Could the anti bribary law mean more sponsorship opportunities

[Al Weyman]

Just a thought that struck me listening to the news this morning. If companies are now going to have to find other ways of sweetening up their clients and getting their names out instead of the traditional brown envolope I wondered if it may mean more sponsorship opportunities for the sport, can live in hope I guess!

[Peter Mallett]

Although of course if you take money (or payment in kind) in return for racing, aren't you also accepting a bribe? PR companies may now be known as "procurers".

The entire act is a heap of shyte invented by Gordon and his cronies. The changes made to it have done nothing to make it better. Similar to the HRA it is a statutory turd of the highest order.

Trying to legislate for something that was adequately covered under the common law will always produce these issues.

You may notice a certain amount of disdain in my post.

[midgetman]

Funnily enough I was wondering about this. There's now basically an offence of "aiding and abetting bribery", I wonder whether I should phone the police every time someone wants to book a corporate on the skid car or supply a racesuit to somone with sponsor's logos that's paid for by said sponsor.

Just thought i could make a lot of mischief and leave the roads free for unfettered speeding as the rozzers chase up the paperwork.

[JohnD]

What's the problem?
You are being paid to race, not to favour someone in a contract auction.

John

[Peter Mallett]

Well its your hobby so why should someone pay you to do it? The point is that the Act is so poorly formed there are all sorts of faults with it

[Al Weyman]

No I think that would be concidered OK according to the solicitor expert on the BBC News as long as they were paying to display.

[JohnD]

Al,
Which and when were the words (!) on the BBC?

Searching the BBC's News page for "bribery" gets three hits. None of them say that sponsorship will be damaged, and in the Today one, Humphries asks the Minister specificly about "hospitality tents at Wimbledon". The Minister answered that such entertainment, including dinners at the Ritz, use of company jet and, by implication in his answer, tickets to the company's race team garage at Silverstone, would not be affected as long as they were proportionate.

That's a judgement, but the whole thrust of the Act is to prevent companies paying bribes to secure contracts. Most sponsorship is advertising, getting your name in front of punters, an acceptable business expence, so the racer or racing team won't be affected. Pity you can't set up your own company and pay yourself to race, claiming it for tax purposes!

John

[Peter Mallett]

Ah yes, "proportionate". Interesting word that.

[midgetman]

And of course this won't be adjudicated by the minister, but some jumped-up jobsworth. Even if ultimately the Govt step into a case, £000s will have been spent and lives ruined for some time while the due process to test proportionality grinds through.

Another example of law for law's sake, when perhaps it would be better to apply the existing rules more firmly. We're good at that these days.

Still, making laws keeps 650 assorted criminals, bankrupts and love rats off the streets doesn't it.

[Al Weyman]

Originally Posted by JohnD

Al,
Which and when were the words (!) on the BBC?

Searching the BBC's News page for "bribery" gets three hits. None of them say that sponsorship will be damaged, and in the Today one, Humphries asks the Minister specificly about "hospitality tents at Wimbledon". The Minister answered that such entertainment, including dinners at the Ritz, use of company jet and, by implication in his answer, tickets to the company's race team garage at Silverstone, would not be affected as long as they were proportionate.

That's a judgement, but the whole thrust of the Act is to prevent companies paying bribes to secure contracts. Most sponsorship is advertising, getting your name in front of punters, an acceptable business expence, so the racer or racing team won't be affected. Pity you can't set up your own company and pay yourself to race, claiming it for tax purposes!

John

I think some of you are reading the context of my post wrong, maybe the way I put it. I am not suggesting sponsorship will be damaged, on the contrary I am saying I hope it will open up new opportunities for sponsorship as the old brown envolope under the table will no longer be an option to getting contracts so just maybe the money will be diverted in other areas like sponsorship and treating customers to corporate days out at the track which would be deemed OK. Hope I have made myself clear now, sorry for any confusion.

BTW as a person who has never dropped a 'bung' to get business I actually welcome this bill.

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by Al Weyman

BTW as a person who has never dropped a 'bung' to get business I actually welcome this bill.

It's an Act not a Bill.

I understood your point Al, but I still think it is a minefield. The word "proportionate" has a broad meaning. If you are an amateur racer and you get paid (say £10k) for a season's racing; and in return you provide hospitality (which possibly costs you £7k) then that could be considered proportionate. But, if you receive that £10k and you don't provide any hospitality, that may be considered disproportionate. In fact if you have a business relationship with your client/sponsor it may be seen as a bung under the Act. Let's face it most of us amateurs seek sponsorship from clients, not corporate PR firms.