Michael Schumacher

Rutherford

Podium Finisher
It doesn't reflect badly on the companies. It is a logical business decision, he isn't performing for them (appearing at events or in ads) therefore why should they perform for him (pay money). Regardless of the circumstances.
As gethinceri stated they don't owe him and they have been hanging around for three years, which is more than enough support if you ask me.
 

FB

Not my cup of cake
Valued Member
Given the circumstances he and his family are in I can't see why the companies couldn't carry on paying him. Also, if they wanted to use it as a marketing tool why not use their continued sponsorship of him for this? Look how good we are, we helping to pay for his medical costs.
 

Andyoak

Race Winner
Ok, this will sound very harsh but...

You are an employer and one of your employees goes on holiday. They happen to like adrenaline sports (anything from bungee jumping to paragliding) and they have a life changing accident. They were only 40 and had a promising career path in your company; they are now incapable of carrying out any work for you.

Do you keep them on your payroll until they would have retired (27 years)?

Or do you wonder why they didn't have insurance / they're insurance isn't paying out?

I'm afraid this is business but Michael's accident wasn't. It would be different if he sustained the injury while employed racing for a team.
 

vintly

Mostly bacon
Premium Contributor
A company might keep paying someone after an accident like this for two reasons - one is goodwill, the other is that they'd look like complete arses if they suddenly stopped. So pay for a respectable time then politely stop. Which seems to be what's happening. Which is fine. And he's bloody loaded anyway. I think his sponsors would look silly if they DID carry on paying him to be honest.
 

Il_leone

Champion Elect
The sponsors who paid him have benefited enough from using him to market their brand over the years. They are only making a logical business decision. They will find someone else to represent their brand to get exposure

Schumacher is well off but that is irrelevant now despite the supposed quoted figures for his medical costs. For him and his family getting back to full recovery and being able to enjoy the remainder of his life is more important
 

Rutherford

Podium Finisher
Given the circumstances he and his family are in I can't see why the companies couldn't carry on paying him. Also, if they wanted to use it as a marketing tool why not use their continued sponsorship of him for this? Look how good we are, we helping to pay for his medical costs.
The circumstances of Schumachers wealth would enable him to dive and swim in his money like Scrooge McDuck, therefore I can't see why the companies should continue supporting him.
How can a board justify supporting someone who is close to being a billionaire to their shareholders, customers and own employees, especially if the company starts laying the latter off because of business decisions. That would look good, wouldn't it?

Furthermore, the companies involved aren't involved in the welfare industry, what effect would supporting Schumacher have for their business?
There are many more people on this planet that could, in fact, benefit from the money invested in an incredibly rich comatose person.
There is no logical way to justify the support any longer.
 

TR

Rookie
Given the circumstances he and his family are in I can't see why the companies couldn't carry on paying him. Also, if they wanted to use it as a marketing tool why not use their continued sponsorship of him for this? Look how good we are, we helping to pay for his medical costs.
Now that I would consider incredible bad taste! You don't go around using somebody's ill fortune to promote your own brand.
 

FB

Not my cup of cake
Valued Member
I was, perhaps, being a little simplistic and crass in how I worded this. Why, for example, couldn't the watch maker continue to make their Schumacher special edition watch? Tag still use an image of Ayrton Senna to promote their watches and he's been dead for 23 years. I presume all the money from that goes to the Senna family.
 

TR

Rookie
I think things might be different if Schumacher actually died. The current situation leaves sponsors in an incredibly awkward position. Currently using the Schumacher name for any sort of marketing seems rather poor taste. I can only imagine the awkwardness that comes up when any of the sponsor contracts come up for renewal. The contracts can't be renewed under the previous conditions (which certainly contained a long list of obligations of Schumacher to the sponsor). On the other hand, the family (or whoever holds power of attorney) might not be ready to 'give up' and make a different kind of arrangement. I can imagine that it is actually the family opting to not enter into new agreements with the sponsors.
 

vintly

Mostly bacon
Premium Contributor
I was, perhaps, being a little simplistic and crass in how I worded this. Why, for example, couldn't the watch maker continue to make their Schumacher special edition watch? Tag still use an image of Ayrton Senna to promote their watches and he's been dead for 23 years. I presume all the money from that goes to the Senna family.
Fair point, but without looking into it, I bet Tag didn't bring that watch out until way more than a few years after Senna's death. The Schumacher brand is indeed in an awkward position – until a suitable period after his death (how uncouth to suggest such a thing!), or if he makes a miraculous recovery (not gonna happen).
 

Andyoak

Race Winner
Ok, bad taste, but if he needs sponsors there is plenty of money in the big pharmaceutical companies...
 

Andyoak

Race Winner
Just so there's no confusion... The above is a black humour comment about a very sick man and sponsorship / business contracts discussion.

I suspect he and his family want privacy more than support.
 
Top Bottom