Why should Banks be sponsoring sports?

trishasaffron

Just listening to ads about Leinster tickets and package available on Newstalk sponsored by Bank of Ireland. Strikes me that since BoI are billions in debt to the plain people of Ireland they should be reining in expenditure on these luxuries (don't get me started on pension entitlements).

Do they think we are so stupid that we can't see that all expenditure ends up on the bottom line and as a cost to me as both a taxpayer and a bank customer?

Does anyone know the email address of the BoI marketing director so that i can make my feelings known?

cm2000

I think you'l find for most businesses that advertising is not a luxury. Sponsoring sporting events is good business, particularly Leinster rugby as you are targeting customers from a reasonably well off middle class background, and thus their deposits and credit worthiness are going to be quite good.

trishasaffron

cm2000 wrote: »

I think you'l find for most businesses that advertising is not a luxury. Sponsoring sporting events is good business, particularly Leinster rugby as you are targeting customers from a reasonably well off middle class background, and thus their deposits and credit worthiness are going to be quite good.

So we the taxpayers are paying for AIB and BoI to compete against each other on the rugby playing fields? Where else are the rugby watching middle classes going to put their money - there is no real competition among the banks (whatever about the rugby teams). All they are doing is increasing the costs and overheads which translates into more expensive loans, mortgages etc...........

cm2000

trishasaffron wrote: »

So we the taxpayers are paying for AIB and BoI to compete against each other on the rugby playing fields? Where else are the rugby watching middle classes going to put their money - there is no real competition among the banks (whatever about the rugby teams). All they are doing is increasing the costs and overheads which translates into more expensive loans, mortgages etc...........

It's a smart advertising strategy, no coincidence that Bank of Scotland sponsor Leinster, Price Waterhouse Cooper are the sponsors of the under 20 national team. It has a lot to do with name association, loyalty etc. Banks piss away a lot of money dont get me wrong, but sponsoring middle class sporting events is not one of them imo.

trishasaffron

cm2000 wrote: »

It's a smart advertising strategy, no coincidence that Bank of Scotland sponsor Leinster, Price Waterhouse Cooper are the sponsors of the under 20 national team. It has a lot to do with name association, loyalty etc. Banks piss away a lot of money dont get me wrong, but sponsoring middle class sporting events is not one of them imo.

That may well have been the case 3 years ago when there was an apparent element of comptetition among financial services and when we were still laboring under the illusion that the bank were a profitable private sector business. But now that we know they are failed institutions propped up by huge amounts of taxpayers money and state owned in all but name I can't see why we are paying the advertising industry so that one state funded company competes against another state funded company.

Anyway have you got the BoI marketing director's email address so I can debate with him/her? or maybe you'd pass this on if you work in the bank?

cm2000

trishasaffron wrote: »

That may well have been the case 3 years ago when there was an apparent element of comptetition among financial services and when we were still laboring under the illusion that the bank were a profitable private sector business. But now that we know they are failed institutions propped up by huge amounts of taxpayers money and state owned in all but name I can't see why we are paying the advertising industry so that one state funded company competes against another state funded company.

Anyway have you got the BoI marketing director's email address so I can debate with him/her? or maybe you'd pass this on if you work in the bank?

lol no I don't have anything to do with any bank, besides my account, which is not with BoI btw. I'm sure it's somewhere on the website if you have a look see

Tipp Man

Wow what a rubbish thread, where do you think the money from these sponsorship deals goes?? does any of it filter down to local teams and communities?? Does any of it create better facilites for young people in our communities?? What would create these facilites if sponsorship deals were banned?? do you think that the club rugby scene in Ireland would be as good without AIB, what about the GAA football championship??

Do you think you should get free loans because as a citizen of Ireland you have some kind of miniscule shareholding in BOI or AIB??

I'm getting really sick of nonsense being spouted in the media and on here, people have no clue of the bigger picture and prefer to focus on this crap. Thats why this country is going nowhere rapidly

RichardAnd

trishasaffron wrote: »

So we the taxpayers are paying for AIB and BoI to compete against each other on the rugby playing fields? Where else are the rugby watching middle classes going to put their money - there is no real competition among the banks (whatever about the rugby teams). All they are doing is increasing the costs and overheads which translates into more expensive loans, mortgages etc...........

What they are doing is being banks. The tax payer did not bail out the bank so that we could get cheaper mortgages, loans or whatever, we bailed them out so that they could go on operating as viable businesses. Advertising is part of business.

I understand why you might be upset and believe me, I don't like hearing about bank CEOs getting 600k a year but the fact is their main goal is, and should be, generating a profit.

Japer

trishasaffron wrote: »

Just listening to ads about Leinster tickets and package available on Newstalk sponsored by Bank of Ireland. Strikes me that since BoI are billions in debt to the plain people of Ireland they should be reining in expenditure on these luxuries (don't get me started on pension entitlements).

Do they think we are so stupid that we can't see that all expenditure ends up on the bottom line and as a cost to me as both a taxpayer and a bank customer?

+1.

