Mia's sponsorship [Archive] - Badminton Central Discussion Forums

LazyBuddy

07-31-2003, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by Winex West Can
...I have sent an e-mail to Taiwan to find out what the reason was. As far as I know, Mia's contract is not up until next year (2004).

Wow... is that going to be a law suit following the WC then? Or, the big brother Yonex just "buy out" her contract even before it expires?

cooler

07-31-2003, 02:17 PM

maybe an escape clause in the contract like the last year is optional.

kwun

07-31-2003, 02:18 PM

may be she forgot to bring her racket bag. or she broke all her own racket so she had to borrow one.

i also notice that her clothing is not Yonex.

Pointfore.Ca

07-31-2003, 02:45 PM

Maybe Yonex has bought Winex? :D

yonexfanatic

07-31-2003, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by Pointfore.Ca
Maybe Yonex has bought Winex? :D

lol..i don't think so..:D

Winex West Can

07-31-2003, 10:58 PM

...the reason why. Mia's sponsorship contract doesn't expire until Feb 2004 and Taiwan will be checking with the Dutch rep.

The possible reasons that I could think of:

a) Racquets were lost in transit
b) Racquets were being restrung (very unlikely as there should be a number of stringers available at the tournament)
c) Dutch team is sponsored by Yonex and in team tourneys, all players have to use Yonex racquets (very unlikely as if so, Mia would be using the Ti Swing Power instead of the MP-88)

Mia's sponsorship is only for racquets, she has clothing sponsorship from a Dutch company and shoes from Acsis.

kwun

07-31-2003, 11:13 PM

Ops.. i hope my observation didn't get her into trouble...

Winex West Can

07-31-2003, 11:55 PM

Originally posted by kwun
Ops.. i hope my observation didn't get her into trouble...

Nah...I think that there must be a very good reason. Too bad Raphy didn't managed to get more pics of Mia on different days as this will gives us a better indication of why.

jamesd20

08-08-2003, 11:05 AM

she was using the mp88 in her s-f against zhang ning as well.
If i was from winex i would be very upset if by accident she lost her rackets, after all this probably gets the most publicity of all badminton events to prospective customers, keep us informed wwc please.

Winex West Can

08-23-2003, 03:35 PM

Have no real news on the sponsorship but doesn't look good as Mia was still using the Yonex MP88 at the Singapore Open.

bigredlemon

08-23-2003, 07:26 PM

if Mia was indeed under exclusive contract and broke that, I belive Winex could sue not only for the value of her contract but also for its loss of reputation as a result of that breach. Losing one of their star players mid-contract will surely deal a black-eye to Winex, so this could end up hurting her financially very badly.

Keep us updated as I was just wondering about that.

Winex West Can

08-25-2003, 07:31 PM

...all of us Winex distributors got an e-mail from Taiwan basically telling us that there were some misunderstanding between Mia and her club in the Netherlands regarding her sponsorship.

Right now, the Dutch Winex rep is trying to sort out the mess but it looks like Mia is keen on the MP88 and I guess that some legal action will be taken to sort out this mess.

This is too bad as the WC, Singapore Open and the upcoming Indonesia and Malaysia Open are high profile tourneys.

LazyBuddy

08-25-2003, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by Winex West Can

This is too bad as the WC, Singapore Open and the upcoming Indonesia and Malaysia Open are high profile tourneys.

This is really bad for Winex.

Seems Yonex pick the "best" time to rob the star... :eek:

bigredlemon

08-25-2003, 08:58 PM

i wonder if Yonex did rob her or if she just choose yonex to use herself. I don't recall a yonex logo on the racquet string bed from the last tournrmanet...

Cheung

08-25-2003, 09:19 PM

Is there any stipulation for the logo on the string bed as mandatory when playing a tournament?

I got a hunch Yonex did something. Flandy/Eng Hian were All England s/f in 2002 using Yonex racquets (no logo) but wearing some other T-shirts. Then in the final, they were blazing 'Yonex'.

bigredlemon

08-25-2003, 10:51 PM

it doesn't make sense to force someone to have a logo on their racquet... neither IBF nor the organizers can gain anything by that. Though having the logo would mean easy money i suppose.

A quick look at the pic above shows a freshly painted yonex logo on the racquet string bed so perhaps Yonex did buy her sponsorship?

LazyBuddy

08-26-2003, 07:08 AM

Originally posted by bigredlemon
i wonder if Yonex did rob her or if she just choose yonex to use herself. I don't recall a yonex logo on the racquet string bed from the last tournrmanet...

