AIG & Manchester United

[dervaig]

So after all of that... AIG didn't "end" the relationship after all.

AIG (which is now essentially owned by US taxpayers), isn't going
to be doing ANY sponsorship deals with any team anytime soon.

[Bakes]

So after all of that... AIG didn't "end" the relationship after all.

AIG (which is now essentially owned by US taxpayers), isn't going
to be doing ANY sponsorship deals with any team anytime soon.

Thanks... but they're still honoring the original contract, the relationship hasn't ended.

[kicker]

So after all of that... AIG didn't "end" the relationship after all.

Nah, they just announced that they wouldn't renew it...

Sounds like they're trying to exit/dissolve the current one as well...Not sure what kinda termination clause they have in the deal- sounds grim though.

[Small Magician aka Wazza]

Utd will probably terminate the contract if we get someone new for next season... so far it might be Sahara..an Indian company i believe

once the pump more than 20 mill pounds a year everyone will be happy

I loved the AIG though.... I think Audi should become the shirt sponsor.... that will look awesome

[acb]

Ok, so over the past week - there has been worldwide outrage over the annoucement that AIG will be paying massive bonuses to execs, whom by an overwhelming consensus are not deserving due to AIG's performance.

Maybe we need to consider that these contracts to guarantee the bonuses were signed prior to AIG receiving TARP money - since Manchester United and AIG agreed on a shirt sponsorship program prior to AIG's downward spiral.

So should Manchester United drop AIG as a sponsor due to all the bad press and imminent implosion?
It might seem like the ethical or moral thing to do, to side with public sentiment and outcry of such vicious and wasteful spending.

Does it serve the best interest of Manchester United and football as a whole to separate themselves from those who promulgate the ills of society?

Man U is a team many many people love to hate - and the attention it draws to the AIG situation will be an issue that is more polarizing to some with financial interest. From a marketing standpoint, ie. selling jerseys - which neutral or supporter would possibly want to purchase a shirt with the name "AIG" emblazoned across the front of it?

I love the Aston Villa strip, but I will not buy it because of it's close resemblance to that leftist group "ACORN".
To me, it's almost as stupid as wearing a Syracuse Orange shirt in the middle of Ireland. 

[elan]

Them doh care anything does go. So what if AIG fleecing people.

[Andre]

man u done get they $$$$ from aig.

is only for 2 more months they wearing the scarlet letter anyhow.

it look like saudi telecom or sahara fo be their next shirt billboard.

[JDB]

They were paid their money for this year before the AIG meltdown happened.

They cut their contract short so that they will not be forcing them to pay money next year.

[100% Barataria]

CL Financial Man U 

[ProudTrinbagonian]

Ok, so over the past week - there has been worldwide outrage over the annoucement that AIG will be paying massive bonuses to execs, whom by an overwhelming consensus are not deserving due to AIG's performance.

Maybe we need to consider that these contracts to guarantee the bonuses were signed prior to AIG receiving TARP money - since Manchester United and AIG agreed on a shirt sponsorship program prior to AIG's downward spiral.

So should Manchester United drop AIG as a sponsor due to all the bad press and imminent implosion?
It might seem like the ethical or moral thing to do, to side with public sentiment and outcry of such vicious and wasteful spending.

Does it serve the best interest of Manchester United and football as a whole to separate themselves from those who promulgate the ills of society?

Man U is a team many many people love to hate - and the attention it draws to the AIG situation will be an issue that is more polarizing to some with financial interest. From a marketing standpoint, ie. selling jerseys - which neutral or supporter would possibly want to purchase a shirt with the name "AIG" emblazoned across the front of it?

I love the Aston Villa strip, but I will not buy it because of it's close resemblance to that leftist group "ACORN".
To me, it's almost as stupid as wearing a Syracuse Orange shirt in the middle of Ireland. 

They shouldn't sever the ties with AIG.  AIG is the scapegoat, Obama has stated blame on AIG, and society will blindly follow.  AIG should pay the bonuses, how else will they draw the proper talent to get them out of the situation without proper compensation?
Anyway I am upset with AIG as much as the next but Man U should support the sponsor that gave the $$$ or else it shows poor business relations from their perspective.