If people want to play sport they can bl**dy well pay for it themselves, like I do, from hard earned money, instead of getting the money to do so from the banks ie taxpayer / shareholder. Banks alienate a lot more people than they realise by pissing away money "sponsoring" rugby or gaa teams to play against each other. Those at the top of the banks do so because they get match privilidges eg best free seats , meeting the players etc. What a waste. Do your business with banks / institutions who do not waste money.

GoldenEarring

I don't mind them sponsoring sports programmes but I do feel uneasy when they're sponsoring current affairs programmes.

cson

Japer wrote: »

Do your business with banks / institutions who do not waste money.

Who?

Seriously I'm keen to know which bank you'd reccommend.

trishasaffron

I can see why some people would think "fair play" to the Banks for sponsoring sports but every penny (oops showing my age!) given in sponsorship is a penny more on interest charged on mortgages and other loans. Actually BoI announced an increase in its mortgage rates today. Maybe if they didn't spend as much on sponsorship they could have held out a little longer on the inevitable interest rate rises.

I have a couple of other thoughts on this:
My original gripe was really about advertising not sponsorship (so my title is wrong). And what they spend on advertising goes to marketing agencies and media. so why should the borrower be subsidising them?

The idea that either of the 2 large bank needs advertising/marketing isn't true - they are getting loads of advertising for free (not necessarily flattering - but true) and there is no real competition in a market where they are both effectively public sector institutions - even if they don't like to admit it

I've been to a few Bank sponsorship events in my day (so not that principled ) and they were populated mostly with the kind of developer builder that got us into this pickle and more recently with loads of bank staff cos no one else would accept the invites.

Please save the money lads and stick to your knitting - credit committees etc

Mac daddy

trishasaffron wrote: »

I can see why some people would think "fair play" to the Banks for sponsoring sports but every penny (oops showing my age!) given in sponsorship is a penny more on interest charged on mortgages and other loans. Actually BoI announced an increase in its mortgage rates today. Maybe if they didn't spend as much on sponsorship they could have held out a little longer on the inevitable interest rate rises.

I have a couple of other thoughts on this:
My original gripe was really about advertising not sponsorship (so my title is wrong). And what they spend on advertising goes to marketing agencies and media. so why should the borrower be subsidising them?

The idea that either of the 2 large bank needs advertising/marketing isn't true - they are getting loads of advertising for free (not necessarily flattering - but true) and there is no real competition in a market where they are both effectively public sector institutions - even if they don't like to admit it

I've been to a few Bank sponsorship events in my day (so not that principled ) and they were populated mostly with the kind of developer builder that got us into this pickle and more recently with loads of bank staff cos no one else would accept the invites.

Please save the money lads and stick to your knitting - credit committees etc

Because the bank signed a sponsorship contract with Leinster Rugby for around 6Million Euro and agreed to sponsor them for 4 years back about a year or two ago.

Japer

Mac daddy wrote: »

Because the bank signed a sponsorship contract with Leinster Rugby for around 6Million Euro and agreed to sponsor them for 4 years back about a year or two ago.

And who do you think pays this 6 million, and do you not think it could be better spent ? Its great for the top brass in the bank who get free tickets + get to meet the players etc, but not so great for the banks shareholders, the taxpayer and the mortgage payer. Shame on the banks and on the rugby people for taking the money. Neither deserve support.

Manach

Whilst I for one would take the free money on offer if in a sports club, I reckon the posters against this form of sponsorship have made good points. It should be up to the supporters of the specific club to bolster their team and not the public banks.

cson

Japer wrote: »

Shame on the banks and on the rugby people for taking the money. Neither deserve support.

ffs. We should scorn the Leinster for taking money offered to them? They should have turned down the €6 million? :rolleyes:

Mad_Max

Japer wrote: »

+1.
If people want to play sport they can bl**dy well pay for it themselves, like I do, from hard earned money, instead of getting the money to do so from the banks ie taxpayer / shareholder.

So short sighted that I assume you wear binoculars for day to day activities.

As someone who runs a club I can tell you without sponsorships, and banks are one of the greatest sources, you wouldn't be able to afford to play sports.

You realise that the government sponsors sports clubs at a massive cost?? Should they stop that because that comes from your taxes too!

If anything I'd want Banks to give more sponsorship to sports...million times better for the people than it going into pay and bonuses.

Japer wrote: »

Shame on the banks and on the rugby people for taking the money. Neither deserve support.

*facepalm*

Mac daddy

Japer wrote: »

And who do you think pays this 6 million, and do you not think it could be better spent ? Its great for the top brass in the bank who get free tickets + get to meet the players etc, but not so great for the banks shareholders, the taxpayer and the mortgage payer. Shame on the banks and on the rugby people for taking the money. Neither deserve support.

It doesn't matter who pays the 6Million they agreed to provide it for the next 4 years, the contract was signed in 2007 ( Before the Recession kicked in ) how many people complained about it then?

trishasaffron

Well lots of contracts entered into in the good old days have been broken - contracts to buy houses, contacts to pay pinshins, contracts to receive a certain amount of salary...................Its time to look at everything and decide on priorities.

