Tesco: Greedy Company Which Does Not Sponsor Sport

jim453

dodgy wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

dodgy wrote:

More demanding than it looks, certainly, But there are many sports waaaay more demanding. Not trying to take anything away from F1 drivers though, I can't do what they do, they have a fantastic mix of fast reflexes, vision, physical fitness - but I verfy much doubt that pure physical fitness is the defining attribute of a successful F1 driver.

I wouldn't count on it. I did a short go kart endurance race. Halfway through my second 20 minute stint I was having to try to wedge my arms against the kart to hold the steering wheel against the g-forces. The third stint nearly killed me! F1 drivers suffer much greater G forces for over two hours. I certainly reckon that karting session was tougher than my ascent of Hardknott pass! Maybe wrong but I'd take some convincing that there is much comparable aside from pro road racing - a potentially good debate!

Sorry mate, but I'm not convinced that carting or F1 for that matter can be as physically demanding as riding up Hardknott pass.
Good physical conditioning and a sharp mind will make for a great driver, but he's not suffering like a cyclist (of any standard) up Hardknott.

I reckon two hours throwing an F1 car on it's limit around somewhere like Sepang in 40 degrees and 100% humidity in full fire resistant suit is more physically demanding than riding up Hardknott. And not just in terms of coping with the heat. Actual physical exertion of holding your arms up and fighting your neck muscles against the G forces.

Just guessing though.

meanredspider

Cressers wrote:

For all their faults I think tesco should be commended for not getting on the corporate sponsorship band wagon. I won't use Vodafone because they waste money on F1, I won't fly Emirates because they sponsor Arsenal, or buy a Samsung product because they sponsor Chelsea. Rather then spend money on sponsorship I'd rather that companies reduced their prices.

The fact that you know all of this shows it was money well-spent. It just comes out of the marketing budget. Do you not shop at Tesco because they advertise on TV? F1 cars are just mobile (and stationary) advertising hoardings that appear on TVs all around the world, in newspapers, websites etc etc. Tesco isn't (yet) enough of a global player to warrant advertising globally. On top of that, watching F1 (like most sport - and of course it's a sport) is a male-dominated activity - grocery shopping, IME, tends to be female dominated (Mum's gone to Iceland) - sport, therefore isn't a particularly effective medium for Tesco to advertise. In the advert break in a soap would be much better. Gillette (a P&G company) sponsor rugby league. Ariel (another P&G company) tend not to sponsor sport.

All the mobile phone networks seem to sponsor a team - do you not use a mobile?

andyxm

orbeaorca wrote:

andyxm wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Yup - F1 is a couch potato sport:
:roll: :roll:

Yep, anyone who has driven a proper go-kart on an outside track for more than 5 minutes will have some feel for how physically destroying F1 is going to be and how ridiculous it is to suggest F1 is a couch potato sport. I'd bet good money it is one of the most physically demanding sports there is.

Might by physically demanding, but it ain't a sport......

The definition sport ' an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature ' '

F1 is an athletic activity which requires skill, physical prowess and it's competitive ... which must mean it's a sport.

Sod the definition, there is too much reliance on technology and too many artificial rules in an attempt to make it entertaining for it to be a sport. It's as much a sport as WWE wrestling.

meanredspider

I think it's a futile debate comparing the "fitness" of the different sports because they require such different things. What I am seeing in some of the posts though is a total lack of understanding of what's required to drive a modern F1 car. Physical & athletic prowess is absolutely a key attribute to becoming a driver. The fact that most of us simply wouldn't be able to do a lap in one of these beasts without crashing it is one thing. To sustain that at competitive levels lap-after-lap, pulling up to 6G in the braking zones, in the conditions described above and positioning the car as accurately as they do is simply awesome. I have the utmost respect for F1 drivers as sportsmen.

meanredspider

andyxm wrote:

Sod the definition, there is too much reliance on technology and too many artificial rules in an attempt to make it entertaining for it to be a sport. It's as much a sport as WWE wrestling.

Do you know anything about F1? :roll:

As awesome as the drivers are, the engineers involved are some of the very very best. The rules have to be continually developed because the engineers are so good.

