Are Haas embarrassed about Rich Energy?
Discussion
I did listen to the Gareth Jones podcast on Friday, it's what finally tipped me over the edge to order some and try it. sniffpetrol.com said:
Rich Energy brainstorms replacement logo
After losing its court case with Whyte bikes, the unbuyable palpitation piss seeks legally less dubious logo
Edited by budgie smuggler on Monday 17th June 14:12
Just noticed the attention to detail there #givesyouhorns
Walmart are flogging the old cans apparently: https://jalopnik.com/you-can-finally-buy-rich-ener...
And of who is supplying them with the stuff? A wholesaler that specialises in this sort of mess...
"We are suppliers of wholesale overstocks, closeouts, liquidations, shelf pulls, and returns from major department stores, retailers and manufacturers."
I reckon that the wholesaler in question gambled on buying up a huge chunk of the already produced, soon to be illegal stock at a cut price, knowing it's only a matter of time before Rich Energy themselves could no longer sell it to anyone else. Thing is though... The court order prevents RE from using that logo, if hundreds of thousands of cans were sold legally to wholesalers before hand... I guess they are free to sell it. Or, if the law prevents re-sale as well as production of cans with that logo, I guess they have a good case to return the stock to RE and demand a refund. Either way the net result of the hundreds of thousands of cans produced is total loss for RE.
It probably is a bit worrying for HAAS as sponsorship payments are normally staged throughout the season, and if the RE enterprise is deemed a total failure they will close it down and all previous commitments won't count for anything.
And of who is supplying them with the stuff? A wholesaler that specialises in this sort of mess...
"We are suppliers of wholesale overstocks, closeouts, liquidations, shelf pulls, and returns from major department stores, retailers and manufacturers."
I reckon that the wholesaler in question gambled on buying up a huge chunk of the already produced, soon to be illegal stock at a cut price, knowing it's only a matter of time before Rich Energy themselves could no longer sell it to anyone else. Thing is though... The court order prevents RE from using that logo, if hundreds of thousands of cans were sold legally to wholesalers before hand... I guess they are free to sell it. Or, if the law prevents re-sale as well as production of cans with that logo, I guess they have a good case to return the stock to RE and demand a refund. Either way the net result of the hundreds of thousands of cans produced is total loss for RE.
It probably is a bit worrying for HAAS as sponsorship payments are normally staged throughout the season, and if the RE enterprise is deemed a total failure they will close it down and all previous commitments won't count for anything.
TheDeuce said:
"We are suppliers of wholesale overstocks, closeouts, liquidations, shelf pulls, and returns from major department stores, retailers and manufacturers."
Groundhog day. I posted this on Friday. (And I didn't credit Jalopnik as I hadn't seen their article. Independent sleuthing 
)TheDeuce said:
It probably is a bit worrying for HAAS as sponsorship payments are normally staged throughout the season, and if the RE enterprise is deemed a total failure they will close it down and all previous commitments won't count for anything.
It has been well reported that Haas have bank guarantees for the money, so if RE default then the banks have to pay up. No banks would offer such guarantees unless they had high confidence in RE's financial position.thegreenhell said:
It has been well reported that Haas have bank guarantees for the money, so if RE default then the banks have to pay up. No banks would offer such guarantees unless they had high confidence in RE's financial position.
Which does make things even more baffling in a way. thegreenhell said:
It has been well reported that Haas have bank guarantees for the money, so if RE default then the banks have to pay up. No banks would offer such guarantees unless they had high confidence in RE's financial position.
Oh, so RE paid the full seasons money to the bank, to be released in stages so long as whatever HAAS committed to is met to release the payments. I hadn't realised that - but yes, that would make the money safe from HAAS's point of view. The money is effectively in escrow.That's about the only reason I can think for a bank guaranteeing a payment of a third parties funds. It's as safe as houses if that's the case - safer, in fact. It wouldn't represent the bank having any confidence as such - it's a fairly standard arrangement normally demanded by the supplier (in this case HAAS as a supplier of advertising) if there is in fact limited confidence in the clients (RE) ability to pay. It's a mechanism used to safeguard RE's money as the bank won't release it to HAAS until it's due and only if HAAS have maintained their commitments as outlined in whatever agreement they have. So RE are protected if HAAS fail in those commitments, HAAS know the money is secure to be paid on time so long as they do maintain their commitments.
Either way the money has either already physically left RE and is held by the bank, or is leveraged in some way to equal value of whatever amount the bank is guaranteeing. The bank will take zero risks for such a small amount of money (speaking relatively). Bank guarantees are a common service they provide, they normally take 1-2% on the amount concerned. They aren't going to take gambles for that sort of return.
Edited by TheDeuce on Tuesday 18th June 00:56
TheDeuce said:
thegreenhell said:
It has been well reported that Haas have bank guarantees for the money, so if RE default then the banks have to pay up. No banks would offer such guarantees unless they had high confidence in RE's financial position.
Oh, so RE paid the full seasons money to the bank, to be released in stages so long as whatever HAAS committed to is met to release the payments. I hadn't realised that - but yes, that would make the money safe from HAAS's point of view. The money is effectively in escrow.That's about the only reason I can think for a bank guaranteeing a payment of a third parties funds. It's as safe as houses if that's the case - safer, in fact. It wouldn't represent the bank having any confidence as such - it's a fairly standard arrangement normally demanded by the supplier (in this case HAAS as a supplier of advertising) if there is in fact limited confidence in the clients (RE) ability to pay. It's a mechanism used to safeguard RE's money as the bank won't release it to HAAS until it's due and only if HAAS have maintained their commitments as outlined in whatever agreement they have. So RE are protected if HAAS fail in those commitments, HAAS know the money is secure to be paid on time so long as they do maintain their commitments.
