Sunoco Debuts "Essence Of Racing" Campaign Danica's Sponsorship Status To Be Telling For NASCAR Babcock Prepared For Tough Maple Leafs Gig NHL Coaching Salaries Likely To Change Michael Andretti Expanding Business Empire Ducks' Perry Miffed By Milbury's On-Air Remark Butler Enters Partnership With Learfield Hope Solo Re-Emerges In Nike Marketing New Football Tracks Proper PSI Levels Deflategate Affects Brady's Endorsement Value
Upcoming Conferences and Events
SBD/July 8, 2011/Marketing and Sponsorship
NHL, Molson Coors Appeal Ruling Invalidating $375M Sponsorship Deal
Published July 8, 2011
Lawyers for the NHL and Molson Coors Thursday appeared at a hearing before the Court of Appeal for Ontario to appeal a “ruling which tossed out their $375-million North American sponsorship deal,” according to Josh Rubin of the TORONTO STAR. Molson Coors, Labatt and league attorneys during the hearing “revealed that Labatt’s deal with the NHL was for a relatively-paltry $36 million, spread over three years.” A Labatt source later said that the contract’s “total value was actually closer to $75 million, a figure which still puts it well below the Molson-Coors deal.” Molson Coors attorneys would not specify in court “how much the company’s deal with the NHL was worth, but it was widely reported at the time it was announced in February that it was worth $375 million.” The three-judge Court of Appeal panel “reserved judgment after hearing arguments from all three sides” on Thursday, but Associate Chief Justice Dennis O’Connor said that the panel would “try to come up with a written decision as soon as possible.” Justice James MacPherson questioned NHL attorney Terrence O’Sullivan’s suggestion that Labatt’s "negotiating window with the league had ended Oct. 22.” Ontario Superior Court Judge Frank Neubold had “originally ruled that the league reached a binding deal with Labatt on Nov. 12.” Molson Coors attorney Paul Steep argued that “even if Labatt had a binding deal with the NHL, Molson’s agreement should still go ahead, and Labatt should have just sued for damages” (TORONTO STAR, 7/8). Read the full decision.