Roosters in Match Fixing Scandal

[Flutterby]

Yeah seems pretty silly to me. Different story if Strathfield exclusively sold Optus. But they are a retail store, not a telecommunications company, therefore not a directly competitor. But I guess that's all in the finer points of the sponsorship contract.

 

[dukey]

Don't forget they got $750,000 from Sonny Bill late last year. That's about what most clubs would be getting from major sponsors.

 

[dukey]

Yep, they had a $2 million sponsorship deal with telstra but because they sold Optus phones they are considered a competitor to telstra which means they're not allowed to sponsor them.

This yet again proves how incompetent the NRL are that they would allow such a clause in a contract.

You'll find a lot of sports do the exact same thing to protect their naming rights sponsors. NASCAR wouldn't allow AT&T to sponsor a team because they are direct competitors of the series sponsor Sprint. It's not incompetence; the series sponsors are paying several times the amount any team sponsor pays, so their investment has to be protected.

 

[Flutterby]

I agree with the "no direct competitor" clause for naming rights sponsors - I have it in my own sponsorship contracts for my competitions and events. But Strathfield and Telstra are NOT direct competitors. In fact Strathfield sells the Telstra product, so this particular one is truly baffling as to how they worded it.

 

[Nashy]

I agree with the "no direct competitor" clause for naming rights sponsors - I have it in my own sponsorship contracts for my competitions and events. But Strathfield and Telstra are NOT direct competitors. In fact Strathfield sells the Telstra product, so this particular one is truly baffling as to how they worded it.

Perhaps it's protecting Telstra's retail arm, rather than Telstra as a carrier?

 

[Flutterby]

Yeah maybe - as I said, you'd need to see the contract to understand it. It's obviously covered in there or the Dogs would have had grounds to sue.

 

[Coxy]

I agree with the "no direct competitor" clause for naming rights sponsors - I have it in my own sponsorship contracts for my competitions and events. But Strathfield and Telstra are NOT direct competitors. In fact Strathfield sells the Telstra product, so this particular one is truly baffling as to how they worded it.

Perhaps it's protecting Telstra's retail arm, rather than Telstra as a carrier?

Precisely why Telstra needs to be broken up into various different arms.

 

[Kimlo]

Yeah, Vodafone Warriors..... that's totally not a competitor but strathfield definitely is!

 

[Nashy]

Yeah, Vodafone Warriors..... that's totally not a competitor but strathfield definitely is!

Vodafone New Zealand do not compete with Telstra in Australia.

 

[Kimlo]

they are part of the NRL, Vodafone is an Australia company and the warriors have fans in Australia.....
Also Manly were sponsored by Strathfield in 2007, they were a sleeve sponsor.

 

[Nashy]

Read it again.

Vodafone New Zealand is not in competition with Telstra. Vodafone NZ and Vodafone AU are both different companies.

 

[Fozz]

Doesn't Telstra have a NZ arm?

 

[Nashy]

TelstraClear doesn't do mobile phones.