1. If Mia picks MP88 just because Yonex give her more $$$, than I think the problem is "less" serious.

2. If Mia picks MP88 due to performance, it would be a "slap on the face" for Winex Corp. Especially for ppl who don't have too much experience about selecting rackets, they will think "yonex is better than winex" right there.

Guess I will use my winex MM90 a little bit more these days to show my support for Winex :D . Just don't know, how "useful" my action could be... :o

Faisal

08-30-2003, 10:30 AM

Any thing latest about this matter...?

Winex West Can

08-30-2003, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by Cheung
Is there any stipulation for the logo on the string bed as mandatory when playing a tournament?

I got a hunch Yonex did something. Flandy/Eng Hian were All England s/f in 2002 using Yonex racquets (no logo) but wearing some other T-shirts. Then in the final, they were blazing 'Yonex'.

Usually there is a stipulation that the sponsor's logo be painted on the string bed as that's easily seen by the spectators. If the player happens to have two sponsors (one for racquets and one for strings) then both logo could be on (e.g. in tennis, a player might have the Wilson logo(racquet) followed by Babolat (string)).

Cricket

09-01-2003, 10:17 PM

The issue isn't whether or not is it right or wrong, but if they HAVE to or DON'T HAVE to. Most pro's who sign contracts with racquet brands are made aware in their contracts that they have to have the brand's logo on the string bed. Why? For publicity. This doesn't go for the top pro's either. My friend's tennis coach is contracted by Volkl and he has to have the Volkl logo painted on his racquet at all times and specially when the Volkl agent comes by for a visit.

Free advertising? Maybe, maybe so. If you say that Volkl isn't paying the coach to have the logo painted on the string bed, then there is another way of interpreting the situation in monetary terms. Volkl gives the coach 2 free racquets per year and pays him to sell their racquets in his club. I don't think Volkl is gaining or saving any money by having my friend's coach paint the Volkl logo on the string bed.

Faisal

09-17-2003, 04:07 PM

Really wanna know the reason for her change of racket...:confused:

Winex West Can

12-18-2003, 07:25 PM

Sorry but finally got some more on this...

...it's still being sorted out but apparently...

Mia was sponsored by her club, Rutac, which handles the sponsorship with the Winex Dutch rep. Mia's club, Rutac apparently folded (i.e. closed) and so Mia is without a club nor a contract (apparently). Of course, Winex had paid for the sponsorship until 2004 so ... the problem becomes apparently whether Mia is still under contract because the Winex contract was signed by her former club (on her behalf)...I am not sure what the agreement was between her and Rutac.

...interesting, isn't it?

kwun

12-18-2003, 08:20 PM

interesting.

how nice is timing for Yonex, they came in and snatched Mia at the moment when her club folded.

the lawyers always win in the end...

thanks for the update WWC. now the sudden and previous unexplained change is now making sense.

cooler

12-18-2003, 11:02 PM

if that is the case, then mia hasnt done anything improper in legal sense. Ethic is another question but if rutac went bankrupt or folded, she is an free agent again. I doubt Yonex would 'snatch' anybody that would subject them with future liability.

bigredlemon

12-19-2003, 04:19 AM

Originally posted by Winex West Can
Sorry but finally got some more on this...

...it's still being sorted out but apparently...

Mia was sponsored by her club, Rutac, which handles the sponsorship with the Winex Dutch rep. Mia's club, Rutac apparently folded (i.e. closed) and so Mia is without a club nor a contract (apparently). Of course, Winex had paid for the sponsorship until 2004 so ... the problem becomes apparently whether Mia is still under contract because the Winex contract was signed by her former club (on her behalf)...I am not sure what the agreement was between her and Rutac.

...interesting, isn't it?
Sounds like Winex's contract is invalid.
Mia owes her club.
Her club owes to Winex.
But Mia doesn't owe to winex.
There is no third party liability in contract law. :cool:

Winex can still sue her club though.

cooler

12-19-2003, 04:30 AM

Originally posted by bigredlemon
Sounds like Winex's contract is invalid.
Mia owes her club.
Her club owes to Winex.
But Mia doesn't owe to winex.
There is no third party liability in contract law. :cool:

Winex can still sue her club though.

there are exception to that rule;) but i prefer not to start on OT subject:)

jamesd20

12-19-2003, 07:30 AM

What clothing has she been wearing since?

And what clothing did she wear in WC, it is unclear from these pictures. this may help to determine whether yonex came in for her, or she decided to change herself. The clothing is not obviousley yonex (in WC) , but it may be i dont know the womens yonex range too well.