• 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 !!!

I think we are all entitled to an opinion Neil and should be able to say what we want, its just another cloud that as hung over the angling trust and for drennan to come out and say what they have I doubt its without reason.

the ones that will be hit hardest from this will be the England match set up, particularly the under 25's. the easy going way that drennan sponsored the teams without strict rules on what kit had to be used will be tough to follow and the only uk companies that could possibly sponsor England are daiwa and preston. unless they we go abroad and sensas take on the full sponsorship.

be interesting to see how it pans out though.
 
Dave Quinn said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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 .

Hatter
 
Don't agree Chris.

It's exactly the reason this has blown up because ☆reasonable normal audit procedures by Drennan were not followed.

☆Accounts relating to how the sponsorship monies were utilised
 
Last edited:
If the ones to be hit hardest are Drennan Team England then Peter Drennan should have thought about this before he decided he should pick the team and hold the AT to ransom which is what this is about. The missing money is a smokescreen as said before. If that was not the case then surely a bit more specific and firm evidence than production of a ridiculous letter containing a spurious comment. Peter Drennan went on at some length to explain about how unhappy he was at his anglers not getting selected pointing to Mark Downes and simply said he was not able to see the accounts. He should look on the internet it's all there..... Most money given to the AT is ring fenced for certain things and what it may or may not be spent on. For instance EA rod license money cannot be spent on sea fishing projects. I'm sure his is the same and if he truly had a genuine gripe his team of solicitors and accountants would be sent in, it will not happen of course as when nothing is found it will not do his brand a lot of good.

I find his point that he doesn't demand anglers in the team use his equipment as arrogance of the highest nature. For one I'm sure he would want to spend an extra £10 - 20000 kitting them all out and then have to deal with their individual sponsors. This has of course given the AT knockers a reason, totally without evidence to have a go and this is the reason it has got to where we are it is an accusation that clearly Drennan cannot back up. If they could it would not be public knowledge that Talk Sport and Nigel Botherway are making an apology. Nigel is an experienced journalist and one from what I see who does not like a balanced view. Just listen to his close season debate. If he thought there were more to this he would hold on to get that evidence rather than advertise a public apology
a week in advance.
 
Chris Jones said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Mark Anderson said:
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 .

Hatter
Click to expand...
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.
 
Looked at the statement from AT in reply to the spurious comments made by Talk Sport, and it all seems Crystal clear accounting and very detailed. The letter to Peter Drennan from a Drennan fan was the catalyst apparently for this trial by Talk Sport , AT didn't have to make any untoward comments about the validity of such claims they kept their dignity, whilst the accusers were made to look foolish and very naive to say the least.
Phishing not fishing.
 
Dave Quinn said:
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.
Click to expand...

Dave,
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.
 
Dave's entitled to have a view Chris.

As is anyone else.

So. Someone who has shelled out around £750 k to sponsor Team England. ( thats not the AT by the way) is entitled to know how that money has been spent by those managing it.

Hope that is clear. It's my opinion.
And fairly logical I would think.
 
Graham Elliott said:
Dave's entitled to have a view Chris.
Click to expand...

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.
You can believe Drennan should be able to look at the books. I'm suggesting that they aren't entitled to see anything beyond published accounts. The same applies to any commercial advertiser (sponsor), in any sphere.
 
Well according to reports Chris, they were entitled or at least allowed to look at the books.
So it is a matter of opinion.

If you pay someone albeit sponsorship, to manage something you need to be able to check it's managed correctly
 
Graham Elliott said:
Well according to reports Chris, they were entitled or at least allowed to look at the books.
So it is a matter of opinion.
Click to expand...

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.

Graham Elliott said:
If you pay someone albeit sponsorship, to manage something you need to be able to check it's managed correctly
Click to expand...

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.

Now if Peter Drennan had made a donation of 750K (over twenty five years) as a private individual, without any commercial agreement for any other benefit, then it would be a whole different ball game. If that were the scenario, then I'd wholeheartedly agree with you.

Beyond that, I'll stand by my initial posts in saying that this whole scenario is "a huge fuss about nowt" and "a steaming pile of dung".
However, considering the fractious history of the AT, it doesn't really surprise me that some are overly keen to stick the knife in and twist it.
Beyond that, I really can't believe that I'm sticking up for the AT! Some folks I know, particularly one who is sadly no longer with us, would be laughing like drains.
 
Chris Jones said:
Dave,
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.
Click to expand...

Hi Chris

I’m not picking a fight with you, apologies if it seems like that. I’m not suggesting Drennan have any right to go through anyone’s books either though.

I’m a trainee accountant, we’re a pedantic bunch, which probably explains a lot
 
Neil Smart said:
What is that all about? You jumped on a bandwagon for whatever reason and the wheels are coming off, is that humble pie?:D
Click to expand...
just seen your post LMAO ...........but I Think the term WHOOOSH would apply here
 
Gerry Giles said:
just seen your post LMAO ...........but I Think the term WHOOOSH would apply here
Click to expand...
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.
No whoosh here .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top