Are Haas embarrassed about Rich Energy?

Are Haas embarrassed about Rich Energy?

Author
Discussion

StevieBee

7,394 posts

196 months

Wednesday 20th March
quotequote all
DS240 said:
Whatever the plan is of ‘rich energy’, surely Haas is only concerned about whether money comes in.

If they have doubts, there’s surely a money up front agreement for continued display of sponsor on car and kit.

Money runs out... stickers come off. Simple.

Deal didn’t work out and move on... would Haas be that embarrassed with that?

Whilst money coming in, who cares at Haas whether they sell cans of drink in the U.K.

If a billionaire walks in and says I want my face and name on the side of the car... here’s 100 million for a year or two. I’d think a face and name would appear on the side of a car. Selling nothing, means nothing, just a vanity project, I’m sure a team would take it.
Whilst there's a degree of truth in this, all sponsors are vetted by F1 and, I believe, the FIA in order to protect the reputational integrity of the sport.

It's also highly unlikely that the team would be happy with a money runs out scenario. Assuming the money is paid in instalments, that will be built into their cashflow projections for the year(s) ahead the basis upon which commitments are made. The sudden removal of that money would cause significant problems to the operations of the team.

Andy S15

284 posts

68 months

Wednesday 20th March
quotequote all
StevieBee said:
Whilst there's a degree of truth in this, all sponsors are vetted by F1 and, I believe, the FIA in order to protect the reputational integrity of the sport.
I wonder if the rules have been somewhat (unintentionally?) relaxed.

Tobacco advertising isn't allowed in F1. PMI plaster Ferrari with their Mission Winnow logos, and FOM seemingly doesn't mind. Yet Ferrari remove them for Aus because the Aussie government doesn't allow tobacco advertising. Doesn't seem like FOM are too bothered about the integrity of that particular deal, so why should we assume they care that much about Rich & Haas?

I reckon Rich will have done just enough to satisfy the rules, but it still doesn't half seem dodgy.

tigerkoi

2,894 posts

139 months

Wednesday 20th March
quotequote all
Andy S15 said:
StevieBee said:
Whilst there's a degree of truth in this, all sponsors are vetted by F1 and, I believe, the FIA in order to protect the reputational integrity of the sport.
I wonder if the rules have been somewhat (unintentionally?) relaxed.

Tobacco advertising isn't allowed in F1. PMI plaster Ferrari with their Mission Winnow logos, and FOM seemingly doesn't mind. Yet Ferrari remove them for Aus because the Aussie government doesn't allow tobacco advertising. Doesn't seem like FOM are too bothered about the integrity of that particular deal, so why should we assume they care that much about Rich & Haas?

I reckon Rich will have done just enough to satisfy the rules, but it still doesn't half seem dodgy.
StevieBee, come on, seriously? smile
Maybe in the olden days there was a semblance of a rule around the sponsorship thing, but do you seriously believe the FIA and F1 teams have banks of compliance guys who pick through another company’s (imaginary) setup to assess whether or not they are worth it? It’d take Jean Todt less time to reach for a top shelf than it would to identify who’s his sponsorship rules guy.

After all in this day and age of declining sponsorship, and the likes of Williams scrabbling around for investment coin, do you really think believe that there’s much of a high bar in who gets to put a sticker on a car?

I’ve asked somewhere before, but what of eyetime? The Austrian 2018 sponsor? What due diligence goes on there? If in a race series you’ve got convicted fraudsters running teams then saying the FIA and F1 are all about the best possible image is a bit of a veneer.

Simply a fistful of dollars works. Then it’s onto the next race. And then one day, “Mister Gunther, sirina sente nnyingi...”



andrewcliffe

424 posts

165 months

Wednesday 20th March
quotequote all
RogerExplosion said:
Three days walking all over Melbourne circuit and through town. Apart from the Haas stuff and one Aus GT car I did not see a single piece of marketing for Rich Energy. And not too much surprise no product.
There was at least one can of the stuff there, as F1 photographer Mark Sutton from Sutton Images took a photograph of it.

StevieBee

7,394 posts

196 months

Wednesday 20th March
quotequote all
tigerkoi said:
Andy S15 said:
StevieBee said:
Whilst there's a degree of truth in this, all sponsors are vetted by F1 and, I believe, the FIA in order to protect the reputational integrity of the sport.
I wonder if the rules have been somewhat (unintentionally?) relaxed.

Tobacco advertising isn't allowed in F1. PMI plaster Ferrari with their Mission Winnow logos, and FOM seemingly doesn't mind. Yet Ferrari remove them for Aus because the Aussie government doesn't allow tobacco advertising. Doesn't seem like FOM are too bothered about the integrity of that particular deal, so why should we assume they care that much about Rich & Haas?

I reckon Rich will have done just enough to satisfy the rules, but it still doesn't half seem dodgy.
StevieBee, come on, seriously? smile
Maybe in the olden days there was a semblance of a rule around the sponsorship thing, but do you seriously believe the FIA and F1 teams have banks of compliance guys who pick through another company’s (imaginary) setup to assess whether or not they are worth it? It’d take Jean Todt less time to reach for a top shelf than it would to identify who’s his sponsorship rules guy.

After all in this day and age of declining sponsorship, and the likes of Williams scrabbling around for investment coin, do you really think believe that there’s much of a high bar in who gets to put a sticker on a car?

I’ve asked somewhere before, but what of eyetime? The Austrian 2018 sponsor? What due diligence goes on there? If in a race series you’ve got convicted fraudsters running teams then saying the FIA and F1 are all about the best possible image is a bit of a veneer.

Simply a fistful of dollars works. Then it’s onto the next race. And then one day, “Mister Gunther, sirina sente nnyingi...”

