UHT Vana Nava Hua Hin City FC 2015

[Sabai Sabai]

I think GD raised a good point with:

There seems to be confusion over the difference between owner and sponsor relationship in the context of the current debate. Owners run the club not sponsors.

You cannot put it simpler than owners run the club, not sponsors.

They need to work together.

In as much as they have to work out a fair sponsorship deal, yes. Beyond that, no.

I think you'll find they have a bit more influence than that. They are expecting a successful club that will promote their brand name. If the owners are not producing, of course they will have a say e.g. "You'll do this, or we're out."

E.g you'll do what exactly? Play a 4-3-3? Switch the games to a Friday night? Sponsors will not have anything to do with the running of the club. The club will no doubt have certain obligations to meet which would have been agreed initially, just like the sponsors are obliged to keep their part of the bargain. Running the club will be left to owners and staff though.

So where else is the money going to come from? Maybe the owners have huge pockets, I don't know.

The owners(specifically CGF) have said they have 'plenty enough' money they're willing to invest in the club. I'm sure when Marcus was pushed for a figure shortly after buying into our club he wouldn't give one, but said something along the lines of: 'whatever it takes' and that ' money wouldn't be an issue'

Incidentally they said similar after the recent takeover at TOT, lots of players have been signed and although I was translating from Thai language, a quote at the time claimed that there was practically limitless amounts of cash available to ensure TOT's safety.

So, yes, in answer to your question, extra money can and will come from the owners. I don't know what agreements specifically they have in place with the sponsors, but I imagine both parties are tied in somewhat. I wouldn't imagine any sponsors are obliged to hand over anything over and above what was pre-agreed but who knows, perhaps if they have a good relationship there may be scope for saying "we're thinking about doing x, y or z, do you fancy helping out?"

[Big Boy]

I think GD raised a good point with:

There seems to be confusion over the difference between owner and sponsor relationship in the context of the current debate. Owners run the club not sponsors.

You cannot put it simpler than owners run the club, not sponsors. Yes, the owners will manage, but if they do it so badly that the expected outcome is not as predicted, why should the sponsors keep putting good money after bad? They may not dictate tactics, but they should have a massive influence.

They need to work together.

In as much as they have to work out a fair sponsorship deal, yes. Beyond that, no.If the owners allegedly can't afford to pay wages, they should secure funds before decimating a side 2 times in a season.

I think you'll find they have a bit more influence than that. They are expecting a successful club that will promote their brand name. If the owners are not producing, of course they will have a say e.g. "You'll do this, or we're out."

E.g you'll do what exactly? Play a 4-3-3? Switch the games to a Friday night? Sponsors will not have anything to do with the running of the club. The club will no doubt have certain obligations to meet which would have been agreed initially, just like the sponsors are obliged to keep their part of the bargain. Running the club will be left to owners and staff though. The sponsors will be expecting results. If the management don't produce the goods, they can withhold their cash. If it's not the sponsors, it has to be the owners. Cash flow has allegedly stopped somewhere.

So where else is the money going to come from? Maybe the owners have huge pockets, I don't know.

The owners(specifically CGF) have said they have 'plenty enough' money they're willing to invest in the club. I'm sure when Marcus was pushed for a figure shortly after buying into our club he wouldn't give one, but said something along the lines of: 'whatever it takes' and that ' money wouldn't be an issue' So why are the players allegedly not being paid their wages? It is GD's statement about wages that worries me the most, and was the start of Plymouth's fall into the lower echelons.

Incidentally they said similar after the recent takeover at TOT, lots of players have been signed and although I was translating from Thai language, a quote at the time claimed that there was practically limitless amounts of cash available to ensure TOT's safety. Have they diverted their cash in an attempt to secure Premier League Football at the expense of Hua Hin City?

So, yes, in answer to your question, extra money can and will come from the owners. When? I think GD mentioned a couple of months. GD's statement seems to be telling a completely different story to your perception of things. You are coming across as if everything you are saying is a given - do you really know? I don't know what agreements specifically they have in place with the sponsors, but I imagine both parties are tied in somewhat. I wouldn't imagine any sponsors are obliged to hand over anything over and above what was pre-agreed but who knows, perhaps if they have a good relationship there may be scope for saying "we're thinking about doing x, y or z, do you fancy helping out?"

[Sabai Sabai]

. Yes, the owners will manage, but if they do it so badly that the expected outcome is not as predicted, why should the sponsors keep putting good money after bad?

