InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 3
Posts 109
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 12/21/2021

Re: None

Monday, 12/27/2021 11:03:42 AM

Monday, December 27, 2021 11:03:42 AM

Post# of 95673
Let's give Dryworld the benefit of the doubt and say TCA did not provide the financing needed to sustain business operations.

TCA definitely impacted their ability to be successful however Dryworld was gambling with their business model. Every soccer(Futbol) contract they signed was the largest financial sponsorship any club had recieved previously. This information is widely available through previous PR announcements when the sponsorships were announced.

Many posters would like to claim they have learned their lesson and are correcting it however they are still using the same business model. They provide sponsorship for marketing and licensing agreements.

Let's say they sign a new soccer club. What is the cost of that sponsorship and where will the money come from? They are then banking on the ability to sell enough merchandise to cover the sponsorship and make profit. They are using contracts with teams for marketing and advertising and doing so with borrowed money.

Dryworld has never manufactured triathlon equipment or gained brand recognition in the triathlon community just as they had never produced soccer kit prior to any of the sponsorship deals. They are gambling that they will be able to gain recognition and sales through the licensing agreement.IMO the will get some sales but will not become a recognized brand within triathlon. This is opposition to a company that would produce triathlon suits and equipment and then sell enough to actually provide a sponsorship because they have revenue to invest and increase brand awareness.

All opinion but look at the past deals and see the same pattern emerging again.