Well, yes. The existence and application of due diligence is one thing. The quality and depth of which are another matter entirely. And regardless, it is of course easy enough to portray legitimacy when there is none.

And as you allude to; a big bag of cash tends to win the day in any scenario. But.....

F1 (and other Formulae) got stung badly several times in the 90s with various sponsors arriving, on 90 day credit terms with their brand on cars and the teams spending money that they had not received and never would. F1 and the FIA have agreements with promoters to deliver a race comprising 'x' number of teams so with teams coming and going as a result of dubious sponsorships, the FIA stepped in to introduce a degree of regulatory control over the provence of the money coming into the sport. This came about at the same time new teams were required to pay a hefty 'deposit' for their entry, again designed to weed out the Andrea Modas and the like.


Advertisement

Vaud

32,038 posts

96 months

Wednesday 20th March
quotequote all
StevieBee said:
Whilst there's a degree of truth in this, all sponsors are vetted by F1 and, I believe, the FIA in order to protect the reputational integrity of the sport.

It's also highly unlikely that the team would be happy with a money runs out scenario. Assuming the money is paid in instalments, that will be built into their cashflow projections for the year(s) ahead the basis upon which commitments are made. The sudden removal of that money would cause significant problems to the operations of the team.
IIRC Joe Saward commented that not only do the FIA do due diligence, but in this case there is a banking guarantee in place as well - so if Rich don't pay then the bank do.

So... my guess is HaaS are okay for this year.

tigerkoi

2,894 posts

139 months

Wednesday 20th March
quotequote all
Vaud said:
StevieBee said:
Whilst there's a degree of truth in this, all sponsors are vetted by F1 and, I believe, the FIA in order to protect the reputational integrity of the sport.

It's also highly unlikely that the team would be happy with a money runs out scenario. Assuming the money is paid in instalments, that will be built into their cashflow projections for the year(s) ahead the basis upon which commitments are made. The sudden removal of that money would cause significant problems to the operations of the team.
IIRC Joe Saward commented that not only do the FIA do due diligence, but in this case there is a banking guarantee in place as well - so if Rich don't pay then the bank do.

So... my guess is HaaS are okay for this year.
Yeah with Haas I don’t think it’s a real issue - there operating costs were all baked in and understood before Rich Energy turned up. RE are just a cherry on top, if I’m right.

With Saward I tend to distil anything he says with info from other places: he can sound a bit haughty about his supreme command of F1 knowledge. Surprised that he’s rarely used by any of the TV networks in even an interview or sound bite capacity...

But on the point of a bank guarantee then sure that’s understandable. Money has to be kept somewhere. But a) a guarantee could just be backed up by a fixed margin call, say 10% and b) indicates to me that if you’ve got to present a guarantee then you’d assume you aren’t paying up front, and this is more likely an ‘on tick’ arrangement or pay as we race thing.

JonChalk

Original Poster:

1,709 posts

51 months

Wednesday 20th March
quotequote all
StevieBee said:
And as you allude to; a big bag of cash tends to win the day in any scenario. But.....

Perhaps even just the vague promise of a big bag of cash at the end of the rainbow.

FourWheelDrift

76,762 posts

225 months

Tuesday 14th May
quotequote all
Whoops - "Rich Energy loses legal battle over copying logo in High Court" - https://www.crash.net/f1/news/920063/1/rich-energy...

Arklight

798 posts

130 months

Tuesday 14th May
quotequote all
Just been reading that, like it was ever in doubt.

Apparently they are thinking of appealing (according to their Twitter) I suspect they are hope the next judge may be blind or have cataracts

CocoUK

659 posts

123 months

Tuesday 14th May
quotequote all
To be fair when viewing just the raw graphics I can see why it may be appealed:


Kraken

949 posts

141 months

Tuesday 14th May
quotequote all
CocoUK said:
To be fair when viewing just the raw graphics I can see why it may be appealed:
Why? It's a blatant rip off of the Whyte logo as far as I, and the courts, can see.

Arklight

798 posts

130 months

Tuesday 14th May
quotequote all
CocoUK said:
To be fair when viewing just the raw graphics I can see why it may be appealed:
You are kidding right, or am i missing a *whoosh parrot* here?

Teppic

5,320 posts

198 months

Tuesday 14th May
quotequote all
Arklight said:
CocoUK said:
To be fair when viewing just the raw graphics I can see why it may be appealed:
You are kidding right, or am i missing a *whoosh parrot* here?
I suspect there might be just a hint of sarcasm in Coco's post.

Arklight

798 posts

130 months

Tuesday 14th May
quotequote all
Well they do have a backup logo ready, i see no issues here.

Simes205

3,185 posts

169 months

Tuesday 14th May
quotequote all
I wondered why they were advertising my bike!!

thegreenhell

5,470 posts

160 months

Tuesday 14th May
quotequote all
Just think of all the cans they've sold with this logo on. It must be in the hundreds...

PhillipM

5,608 posts

130 months

Tuesday 14th May
quotequote all
Think of all the hundreds of thousands they have in production that they're going to have to re-print....oh wait.

Teppic

5,320 posts

198 months

Tuesday 14th May
quotequote all
The complete judgement, if anyone is interested:

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/IPEC/2019/120...

Andy S15

284 posts

68 months

Wednesday 15th May
quotequote all
Well, that took a surprisingly long time for the first bit of RE drama to happen. I've been missing my feed of BS from Storey though, so I find it quite funny that despite originally saying accusations were unfounded, his actual defence in court was that he wasn't even aware of the Whytes logo!

Edited by Andy S15 on Wednesday 15th May 07:37