[kicker]

I thought AIG had already opted not to renew the Man U contract after May 2010.  

I think most consumers have more of a discerning brain, and can distinguish one issue from the next.  I think a fan interested in buying a Man U shirt is more interested in the name on the back and the team that it represents.  AIG on a Man U shirt isn't the same as the AIG issues in the news today (which is far more complex than you make it out to be btw).....at least to me.  I'd hope that that mindset holds for the vast majority.

Imagine a liverpool fan refusing to wear Steven Gerrard's shirt because he doesn't drink beer.  

Your decision to not wear Villa's shirt is irrational to say the least- so much for basic economic/finance assumptions about consumer behavior I suppose.  What's your problem with ACORN anyways...honest question because I don't know much about them.

[Bakes]

This entire thread is misguided.

[kicker]

They shouldn't sever the ties with AIG.  AIG is the scapegoat, Obama has stated blame on AIG, and society will blindly follow.  AIG should pay the bonuses, how else will they draw the proper talent to get them out of the situation without proper compensation?
Anyway I am upset with AIG as much as the next but Man U should support the sponsor that gave the $$$ or else it shows poor business relations from their perspective.

AIG is not a scapegoat.  Their contribution to the financial crisis is significant and everyone recoginzes this.  They aren't being blamed for anything they didn't do.  Obama is not leading "blind peole" anyhwere...if anything it's the opposite.  One can more likely argue that Obama's latest reaction to AIG's bonuses is in response to fury over the fact that tax payers' dollars are being used to fund bonuses of traders who lost billions of dollars....

The fact that the bonuses are contracted retention bonuses as opposed to discretionary performance based compensation makes the issue more complicated. 

Not sure if the mods shoulda merged this thread....different issues being discussed.

[acb]

What's your problem with ACORN anyways...honest question because I don't know much about them.

ACORNS (the shirt sponsor) and ACORN are two completely different companies with zero relation whatsoever, but just the semantics involved and wearing it in the US carries a different conotation.

ACORN is an organisation in the US is synonymous with voter intimidation, bogus voter registrations, voter fraud, etc.

[acb]

They shouldn't sever the ties with AIG.  AIG is the scapegoat, Obama has stated blame on AIG, and society will blindly follow.  AIG should pay the bonuses, how else will they draw the proper talent to get them out of the situation without proper compensation?
Anyway I am upset with AIG as much as the next but Man U should support the sponsor that gave the $$$ or else it shows poor business relations from their perspective.

AIG is not a scapegoat.  Their contribution to the financial crisis is significant and everyone recoginzes this.  They aren't being blamed for anything they didn't do.  Obama is not leading "blind peole" anyhwere...if anything it's the opposite.  One can more likely argue that Obama's latest reaction to AIG's bonuses is in response to fury over the fact that tax payers' dollars are being used to fund bonuses of traders who lost billions of dollars....

The fact that the bonuses are contracted retention bonuses as opposed to discretionary performance based compensation makes the issue more complicated. 

Not sure if the mods shoulda merged this thread....different issues being discussed.

Not so according to this:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090318/ap_on_an/bonus_stakes

[acb]

This entire thread is misguided.

Enlighten us. lol.

I think Kicker & Proundtrinbagonian brought up some fantastic points so far.

[kicker]

ACORN is an organisation in the US is synonymous with voter intimidation, bogus voter registrations, voter fraud, etc.

Yeah ACORN was busted for fraud in the voter registration last year, but their mission as a company is alot broader than that, and I think they're synonymous with alot more than voter registration...but ok.

I'm not sure where the yahoo article speaks to my point about Obama (not) leading people blindly down the AIG scapegoat path about bonuses.  I read it quickly so maybe I missed it...

