Comments on: Dakar sponsor sues Robby Gordon’s team

By: Fisha695

Fisha695 — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 00:13:01 +0000

Vanguard is the one that wanted out of the contract, if anything RGM should sue them for not being able to fulfill their contract.

By: malcolm

malcolm — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 23:03:42 +0000

You can say a lot of truthful things that would turn off a sponsor.

They don’t like it when people push the boundaries of what is politically correct or not, no matter how true it may be. If an opinion is expressed that makes them uncomfortable, then they’ll pull out.

Some companies, usually ones that like pushing boundaries themselves and target younger demographics, will encourage open and sometimes scandalous behaviour because they know that the added exposure outweighs the potentially negative effects of the actual behaviour.

But other ones, usually more conservative companies that like to target more mature audiences, generally don’t like behaviour that could “rock the boat” so to speak. They like their TV spots, key-note speaking appearances, hand-shakes, and newspaper photos… but they’ll cut and run if someone acts even slightly out of line, in their eyes.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 22:52:58 +0000

It wasn’t like Robby was lying.

By: malcolm

malcolm — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:52:01 +0000

“However, with the cancellation of the 2008 Dakar Rally due to terrorist threats, along with Team Gordon’s public statements in response to that cancellation, continued sponsorship of Team Gordon no longer provides Vanguard with the appropriate promotional opportunities”

a) they don’t like that the event was cancelled.

b) they don’t like what Robby said in public.

therefore, they pulled the plug.

By: Mel

Mel — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:06:26 +0000

What The Heck are they talking about. What does Robby G have to do with Terror Attacks and being sued. ????????????

Beats me. ……………………….

Doesnt make any sense…………..

Article is not clear at ALL as to what is going on….

By: oildealer

oildealer — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:24:09 +0000

almost looks like a napcar decision ,no good reason??????????????????

By: malcolm

malcolm — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 04:13:34 +0000

Had he kept his mouth shut, or just expressed his displeasure in a more direct manner (ie. “this sucks; we just lost 2 million dollars”), he’d still have a sponsor for the next two years. Robby is a good driver, most of the time, but he’s a bad PR person.

By: Fisha695

Fisha695 — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 23:08:45 +0000

Didn’t All Robby pretty much say is that he would run over the terrorists if he seen them, and that he mad ticked off at the terrorists for them forcing the ACO to cancel the race?

So if that company has a problem with Robby saying how he felt about Terrorists, I think there should be a background check into this company to see how many of its “Customers” are in the Terrorizing business.

Hold on wait, didn’t Robby say something that even though his team had Bullet Proof Vests, he still wouldn’t have felt safe racing over there? Does this Vanguard company make bullet Proof vests? If they do, I suggest that their CEO puts on one of their vests and see how well it protects them from an IED.

By: Dustin

Dustin — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 20:04:52 +0000

I don’t understand this at all. It makes no sense to me, as written in this article. Why is this even an issue? Has Robby Gordon been associating himself with this company still? Why are they worried about sueing him? I just don’t get it. A little more explanation is needed here. As I said, it makes no sense with the current information.

By: Greg

Greg — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 19:02:51 +0000

Okay….?