VODAPHONE GONE?

[JeffDunne]

I have no doubt they are jumping ship primarily for commercial reasons.

Given the choice between being lied to by a two-bob outfit . . . did I say that? . . . and dealing with Pratt's money, I know what I'd choose too.

My issue is with Archie's comments and where he's pointing the finger. It's bulls*** to suggest they didn't know (or that it's an excuse) - even more so to finger a player publicly.

Amateur hour again.

[Brewer]

The club MUST be fully aware of ALL contractual arrangements involving players. It is just absurd to suggest otherwise, with so many big biccies involved in sponsorship and so much corporate embarrassment on the line.

This has all happened years ago in other sports, for example Nike sponsoring a soccer team whose star player already has deal with Adidas.

If the Saints could sign a major contract with Vodafone, not knowing that one of their star players already has a contract with Telstra, that is gross incompetence.

We're in the big league here folks, there's no excuse for that kind of amateurism.

'Whoops we didn't know' indeed!

[Mr Magic]

The club MUST be fully aware of ALL contractual arrangements involving players. It is just absurd to suggest otherwise, with so many big biccies involved in sponsorship and so much corporate embarrassment on the line.

This has all happened years ago in other sports, for example Nike sponsoring a soccer team whose star player already has deal with Adidas.

If the Saints could sign a major contract with Vodafone, not knowing that one of their star players already has a contract with Telstra, that is gross incompetence.

We're in the big league here folks, there's no excuse for that kind of amateurism.

'Whoops we didn't know' indeed!

Brewer, I'll bet that they, and all clubs don't.

Managers are doing all sorts of deals, large and small, for players all the time and there is no way the Clubs are told about them all.

Here's a scenario, Hungry Jacks sponsors WCE. Paul Connors, Judd's manager gets offered a 'deal' for Judd to appear at Ronald McDonald House to hand over some 'sponsorship/promotional' money to parents of sick children. Judd agrees not to accept payment because it is for a worthwhile charity but McDonalds gives him 'free burgers' whenver he wants anyway. Media attend and pictures appear on News/Papers of Judd at Ronald McDonald House and furhtermore, McDonalds hangs copies of the picture in their restaurants.

Would the WCE have known about it prior? No way?
Should he be stopped from doing it? No way?

AFL footballers are getting 'deals' on all sorts of things all the time that their Clubs have no knowledge of and in many instances these 'deals' are 'breaching' their own Club's 'deals' with someone else.

Be it the purchase (gift) of telephones, cars, holidays, televisions, entertainment, dining.

Just think about who are the StKilda sopnsors? I would bet that just about every player has a personal deal 'conflict' with at least one.

If the CLub (or AFL) tried to force the players not to earn income (cash or product) from companies/people in conflict with their corporate sponsor I think you would have 'restraint of trade' lawsuits everywhere.

[plugger66]

The club MUST be fully aware of ALL contractual arrangements involving players. It is just absurd to suggest otherwise, with so many big biccies involved in sponsorship and so much corporate embarrassment on the line.

This has all happened years ago in other sports, for example Nike sponsoring a soccer team whose star player already has deal with Adidas.

If the Saints could sign a major contract with Vodafone, not knowing that one of their star players already has a contract with Telstra, that is gross incompetence.

We're in the big league here folks, there's no excuse for that kind of amateurism.

'Whoops we didn't know' indeed!

Brewer, I'll bet that they, and all clubs don't.

Managers are doing all sorts of deals, large and small, for players all the time and there is no way the Clubs are told about them all.

Here's a scenario, Hungry Jacks sponsors WCE. Paul Connors, Judd's manager gets offered a 'deal' for Judd to appear at Ronald McDonald House to hand over some 'sponsorship/promotional' money to parents of sick children. Judd agrees not to accept payment because it is for a worthwhile charity but McDonalds gives him 'free burgers' whenver he wants anyway. Media attend and pictures appear on News/Papers of Judd at Ronald McDonald House and furhtermore, McDonalds hangs copies of the picture in their restaurants.

Would the WCE have known about it prior? No way?
Should he be stopped from doing it? No way?

AFL footballers are getting 'deals' on all sorts of things all the time that their Clubs have no knowledge of and in many instances these 'deals' are 'breaching' their own Club's 'deals' with someone else.

Be it the purchase (gift) of telephones, cars, holidays, televisions, entertainment, dining.

Just think about who are the StKilda sopnsors? I would bet that just about every player has a personal deal 'conflict' with at least one.

If the CLub (or AFL) tried to force the players not to earn income (cash or product) from companies/people in conflict with their corporate sponsor I think you would have 'restraint of trade' lawsuits everywhere.

The players have to get approval for all apperances so they would have to tell the club in that scenario. I have no doubt they approve it but they do have to know about it. Even when players go to a footy club they have to know about it unless they are doing it as a mate not a Saints player.

[Mr Magic]

Plugger, I bow to your knowledge on this one.

But do you know if player Z wanted to buy a Ford car and his manager did a deal with Bayford to get it there. Would he be banned from going there because Saints have a deal with Jefferson Ford? (hypothetical scenario only)

[plugger66]

Plugger, I bow to your knowledge on this one.