[Marcos]

The public outrage is understandable because $165m is quite a large sum in absolute terms, especially to the average American. But in relative terms it isn't that big a deal. What difference does it make if AIG pays back the $165mil but needs to accept another $50 BILLION infusion. You talking about fractions of a percentage. All pretty silly when you think about it.
And the funny thing is the government knows that it can't just pull all their funding from AIG because if it fails, we talking about doubling the impact of the recession/potential depression.
All the funds AIG receives are being used to pay this state or that bank, so the gov is really bailing out the US economy here.

I think Obama is upset with the fact that these bonuses epitomize the greed and excess that led to the credit crisis. Unfortunately these contracts were already in place a year ago and aren't in reality performance-based "bonuses" as the regular citizen sees them as.

[Deeks]

AIG is no scapegoat. They lucky the Fed. bailing them out. Under normal circumstances, the bonuses would be tolerated. But good grief the economic situation is in the "La Basse". People are squeezed financely and they paying out bonuses under the guise of retention fees. Perception is a hell of a thing. Right now the man in the street is not going to and will not differentiate between bonus and retention. They see it as a reward for failure.

As fas as Manu and AIg. That will be over when the season done. I think United already have a new sponsor for next season,

[Marcos]

bonus, retention, whatever you call it, these are still liabilities that had to be paid.

Businesses can't pick and choose which obligations should and shouldn't be paid

[Bakes]

Enlighten us. lol.

I think Kicker & Proundtrinbagonian brought up some fantastic points so far.

The premise of your thread is based on a fundamental misconception of the nature and scope of AIG's activities.  "AIG" isn't responsible for the mess they've found themselves in, a relatively small component of AIG, located in London of all places, is what's responsible for the credit default swap mess.  AIG stopped initiating CDSs linked to subprime mortgages way back in 2005 (if you believe the congressional testimony), but initiating these securities and having to pay them once they become due are two different things altogether.

That misunderstanding, and subsequent mischaracterisation of the situation as a "promulgation of the ills of society" aside... you then simplistically state that it would somehow be "moral" and "ethical" for Man U. to stop carrying the AIG logo on their shirts as though AIG was involved in the blood diamond trade or in dealing with child prostitutes in Thailand or something.  Contrary to what Kicker is saying, AIG is very much being scapegoated right now.  People have forgotten Lehman and Bear Stearns complicity in this mess and all the focus is on AIG who really did nothing other than to provide insurance for some of the loans made to companies like Lehman Bros. and BSC.  AIG is in need of a bailout because if it fails to pay on the premiums then many of the financial lenders who paid for its insurance services would fail.  This is why all the talk of letting AIG go into bankruptcy that some are sugggesting in the media is foolish and misinformed.

Bottomline is twofold:  AIG is hardly the corporate demon you paint it to be; and secondly the financial troubles have no bearing on Man U. and I hardly think that people worry about the logo on the chest of the players more than they're concerned with the performance on the pitch.  To cite a separation as "ethical" or "moral" is kneejerk overreactionism at its worst.

ACORNS (the shirt sponsor) and ACORN are two completely different companies with zero relation whatsoever, but just the semantics involved and wearing it in the US carries a different conotation.

ACORN is an organisation in the US is synonymous with voter intimidation, bogus voter registrations, voter fraud, etc.

Firstly "ACORN" and "ACORNS" don't involve 'semantics'... people really need to educate themselves on the proper usage of that word.  If anything the two are more akin to homonyms ("their/there", "root/route" etc.).

Secondly it's dubious to say that ACORN is synonymous with voter intimidation... you are straight up just pulling that from your ass because they've never been accused of intimidating voters.  Additionally, if you subscribe to the notion that the name is synonymous with the ills that you cite, then that's probably because you watch too much FOX News or foolishly rely on tittilating headlines and lead ins for your news.  Republicans are the only ones who repeatedly foist the lie on the public that ACORN has any links whatsoever to such acts... allegations mind you which have never panned out.  Many more objective-minded individuals actually associate ACORN with voter-registration and grassroots activism on issues such as affordable housing.

