7
71Fan
Guest
For what was essentially failure to provide them adequate representation for their products and services?
H
HardScrabble
Guest
Not aboslutely sure, but I believe it was AT & T.
7
71Fan
Guest
That's my guess too.
From what I hear there was something kinda fishy about McDonald's and Andy Houston last year too.
From what I hear there was something kinda fishy about McDonald's and Andy Houston last year too.
H
HardScrabble
Guest
The AT&T deal is not a guess now. Found the info. Seems in the back of my mind I recall hearing something about the McD sponsorship as well, but it's too vague to even comment on. Early out and refund??
DENVER, November 7, 2000 - Colorado-based AT&T Broadband brought a federal lawsuit against race car driver Mike Borkowski and ESBG Marketing, Inc., his marketing company. The lawsuit alleges that Borkowski and ESBG breached the terms of their sponsorship agreement when Borkowski was involved in several nationally televised altercations. AT&T Broadband is seeking the return of its $600,000 sponsorship fee.
AT&T Broadband cited two incidents from a race on May 13 in which Borkowski recklessly steered his Pontiac into a car driven by Lyndon Amick and later rubbed Jason Jarrett, sending him into the wall. During these incidents, according to AT&T Broadband, the "AT&T car" was heavily criticized by race officials, television commentators and other drivers, according to the Rocky Mountain News.
AT&T Broadband officially announced its two-year relationship as a primary sponsor with Bill Davis Racing, Borkowski's team, at this years NASCAR Busch Series Preview in Charlotte, N.C. Under the terms of the deal originally made with ESBG, AT&T Broadband was to provide ESBG with $200,000 per month during the 2000 season and $216,666 per month in the 2001 season.
AT&T Broadband entered the NASCAR scene earlier this year in February when, along with Motorola, the two were announced as the "Official Telecommunications Companies of NASCAR." This title was suppose to let the companies develop trade and consumer advertising, promotions and public relations during their involvement. Because of the incidents, AT&T Broadband feels it must sue a driver to get back that desired positive advertising.
NASCAR is the fastest growing spectator sport in the world. In fact, in 1999 more than 11 million people attended NASCAR events and an additional 252 million watched NASCAR races on TV. NASCAR sanctions more than 2,200 events at 128 different race tracks in 40 states across the country each year, according to The Racing Network.
DENVER, November 7, 2000 - Colorado-based AT&T Broadband brought a federal lawsuit against race car driver Mike Borkowski and ESBG Marketing, Inc., his marketing company. The lawsuit alleges that Borkowski and ESBG breached the terms of their sponsorship agreement when Borkowski was involved in several nationally televised altercations. AT&T Broadband is seeking the return of its $600,000 sponsorship fee.
AT&T Broadband cited two incidents from a race on May 13 in which Borkowski recklessly steered his Pontiac into a car driven by Lyndon Amick and later rubbed Jason Jarrett, sending him into the wall. During these incidents, according to AT&T Broadband, the "AT&T car" was heavily criticized by race officials, television commentators and other drivers, according to the Rocky Mountain News.
AT&T Broadband officially announced its two-year relationship as a primary sponsor with Bill Davis Racing, Borkowski's team, at this years NASCAR Busch Series Preview in Charlotte, N.C. Under the terms of the deal originally made with ESBG, AT&T Broadband was to provide ESBG with $200,000 per month during the 2000 season and $216,666 per month in the 2001 season.
AT&T Broadband entered the NASCAR scene earlier this year in February when, along with Motorola, the two were announced as the "Official Telecommunications Companies of NASCAR." This title was suppose to let the companies develop trade and consumer advertising, promotions and public relations during their involvement. Because of the incidents, AT&T Broadband feels it must sue a driver to get back that desired positive advertising.
NASCAR is the fastest growing spectator sport in the world. In fact, in 1999 more than 11 million people attended NASCAR events and an additional 252 million watched NASCAR races on TV. NASCAR sanctions more than 2,200 events at 128 different race tracks in 40 states across the country each year, according to The Racing Network.
H
HappyHour
Guest
As in Filet-O-Fishy?
7
71Fan
Guest
Well my gosh HS, just what search engine do you use?
I can't imagine what the old time racers think about stuff like that. I mean do these new sponsors think everybody drives like Awesome Bill and talks like Jeff Gordon?
I can't imagine what the old time racers think about stuff like that. I mean do these new sponsors think everybody drives like Awesome Bill and talks like Jeff Gordon?