But do you know if player Z wanted to buy a Ford car and his manager did a deal with Bayford to get it there. Would he be banned from going there because Saints have a deal with Jefferson Ford? (hypothetical scenario only)

I think that would be fine but if he published it they would. Most of the time the club would give approval on nearly all things IMO. As for the Luke Ball thing I would have thought the club would have advised Vodafone about that and Vodafone are only using it as an excuse I would think.

[TheBabyBlues]

Natham Burke apparantly just said on SEN that Bill express and Vodafone have left St. Kilda and gone to Carlton.

I guess that just about confirms it you'd say.

EDIT: Possible lost in translation here...i dont think Bill Express is coming to carlton as well...just that they have left you guys.

[Brewer]

Magic, I expect you will find that when a player signs a contract, one clause is that they run ALL potential business deals past the club, for exactly this reason.

I have some experience in corporate communications, and as I mentioned before, this is not new in sport - conflicts like this have been around for decades, as long as big business has sponsored sport. The sponsor wants to know that their message is being pushed wholeheartedly.

If Coca-Cola sponsored the team, they would be utterly humiliated if Nick Riewoldt appeared at a public event drinking Pepsi. If Nike sponsored the team they wouldn't want Koschitzke running onto the park in Adidas boots. How would it look if FIGJAM had got a gig promoting Bundy and Coke while Collingwood were sponsored by TAC?

The club's interests come first, players are employees after all, and it is up to the club to decide who their employees can and can't be associated with.

In your example of McDonalds wanting to use Judd, I expect the proper course of events would be that Judd should approach WCE management, who would go to Burger King for approval, just as a matter of respect to their major sponsor. A lot of these negotiations go on in business, and it might be that Burger King says 'yes that's fine' or that they agree on the proviso that McDonald's doesn't use any images of Judd in its own promotional material. The point is BK would want full disclosure in advance of any potential conflicts.

It may sound petty, but we're talking hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of dollars worth of public relations money and these things cannot be left to chance or to renegade footy players. There would be very few of these kinds of things occurring without paperwork being involved.

I am surprised that this kind of conflict could happen in an AFL club in this day and age, it is really amateur on the part of the club - sponsors deserve a bit more respect than that.

[plugger66]

Actually the only thing that players do not need approval on is boot sponsorship. They can have their own. This was negotiated in players contracts a few years ago.

[Mr Magic]

Brewer, consider me eduvated on the topic

But what do you do in this case of Ball/Telstra, when the deal was aparently done 2 years before the Vodafone one?

Can the Club or Sponsor demand he give up that deal? WHo would recompense him for lost income?

[TheBabyBlues]

Actually the only thing that players do not need approval on is boot sponsorship. They can have their own. This was negotiated in players contracts a few years ago.

Probably because of the boot fiasco started with Kouta.

Adidas vs Nike meant that Kouta was possibly going to be missing games!

Thankfully that got sorted out.

[Joffa Burns]

Pardon my ignorance, but what happened to the AFL non competition clause that all clubs have supposedly agreed to in relation to poaching incumbent sponsors above $250K?

Is this no longer in place or was the Vodafone spend less than $250K?

[Mr Magic]

Pardon my ignorance, but what happened to the AFL non competition clause that all clubs have supposedly agreed to in relation to poaching incumbent sponsors above $250K?

Is this no longer in place or was the Vodafone spend less than $250K?

IIRC, Vodafone may have gotten around it by putting their sposorship out to tender?

[Brewer]

But what do you do in this case of Ball/Telstra, when the deal was aparently done 2 years before the Vodafone one?

The club should have had this info on record, and it should have been disclosed during negotiations with Vodafone.

Vodafone's options would have been to simply ignore it, try to buy Ball out from Telstra, or perhaps insist that he not renew his contract with Telstra when it expired. Or it may have been a deal-breaker for Vodafone (in which case, questions would perhaps be asked of whoever gave Ball permission to sign with Telstra at the potential exclusion of other telecommunications industry sponsors).

Either way, Vodafone deserved to know about it before they signed with the Saints, and you can hardly expect them to approach 44 players managers to make these sorts of enquiries themselves. The club needs to be on top of this kind of stuff.

[redwhite&blackblood]

Are Optus and Vodafone competitors? If so do Carlton have a conflict brewing?

[Grimfang]

According to today's papers, NEC are reviewing their sponsorship as well. It does not bode well for the club to lose 3 big sponsors in a year.

[chook23]

According to today's papers, NEC are reviewing their sponsorship as well. It does not bode well for the club to lose 3 big sponsors in a year.

standard process to review this time of year

[SENsei]

Are Optus and Vodafone competitors? If so do Carlton have a conflict brewing?

Do Carlton have a deal with Optus anymore? The oval is called MC Labour Park (pathetic name). Can't remember what's on their jumpers. Dan Murphys?

[TheBabyBlues]

Are Optus and Vodafone competitors? If so do Carlton have a conflict brewing?

Do Carlton have a deal with Optus anymore? The oval is called MC Labour Park (pathetic name). Can't remember what's on their jumpers. Dan Murphys?

We have 'yes' optus on the back of our jumpers (at least half the time - away or home?)

As i said earlier they are not a major sponsor anymore and could potentially jump ship if you gave them a reason too.