Which technology in particular are you thinking takes away from the skill of the driver? Presumably you're thinking of electronic aids to help the driver? Just list a few....

Tom Butcher

I don't doubt that F1 demands a high level of physical fitness but I'm doubting how far that transfers to all motorsport - stock car racing, rally driving - no doubt a pretty good general fitness is useful but surely not anything like sports like cycling, running, football. Not decrying them for that but F1 drivers probably aren't representative of motorsport as a whole.

meanredspider

Tom Butcher wrote:

I don't doubt that F1 demands a high level of physical fitness but I'm doubting how far that transfers to all motorsport - stock car racing, rally driving - no doubt a pretty good general fitness is useful but surely not anything like sports like cycling, running, football. Not decrying them for that but F1 drivers probably aren't representative of motorsport as a whole.

I'm not sure anyone has claimed it does. I actually think people will still be surprised how fit professional racing drivers are these days though. The only fitness training book I have at home is a motorsport fitness book - gives a very good idea what the drivers do.

Smokin Joe

Tom Butcher wrote:

I don't doubt that F1 demands a high level of physical fitness but I'm doubting how far that transfers to all motorsport - stock car racing, rally driving - no doubt a pretty good general fitness is useful but surely not anything like sports like cycling, running, football. Not decrying them for that but F1 drivers probably aren't representative of motorsport as a whole.

If you want people to take up sport for reasons of health then golf would probably be the ideal discipline, a nice long walk with some upper body excercise thrown in. Forget all this snobbish nonsense about who has the biggest Vo2 max (whatever the feck that is) but what you need to stay healthy is regular physical excercise without putting abnormal strains on the body. Cyclists and athletes may be fit, but they are not healthy people because their bodies are tuned to the fine knife edge between peak fitness and serious damage. TdF riders are reckoned to shorten there lives by a good few years because of the harm they do themselves.

dodgy

Physical fitness gives F1 drivers an edge. It does not follow that they reach the same levels of exertion in the car that they have to do on the bike, or running or whatever to reach those levels of fitness.

sfichele

Is there a more greedy and s*** for brains company on the face of the planet than Tesco?

* possibly haliburton *

I've not shopped with these f#ckers for over two years, and glad of it!

deptfordmarmoset

Talking of F1tness, I remember seeing Jensen Button on a bike a while ago - he looked very comfortable and pretty fast on two wheels. He does triathlons for exercise (http://road.cc/content/forum/6135-jense ... -triathlon) and would like to see a bit of physical driver competition, as in the days of James Hunt when the drivers would race laps for charity before the F1.

I think Jensen Button could be an excellent advocate for cycling. He's fit, he looks very much at home on a road bike, and an ''I can drive fast because I'm fit, I feel the road, and can cycle fast'' kind of message could help establish a bit more respect for the cyclist amongst the petrolistas. Who knows, a few future boy racers might start trying to scalp us rather than running us off the roads...

meanredspider

Mark Webber is probably even a keener cyclist (he's damaged himself quite a bit on his bike).

He organises sportives (2009)

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/archive/ ... rtive.html

Missed a classic car event to do an MTB enduro (2004)

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/features ... ark_webber

There are lots of parallels between Lance [Armstrong] and Michael Schumacher, a driver I really admire. Michael is a great sportsman and the amount of sacrifice and dedication that he's put in to be the best is similar to the work that Lance puts in.

and, from 2008

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/11/24/f1-d ... bike-race/

Many Formula 1 drivers maintain their endurance and competitive spirit in the off season through the sport of cycling. Australian F1 driver Mark Webber is one of those individuals and he lends his name to the Mark Webber Pure Tasmania Challenge, a five-day multidisciplinary event held annually on the island.

I don't know how much more evidence that F1 drivers aren't couch potatoes the misinformed sceptics need...

deptfordmarmoset

Thanks for the links, meanie, I didn't know Webber was a keen cyclist too. Though it doesn't surprise me.

I'd use him as a cycling advocate too, the more the merrier...

andyxm

meanredspider wrote:

andyxm wrote:

Sod the definition, there is too much reliance on technology and too many artificial rules in an attempt to make it entertaining for it to be a sport. It's as much a sport as WWE wrestling.

