Ferrari in new £300 million Marlboro deal

[WhiteBlue]

Ferrari and Montezemolo always think they have the right to set their own rules. Tobacco advertising is banned for a long time in F1 and all the other teams are observing the rule to the intention of the rule makers. Only Ferrari think they can make their own rules. It is really quite annoying.

On the other hand there is hope that F1 will pull ranks on Ferrari and deny them the opportunity to use the drug money to tweak the the competition. The chassis resource restriction was an important step and hopefully the engines will be cost restrained very soon as well.

It is good to see that all the Marlboro money did not help Ferrari in the past four years to overcome their own inefficiencies. They failed to simply buy the important resources like Adrian Newey away from the competitors. Mateschitz has deep pockets and can afford to keep his people happy. I hope Ferrari will continue to trip themselves up by their own incompetence regardless of the dirty money they make from Marlboro and Bernie. The 2011 season is pretty much lost for them unless they have the pope do a miracle.

[Lorenzo_Bandini]

I don't see Marlboro on ferrari car. So what are you talking about ?

[HampusA]

Exactly, this what WB is talking about is a grey zone.

To really get rid of the Marlboro sponsoring is ban teams from making deals with Tobacco brands. Otherwise they will come up with even smarter ways for your brain to connect what you see on the car to what you see in the store.

[andrew]

Ferrari and Montezemolo always think they have the right to set their own rules. Tobacco advertising is banned for a long time in F1 and all the other teams are observing the rule to the intention of the rule makers. Only Ferrari think they can make their own rules. It is really quite annoying.

No one is setting their own rules. So what if tobacco advertising is banned? Can you see any tobacco advertising on the car? There is no rule about getting money from a tobacco company, so no one is making their own rules. Phillip Morris are merely an investor.

On the other hand there is hope that F1 will pull ranks on Ferrari and deny them the opportunity to use the drug money to tweak the the competition. The chassis resource restriction was an important step and hopefully the engines will be cost restrained very soon as well.

All money is tainted, it doesn’t matter where it comes from. I guess money from arms manufacturer’s is clean and ethical(!) I don’t understand what you mean by “tweak”. Are you implying that Ferrari are cheating?

------------------------------------------

You all realise what you (myself included) have just done? We have done exactly what the Marlboro marketing people wanted us to do. We are all speaking about their product and reports of Phillip Morris’s investment (I refuse to say sponsorship as I don’t see it as that) will be all over various websites and newspapers giving a mass of free advertising. You have to applaud them for that!

Incidentally, I take it we are ok with Lotus Renault GP having the colour scheme reminiscent of the John Player sponsored Lotus of the early 80’s (albeit they don’t get any cash from Imperial Tobacco)?

[ahmedvortex]

i think that if we can't get rid of them ( dirty business holdings) , we need to get their cash injected everywhere even on scholars football teams , for me its better than billions on a locker or is it better to see drivers bringing money for their seats like a hooker ?

[WhiteBlue]

Are you implying that Ferrari are cheating?

Of course they are! What else would you call it if they get paid $500m by Marlboro to do it?

[andrew]

Are you implying that Ferrari are cheating?

Of course they are! What else would you call it if they get paid $500m by Marlboro to do it?

An investment in the team and that is exactly what it is. Ferrari are not cheating at all. If they are sponsored by Phillip Morris, then where is the Phillip Morris brand on the car? No where, thus they are merely an investor and there is nothing in the rules against that.

[Giblet]

They are the title sponsor, this is not up for debate. They paid 300 million to name the team "Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro".

If that is not the definition of sponsorship, I don't know what is. An investor would get shares, a return on investment. Advertising, and another form of it, sponsorship, is a business expense, not an investment.

[Traction]

I'm pretty sure if someone is prepared to pay that amount of money for something that might have a grey area involved they would have had an entire team of legal minds researching the possible future legal implications. As it appears they are going ahead with it I would assume the leagal team gave the go ahead.

[hardingfv32]

If I am a PM stockholder I expect a return on any investment that PM makes. Exactly what am I getting from Ferrari for the PM investment? I think the PM BoD was given the answer before the deal was made. What are the possible answers Ferrari fans?

