• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.
  • You need to be a registered member of Barbel Fishing World to post on these forums. Some of the forums are hidden from non-members. Please refer to the instructions on the ‘Register’ page for details of how to join the new incarnation of BFW...

Angling Trust scandal !!!

#22
A huge fuss about nowt. Since when did a commercial sponsorship deal allow the sponsor any detail of how the money is spent? Ultimately, provided Drennan got the coverage stipulated in their deal, then they got what they paid for. If they aren't happy with that coverage, then they are quite within their rights to cancel, or refuse to extend the deal, but that's about it.

Giving Drennan much more is nearly as ridiculous as me asking Peter Drennan for his last twelve months of accounts because I've bought a load of Drennan rods. If he's spent it all on hookers and blow, good luck to him, but it's got sod all to do with me. I entered into a commercial transaction. I got what I paid for. The end.
 
#24
Chris
If I sponsored something.

I would definitely want to know how my money was spent
If you did so on a commercial basis, the chances of that happening are remarkably low. It's not sponsoring some bloke down the road to do the Great North Run for Cancer Research.
 

Mark Anderson

Super Moderator
Staff member
#25
Hi men,

For me its not weather Drennan should know where the un accounted for money has gone , but for a body that is there to represent its members nationally , and politically it should be for the members to see where its gone . Clarity and being squeaky clean with people donations is paramount , and it as a representative body anyone should be able to question this . If there has been no money squirreled away then its a non story .


Hatter
 
#26
Don't be silly Smarty.

If you actually listen to the radio piece that I responded too you would hear that that was the figure quoted as unaccounted for.

It was also stated that Drennan had not received an answer when querying the "black hole"

It also stated that "some" were suprised that the top two English anglers were not selected. It didn't say Drennan said that.
Smartly? The headline is AT SCANDAL, which in my book is a unfounded accusation , as I say trial by internet.
 
#30
Sorry Chris.
Don't agree.
You agree on what you are going to get for your sponsorship.
ie. Your moneys worth. Unless it's transparent....you will not know.
Commercial sponsorship and making a donation are quite different things. Do you seriously believe that Chevrolet get to peruse Manchester United's accounts because they sponsor their shirts? Get real.

Now if the members want to know how the AT are spending cash, that's quite different. Unfortunately, this isn't Peter Drennan the paid up private member asking privately, it's Drennan International that had a business deal.

Personally, I wouldn't give the AT the steam off my pee, so I have little right to ask anything of them. However, as little time as I have for the AT, this little drama is just a steaming pile of dung.
 
#31
This has nothing to do with missing money it's Peter Drennan's smokescreen to mask his desire to meddle in Team England affairs after a couple of his stars were not selected. The AT have published all accounts and Drennan have no evidence. Did they really act upon a note that looked like it was written by a child? That's a joke. If you had a problem with an organisation you wre sponsoring would you wait 25 years for a child to write a note and then act? What gives Drennan's game away is the way he praises Dick Clegg and Mark Addy and omits to mention Mark Downes who picked the team.

It is sad after 25 years it has come to this but a sponsor cannot pull the strings with team affairs anymore in fishing as in other sports. It does demonstrate integrity and how the AT will not be bought. Seek funding yes but not be a sponsor's puppet. I also believe there is a big apology occurring next week from Talk Sport and Nigel Botherway.
 
#34
So Chris.

If you for example sponsored Team England you wouldn't want to know where your money went?

Thats real.
I wouldn't be sponsoring Team England, I don't have a business to advertise. I wouldn't donate (donate, not sponsor) a single quid of my own cash for a bunch of, admittedly very good, anglers to swan off round the world. Modern commercial sponsorship is nothing more than paid advertising, Drennan got that. It was called Drennan Team England and they all wore Drennan logos on their kit. It's exactly the same as Chevrolet have getting advertising by sponsoring Manchester United's shirts. Commercial sponsorship doesn't usually give the the sponsoring company any right to know what the sponsored company does with the money. It's a commercial transaction, they are paying for advertising.
 
#38
Suely not a News Corporation outlet spreading lies, rumours and prejudice and then pretending it didn't realise all along that they were probably lies???

Funnily enough there was an OFCOM ruling just yesterday on one of their programmes (one of many about TalkRadio, which is owned by TalkSport) ... in which they "failed to include and give due weight to an appropriately wide range of significant viewpoints in relation to the relevant matters .... dealt with in the programme". This is a bit of an understatement, as the presenter of that particular programme argued that Russia was the least likely suspect for the Salisbury poisonings (and that presenter is basically a freelance Rent-a-Gob who gets paid for his contribution to the Russian official propaganda outlet 'Russia Today')

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47032109

This radio station seems to exist mainly to advertise the S*n and so facilitate whatever Murdoch wants to spread lies about in any particular week (though here the lies are just of a sensationalist nature, aimed at shifting more units, and I doubt it goes higher than editorial level in most cases like this). They will hopefully get fined again for not allowing the AT the chance to refute the slurs, but Murdoch just seems to treat it as water off his back.
 
Last edited:
#39
Commercial sponsorship and making a donation are quite different things. Do you seriously believe that Chevrolet get to peruse Manchester United's accounts because they sponsor their shirts? Get real.

Now if the members want to know how the AT are spending cash, that's quite different. Unfortunately, this isn't Peter Drennan the paid up private member asking privately, it's Drennan International that had a business deal.

Personally, I wouldn't give the AT the steam off my pee, so I have little right to ask anything of them. However, as little time as I have for the AT, this little drama is just a steaming pile of dung.
If you’re doing a sponsorship deal you’d be foolish not to do your due diligence before and during the course of the deal. Chevrolet will receive the accounts and look through them to make sure they’re getting value for money from the deal, and that the future performance of United will mean they get the exposure they paid for.

Drennan should be doing the same, even if it is on a much smaller scale

United/Chevrolet deal will include performance related clauses, probably measurable on success on the pitch and the financial performance of the company
 
#40
Suely not a News Corporation outlet spreading lies, rumours and prejudice and then pretending it didn't realise all along that they were probably lies???

Funnily enough there was an OFCOM ruling just yesterday on one of their programmes (one of many about TalkRadio, which is owned by TalkSport) ... in which they "failed to include and give due weight to an appropriately wide range of significant viewpoints in relation to the relevant matters .... dealt with in the programme". This is a bit of an understatement, as the presenter of that particular programme argued that Russia was the least likely suspect for the Salisbury poisonings (and that presenter is basically a freelance Rent-a-Gob who gets paid for his contribution to the Russian official propaganda outlet 'Russia Today')

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47032109

This radio station seems to exist mainly to advertise the S*n and so facilitate whatever Murdoch wants to spread lies about in any particular week (though here the lies are just of a sensationalist nature, aimed at shifting more units, and I doubt it goes higher than editorial level in most cases like this). They will hopefully get fined again for not allowing the AT the chance to refute the slurs, but Murdoch just seems to treat it as water off his back.
Exactly, and the knee jerk reaction to condemn the AT without the full facts being available and of course without the reply to the broadcast content by AT is very poor indeed. Shame it had to be on here, AT are now facing a search for new funding, and this sort of bad press could seriously impact on membership. Not only that individuals were singled out as potentially trousering £20k.
We on here should be better than that.