Chevrolet will no doubt be able to see the published accounts, but nothing more. There's not a cat in hells chance that they can do anything about how the money is spent. If they don't like what they see, what they get, or think their money could be better spent, by them or UTD, they can choose not to sponsor them. Drennan with Team England will be absolutely no different.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
Chevrolet will get sent the full audited accounts, I’d expect the same with Drennan and the EA. In fact it’s a requirement that a business makes the accounts available to all its stakeholders.Chevrolet will no doubt be able to see the published accounts, but nothing more. There's not a cat in hells chance that they can do anything about how the money is spent. If they don't like what they see, what they get, or think their money could be better spent, by them or UTD, they can choose not to sponsor them. Drennan with Team England will be absolutely no different.
No doubt that Chevrolet will have performance clauses. I've no doubt at all that not doing well in the Champions League will be hurting Man U in that respect. The reduction in publicity means less exposure for Chevrolet, so they won't pay the top whack. No doubt that Drennan could have inserted similar performance clauses, should they have so wished.
All of that is still a world away from making demands about exactly how the cash is spent or being able to go through the books (above and beyond the published accounts). Sponsorship is glorified commercial advertising. You'd be a bloody fool to advertise with a company that might go belly up next week. To that end, due diligence would be rather sensible, but I don't believe for one moment that any sponsor (advertiser) gets carte blanche access to the accounts of the company that they are advertising with.
With apologies and retractions in place and ready to air, what good is there to come of this other than weaken further the AT? To me if seems like can axe grinding exercise for some.Hi men,
Should be discussed on here Neil , its a news report about a body that "represents" angling . Facts either way will show the real situation, and people can make their minds up from that . I quiet like representative body's being questioned , as its normally the average person putting money in , and with nothing to hide , open clear financial statements puts people minds at rest .
Dave,Chevrolet will get sent the full audited accounts, I’d expect the same with Drennan and the EA. In fact it’s a requirement that a business makes the accounts available to all its stakeholders.
If it’s being suggested that Drennan are demanding to look through the books then that isn’t reasonable, and its so unethical that I can’t see it being true, but what is reasonable is to ask a question about misappropriation of funds in a business that you’ve made a considerable financial commitment to. Chevrolet would be straight on the phone to United if there was a story about embezzlement doing the rounds.
Demanding to know exactly how all the money is spent isn’t reasonable, although it should be transparent from full audited accounts.
I don't disagree at all. However, when it comes down to legalities, having a view on what you think should happen is not purely a matter of opinion.Dave's entitled to have a view Chris.
If they've seen anything but the published accounts, it only goes to prove that the AT are bending over backwards and were quite sure of their position.Well according to reports Chris, they were entitled or at least allowed to look at the books.
So it is a matter of opinion.
This is where it all hinges. You believe that paying for advertising (sponsorship) is akin to a donation to a charity. I fundamentally disagree. They aren't being paid to manage Drennan International's money. They've paid to advertise the Drennan brand.If you pay someone albeit sponsorship, to manage something you need to be able to check it's managed correctly
you've effectively jumped in part way through a discussion between me and Graham Elliott. Graham seems to believe that paying for glorified advertising (sponsorship) entitles Drennan to look through the books. I believe that is absolute nonsense. With your last post it seems as if you are largely agreeing with that assessment. I'm now utterly bemused as to why you chose to jump on my post without paying any attention to what preceded it.
Stop fanning the embers on this one, your flaming has been extinguished. You called it a scandal quoting a very misjudged accusation by a Murdoch owned news outlet, it was only going to go one way.just seen your post LMAO ...........but I Think the term WHOOOSH would apply here