One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: mightytiges on October 18, 2011, 11:35:35 PM
-
It was confirmed tonight that our Clive Peeters shorts sponsorship has morphed into Harvey Norman with HN taking over CP stores. So no issues there. In fact it's a bonus as CP only had 18 stores Australia-wide whereas HN has 100s so more accessibility and choice for members.
In fact all major and lower level sponsors are in place for 2012 (one of the reasons the new logo was brought in now) and we've begun discussing 2013 with both our major sponsors Jeep and Bingle.
idiot Smith is still with us as they are interested more in community support programs these days and help us with our IT programs and work in the Northern Territory.
-
wonder if we will still get the richo's discounts through the Harvey Norman stores?
-
wonder if we will still get the richo's discounts through the Harvey Norman stores?
The plan is yes.
-
wonder if we will still get the richo's discounts through the Harvey Norman stores?
The plan is yes.
Will it extend so far as the Sydney market, RFC_O?
-
wonder if we will still get the richo's discounts through the Harvey Norman stores?
The plan is yes.
Will it extend so far as the Sydney market, RFC_O?
From what was mentioned to me last night Muscles, the answer is yes will be nation wide just like the Clive Peeters deal was
-
I trust we are getting more money for the Harvey Norman logo as opposed to the Clive Peeters logo.
I would think there would be more value to HN in having the Harvey Norman logo on display more than they got out of the Clive Peeters logo.
-
I trust we are getting more money for the Harvey Norman logo as opposed to the Clive Peeters logo.
I would think there would be more value to HN in having the Harvey Norman logo on display more than they got out of the Clive Peeters logo.
Why?
It is just the continuation of an existing contract. We had a 3 year deal with CP that has now been taking over by the parent company
-
Spot on WP, tigers would have to honour that contract
.. Richo rates :thumbsup
-
wonder if we will still get the richo's discounts through the Harvey Norman stores?
The plan is yes.
good stuff. :thumbsup
pity i have already bought most things for our new kitchen.
-
I trust we are getting more money for the Harvey Norman logo as opposed to the Clive Peeters logo.
I would think there would be more value to HN in having the Harvey Norman logo on display more than they got out of the Clive Peeters logo.
Why?
It is just the continuation of an existing contract. We had a 3 year deal with CP that has now been taking over by the parent company
I would have thought that we had a contractual obligation to CP to display the CP logo on our shorts. If the HN group decide to shut down CP that is a business decision they make and must consider the consequences. This business decision does not change our obligation to display the CP logo. Obviously, exposing a defunct brand is of little value to the HN group. Accordingly, HN would seek to negotiate with contractors to CP to allow HN to step into the rights of CP. Given the relative worth of the HN brand vs the CP brand (it's a much more recognised brandname and logo), I would seek to recover additional sponsorship from HN in the negotiation to agree to the change in logo. I would argue that HN would generally pay more to have the HN brand and logo advertised than the CP brand and this is just a reflection of the relative market values of the respective brands.
-
the value of a sponsorship deal is dependant on us, not the company handing over the money.
They could probably legally not continue the sponsorship. To ask for more money because they are a bigger company may very well see them decide to do that
-
I would have thought that we had a contractual obligation to CP to display the CP logo on our shorts. If the HN group decide to shut down CP that is a business decision they make and must consider the consequences. This business decision does not change our obligation to display the CP logo. Obviously, exposing a defunct brand is of little value to the HN group. Accordingly, HN would seek to negotiate with contractors to CP to allow HN to step into the rights of CP. Given the relative worth of the HN brand vs the CP brand (it's a much more recognised brandname and logo), I would seek to recover additional sponsorship from HN in the negotiation to agree to the change in logo. I would argue that HN would generally pay more to have the HN brand and logo advertised than the CP brand and this is just a reflection of the relative market values of the respective brands.
I would argue using your logic then HN could have just pulled the pin and walked away from the contract which they haven't done, they are honouring a contract that their company via one of it's samller companies had with the RFC
HN owned CP, therefore by extension our contract with CP is in fact with HN (acct & corp law 101 = control is control is control) the contract remains the same just a change in the name on the shorts with added bonuses to RFC members with the availability of more discounts available at HN stores on a greater range of goods eg bedding, carpets etc other than just electrical applainces.
-
The RFC website's main and sponsors' pages have been updated with the inclusion of Harvey Norman...
http://www.richmondfc.com.au/club%20partners/tabid/7701/default.aspx