Emm, because they agreed to? If they are not happy when it comes to renegotiating a new deal then they will inevitably either offer less money or walk away altogether if they are really not happy. For the meantime they will still be tied into the current deal. Things can't be that bad at the minute or they wouldn't have agreed to the recent events at the water park. Unless of course that was part of their obligations agreed a long time ago but I don't think so.

If the owners allegedly can't afford to pay wages, they should secure funds before decimating a side 2 times in a season.

Going out and buying a new football club doesn't exactly strike me as the actions of someone who cannot afford to pay wages at their current one.

The sponsors will be expecting results. If the management don't produce the goods, they can withhold their cash.

That simply isn't true. The sponsors have agreed a deal/contract, they are duty bound to hand over the cash regardless of performance. Ok, there may be a performance related bonus in there whereby if we gained promotion we would receive x amount extra, but they will still be liable for the initial amount agreed regardless.

Ok it's the opposite end of the spectrum and the amounts involved are way out of our league but Man U now have Adiddas as kit sponsors for the next 10 years, that is not performance related and you can bet they will have no involvement whatsoever in the running of the club. Should they even try withholding their cash they'll be up in court quicker than you can say lawsuit! Same principle applies with us.

So why are the players allegedly not being paid their wages? It is GD's statement about wages that worries me the most

Perhaps(I'm sure he will be) GD will come along and clarify but he actually told me about the incident with Bik Dam at the training ground, I believe it was after the most recent friendly there, which I couldn't make. He told me at the time he wished I was there to translate as he seen Bik Dam kind of angry with the players, apparently he asked Fon to listen in and translate for him, however apparently Fon was struggling to put it into English, so I believe it's a strong possibility that something may have been lost in translation there.

You are coming across as if everything you are saying is a given - do you really know?

Obviously I do not know all the finer details of the agreement, I'm not privy to that info, but surely there must be some kind of agreement in place?

[Geordie Dancer]

Sorry BB but you are 100% wrong on this one. Unless sponsors buy into the ownership of any football club they have no influence whatsoever on the management or running of that club. This is the same from the biggest clubs in the world down to the smallest Sunday morning pub team. If someone does buy into a club then they are owners not sponsors, simple as.

As SS has already said sponsorship deals are generally contractually agreed between club and sponsor. Sponsors generally get involved with football clubs to benefit their own business not that of the football club. It is the sponsors choice to get involved, and generally the benefits amount to little more than exposure. However that exposure is seen by the sponsor as being a potential boost to their business and the potential additional financial returns which that brings are the payback for the sponsor.

You cannot put it simpler than owners run the club, not sponsors.

Yes, the owners will manage,(so you agree the owners run the football club not the sponsors) but if they do it so badly that the expected outcome is not as predicted, why should the sponsors keep putting good money after bad? (They shouldn't and in the majority of cases wouldn't once their sponsorship deal had expired.)They may not dictate tactics, but they should have a massive influence.(No they shouldn't. Their influence extends no further than that contractually agreed in their sponsorship deal.)

They need to work together.

In as much as they have to work out a fair sponsorship deal, yes. Beyond that, no.If the owners allegedly can't afford to pay wages, they should secure funds before decimating a side 2 times in a season.(No one has said the club can't afford to pay the wages only they have not been paid. The reason is unknown. If the club are spending money they don't have yes I agree they should secure additional funds or work within their budget but again this is a club management issue.)

E.g you'll do what exactly? Play a 4-3-3? Switch the games to a Friday night? Sponsors will not have anything to do with the running of the club. The club will no doubt have certain obligations to meet which would have been agreed initially, just like the sponsors are obliged to keep their part of the bargain. Running the club will be left to owners and staff though. The sponsors will be expecting results.(Yes they will but for their own businesses based on the back of their sponsorship agreement with the club.) If the management don't produce the goods, they can withhold their cash.(No they can't not if the sponsorship contracts were properly negotiated and contractual agreed.) If it's not the sponsors, it has to be the owners.(Yes it does and again this is a management issue.) Cash flow has allegedly stopped somewhere.(Has it? Not paying people for mickey mouse or no reasons seems to be quite common in Thai business.)

SS reference to Man U and their kit deal sums up the situation perfectly as regards the involvement of sponsors in the running of a club and the simple fact is they have none in exactly the same way as Hua Hins sponsors have no involvement in running the club. By your argument, BB, you are a sponsor so you can influence proceedings, why aren't you in there sorting it out then? Only joking

[Big Boy]

LOL - you've really got me going with this one.

