or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Tour Talk › Adam Scott Sponsor
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Adam Scott Sponsor - Page 2

post #19 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shorty View Post


But you don't mind Justin Rose and Dustin Johnson having their own logo?

Or Luke Donald, Hunter MahanIan Poulter, Gary PlayerCharlie Hoffman, and of course, Arnold Palmer, Jack Nicklaus and Greg Norman.

 

And who knows how many others.

post #20 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitsitpure View Post

I could be mistaken, But the SS logo could be cool enough to have double meanings - as for Adam Scott, or, his London rainwear sponsor, Aquascutum, venerable rival of Burberry? Very Clever!

 

Burberry used to be Adam's clothing sponsor, and his personal logo was the same then as now. That can't be the reason.

post #21 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by k-troop View Post

Is Adam Scott illuminati?

Priori of Sion!

post #22 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shorty View Post

Or Ian Poulter. At least Poulter's is a business and not a tax dodg........I mean "charitable foundation".

 

Seriously? So those thousands of kids… they're just fake?

 

Sometimes cynicism is just as unreal as it is. The tax savings are never anywhere NEAR as high as what it costs to just GIVE the money away. Donating a million bucks doesn't save you $1.1M on your taxes. It doesn't even save you $1M.

post #23 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 

 

Seriously? So those thousands of kids… they're just fake?

 

Sometimes cynicism is just as unreal as it is. The tax savings are never anywhere NEAR as high as what it costs to just GIVE the money away. Donating a million bucks doesn't save you $1.1M on your taxes. It doesn't even save you $1M.

 

I was being facetious to a point. 

 

But the issue with the majority of these sports celebrity charities (and I'm not talking about AS) is that they almost always have zero public profile beyond the sport itself ( not always a bad thing, and I'm not arguing with a photo of a bunch of kids wearing some foundation's caps with a logo and holding up a cheque) and leech money from the more established charities so that research and assistance is watered down into a whole lot of small entities who don't communicate and can do less than if they were all working under one umbrella.

 

As an analogy, is it better to have one US Junior Golf Foundation with multiple branches or 20 different organisations all reinventing the wheel and duplicating but not communicating or sharing a vision, let alone resources or advertising/promotional costs?

 

And the "administrative" costs of some of even the most well known charities are absolutely shocking. I'm not suggesting that people who work for charities should work for free, but I have real problems with organisations that get 20 million, use 18 million for "operating and fundraising expenses" and pay a CEO $500,000. 

 

There are plenty of charitable foundations which are established and are reputable - although charity navigator.org will open the eyes of some.

Golfer Joe Blo will do more good by donating money to an existing, government supported organisation  ( or better still, unsupported ones) rather than setting up infrastructure and paying graphic designers and clothing manufacturers.

 

For example - The RSPCA in Australia, gets no government support at all. It's outrageous. I give monthly and hate even seeing the cost of a postage stamp being sent to me so I don't want printed materials  - I want every cent going to the cause.

If Aussie Golfer gave $1m annually to the RSPCA , it would be more useful than him setting up the Aussie Golfer Animals' Trust.

post #24 of 25

Just as a humorous side note - every time Adam Scott is on TV, I think the University of Queensland gets a ton of free advertising!!!

post #25 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shorty View Post
 

 

I was being facetious to a point. 

 

But the issue with the majority of these sports celebrity charities (and I'm not talking about AS) is that they almost always have zero public profile beyond the sport itself ( not always a bad thing, and I'm not arguing with a photo of a bunch of kids wearing some foundation's caps with a logo and holding up a cheque) and leech money from the more established charities so that research and assistance is watered down into a whole lot of small entities who don't communicate and can do less than if they were all working under one umbrella.

 

As an analogy, is it better to have one US Junior Golf Foundation with multiple branches or 20 different organisations all reinventing the wheel and duplicating but not communicating or sharing a vision, let alone resources or advertising/promotional costs?

 

And the "administrative" costs of some of even the most well known charities are absolutely shocking. I'm not suggesting that people who work for charities should work for free, but I have real problems with organisations that get 20 million, use 18 million for "operating and fundraising expenses" and pay a CEO $500,000. 

 

There are plenty of charitable foundations which are established and are reputable - although charity navigator.org will open the eyes of some.

Golfer Joe Blo will do more good by donating money to an existing, government supported organisation  ( or better still, unsupported ones) rather than setting up infrastructure and paying graphic designers and clothing manufacturers.

 

For example - The RSPCA in Australia, gets no government support at all. It's outrageous. I give monthly and hate even seeing the cost of a postage stamp being sent to me so I don't want printed materials  - I want every cent going to the cause.

If Aussie Golfer gave $1m annually to the RSPCA , it would be more useful than him setting up the Aussie Golfer Animals' Trust.

It can be that way here too.  There are a ton of fake veteran charities and police support charities, so you have to be careful.

 

But, many charities set up by sports figures and celebs help out people who may otherwise not ever get support or the recognition.  They tend to be personal or connected to a disease/issue that is close to them.  It may divert money away from other charities, but they would not receive support otherwise.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Tour Talk
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Tour Talk › Adam Scott Sponsor