Cycling Forums - View Single Post

07-22-2004, 09:38 AM

>Bonehenge Keep_it_in_the_newsgroup_please@aol.com

wrote:

>
>The same way race car sponsors collect monetary reparations if a team
>doesn't meet stated criteria? Many of those sponsorships are based
>on who's driving the car, usually with advertising and public
>appearances designed around the star.
>
>It's as easily enforced as any other clause. Break it and the sponsor
>doesn't pay, or the sponsor pays less. Who says a sponsorship
>contract requires 100% payment up front?
>
>Barry

As I said, I'm no lawyer but I think you are missing a critical difference
between race car sponsorship deals and cycling team sponsorship deals. To use
the USPS team as an example, there are at least 11 other people on that team
with individual employment contracts with Tailwind Sports (the team owners)
*and the sponsor* so what happens to those contractual obligations if Lance
quits or is injured and can't ride? How many people does a typical USAC,
NASCAR, or Formula sponsor have under contract?
Depending on how the sponsorship contract is written USPS could refuse to pay
certain bonuses and bonuses are what you are really referring to when you talk
about race car contracts and stipulations. The mechanics and other support
staff still get paid even if the driver loses or quits.
I may be mistaken but I really doubt there's any "Lance *must* ride" clause in
the new sponsorship deal. As for enforcement, let me ask this...
If there *were* such a clause and Lance showed up to race and then abandons in
the first kilometer of every race what do you envision Discovery Enterprises
doing about it, besides not paying bonuses that is? That's what I mean by
"unenforceable".

Regards,
Bob Hunt

07-22-2004, 09:38 AM	#115 (permalink)
Hunrobe Guest Posts: n/a	Re: Lance for number 7? >Bonehenge Keep_it_in_the_newsgroup_please@aol.com wrote: > >The same way race car sponsors collect monetary reparations if a team >doesn't meet stated criteria? Many of those sponsorships are based >on who's driving the car, usually with advertising and public >appearances designed around the star. > >It's as easily enforced as any other clause. Break it and the sponsor >doesn't pay, or the sponsor pays less. Who says a sponsorship >contract requires 100% payment up front? > >Barry As I said, I'm no lawyer but I think you are missing a critical difference between race car sponsorship deals and cycling team sponsorship deals. To use the USPS team as an example, there are at least 11 other people on that team with individual employment contracts with Tailwind Sports (the team owners) and the sponsor so what happens to those contractual obligations if Lance quits or is injured and can't ride? How many people does a typical USAC, NASCAR, or Formula sponsor have under contract? Depending on how the sponsorship contract is written USPS could refuse to pay certain bonuses and bonuses are what you are really referring to when you talk about race car contracts and stipulations. The mechanics and other support staff still get paid even if the driver loses or quits. I may be mistaken but I really doubt there's any "Lance must ride" clause in the new sponsorship deal. As for enforcement, let me ask this... If there were such a clause and Lance showed up to race and then abandons in the first kilometer of every race what do you envision Discovery Enterprises doing about it, besides not paying bonuses that is? That's what I mean by "unenforceable". Regards, Bob Hunt