. Yes, the owners will manage, but if they do it so badly that the expected outcome is not as predicted, why should the sponsors keep putting good money after bad?

Emm, because they agreed to? If they are not happy when it comes to renegotiating a new deal then they will inevitably either offer less money or walk away altogether Exactly - if that was on the cards, why continue bringing in a new team?if they are really not happy. For the meantime they will still be tied into the current deal. Things can't be that bad at the minute or they wouldn't have agreed to the recent events at the water park. Again it is alleged the events were a publicity stunt, and the cheques were no more than worthless cardboard.Unless of course that was part of their obligations agreed a long time ago but I don't think so.

If the owners allegedly can't afford to pay wages, they should secure funds before decimating a side 2 times in a season.

Going out and buying a new football club doesn't exactly strike me as the actions of someone who cannot afford to pay wages at their current one. But it is being alleged that they actually aren't paying wages, resulting in a falling out between owners and players in the public domain. Surely GD, who, to his credit, can usually see the positive in everything, would not be making such stories up,

The sponsors will be expecting results. If the management don't produce the goods, they can withhold their cash.

That simply isn't true. The sponsors have agreed a deal/contract, they are duty bound to hand over the cash regardless of performance. Ok, there may be a performance related bonus in there whereby if we gained promotion we would receive x amount extra, but they will still be liable for the initial amount agreed regardless.And if they don't - what will happen? When England did not win the World Cup bid, owners/financiers dropped Plymouth immediately, with absolutely no comebacks except a loss of face on the part of the Japanese.

Ok it's the opposite end of the spectrum and the amounts involved are way out of our league but Man U now have Adiddas as kit sponsors for the next 10 years, that is not performance related and you can bet they will have no involvement whatsoever in the running of the club. Should they even try withholding their cash they'll be up in court quicker than you can say lawsuit! Same principle applies with us. What would happen if Man Utd did a Plymouth, and dropped to the bottom in consecutive seasons? I'm sure Adidas have a get out clause. I remember Wright-Philips throwing his shirt into the crowd after Plymouth came from 2-0 down to win 2-3. An official had to go into the crowd rather promptly to ask for the shirt back - the sponsor was no longer providing kit, and Plymouth needed that shirt for the next game. Makes you wonder why Byrne has stopped throwing his shirt to the crowd after games.

So why are the players allegedly not being paid their wages? It is GD's statement about wages that worries me the most

Perhaps(I'm sure he will be) GD will come along and clarify but he actually told me about the incident with Bik Dam at the training ground, I believe it was after the most recent friendly there, which I couldn't make. He told me at the time he wished I was there to translate as he seen Bik Dam kind of angry with the players, apparently he asked Fon to listen in and translate for him, however apparently Fon was struggling to put it into English, so I believe it's a strong possibility that something may have been lost in translation there. I didn't see that incident, but I did witness one of the other owners using very colourful language related to the way the team were playing. I heard nothing about finances though.

You are coming across as if everything you are saying is a given - do you really know?

Obviously I do not know all the finer details of the agreement, I'm not privy to that info, but surely there must be some kind of agreement in place? We would hope so, but its been said so many times - TIT.

[Sabai Sabai]

LOL - you've really got me going with this one.

. Yes, the owners will manage, but if they do it so badly that the expected outcome is not as predicted, why should the sponsors keep putting good money after bad?

Emm, because they agreed to? If they are not happy when it comes to renegotiating a new deal then they will inevitably either offer less money or walk away altogether Exactly - if that was on the cards, why continue bringing in a new team? 2 things, who said it was on the cards back then? Who said the funding for said new players was to be provided by the sponsors? if they are really not happy. For the meantime they will still be tied into the current deal. Things can't be that bad at the minute or they wouldn't have agreed to the recent events at the water park. Again it is alleged the events were a publicity stunt, and the cheques were no more than worthless cardboard. There's that word again 'alleged' careful don't confuse it with facts. Unless of course that was part of their obligations agreed a long time ago but I don't think so.

If the owners allegedly can't afford to pay wages, they should secure funds before decimating a side 2 times in a season.