Do you know anything about F1? :roll:

As awesome as the drivers are, the engineers involved are some of the very very best. The rules have to be continually developed because the engineers are so good.

Which technology in particular are you thinking takes away from the skill of the driver? Presumably you're thinking of electronic aids to help the driver? Just list a few....

I know enough, been to a few races and I can read. Wasn't thinking of any specific electronic aids, although googling F1 boost button made me laugh, it's closer to Mario kart than a proper sport. Maybe next year cars will be able to fire banana skins at each other. For all the technology applied to cycling, the races are generally won and lost on the basis of who is the best racer on the day, can the same be said about F1. Honestly? I can't recall which team won the title last year, but wasn't it mainly on the basis of how they interpreted the regulations?

As a more fundamental example when I used to watch f1 if a race was stopped the victor was decided on the aggregate times. To make it more entertaining safety cars were introduced which have the potential to render large parts of a race irrelevant. Possibly more entertaining, but I would argue it makes it less of a sport.

I'm sure the engineers in F1 are very good, just not sure that engineering has a place in sport.

meanredspider

Yup - last season, during the "closed" month - there were two teams of 3 F1 driver cyclists in one event (a biathlon, IIRC).

I think Sebastien Loeb (World Rally Champion x times) is also a keen cyclist - I know a couple of years back he won the Championship whilst recovering from an MTB breakage.

meanredspider

andyxm wrote:

I can't recall which team won the title last year, but wasn't it mainly on the basis of how they interpreted the regulations?

Well, given that, with 2 races to go, I think that there were 4 or 5 drivers in contention for the world championship from 3 different teams and in the last race, 3 teams (4 drivers) were in contention with Ferrari the favourites (Red Bull's Vettel won - the youngest ever), I think you've been hoist by your own petard.

And cycling isn't so different. I remember when Lotus came up with a bike design that beat all-comers and was (IIRC) banned. Bicycles are very simple machines. It's the cyclists who seem to have trouble with the regulations (when was the last TdF when someone wasn't found doping....?)

andyxm

meanredspider wrote:

andyxm wrote:

I can't recall which team won the title last year, but wasn't it mainly on the basis of how they interpreted the regulations?

Well, given that, with 2 races to go, I think that there were 4 or 5 drivers in contention for the world championship from 3 different teams and in the last race, 3 teams (4 drivers) were in contention with Ferrari the favourites (Red Bull's Vettel won - the youngest ever), I think you've been hoist by your own petard.

And cycling isn't so different. I remember when Lotus came up with a bike design that beat all-comers and was (IIRC) banned. Bicycles are very simple machines. It's the cyclists who seem to have trouble with the regulations (when was the last TdF when someone wasn't found doping....?)

Apologies, i meant 2009 brawn diffuser. You ignored the rest of my points.

MrChuck

meanredspider wrote:

Mark Webber is probably even a keener cyclist (he's damaged himself quite a bit on his bike).

He organises sportives (2009)

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/archive/ ... rtive.html

Missed a classic car event to do an MTB enduro (2004)

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/features ... ark_webber

There are lots of parallels between Lance [Armstrong] and Michael Schumacher, a driver I really admire. Michael is a great sportsman and the amount of sacrifice and dedication that he's put in to be the best is similar to the work that Lance puts in.

and, from 2008

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/11/24/f1-d ... bike-race/

Many Formula 1 drivers maintain their endurance and competitive spirit in the off season through the sport of cycling. Australian F1 driver Mark Webber is one of those individuals and he lends his name to the Mark Webber Pure Tasmania Challenge, a five-day multidisciplinary event held annually on the island.

I don't know how much more evidence that F1 drivers aren't couch potatoes the misinformed sceptics need...

