the grid (BTC Racing) has a brand in the name (RICH Energy) - but has not received any funding from the brand.

It's true that a subsidised seat from a sponsor may make it a cheaper seat for a driver to take. But not all deals are as simple as: Seat costs X, Sponsor pays Y, X-Y = driver's contribution.

There are far too many permutations on the grid to simplify it down to 12 drivers are unable to sell sponsorship.

Hypothetical examples of where a naming right might not be a financial contribution:

A - Car marque (dealer network - e.g Alfa Romeo) wants to see their brand in the manufacturers' championship. They approach a team (e.g. HMS Racing) and offers to pay the entry for for the manufacturer's championship entry and to provide marketing and promotional support to the entry in return for the marque to be included in the team name. HMS Racing receive no financial reward from the deal. Team enters as 'Alfa Romeo with HMS Racing'.

B - Company associated with automobiles (e.g JCT600) acquires the assets of a team in the BTCC, which includes a TBL. The company want to promote their brand, and approach another team that is currently short of a TBL (e.g. HARD.). They offer to provide (loan) the TBL for the entry, in return for having their brand in the team name. Team enters as 'Team HARD. with JCT600'.


To reiterate - these are hypothetical examples of how a brand can be part of a team name without providing financial sponsorship in the traditional sense.

Honestly it is all just Fantasy nonsense. But whatever it’s a free World. Just don’t present as fact when it clearly isn’t. Either that or stand up and name the “six”…..

[antnee]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

To take it all the way back to the original brand in question - RICH Energy.
How much of Plato's, Cook's and Edwards' drives have been funded by money from RICH Energy (direct or a company that owns brand rights)?

You have already said that the money to subsidise the seats is coming from Dudman's other ventures
So I think you have already proven my point - that a team on the grid (BTC Racing) has a brand in the name (RICH Energy) - but has not received any funding from the brand.

So a person who runs a company (Dudman) with rights to a brand (Rich Energy) is putting money into a team/cars (BTC) to promote the brand they have rights to.

In summary, financial contributions are made to promote a brand.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by antnee

In summary, financial contributions are made to promote a brand.

Or to be precise - financial contributions are made to a team that do not come from the brand being promoted.

Which - IIIRC - was the original query.

It was queried whether there were sponsorship deals have no exchange of funds between the sponsor and sponsored parties. We've both argued that the RICH Energy sponsorship is one such case (amongst many), albeit with nuanced interpretations of the situation.

Not really sure much more can be said on the subject. Some sponsorships are not in return for financial support - always has been, always will be.

[billy bleach]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Or to be precise - financial contributions are made to a team that do not come from the brand being promoted.

Which - IIIRC - was the original query.

It was queried whether there were sponsorship deals have no exchange of funds between the sponsor and sponsored parties. We've both argued that the RICH Energy sponsorship is one such case (amongst many), albeit with nuanced interpretations of the situation.

Not really sure much more can be said on the subject. Some sponsorships are not in return for financial support - always has been, always will be.

So the Teams pay their bills with Goodwill and self asteem do they. What a load of twaddle .

[antnee]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Or to be precise - financial contributions are made to a team that do not come from the brand being promoted.

Which - IIIRC - was the original query.

It was queried whether there were sponsorship deals have no exchange of funds between the sponsor and sponsored parties. We've both argued that the RICH Energy sponsorship is one such case (amongst many), albeit with nuanced interpretations of the situation.

Not really sure much more can be said on the subject. Some sponsorships are not in return for financial support - always has been, always will be.

But they are being paid by the brand (and not the corporate owners), just like many other examples which are well known - BMW is BMW UK not BMW AG. It isn't just a random person paying out big money for a brand they like to be plastered over a car.