Going out and buying a new football club doesn't exactly strike me as the actions of someone who cannot afford to pay wages at their current one. But it is being alleged there's that word again! that they actually aren't paying wages, resulting in a falling out between owners and players in the public domain. Surely GD, who, to his credit, can usually see the positive in everything, would not be making such stories up, certainly not making anything up, I do believe something may have been lost in translation or picked up wrong though

The sponsors will be expecting results. If the management don't produce the goods, they can withhold their cash.

That simply isn't true. The sponsors have agreed a deal/contract, they are duty bound to hand over the cash regardless of performance. Ok, there may be a performance related bonus in there whereby if we gained promotion we would receive x amount extra, but they will still be liable for the initial amount agreed regardless.And if they don't - what will happen? They will be obliged to stick to the original deal as both GD and myself have been trying(without much success) to explain.When England did not win the World Cup bid, owners/financiers dropped Plymouth immediately, with absolutely no comebacks except a loss of face on the part of the Japanese.

Ok it's the opposite end of the spectrum and the amounts involved are way out of our league but Man U now have Adiddas as kit sponsors for the next 10 years, that is not performance related and you can bet they will have no involvement whatsoever in the running of the club. Should they even try withholding their cash they'll be up in court quicker than you can say lawsuit! Same principle applies with us. What would happen if Man Utd did a Plymouth, and dropped to the bottom in consecutive seasons? I'm sure Adidas have a get out clause. You're sure, or you're just making that up?I remember Wright-Philips throwing his shirt into the crowd after Plymouth came from 2-0 down to win 2-3. An official had to go into the crowd rather promptly to ask for the shirt back - the sponsor was no longer providing kit, and Plymouth needed that shirt for the next game. Makes you wonder why Byrne has stopped throwing his shirt to the crowd after games.

So why are the players allegedly not being paid their wages? It is GD's statement about wages that worries me the most

Perhaps(I'm sure he will be) GD will come along and clarify but he actually told me about the incident with Bik Dam at the training ground, I believe it was after the most recent friendly there, which I couldn't make. He told me at the time he wished I was there to translate as he seen Bik Dam kind of angry with the players, apparently he asked Fon to listen in and translate for him, however apparently Fon was struggling to put it into English, so I believe it's a strong possibility that something may have been lost in translation there. I didn't see that incident, but I did witness one of the other owners using very colourful language related to the way the team were playing. I heard nothing about finances though.

You are coming across as if everything you are saying is a given - do you really know?

Obviously I do not know all the finer details of the agreement, I'm not privy to that info, but surely there must be some kind of agreement in place? We would hope so, but its been said so many times - TIT.

[Sabai Sabai]

BB for some reason some of my comments have appeared in the same red as yours, but if you look closely you'll see what I've added. I tried Editing it but it's not worked!

[Big Boy]

Wow, you've broken it big time

Back to quotes I guess.

2 things, who said it was on the cards back then? Who said the funding for said new players was to be provided by the sponsors?

Something has gone wrong, and the indications from GD are that sponsors are providing worthless pieces of card board, and the owners are getting upset at having to put their hands in their own pockets. As I've said, to his credit, GD can usually see the positive side of most situations, so his message now fills me with concern.

There's that word again 'alleged' careful don't confuse it with facts.

Yes, I say alleged because the MIND GAMES are working. Tell us mere plebs nothing, and we'll make up our own version. It is not in GD's character to see the downside, but this time he has - big time. Until there is proof, I think alleged is the correct term. Do you have another way of saying it?

certainly not making anything up, I do believe something may have been lost in translation or picked up wrong though

I hope you're right, but GD is not talking a one off, but several incidents.

You're sure, or you're just making that up?

As sure as I can be. I don't see why they would take it easy on Man Utd, when sponsorship deals are regularly wound up for things such as sexual indiscretion. Failure to perform (not sexually) must be one of the get out clauses.

I think I've found your points - apologies if I've missed something.

[Geordie Dancer]

Got your colour stops [/color] in the wrong place or missing. Alledgedly!

[Sabai Sabai]

The point I was making with regards allegations is that you cannot treat them as fact.

With regards all the signings that have been made, how do you know we didn't use funds provided from the initial sponsorship deal? Like I've been trying to say, we will have known for a long time now just how much money we will be receiving from sponsorship this season, it's not something that's reviewed on a daily or weekly basis.

If the owners have used their own money you can bet it was to try and ensure promotion, and in turn more lucrative sponsorship next season.

As sure as I can be. I don't see why they would take it easy on Man Utd, when sponsorship deals are regularly wound up for things such as sexual indiscretion. Failure to perform (not sexually) must be one of the get out clauses.