Should we as a nation find money to encourage people to play sports? - yes obviously. But where we find it (why on earth from banks), what it is spent on (mostly spent on advertising, marketing, inflated professionals salaries) and who decides is another question entirely.

Would you agree with this spending?
http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2010/03/26/no_more_mulligans_for_debt_struck_anglo_irish_bank/

"Anglo's new state-appointed management has found the bank spent euro1.38 million ($1.86 million) from 2006 to 2008 on golf outings and head-to-toe gifts for the fairway.

The bills include hiring private jets to ferry American clients for annual golf tours of prized courses in southwest Clare and Kerry; euro103,000 for annual golf outings for employees, euro123,000 for golf raincoats, euro66,000 for sports bags, euro38,000 for golf shirts, euro16,500 for iPods, euro24,000 for golf bags, euro218,000 for umbrellas and euro208,000 for 125,000 Anglo-branded golf balls."

stepbar

trishasaffron wrote: »

I can see why some people would think "fair play" to the Banks for sponsoring sports but every penny (oops showing my age!) given in sponsorship is a penny more on interest charged on mortgages and other loans. Actually BoI announced an increase in its mortgage rates today. Maybe if they didn't spend as much on sponsorship they could have held out a little longer on the inevitable interest rate rises.

I have a couple of other thoughts on this:
My original gripe was really about advertising not sponsorship (so my title is wrong). And what they spend on advertising goes to marketing agencies and media. so why should the borrower be subsidising them?

The idea that either of the 2 large bank needs advertising/marketing isn't true - they are getting loads of advertising for free (not necessarily flattering - but true) and there is no real competition in a market where they are both effectively public sector institutions - even if they don't like to admit it

I've been to a few Bank sponsorship events in my day (so not that principled ) and they were populated mostly with the kind of developer builder that got us into this pickle and more recently with loads of bank staff cos no one else would accept the invites.

Please save the money lads and stick to your knitting - credit committees etc

The BOI signed a 4 year contract to sponsor Leinster in Apr 2007. The bank is contracted to honour this agreement until 2011. Both sides have done very well out of the deal.

The percentage cost of the deal per year (1.5 million) is so minicule that you would see little or no difference to the cost of your mortgage, loan, credit card or otherwise. And leading back to my point you mentioned "And what they spend on advertising goes to marketing agencies and media. so why should the borrower be subsidising them?". You do understand that marketing agencies create employment and their staff pay taxes? Which is better for the country huh? Dole or Employment?

I love the line about "there is no real competition in a market where they are both effectively public sector institutions"..... Well it maybe the case for AIB but certainly not the case for BOI.

Your thread is mindboggling.

stepbar

Japer wrote: »

Shame on the banks and on the rugby people for taking the money. Neither deserve support.

LOL FCUKING LOL.

stepbar

Just to answer your initial question "Why should Banks be sponsoring sports?"

Well let me tell you a wee story.....

AIB sponsor the GAA Club Championship. This year my club got the following from AIB:

- A 500 eur voucher to spend on gear etc (won by me)
- And sports equipment (probably worth about another 500eur) for reaching a championship final.

The club was so fcuking thankful to get anything; christ of almighty I must have been thanked about 10 times for even winning the voucher. The value of the equipment itself is priceless. I guess some of you chaps here haven't a bloody clue how hard it is for clubs to raise funds (especially small rural clubs like my own). Nor I would say you have an interest in many sports either.

Do you know what I'm SO glad that companies sponsor clubs and communites (even banks). Thank god some of you guys aren't in charge of marketing budgets.

growler

trishasaffron wrote: »

"Anglo's new state-appointed management has found the bank spent euro1.38 million ($1.86 million) from 2006 to 2008 on golf outings and head-to-toe gifts for the fairway.

The bills include hiring private jets to ferry American clients for annual golf tours of prized courses in southwest Clare and Kerry; euro103,000 for annual golf outings for employees, euro123,000 for golf raincoats, euro66,000 for sports bags, euro38,000 for golf shirts, euro16,500 for iPods, euro24,000 for golf bags, euro218,000 for umbrellas and euro208,000 for 125,000 Anglo-branded golf balls."

That is just part of the cost of doing business when you're a bank, you have to spend on branding, advertising and looking after your best clients (often investors in the irish economy) , prospects and staff ... as their competition do. At least they're spending their money in ireland ( i hope) and supporting irish tourism jobs.

trishasaffron

stepbar wrote: »

You do understand that marketing agencies create employment and their staff pay taxes? Which is better for the country huh? Dole or Employment?

And restaurants create jobs and pay taxes so maybe we should be funding BoI staff so they can go out and spend state money in buying meals:rolleyes:

Yes most things that money is spent on creates jobs and taxes are spent. But as a nation we have to make choices on the most effective ways of spending and on what. The Banks have received BILLIONS of taxpayer's money cos they ran their businesses into the ground - I don't think its unreasonable to question their business acumen given the track record they have. They are clearly not good at making spending or investment decisions.

stepbar

trishasaffron wrote: »

And restaurants create jobs and pay taxes so maybe we should be funding BoI staff so they can go out and spend state money in buying meals:rolleyes:

What? :rolleyes:

Actually lol again. Your argument is shot.