H
HardScrabble
Guest
For several years I have subscribed to a couple of newletters. I have archived these newsletters and provided I have a clue as approxiately when something happened I can search them pretty quickly.
I don't know what the racers think, but I don't think a lawsuit such as this particular one is appropriate. Speaking only to this incident, in a case of on track performance issues it is a caveat emptor deal. Stuff happens out ton the track and the sport does not need the court system involved in determining what is just racing and what is not. Pulling the sponsorship and making a harsh statement would probably suffice. Unfortuantely I can't any follow-up to this lawsuit and its conclusion. I have a gut feeling the courts agreed with me, a rare occurrence of late, and threw the deal out. Or perhaps AT&T realized that this type of action would result in more negative publicity from race fans, which were really the only ones who knew anything about it anyway.
That ran a litttle long, but its still only worth the same $.02 as anyone elses opinion.
I don't know what the racers think, but I don't think a lawsuit such as this particular one is appropriate. Speaking only to this incident, in a case of on track performance issues it is a caveat emptor deal. Stuff happens out ton the track and the sport does not need the court system involved in determining what is just racing and what is not. Pulling the sponsorship and making a harsh statement would probably suffice. Unfortuantely I can't any follow-up to this lawsuit and its conclusion. I have a gut feeling the courts agreed with me, a rare occurrence of late, and threw the deal out. Or perhaps AT&T realized that this type of action would result in more negative publicity from race fans, which were really the only ones who knew anything about it anyway.
That ran a litttle long, but its still only worth the same $.02 as anyone elses opinion.
7
71Fan
Guest
The 2001 season saw Cal with a 2 car team, Houston/McDonalds
Craven/Tide. Just 6 races in I think Houston had a DNQ, a DNF or two and barely showed on the graph for owners/drivers points. McDonalds started making unhappymeal noises about that point, the deal the team and sponsor had about an Andy/McDonalds commercial was squashed by McDonalds and Andy had a "do or die" talking to from Wells (this was from the now relatively inactive andyhouston.com)
By June, Wells/McDonalds relations were not going well and Wells tried a restructuring of the team, no improved results to speak of from that. McDonalds did the "we want out" dance to Wells sometime in August and sited poor representation and Wells did what he had to do to keep things from getting messy, he shut the team down.
A classic case of "Performance based Sponsorship"
Craven/Tide. Just 6 races in I think Houston had a DNQ, a DNF or two and barely showed on the graph for owners/drivers points. McDonalds started making unhappymeal noises about that point, the deal the team and sponsor had about an Andy/McDonalds commercial was squashed by McDonalds and Andy had a "do or die" talking to from Wells (this was from the now relatively inactive andyhouston.com)
By June, Wells/McDonalds relations were not going well and Wells tried a restructuring of the team, no improved results to speak of from that. McDonalds did the "we want out" dance to Wells sometime in August and sited poor representation and Wells did what he had to do to keep things from getting messy, he shut the team down.
A classic case of "Performance based Sponsorship"
R
rpmallen
Guest
I didn't know AT&T had sued Mike Borkowski, but i do remember the incidents. Mike Borkowski was involved in several on-track altercations, the most two serious being the ones mentioned above, and it was clear that he was taking drivers out on purpose. There's a difference between bumping and wrecking, but Mike was clearly driving too rough and got drivers, fans, announcers, and officials mad at him, and his sponsor was very upset with the negative attention they were getting.
I don't think Tony Stewart and Home Depot are at that point yet, it's about Tony controlling his temper after the checkered flag, not during. Let's hope for his sake that it doesn't get to the point where his sponsor has to sue him for bad publicity.
But remember, Lowe's, Home Depot's main competitor, is on Jimmie Johnson's car and getting a lot of positive publicity from this bright new star and a team with a lot of potential. Meanwhile, Home Depot is stuck on a team that is in a slump and a driver with an ill-temper. Something is going to have to change in order for Home Depot to stay with that team.
I don't think Tony Stewart and Home Depot are at that point yet, it's about Tony controlling his temper after the checkered flag, not during. Let's hope for his sake that it doesn't get to the point where his sponsor has to sue him for bad publicity.
But remember, Lowe's, Home Depot's main competitor, is on Jimmie Johnson's car and getting a lot of positive publicity from this bright new star and a team with a lot of potential. Meanwhile, Home Depot is stuck on a team that is in a slump and a driver with an ill-temper. Something is going to have to change in order for Home Depot to stay with that team.