Afraid I'm not convinced by that. Certain personal sponsorship deals are terminated due to an individuals 'indescretions' tarnishing the company's name. However in Man U's case, simply being relegated would not be enough to have the contract terminated. Not even sure this would be in the contract but at most there may be a provision for reduced terms were they not playing in the premier league.

Same with Hua Hin, simply not being promoted would not leave them in breach of contract. The sponsors would still be liable for the money they promised.

[Sabai Sabai]

Got your colour stops [/color] in the wrong place or missing. Alledgedly!

BB for some reason some of my comments have appeared in the same red as yours, but if you look closely you'll see what I've added. I tried Editing it but it's not worked!

Yeah, don't know what happened!

[Big Boy]

If you put a colour within a colour, you've got to stop the first coulour, do your bit, then re-start the colour you stopped.

Confused - you will be

[Sabai Sabai]

If you put a colour within a colour, you've got to stop the first coulour, do your bit, then re-start the colour you stopped.

Confused - you will be

Hahaha, yeah just a bit. On my phone as well, makes it a bit more delicate.

[Big Boy]

The point I was making with regards allegations is that you cannot treat them as fact.
Yes, but these are the MIND GAMES they are playing, and its the best we have, IMHO it's a deliberate tactic.

With regards all the signings that have been made, how do you know we didn't use funds provided from the initial sponsorship deal?
I don't, but I don't know that they did either.
Like I've been trying to say, we will have known for a long time now just how much money we will be receiving from sponsorship this season, it's not something that's reviewed on a daily or weekly basis.

If the owners have used their own money you can bet it was to try and ensure promotion, and in turn more lucrative sponsorship next season.
I don't doubt their good intentions/enthusiasm/generosity, but I've never known a successful team ripped apart in such a way. We've seen trying to buy success fail so many times elsewhere. We had semi-success, and turfed them out - I'll never understand the logic.

As sure as I can be. I don't see why they would take it easy on Man Utd, when sponsorship deals are regularly wound up for things such as sexual indiscretion. Failure to perform (not sexually) must be one of the get out clauses.

Afraid I'm not convinced by that. Certain personal sponsorship deals are terminated due to an individuals 'indescretions' tarnishing the company's name. However in Man U's case, simply being relegated would not be enough to have the contract terminated. Not even sure this would be in the contract but at most there may be a provision for reduced terms were they not playing in the premier league.
Maybe, but even minnows like Plymouth had their Adidas shirt deal suspended when things went wrong (not even relegated at that point) - swiftly. Can you imagine LVG having to go cap in hand into the Stretford End to ask for a shirt back so that they can play next week?

Same with Hua Hin, simply not being promoted would not leave them in breach of contract. The sponsors would still be liable for the money they promised.
So why aren't the players getting paid? GD has cited more than one instance where he's heard it.

[Sabai Sabai]

Maybe, but even minnows like Plymouth had their Adidas shirt deal suspended when things went wrong (not even relegated at that point) - swiftly.

That's interesting, are you sure it hadn't just ran it's course and expired with Adidas choosing not to extend it any further? I see they were sponsors between 2009 + 2011. Was it just a 2 year deal that expired? If Adidas did indeed terminate the contract, what was the reason given?

I actually tried to search online for answers but couldn't find anything. I did however stumble across an article from a couple of years ago when Sheffield United were contemplating 're-signing' convicted rapist Ched Evans after his incarceration http://m.goal.com/s/en-sg/news/5293/lea ... eld-united

Funnily enough Adidas were also sponsors of the club at the time and they said: "In a statement, kit supplier Adidas made a similar distinction, adding: “The signing of new players is at the discretion of the manager and the club’s board. We feel strongly at this time that this is an issue for the club and the PFA to handle.” Greene King insist they are monitoring the situation “very closely” but declined to comment further.

This 'wait and see' approach is no surprise to Dan Smith, head of advertising and marketing law at Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co and an expert in the field of sponsorship. “Usually a sponsor looks to ride it out,” he tells Goal. “The attitude will be ‘stick with the club through the good times and the bad’, particularly where a player has gone and done something completely out of order outside his employment.”

Interesting article, which makes reference to this 'morality clause' which sponsors are able to use if something drastic has been done which may tarnish their reputation as a result.

Just to clarify though, failing to win the league or getting relegated would not be looked upon as 'immoral' and would not be grounds for terminating the contract.