Either way the money has either already physically left RE and is held by the bank, or is leveraged in some way to equal value of whatever amount the bank is guaranteeing. The bank will take zero risks for such a small amount of money (speaking relatively). Bank guarantees are a common service they provide, they normally take 1-2% on the amount concerned. They aren't going to take gambles for that sort of return.
Edited by TheDeuce on Tuesday 18th June 00:56
We do quite a business in ME and China with them.
TheDeuce said:
Walmart are flogging the old cans apparently: https://jalopnik.com/you-can-finally-buy-rich-ener...
And of who is supplying them with the stuff? A wholesaler that specialises in this sort of mess...
"We are suppliers of wholesale overstocks, closeouts, liquidations, shelf pulls, and returns from major department stores, retailers and manufacturers."
I reckon that the wholesaler in question gambled on buying up a huge chunk of the already produced, soon to be illegal stock at a cut price, knowing it's only a matter of time before Rich Energy themselves could no longer sell it to anyone else. Thing is though... The court order prevents RE from using that logo, if hundreds of thousands of cans were sold legally to wholesalers before hand... I guess they are free to sell it. Or, if the law prevents re-sale as well as production of cans with that logo, I guess they have a good case to return the stock to RE and demand a refund. Either way the net result of the hundreds of thousands of cans produced is total loss for RE.
It probably is a bit worrying for HAAS as sponsorship payments are normally staged throughout the season, and if the RE enterprise is deemed a total failure they will close it down and all previous commitments won't count for anything.
I don’t believe the ruling will have an impact on the US? I thought it was a UK only ruling?And of who is supplying them with the stuff? A wholesaler that specialises in this sort of mess...
"We are suppliers of wholesale overstocks, closeouts, liquidations, shelf pulls, and returns from major department stores, retailers and manufacturers."
I reckon that the wholesaler in question gambled on buying up a huge chunk of the already produced, soon to be illegal stock at a cut price, knowing it's only a matter of time before Rich Energy themselves could no longer sell it to anyone else. Thing is though... The court order prevents RE from using that logo, if hundreds of thousands of cans were sold legally to wholesalers before hand... I guess they are free to sell it. Or, if the law prevents re-sale as well as production of cans with that logo, I guess they have a good case to return the stock to RE and demand a refund. Either way the net result of the hundreds of thousands of cans produced is total loss for RE.
It probably is a bit worrying for HAAS as sponsorship payments are normally staged throughout the season, and if the RE enterprise is deemed a total failure they will close it down and all previous commitments won't count for anything.
The Moose said:
I don’t believe the ruling will have an impact on the US? I thought it was a UK only ruling?
They're based in the UK. Their US operation is a distributor of the drinks, supplied by rich energy in the UK. Hence the drink is 'British'. Wherever it's actually made or sold.The order made by the court is for the company to stop using the logo, even if they sell the drinks to an overseas distributor - the UK company is still supplying them and using/benefitting from the logo.
I expect that's why they pulled the logo in Canada.
TheDeuce said:
The Moose said:
I don’t believe the ruling will have an impact on the US? I thought it was a UK only ruling?
They're based in the UK. Their US operation is a distributor of the drinks, supplied by rich energy in the UK. Hence the drink is 'British'. Wherever it's actually made or sold.The order made by the court is for the company to stop using the logo, even if they sell the drinks to an overseas distributor - the UK company is still supplying them and using/benefitting from the logo.
I expect that's why they pulled the logo in Canada.
The Moose said:
Are they based in the UK? I haven’t looked into RE recently but around the time The Beard was claiming they’d manufactured 90 million cans, it didn’t look like their company profile on companies house would be able to sustain that level of production. I then read an article that said there were likely a number of other companies outside of the UK involved. That being the case, they just wouldn’t sell to the UK arm?
They might not make any of it in the UK. It's typical of almost all mass produced drinks now to have producers around the world actually make the drinks, under license in their respective territories - saves on immense shipping costs and also gives a better shelf life. That's why when you buy a 'foreign' lager in the UK, there is a very good chance it was made here - mostly in Wales I think. The RE website shows their contact address as the UK, so I guess that's their HQ.The point is that if I'm right and the company itself is registered in the UK, then they can't escape the ruling and use that logo wherever they produce it, as it would still be the UK company authorising the overseas producers to use the name/logo/recipe - and also choosing to sell the product to various distributors would equal the same.
Whatever they say about fighting on - I think it makes overwhelming sense now to simply change the logo.. I expect they probably will. If they really have 90 million cans of the stuff out there then I guess they need to agree a fairly large payment to Whyte in order for them to allow a fixed period of time in which to sell the old cans... Or, just landfill the cans, or close the whole enterprise down and go and do something else seedy.
TheDeuce said:
If they really have 90 million cans of the stuff out there then I guess they need to agree a fairly large payment to Whyte in order for them to allow a fixed period of time in which to sell the old cans... Or, just landfill the cans, or close the whole enterprise down and go and do something else seedy.
of course they don't have 90 million cans, they don't have 90 million of anything (except maybe beard hairs?)TheDeuce said:
rallycross said:
of course they don't have 90 million cans, they don't have 90 million of anything (except maybe beard hairs?)
I never actually saw the 90m cans quote to be honest - it does seem like quite a lot for a new product entering a market dominated by a global mega-brand!!They are still using the logo, Tweeting the usual s
te, Now though it’s rehashed. They put up another tweet about the helicopter ride same as in April and tweeted a pic in Monaco.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff