Tesco: Greedy Company Which Does Not Sponsor Sport

124»

Comments

  • Le Commentateur
    Le Commentateur Posts: 4,099
    meanredspider wrote:
    nwallace wrote:
    Berk Bonebonce wrote:
    And not couch potato sports like cricket and F1, but a sport like cycling.

    Last time I looked Cricket involved sprinting, and all levels of motorsport require a reasonably good level of fitness, the faster the car the more critical it being.

    Yup - F1 is a couch potato sport:
    McLaren driver Jenson Button has been tweeting about his bike ride in Hawaii with Tour de France legend Lance Armstrong. Just the 171km, followed by a 1km recovery swim.
    Full story: Jenson Button on Twitter

    :roll: :roll:

    Button has a past reputation of being a bit of a slacker out of season. Lewis however has been busy pre-season training with cross-country skiing: http://yfrog.com/h2422nj
    Un uomo solo al commando
  • Ollieda
    Ollieda Posts: 1,010
    But button has been getting into triathlons a fair bit, if people say he's being a slacker off season it's probably only in comparison to his training during the season........It's not like all pro cyclists keep trim during the off season!
  • shm_uk
    shm_uk Posts: 683
    nwallace wrote:
    Even Rally Co-Drivers are on fitness regimes now, and all they do is sit and shout.


    Quote of the day for me, this... excellent summarisation!
  • mrc1
    mrc1 Posts: 852
    MattC59 wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    MattC59 wrote:
    mrc1 wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Private company tries to make as much money as possible.

    No waaay...

    Same applies, but for reference Tesco is a public company.
    So tesco is owned by the state then ?
    No.

    Tesco is owned by share holders, ie private individuals, or groups of private individuals. A public company is one which is owned by the state.

    Nuh uh.
    A public company or publicly traded company is a company that offers its securities (stock, bonds, etc.) for sale to the general public, typically through a stock exchange, or through market makers operating in over the counter markets.

    You're right that i meant private as opposed to state, but mrc is indeed correct.

    Uh huh ! :D

    Your above quote taken from that reliable source, Wikipedia.

    A Public company and a Publicly trading company are different things. A publicly trading company, or PLC is still private, as is a company owned by an individual. The public can buy into it, but they are still private individuals.
    A Public company is state owned, ie owned by all of the public.

    You are confusing legal entities with other concepts.

    Legal Entities:

    1. A private company - ie Joe Blogs Ltd

    2. A public company - ie Joe Blogs Plc (I'll leave you to guess what Plc stands for)

    Tesco is a Plc and is therefore referred to as a public company.
    http://www.ledomestiquetours.co.uk

    Le Domestique Tours - Bespoke cycling experiences with unrivalled supported riding, knowledge and expertise.

    Ciocc Extro - FCN 1
  • beverick
    beverick Posts: 3,461
    MattC59 wrote:
    .........

    A Public company is state owned, ie owned by all of the public.

    Unless it happens to be a bank in which case it's funded by the public.

    BTW, the original post was about Tesco MOBILE which is different to Tesco.

    Tesco mobile is not a plc but it is a UK statutory entitiy.

    Bob
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    beverick wrote:
    MattC59 wrote:
    .........

    A Public company is state owned, ie owned by all of the public.

    Unless it happens to be a bank in which case it's funded by the public.

    Bob

    Err no.

    It's still the exception on the street, not the rule.
    _
  • dilemna
    dilemna Posts: 2,187
    Thread has gone a bit off topic. The OP hasn't revisited. Maybe he's still trying to remove egg from face?

    Btw a private limited company is owned by it's share holder(s) or member(s). It is run by it's director(s) who may or not be the owner or a shareholder. A private limited company need only have one director and one share. The owner or other share holders can control who they offer shares to. Shares can be paid up or unpaid. Such companies are not typically listed on the Stock Exchange but are still listed at Companies House.

    A public limited company (plc) must have at least 2 directors and a company secretary. It must have at least £50k of share capital and of this 25% must be paid up. It must make a declaration to Companies House that it complies with these conditions before it can trade. It maybe listed on the Stock Exchange or unlisted Securities Market although doesn't have to be. Typically a board of directors will run the company who may have share allocations or who may be merely salaries employees of the company. Listing equity shares on the Stock Exchange is a means of raising capital. Share holders have certain rights according to the type of share they have purchased. Company rules determine what influence they have in terms of voting whether to approve resolutions put forward by the board. In reality individual small share holders have very little influence even if they can band together to reach the threshold they need to block a resolution. In any event they will make their displeasure known. However there is often a disparity between a board whose obligations are to the financial success of the Company as opposed to small share holders who might be pursuing another agenda. But the implication that as a plc the public can take over is just crap or that the State owns the company, unless they are a substantial share holder, is frankly bollocks.
    Life is like a roll of toilet paper; long and useful, but always ends at the wrong moment. Anon.
    Think how stupid the average person is.......
    half of them are even more stupid than you first thought.
  • bompington
    bompington Posts: 7,674
    Do any of you legal/business hotshots have any idea just how little most of us care?

    Next topic, a debate on whether to open the big or little end of an egg...
  • dilemna
    dilemna Posts: 2,187
    bompington wrote:
    Do any of you legal/business hotshots have any idea just how little most of us care?

    Next topic, a debate on whether to open the big or little end of an egg...

    :lol::lol::wink:
    Life is like a roll of toilet paper; long and useful, but always ends at the wrong moment. Anon.
    Think how stupid the average person is.......
    half of them are even more stupid than you first thought.
  • mrc1
    mrc1 Posts: 852
    bompington wrote:
    Do any of you legal/business hotshots have any idea just how little most of us care?

    Next topic, a debate on whether to open the big or little end of an egg...

    Cheer up
    http://www.ledomestiquetours.co.uk

    Le Domestique Tours - Bespoke cycling experiences with unrivalled supported riding, knowledge and expertise.

    Ciocc Extro - FCN 1
  • beverick
    beverick Posts: 3,461
    dilemna wrote:
    Thread has gone a bit off topic. The OP hasn't revisited. Maybe he's still trying to remove egg from face?

    But the implication that as a plc the public can take over is just crap or that the State owns the company, unless they are a substantial share holder, is frankly bollocks.

    Not sure what you mean here so I may be a bit off-target but, if the state decides to "nationalise" the company all bets are off.

    This has happened, In more recent times, with 'failing' organisations (Northern Rock, Rolls Royce etc) but it has been done to successful and sovent ones on more than one occasion (members of the coal, rail, air and steel industries during mass nationalisatins for example).

    Bob
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,463
    bompington wrote:
    Do any of you legal/business hotshots have any idea just how little most of us care?

    Next topic, a debate on whether to open the big or little end of an egg...

    The little one obviously, it's not even up for debate :roll: :wink:
  • paulorg
    paulorg Posts: 168
    Going back to Tesco, they used to sponsor the shirts of at least one Rugby League team, although that may have been part of the deal after they bought their stadium and built a supermarket on it.
    If you buy it, they will come...








    ...up to you and say, you didn't want to buy one of them!!!
  • Ollieda
    Ollieda Posts: 1,010
    Wigan warriors - I think it was part of the deal but it resulted in the club getting £3.5m over 5 years, I think it was their first sports sponsorship deal.

    A quick look on the tesco corporate website shows they do actually sponsor a fair few things and lots of things they just give grants/ donations for (i.e. they don't demand their logo be placed everywhere) website says £21m + in 2005.

    Might not be all sporting things there but plenty of different things they do help out with
  • beverick
    beverick Posts: 3,461
    You may also want to look at the Telefonica web site who are 50-50 owners of Tesco Mobile with Tesco UK (it was Tesco Mobile mentioned in the first post).

    They have huge sponsorship commitments to all sorts of sports - but there commitment is to mainly F1.

    Bob
  • P_Tucker
    P_Tucker Posts: 1,878
    Jesus. Every £1 Tesco spends on sponsoring sport is £1 they layer on top of the prices of everything we buy from there. TBH, I'd rather they didn't advertise at all and my weekly shop was that much cheaper - but if you want your hard earned cash to be collected by Tesco and distributed to sports stars then that's up to you I guess.

    If anyone wants to point out that the above is a rather simplified and not entirely accurate representation of the way the world works, I'd be delighted to hear from you personally - please email idontgaf@hotmail.com

Categories