TonyB, while I am certainly aware of the point you are trying to make, those are LAST year's cars. Notice the 76 stickers on both cars! That would have been replaced for this year with Sunoco stickers! 
T
TonyB
Guest
I think my point is being missed just a little bit...
The real issues here is the inability of the sponsors to tolerate each other. Other competing sponsor seem to be able to tolerate each other.
And it seems to be very one sided. I've get to see a Coke driver tearing down the Gatorade wall in victory lane. Shouldn't a Coke driver be just as upset with being forced to be photgraphed in front of the Gatorade wall for hours on end when he receives no direct money from the sponsorship?
T
TonyB
Guest
While you are correct that those are 2003 cars, I'd be willing to bet the BUD contingency sticker is still present on the #2 and the #40. I just grabbed photos to illustrate a point - the exact details aren't really all that important.Originally posted by majestyx@Aug 12 2004, 08:31 AM
TonyB, while I am certainly aware of the point you are trying to make, those are LAST year's cars. Notice the 76 stickers on both cars! That would have been replaced for this year with Sunoco stickers!
barelypure
Spectator
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2002
- Messages
- 6,695
- Points
- 0
There you just made the other point. The wall is not on the car. No one has ever said that Powerade, or anyone else, couldn't have a Powerade wall, banner, blowup, etc. All they have asked is to keep it off of the car. The same way they keep the contingency stickers off of their car and forfeit the money involved.
EXACTLY!
The Gatorade sponsorship of Victory Lane at ISC tracks is on walls, banners, floor coatings, etc........ If it is absolutely necessary to put ANY sponor paraphenalia on the winning car in Victory Lane, it should ONLY be the sponsor of that particular race and/or Nextel. And, even at that, if my memory serves me correctly, when Tony Stewart won the race at Chicago, he even knocked the orange juice container off of his car! That was the race sponsor! So, folks, please STOP crucifying Jeff Gordon and Jimmie Johnson as they are NOT the only ones to have performed the antics in Victory Lane.
APPLAUSE MAJ! 
r: :katsip: 
r: :katsip: 
Whizzer
Gig'em
I think my point is being missed just a little bit...
The real issues here is the inability of the sponsors to tolerate each other. Other competing sponsor seem to be able to tolerate each other.
And it seems to be very one sided. [/b][/quote]
If any point is being missed it is a logical explanation why one sponsor paying mega-bucks to a specific team, should permit the car of that team to be used as a billboard for a direct competitor without a reward.
The gauntlet is thrown down to anyone who can show a sponsor in the series today, who willingly places a competitors advertisement on their car without a direct reward or potential of a reward, e.g., the Bud Clash.
Things are tough in the business world and no one, absolutely no one, who spends large amounts of money to advertise, willingly sits back permitting a direct competitor to steal their thunder if there is no compensation or reward.
This is not a situation based on tolerance or intolerance.
It is a case of doing high dollar business in a competitive market place. If tolerance, or lack thereof, is the issue here, let's cut to the chase.
NASCAR is the intolerant party for making a business arrangement with one company and trying to force that business deal to include a competitor without remuneration.
This situation is one-sided with products involved as a result of the timing. It could very easily be the same situation with the sponsor roles reversed. No matter who the aggrieved party, under the present circumstances, they should have the right to "just say no".