I don't think anyone's saying that F1 drivers are couch potatoes, the original point (as I read it anyway!) seemed to be more that unless you're a driver motorsport can only be a spectator sport for the vast majority iof people, unlike football for examaple. And so as far as national couch potato-ness goes sponsoring it isn't very productive.

meanredspider

andyxm wrote:

2009 brawn diffuser

Yup - and the others copied it and the finish of the season was quite close. For those that love the sport (frankly a few more than follow cycling - good thing or bad thing aside: I'm a cyclist too), that's part of the interest. And even in sports like swimming (simpler than cycling) technology can give one team an advantage for a short spell - the suits they used to use, for instance.

I come back to the fact that with cycling, you can't even be sure who is cheating (it seems as though someone always is...)

we're getting away from the point a bit, though. The drivers get paid millions. That will have several consequences:
- The teams will get the best person they can find and they will use everything that they know how to get the most out of them
- There's huge competition to be an F1 driver and the drivers themselves will use everything they can (fitness being key) to get ahead and stay ahead.

Throw into that that the cars cost millions and the budgets are 10's of millions and you can be sure the teams don't want to see driver fitness let them down.

flybywire

Tesco imo rank alongside Coke-Cola , Mars, Nestle and Macdonalds for sponsoring sport. The likes of these companies should not be able to promote their unhealthy products in a sporting arena..

Tesco make a song and a dance about healthy eating but its isn't really + they're overpriced. I personally do not use this retailer for groceries or other foodstuff / financial products etc due to their ethos / aggressive marketing etc.

meanredspider

MrChuck wrote:

I don't think anyone's saying that F1 drivers are couch potatoes, the original point (as I read it anyway!) seemed to be more that unless you're a driver motorsport can only be a spectator sport for the vast majority iof people, unlike football for examaple. And so as far as national couch potato-ness goes sponsoring it isn't very productive.

You may be right (I read it differently - especially when read alongside cricket which anyone can play). It's actually TV that's the issue and the popularity of the sports themselves.

I'm not sure more coverage of TdF (for example) would actually encourage more people to ride as it has about as much in common with your average cyclist as F1 does to your average car.

I'd like to see more hockey on TV (as a hockey player) but I have to admit it doesn't make great TV and people don't understand it. When we won gold at the Olympics, there was a big surge in interest. A similar effect occured at kart tracks when Lewis Hamilton won the world championship in F1. I don't know that there's been the same impact on cycling (genuine question - I don't know) when we've been successful at cycling - we certainly have been successful.

MrChuck

I suppose my point was that Tesco wouldn't really be 'giving anything back' by sponsoring F1, where I suppose you could argue that they would be by sponsoring something like football in a high profile way (i.e. title shirt sponsor)- people might be more inspired to get off their backsides and go play footy themselves by Rooney then they might be to go racing by Hamilton. Personally I don't buy that though- the only people who'd be benefiting from that are the players on ridiculous wages and Tesco themselves, and they'd give more back by sponsoring more grass-roots efforts whch it sounds (from other posts) like they're doing anyway.

So I suppose the message of the 'gloating' ad (if I recall it correctly) is that since all sponsoring a top-level football club does is prop up the ridiculous fees involved and bring in more revenue for Tesco, and it would be better for consumers if they put that money instead into offering cheap phone contracts.

meanredspider

andyxm wrote:

You ignored the rest of my points.

Apologies, I did - but happy to address them:

Boost button - yes - I think you'll find something not dissimilar on modern, high-end, road cars (which will filter down to standard cars in time). It's also built around regenerative energy systems (ditto for road cars in future). It will make the sport more exciting. There are artificial aids to keep sports interesting and fair. I don't have a car following me with spare bikes and wheels when I go on a ride. Why not make Cancerella stop and fix his own flat using a kit he carries?

Err, what else. Aggregate races? Yup - if the race has to stop because of a serious incident or weather, why not have aggregate races? How does that differ from stage times? It's not the norm and, yes, they do have a safety car - as they do in my races at Knockhill - it's just sensible.

And, yes, drivers do make a big difference - just compare Alonso in a Ferrari with Massa driving the same car. Same goesfor Button and Hamilton - different circuits and circumstances, very different outcomes. Webber and Vettel - exactly the same.