[Bakes]

ACORN is an organisation in the US is synonymous with voter intimidation, bogus voter registrations, voter fraud, etc.

Yeah ACORN was busted for fraud in the voter registration last year, but their mission as a company is alot broader than that, and I think they're synonymous with alot more than voter registration...but ok.

I'm not sure where the yahoo article speaks to my point about Obama (not) leading people blindly down the AIG scapegoat path about bonuses.  I read it quickly so maybe I missed it...

Kicker, ACORN has never been busted for fraud... its never even been charged with fraud.  In fact, ACORN was the victim of fraud when workers it hired submitted bogus names and didn't do the work for which they were hired.

[Bakes]

bonus, retention, whatever you call it, these are still liabilities that had to be paid.

Businesses can't pick and choose which obligations should and shouldn't be paid

Of course they can... which is why their are so many transactional cases in courts today.  Funny that I saw Liddy say that the very business of insurance companies is to guarantee the contractual obligations they sign onto... when in fact, their dealings with consumers say otherwise.  They go out of their way to nickel and dime consumers and weasel their way out of paying on homeowner, automobile policies etc. but all of a sudden Liddy would have us believe that they're this paradigm of arms-length dealing?  Please.

There are a number of grounds on which the payment of the bonuses could be challenged in court: misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty and "changed circumstances" being just a few.  Instead they prefer to just roll over and pay the bonuses.  I agree it's not cut and dry that they don't have to pay... but they're not as obligated as they're making it seem... the law of Contracts is an area of law unto itself for a reason, should they dispute the obligation to pay it wouldn't be anything unusual at all.

[elan]

Enlighten us. lol.

I think Kicker & Proundtrinbagonian brought up some fantastic points so far.

The premise of your thread is based on a fundamental misconception of the nature and scope of AIG's activities.  "AIG" isn't responsible for the mess they've found themselves in, a relatively small component of AIG, located in London of all places, is what's responsible for the credit default swap mess.  AIG stopped initiating CDSs linked to subprime mortgages way back in 2005 (if you believe the congressional testimony), but initiating these securities and having to pay them once they become due are two different things altogether.

That misunderstanding, and subsequent mischaracterisation of the situation as a "promulgation of the ills of society" aside... you then simplistically state that it would somehow be "moral" and "ethical" for Man U. to stop carrying the AIG logo on their shirts as though AIG was involved in the blood diamond trade or in dealing with child prostitutes in Thailand or something.  Contrary to what Kicker is saying, AIG is very much being scapegoated right now.  People have forgotten Lehman and Bear Stearns complicity in this mess and all the focus is on AIG who really did nothing other than to provide insurance for some of the loans made to companies like Lehman Bros. and BSC.  AIG is in need of a bailout because if it fails to pay on the premiums then many of the financial lenders who paid for its insurance services would fail.  This is why all the talk of letting AIG go into bankruptcy that some are sugggesting in the media is foolish and misinformed.

Bottomline is twofold:  AIG is hardly the corporate demon you paint it to be; and secondly the financial troubles have no bearing on Man U. and I hardly think that people worry about the logo on the chest of the players more than they're concerned with the performance on the pitch.  To cite a separation as "ethical" or "moral" is kneejerk overreactionism at its worst.

ACORNS (the shirt sponsor) and ACORN are two completely different companies with zero relation whatsoever, but just the semantics involved and wearing it in the US carries a different conotation.

ACORN is an organisation in the US is synonymous with voter intimidation, bogus voter registrations, voter fraud, etc.

Firstly "ACORN" and "ACORNS" don't involve 'semantics'... people really need to educate themselves on the proper usage of that word.  If anything the two are more akin to homonyms ("their/there", "root/route" etc.).

Secondly it's dubious to say that ACORN is synonymous with voter intimidation... you are straight up just pulling that from your ass because they've never been accused of intimidating voters.  Additionally, if you subscribe to the notion that the name is synonymous with the ills that you cite, then that's probably because you watch too much FOX News or foolishly rely on tittilating headlines and lead ins for your news.  Republicans are the only ones who repeatedly foist the lie on the public that ACORN has any links whatsoever to such acts... allegations mind you which have never panned out.  Many more objective-minded individuals actually associate ACORN with voter-registration and grassroots activism on issues such as affordable housing.

