Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

San Jose: No title sponsor?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • San Jose: No title sponsor?

    For now, next year's event lacks a title sponsor.

    Housing developer Taylor Woodrow paid $320,000 for naming rights in 2005 in what was called a multiyear deal, but the company's name was not included in current press material. Singleton said the company has the option of returning as title sponsor or becoming a presenting sponsor.
    link

  • #2
    In related (or unrelated, take your pick) news, no title sponsor has been announced for the following 2006 IRL races:
    Motegi
    Watkins Glen
    Kentucky

    Should I start a thread for each of those?
    BAN SHREDDED CHEESE! MAKE AMERICA GRATE AGAIN!

    Comment


    • #3
      Give Jim a break, narrowing in on 14,000 posts and it seems very quiet in the rumor department on 2007 engine mfrs. these days

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Jakester
        In related (or unrelated, take your pick) news, no title sponsor has been announced for the following 2006 IRL races:
        Motegi
        Watkins Glen
        Kentucky

        Should I start a thread for each of those?

        Technically,these sort of deflections violate the user agreement.
        ...the spice must flow.....

        Comment


        • #5
          In related (or unrelated, take your pick) news, no title sponsor has been announced for the following 2006 IRL races:
          Motegi
          Watkins Glen
          Kentucky

          Should I start a thread for each of those?
          :

          Sure. Be sure and include the announcement that said a title sponsor was in the first year of a multi-year deal.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by rodneyh
            Give Jim a break, narrowing in on 14,000 posts and it seems very quiet in the rumor department on 2007 engine mfrs. these days
            Kalkhoven says there is virtually no chance there will be any new engine manufacturers in '07:

            Q: Do you work with the possibility of luring new manufacturers to badge the Cosworth engine when Champ Car introduces its new technical package in ’07?

            “We’re very comfortable with the model we current have, both in terms of cost and competition. Bringing in new manufacturers to badge the Cosworth engine would be interesting for the series, certainly, but is not one of the priorities we’re pursuing at the moment.”

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Richard Kimble
              Technically,these sort of deflections violate the user agreement.
              But, if he started a thread on each of them, he'd lose his posting privledges.

              Besides, his list isn't even complete.

              He forgot Chicagoland, Kansas, and Sears Point. Their sponsors are also MIA on the track websites.

              Comment


              • #8
                As we exhaustedly went through this prior to, during, and after the race... Taylor Woodrow is getting an incredible deal for that dollar amount. I'm surprised that they are not jumping at the chance to re-up/extending the contract.....UNLESS....the price is going up for them to do so. If they had an option of those two choices, perhaps the 'promoter' also had an option of raising their cost for the sponsorship.

                ...But, these temporary races do create fickle/temporary participation too, so they may have simply been a 'one hit wonder' just as many before them at these 'urban festivals'.
                Brian W Keske
                bwkdesign.wordpress.com

                "The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite."
                -- Thomas Jefferson

                Comment


                • #9
                  Looks like the same situation as Edmonton. Title sponsor has the option to return, but as its November and the race isnt until the Summer, they havent signed on yet. Better write home to mom about that one...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I believe the writer's point is that when the deal was announced, it was given as a solid 'multi-year deal' with the clear implication that '06 and beyond were set. Now it appears there were options involved and they may not get picked up.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      They have to be looking for more money. It only makes sense that this deal was a one year agreement looking at the cost.

                      As far as 'implications'....well, we've been down that road before, have we not? 'These guy's' are masters at that game.
                      Brian W Keske
                      bwkdesign.wordpress.com

                      "The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite."
                      -- Thomas Jefferson

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Richard Kimble
                        Technically,these sort of deflections violate the user agreement.
                        Then should Jim be held accountable for every thread that he has destroyed by going off the subject?

                        Cant have it both ways
                        If CD’s were spun in the opposite direction, would it say everything backwards?

                        "Fun is where it's at. That's why you have to be there!"

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Jim Wilke
                          I believe
                          I believe = Your interpretation (goes into the wild speculation category)
                          If CD’s were spun in the opposite direction, would it say everything backwards?

                          "Fun is where it's at. That's why you have to be there!"

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Technically,these sort of deflections violate the user agreement.
                            How so? Appears to me to be right on subject: 2006 races without title sponsorship....


                            unless the subject is actually continuing an agenda.....
                            BAN SHREDDED CHEESE! MAKE AMERICA GRATE AGAIN!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Jim Wilke
                              I believe the writer's point is that when the deal was announced, it was given as a solid 'multi-year deal' with the clear implication that '06 and beyond were set. Now it appears there were options involved and they may not get picked up.
                              Yet the official press release from CCWS says nothing of a "multi-year deal".

                              link
                              If you break a vase and then glue it back together and the vase loses it's value, you do not get credit for fixing it. You get the blame for damaging it....

                              Comment

                              Unconfigured Ad Widget

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X