And of course engineering has a place in sport - just about every buying question on here is engineering-related: carbon frames, chainsets, wheels & tyres, shoes, clothing - all engineered. Aerodymics used for bikes, helmets etc I bet filters down from F1 too.

meanredspider

I bet even "Sports" firms like Nike and Adidas make more from the "fashion" aspects of their products than they do from real sports applications.

Red Bull is an interesting company. I think they have done a lot to glamourise & publicise action sports and possibly have got a lot of people to try them too. It's certainly made MTB, cycloX & BMX more "cool" and given them far more exposure. I have no doubt it's profit-related but they have brought money & exposure to some less well-known sports.

MrChuck

Large companies do not sponsor teams in sport to give something back to the community or to try and inspire people to get out and try a sport (despite what their marketing spokesperson may say) - they only reason they do it is so they can get their logo plastered over a car / shirt / ball etc etc

They do it to get noticed so they can inflate their profits

There might be the odd exception- I'm sure I read somewhere that one of the big sponsors of a Pro Tour team does it at least partly because the CEO is big into cycling. But on the whole you're right.

stevec205gti

Now we're a bit more back on track..... lol

I'll go back to cricket - and it's lack of couch potato status. A few seasons ago we did well in the ashes. Freddy Flintoff, amongst others, became quite popular. During this period the pick up in players, especially youngsters was very noticeable. I belong to a reasonable size cricket club who run 7 junior sides - I myself am a qualified coach - and since that time we've had to restrict the number of juniors we teach, turning many away. Just because you believe that something is a couch potato sport doesn't make it so - I'm pretty certain a lot more people take up team sports that are easily played and funded, rather than niche sports like cycling (in this country at least). We could ask Tesco to sponsor a few bike races, but I can't imagine that the likes of Wiggo and Cav (and several others) will get people off their arses to cycle in the same way as other sports have motivated people. I'd put money on the interest in playing cricket going up again this coming summer after the sucess down under - I'd also put money on most cycling clubs not suddenly ballooning and having to turn people away after Wiggins' performance in the 2009 tour

As for Tescos funding, they often do vouchers schemes, and these are not just for schools but can be used for your own sports club as long as you meet the following requirements (lifted from the Tesco website - though I doubt your morals allow you to look on there):-

Your club must:

* Be an amateur organisation
* Be registered with a recognised governing body or local authority
* Cater for children under the age of 18

I personally would much rather they did this than plastered their name over some shirts or advertising hoardings - at least this way you can see some results/interest from them at a grass roots level, other than so many other companies.

moffatt666

Actually, Tesco, along with Telent and Jaguar, sponsor stands at Coventry City's Ricoh Arena.

MattC59

Surely the words greedy and company in the same sentence are stating the bleeding obvious !?
Tesco is a private company, not a charity or publicly owned. Their sole purpose is to make money, nothing else, the same as eveyr other company out there.

Why are you suprised ?

John Stevenson

Stanley222 wrote:

Large companies do not sponsor teams in sport to give something back to the community or to try and inspire people to get out and try a sport (despite what their marketing spokesperson may say) - they only reason they do it is so they can get their logo plastered over a car / shirt / ball etc etc

They do it to get noticed so they can inflate their profits

More commonly, actually, they do it because someone on the board is fanatical about a particular sport and wants to hobnob with the sportspeople concerned and be part of the associated scene. F1 is way way better at corporate hospitality than cycling (you could make the case that F1 is a corporate shindig with a car race attached) which is why it gets lots of corporate money.

All the stuff about marketing and effect on profits is just what we journalists call 'lies' to keep the shareholders happy.

I personally doubt that visibility of sports has much effect on the overall activity levels in society. I can see how sporty kids might see Vicky Pendleton and Chris Hoy and decide to switch from hockey to cycling, but I can't see their success pulling kids away from X-Box, or persuading their parents to have them ride a bike instead of ferrying them to school in the car.

meanredspider

John Stevenson wrote:

(you could make the case that F1 is a corporate shindig with a car race attached)

You could. You might struggle to explain the other 80,000 hangers-on at the circuit (each having paid upwards of 100 quid) or the tens of millions of people watching on TV. But there's no doubt that circuit motorsport in general and F1 in particular are particularly good at corporate hospitality - Monaco being the very best.