Brian

[ecapox]

Phillip Morris paid Ferrari $300m in order to be able to use Ferrari F1 images/branding/etc in their advertisments for where ever they are allowed to Advertise. (Monaco, China, India, etc)

Phillip Morris did not pay Ferrari $300m to sponsor their F1 team.

I think you are looking at it from the wrong perspective.

[andartop]

* don't care if smokers are waisting their own health, but they should be excempted (or only allowed a % of total) from public health services for all known deseaes linked to smoking (lung-cancer, ... list is looooooooong).

Agreed. But then, you would have to do the same for drug addicts, alcoholics, (some) diabetics, (most) obese, all cosmetic interventions (ie breast implants - yes, the NHS pays for some of those), (most) dental care, many cancer patients linked to risk factors other than smoking (ie sun exposure), road accident trauma (the guy who was speeding, not the other guy), most hypertension and high cholesterol patients and so many others that in the end public health services would only be available for lightning strike victims and histoplasmosis sufferers who contracted the fungus via bat dropings.

* Not all smokers, but the majority don't care about the environment and throw their sigaret buds everywhere on the streets, mountains, ....

Totally agree with that. Problem is, there are very few bins available where one can safely put out a cigarette without the risk of starting a fire. One could argue that one should not smoke if one is not near an ashtray, but the exact same argument of yours would also stand against chewing gum, which probably needs a few hundred thousand years longer than a cigarette butt to decompose naturally.

* Not all smokers, but the majority pay little respect to the majority of the non-smokers in restaurants or lunch/dinner places when people in their close proximity are still eating. I don't like my salmon or steak to taste like I've just kissed an ashtray.

No argument there. As a smoker I am 100% convinced banning smoking in restaurants and all enclosed public spaces is the reasonable thing to do. I actually enjoy it more having to go outside to have my fix, not have to wash my clothes after I go to a pub, and smoke less.

Now, to return to the topic, Ferrari and Marlboro are not doing anything illegal. Morals have nothing to do with business. And I've yet to buy a Ford pick up truck despite being a Ferrari fan. I do smoke Marlboro, but I buy the Gold ones, so I rest my case.

[xpensive]

Are you implying that Ferrari are cheating?

Of course they are! What else would you call it if they get paid $500m by Marlboro to do it?

In all honesty WB, I'm pretty sure that I'm not alone wearing rather tired of your relentless Ferrari-bashing. When you are rather alone on the forum in this crusade against pretty much everything that Ferrari stands for, I can't help wondering where it all comes from and did you hate the prancing horse just as much when MS were winning every second race?

Let my try a few educated guesses?

- You hate Ferrari because they denied MS his WDC number 8 and 9 in 2006-07, the way you see things anyway?

- You hate Ferrari because the hired Kimi to do the winning instead of MS?

- You hate Ferrari because Montezemolo went against your house-god MrM?

Perhaps I should open a new thread; "Why does WB hate Ferrari so much, or is Ferrari since 2006 the root of all evil?"

How about that Don?

[andrew]

They are the title sponsor, this is not up for debate. They paid 300 million to name the team "Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro".

If that is not the definition of sponsorship, I don't know what is. An investor would get shares, a return on investment. Advertising, and another form of it, sponsorship, is a business expense, not an investment.

So where is their name on the car? Marlboro is only mentioned in the official team name. Virtually no exposure for PMI other than on offical FIA documantation and on the name board above the pit garage.

The original report makes no mention of "sponsorship" at all. All it says is "support". http://www.sportspromedia.com/news/pmi_ ... ree_years/

Phillip Morris paid Ferrari $300m in order to be able to use Ferrari F1 images/branding/etc in their advertisments for where ever they are allowed to Advertise. (Monaco, China, India, etc)

Phillip Morris did not pay Ferrari $300m to sponsor their F1 team.

I think you are looking at it from the wrong perspective.

This =D>

Xpensive - I go for option 3. Montezemolo was widely reputed to be imstrumental in MrM's exposure. If I am right, what do I win?

[Carbon]

I may be completely wrong in my interpretation, but I recall reading an article about PM's relationship with Ferrari. If memory serves - and it often doesn't, sadly - the article indicated that PM purchases the car/equipment as a blank canvas, then sells said space to 3rd parties, recovering some of their investment. Again, this was from several years ago (5+).