AIG provided coverage to businesses that they new were faulty but yet invested a lot of money to cover loans, etc. They then tried to "secure" those coverage by investing in other loans in Europe. I may not have it exactly right, but in essense they knew exactly what they were getting into with, Lehman, and Bear Stearn, etc.

[acb]

hard pressed to think this is on a football thread.
lol.

keep it coming!!

[Bakes]

AIG provided coverage to businesses that they new were faulty but yet invested a lot of money to cover loans, etc. They then tried to "secure" those coverage by investing in other loans in Europe. I may not have it exactly right, but in essense they knew exactly what they were getting into with, Lehman, and Bear Stearn, etc.

Absolutely untrue.

Lehman, Bear Stearns et al. were not "faulty" 3-4 years ago... in fact they were quite profitable.  I also don't think you understand the situation either.  Think of the insurance as automobile insurance... AIG is in the business of selling insurance and they look at your driving record to determine the level of risk.  The level of risk on these loans were apparently acceptable.  Instead of making policies on driving records, AIG made loans on the financial worthiness of the firms... they were extremely profitable at the peak of the housing bubble.  

There was no indication that the loans made by the companies would fail (all drivers having an accident at the same time) and thus come calling to cash in their policies.  Because everybody came calling for cash at the same time AIG found itself unable to pay.  The bailout is money for AIG to pay those banks who provided the loans... which is what we're seeing now.  Without the bailout the banks fail and the economy contracts even worse than we're currently seeing.

It is simply erroneous to fault AIG for insuring these loans in hindsight... which as we know is always 20-20.  With what we know now about the subprime loans, we need to fault the lenders... that's like drivers driving around with faulty brakes.  You could fault the insurance company for not checking the brakes of every driver it insures, but how practical is that?

If anything we should fault AIG (its investment arm in London, really) for writing too many CDS obligations adn for not properly checking the bond ratings of the loans it was insuring... but again, the parent company (AIG) had no reason to question the activities in London up to that point.  Not only were they profitable... but they never raised any red flags before.

[Bakes]

hard pressed to think this is on a football thread.
lol.

keep it coming!!

Stuff like this goes on in 'General Discussion' all the time... and in fact was in large measure already hashed out 4-5 months ago.

[acb]

hard pressed to think this is on a football thread.
lol.

keep it coming!!

Stuff like this goes on in 'General Discussion' all the time... and in fact was in large measure already hashed out 4-5 months ago.

good Lord, I didn't even know that part of the forum existed.
lol.

[WestCoast]

hard pressed to think this is on a football thread.
lol.

keep it coming!!

Stuff like this goes on in 'General Discussion' all the time... and in fact was in large measure already hashed out 4-5 months ago.

good Lord, I didn't even know that part of the forum existed.
lol.

you know about the index page?
http://www.socawarriors.net/forum/index.php

[Marcos]

It is simply erroneous to fault AIG for insuring these loans in hindsight... which as we know is always 20-20.  

AIG is also at fault man. Part of an underwriter's job is to do the required due diligence. If you are arguing that there were too many loans to diligence, then they should have only covered the ones they had a chance to examine.

Lenders are at fault, AIG is at fault, the borrowers are at fault for biting off more than they can chew. Everyone is to blame here...MTV for glorifying wealth and excess in programs such as "Cribs" and "Sweet 16", PNM for thinking that building 10 skyscrapers is going to somehow transform TNT into a developed country... etc.

We needed a dose of humility in this world, and unfortunately it has come in the form of the recession. Like I have said before on this forum, the true tragedy is that honest, hardworking, humble people are also suffering because of something they had no hand in creating.

On your other point, yeah contracts can be debated, but in theory they are supposed to be binding. So the concept of choosing whether or not a contract should be honored is wrong