QuoteI think it was raised at the time, and the argument was made that the sponsorships were part of their strategy (i.e. driving business) and not just donations.Originally Posted by blueblood
Hopefully they do something to raise the profile of clubs. It all sounds good but announcements like these usually do but I'll get my hopes up as usual anyway.
I could never figure out how back in the day after the government bailed out the banks how BOI sponsored (gave a rake ok money to) the rugby provinces without any uproar. I mean rugby of all sports
I think it was raised at the time, and the argument was made that the sponsorships were part of their strategy (i.e. driving business) and not just donations.
I work for a bank. Everything banks do is about making money in the long run. Nothing else.
Upwards to the vanguard where the pressure is too high.
Rugby is where all the people who run this country hang out.
There is a reason BOI sponsor the provinces and its not because they want to support rugby,
Networking
Very true, I mean we could hardly expect our poor bankers to actually pay into a game and support a sport whilst networking now could we
54 Crew-Finn Harps FC Supporters Club
Following Harps Home & Away
https://www.facebook.com/54CrewFHFC
I was a guest in the BoI corporate box at a rugby autumn international a couple of years ago. Lavish, expensive, ego massaging, ostentations, the air was thick with self importance but ethics and wastefulness went out the window as I wanted more of the same again!! Amazing food and service, free bar of he finest beverages, access to former and current players, no queuing, perfect view, and lots more!! I felt a tad guilty about it all if i'm honest. Those present were generally big cheese customers of BoI (I was a guest of a guest) so I can see why BoI was dishing out money to gain such access to those facilities, every bank probably has similar even if not sponsors and the various corporate groups mingled too. Whatever the cost there is a definite return on business generated by this wining and dining.
The worry i'd have about this sponsorship is that BoI, as the lender to the FAI is whether finances might come in the form of loan write downs of tax relief rather than cash in the pockets. Bit of a conflict of interest too if there is ever an issue between the loaner ad loanee or visa versa - what if another lender can offer a better option on loans in the future!? The other side of this all is potential access to loans for clubs if there is ever a coordinated approach to facilities development etc. A lot of good promotional work could be done with some effort!
Fact check
The bailout of BOI was the best bit of business done by any Govt in the history of the state albeit was done inadvertently .... the state so far has made a return of €5 billion on what they lent BOI .... bailout of other banks running at a loss .
So based on that BOI are entitled to to spend their money on any sponsorship they choose including LOI
Shush! State sponsored football will send UEFA and probably GAA circles in to a spin!
Obviously I'm no expert but its just at the time it seemed to me a bit messed up and a waste of tax payers money that one of the bailed out banks was giving a load of money to rugby to advertise their "brand" so people would bank with them and not the other bailed out banks. Seemed like a bit of a **** take
Without the nitty gritty, it was business often as usual for banks that had been bailed. They still has their marketing teams, probably paired back, and I'm sure many of those people had their preferred pet projects too. Day to day business including deciding on brand placement via sponsorship, for example, was unaffected and in some cases criminally so with CEO's still handing themselves performance bonuses etc. But it does seem strange that banks that were basically owned by the tax payer were spending (or not). If BoI were the only performing bank then maybe they were the only ones who could roll out a major sponsorship campaign?
Last edited by Nesta99; 07/02/2021 at 10:58 PM.
That’s a fair comment and I’m no defender of any bank.... simply making the point that the nation by chance made a fantastic return on BOI...., the real **** take take is how the top echelons of the Public Service continue to overpay themselves and have gold plated pensions and remain unaccountable for the billions they waste.. they’ve been financially screwing us for years - the Devils greatest trick was fooling the world that he doesn’t exist-
Again not defending the banks but no CEO of a bailed out bank has been paid a bonus since being bailed out - as for bonuses take a look at the level of bonuses paid to NTMA staff for achieving risible targets they set for themselves
Well no technically they havent since the bailout but knowing that that one was coming which would likely put a freeze on things, bonuses and nicely bumped contracts to future proof earnings were hastily implemented. Then there is the talk of backdating payments when retractions are eventually lifted - restrictions of up to a miserly 500k for directors as it stands. Is there a restriction on the number of people that can be classed as senior management?
I know little about the NTMA except that its performance seems poor value and the reason given for poor performance always seems to be international market conditions even during an economic growth phase.
Last edited by Nesta99; 08/02/2021 at 10:35 AM.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks