Change @ St. James

[Phil 6]

I assume that the loan granted to pay off the stadium mortgage will be written down in leiu of this signage. How much do these stadium sponsorship deals generally generate?

 

Then again...

The current PL naming rights range from about £1m a year (Stoke, Bolton, Wigan) to £10m a year (Man City). Arsenal are getting £100m over fifteen years. Where NUFC fit on that scale is open for debate but it has to be more than the sfa we are reputedly getting now.

 

Maybe he should charge himself about £5 Mill a year eh? Would that make everyone happy ???

 

On the other hand he could also start to charge interest on his loans, that'd probably be about £9-£10 Mill a year, club'd be £5Mill worse off.

 

Or maybe we should forget the cost of advertising and continue not to pay interest eh?

 

You can't look at this shit in isolation.

 

That's a weak argument at best. The debt the club had and it's on going financial losses were reflected in the sale price. £134 million wouldn't be enough to build half the stadium let alone buy the players or build a customer base more loyal than Apple.

 

Look at the sign and have a word.

[Toonpack 10032]

I assume that the loan granted to pay off the stadium mortgage will be written down in leiu of this signage. How much do these stadium sponsorship deals generally generate?

 

Then again...

The current PL naming rights range from about £1m a year (Stoke, Bolton, Wigan) to £10m a year (Man City). Arsenal are getting £100m over fifteen years. Where NUFC fit on that scale is open for debate but it has to be more than the sfa we are reputedly getting now.

 

Maybe he should charge himself about £5 Mill a year eh? Would that make everyone happy ???

 

On the other hand he could also start to charge interest on his loans, that'd probably be about £9-£10 Mill a year, club'd be £5Mill worse off.

 

Or maybe we should forget the cost of advertising and continue not to pay interest eh?

 

You can't look at this shit in isolation.

 

That's a weak argument at best. The debt the club had and it's on going financial losses were reflected in the sale price. £134 million wouldn't be enough to build half the stadium let alone buy the players or build a customer base more loyal than Apple.

 

Look at the sign and have a word.

 

It's not an argument, it's a fact. and in no way shape or form is it a "defence".

 

The club owes him a large wedge, interest on that wedge could reasonably be about £10 Mill (it used to be £7mill on the original debt) and yet there's outrage about payment (or not) of advertising fees.

 

It's simple income versus expenditure. If he pays advertising fee's that's great, if he doesn't, so what, he "could" charge the aforementioned interest, but as yet he hasn't.

 

In ground advertising is coppers in comparison to the interest we could be paying. To deride him for not paying "the going rate" is ridiculous whilst ignoring or not acknowledging the other.

 

The sign is irrelevant. Look at just about every ground in the Prem, plastered to fuck with logo's. The Emirates one at Arsenal lights up, but that of course is different

 

As I posted elsewhere in a similar discussion, if he changed the colour of the paper towels in the bogs there'd be uproar.

 

If it was a "sexy" logo from a totally independant company, would anyone complain, would they fuck.

[Guest alex]

The Emirates one is different, given the sponsor is paying a huge amount for the privilege and making a big contribution to paying for the new ground.

[Phil 6]

I assume that the loan granted to pay off the stadium mortgage will be written down in leiu of this signage. How much do these stadium sponsorship deals generally generate?

 

Then again...

The current PL naming rights range from about £1m a year (Stoke, Bolton, Wigan) to £10m a year (Man City). Arsenal are getting £100m over fifteen years. Where NUFC fit on that scale is open for debate but it has to be more than the sfa we are reputedly getting now.

 

Maybe he should charge himself about £5 Mill a year eh? Would that make everyone happy ???

 

On the other hand he could also start to charge interest on his loans, that'd probably be about £9-£10 Mill a year, club'd be £5Mill worse off.

 

Or maybe we should forget the cost of advertising and continue not to pay interest eh?

 

You can't look at this shit in isolation.

 

That's a weak argument at best. The debt the club had and it's on going financial losses were reflected in the sale price. £134 million wouldn't be enough to build half the stadium let alone buy the players or build a customer base more loyal than Apple.

 

Look at the sign and have a word.

 

It's not an argument, it's a fact. and in no way shape or form is it a "defence".

 

The club owes him a large wedge, interest on that wedge could reasonably be about £10 Mill (it used to be £7mill on the original debt) and yet there's outrage about payment (or not) of advertising fees.

 

It's simple income versus expenditure. If he pays advertising fee's that's great, if he doesn't, so what, he "could" charge the aforementioned interest, but as yet he hasn't.

 

In ground advertising is coppers in comparison to the interest we could be paying. To deride him for not paying "the going rate" is ridiculous whilst ignoring or not acknowledging the other.

 

The sign is irrelevant. Look at just about every ground in the Prem, plastered to fuck with logo's. The Emirates one at Arsenal lights up, but that of course is different

 

As I posted elsewhere in a similar discussion, if he changed the colour of the paper towels in the bogs there'd be uproar.

 

If it was a "sexy" logo from a totally independant company, would anyone complain, would they fuck.

 

Would they get it for free?

 

People have issue with his company plastering their logo everywhere on the cheap, all while we are told prudence is vital to us breaking even and making us a viable business.

 

I can assure you if we he had invested the correct amount in the first team each season there would be a lot less people arsed about the name or logo change.

[Toonpack 10032]

The Emirates one is different, given the sponsor is paying a huge amount for the privilege and making a big contribution to paying for the new ground.

 

 

Nee difference at all (execpt that it's not Ashley), in our case the "sponsor" is making a big contribution (the equivalent of paying a huge amount for the privilege even) to the club by not taking interest (as yet)

 

BTW, we don't definitively know if the sponsorship is being paid for, or not (yet).

[ChezGiven 0]

From a hard and fast business perspective, TP is correct. The issue is that he could provide interest free loans anyway, as this is better for him and charge SD for signage as its tax efficicent and part funded by the 40% of SD owned by shareholders.

[Craig 6700]

The Emirates one is different, given the sponsor is paying a huge amount for the privilege and making a big contribution to paying for the new ground.

 

 

Nee difference at all (execpt that it's not Ashley), in our case the "sponsor" is making a big contribution (the equivalent of paying a huge amount for the privilege even) to the club by not taking interest (as yet)

 

BTW, we don't definitively know if the sponsorship is being paid for, or not (yet).

 

 

Your second sentence proves it's different.

 

And if SD were paying for the space, why not come out and say it? They've had plenty of time considering people complained when:

 

1. The SD Logo went on the front on the Gallowgate End

2. The huge SD logo went on the roof of the Gallowgate

3. SD appeared on the bench seats. Audi and Citroen pay a huge amount for their logos to appear in the same place at Old Trafford and the Emirates respectively.

 

BTW did the SD signs outside the ground ever happen?

[Toonpack 10032]

I assume that the loan granted to pay off the stadium mortgage will be written down in leiu of this signage. How much do these stadium sponsorship deals generally generate?

 

Then again...

The current PL naming rights range from about £1m a year (Stoke, Bolton, Wigan) to £10m a year (Man City). Arsenal are getting £100m over fifteen years. Where NUFC fit on that scale is open for debate but it has to be more than the sfa we are reputedly getting now.

 

Maybe he should charge himself about £5 Mill a year eh? Would that make everyone happy ???

 

On the other hand he could also start to charge interest on his loans, that'd probably be about £9-£10 Mill a year, club'd be £5Mill worse off.

 

Or maybe we should forget the cost of advertising and continue not to pay interest eh?

 

You can't look at this shit in isolation.

 

That's a weak argument at best. The debt the club had and it's on going financial losses were reflected in the sale price. £134 million wouldn't be enough to build half the stadium let alone buy the players or build a customer base more loyal than Apple.

 

Look at the sign and have a word.

 

It's not an argument, it's a fact. and in no way shape or form is it a "defence".

 

The club owes him a large wedge, interest on that wedge could reasonably be about £10 Mill (it used to be £7mill on the original debt) and yet there's outrage about payment (or not) of advertising fees.

 

It's simple income versus expenditure. If he pays advertising fee's that's great, if he doesn't, so what, he "could" charge the aforementioned interest, but as yet he hasn't.

 

In ground advertising is coppers in comparison to the interest we could be paying. To deride him for not paying "the going rate" is ridiculous whilst ignoring or not acknowledging the other.

 

The sign is irrelevant. Look at just about every ground in the Prem, plastered to fuck with logo's. The Emirates one at Arsenal lights up, but that of course is different

 

As I posted elsewhere in a similar discussion, if he changed the colour of the paper towels in the bogs there'd be uproar.

 

If it was a "sexy" logo from a totally independant company, would anyone complain, would they fuck.

 

Would they get it for free?

 

People have issue with his company plastering their logo everywhere on the cheap, all while we are told prudence is vital to us breaking even and making us a viable business.

 

I can assure you if we he had invested the correct amount in the first team each season there would be a lot less people arsed about the name or logo change.

 

He's not getting it for free in the greater scheme of things. It's not an independant third party. He and SD are indivisible. It's giving with one hand and taking with the other, on balance the club is better off. You can't divide the give from the take when it's the same bloke.

 

If a third party came along and was blown out in deference to SD, then there's an argument.

 

We still don't know if it's free btw.

[Craig 6700]

We still don't know if it's free btw.

 

And that's what people really have issue with.

[Toonpack 10032]

The Emirates one is different, given the sponsor is paying a huge amount for the privilege and making a big contribution to paying for the new ground.

 

 

Nee difference at all (execpt that it's not Ashley), in our case the "sponsor" is making a big contribution (the equivalent of paying a huge amount for the privilege even) to the club by not taking interest (as yet)

 

BTW, we don't definitively know if the sponsorship is being paid for, or not (yet).

 

 

Your second sentence proves it's different.

 

And if SD were paying for the space, why not come out and say it? They've had plenty of time considering people complained when:

 

1. The SD Logo went on the front on the Gallowgate End

2. The huge SD logo went on the roof of the Gallowgate

3. SD appeared on the bench seats. Audi and Citroen pay a huge amount for their logos to appear in the same place at Old Trafford and the Emirates respectively.

 

BTW did the SD signs outside the ground ever happen?

 

How ??

[ChezGiven 0]

The Emirates one is different, given the sponsor is paying a huge amount for the privilege and making a big contribution to paying for the new ground.

 

 

Nee difference at all (execpt that it's not Ashley), in our case the "sponsor" is making a big contribution (the equivalent of paying a huge amount for the privilege even) to the club by not taking interest (as yet)

 

BTW, we don't definitively know if the sponsorship is being paid for, or not (yet).

 

 

Your second sentence proves it's different.

 

And if SD were paying for the space, why not come out and say it? They've had plenty of time considering people complained when:

 

1. The SD Logo went on the front on the Gallowgate End

2. The huge SD logo went on the roof of the Gallowgate

3. SD appeared on the bench seats. Audi and Citroen pay a huge amount for their logos to appear in the same place at Old Trafford and the Emirates respectively.BTW did the SD signs outside the ground ever happen?

How much? Be interested to see that.

 

They've had the time but never say anything anyway and unfortunately, we had the opportunity to ask this sort of question last week. There wasnt enough room on the page for this issue by the looks of things which is a shame because although it seems a smallish issue but the truth, as YNH has said a couple of times, would be very revealing about the relationship between NUFC and MASH / SD and the role of NUFC in the overall business.

[AmericanMag 0]

I am wondering if these signs are being placed in lieu of interest Fat Mike could be charging on his "interest free" loans? Could that be a possibility?

Edited September 15, 2011 by AmericanMag

[Toonpack 10032]

I am wondering if these signs are being placed in lieu of interest Fat Mike could be charging on his "interest free" loans? Could that be a possibility?

 

 

See my post above, which is apparently unpalatable to most.

[Guest alex]

The Emirates one is different, given the sponsor is paying a huge amount for the privilege and making a big contribution to paying for the new ground.

 

 

Nee difference at all (execpt that it's not Ashley), in our case the "sponsor" is making a big contribution (the equivalent of paying a huge amount for the privilege even) to the club by not taking interest (as yet)

 

BTW, we don't definitively know if the sponsorship is being paid for, or not (yet).

An outside body paying a lot of money for sponsorship is a clear difference though, ridiculous to argue otherwise tbh. And I'd suggest we'd know if Ashley was paying sponsorship because they'd be constantly reminding us about it.

[Toonpack 10032]

The Emirates one is different, given the sponsor is paying a huge amount for the privilege and making a big contribution to paying for the new ground.

 

 

Nee difference at all (execpt that it's not Ashley), in our case the "sponsor" is making a big contribution (the equivalent of paying a huge amount for the privilege even) to the club by not taking interest (as yet)

 

BTW, we don't definitively know if the sponsorship is being paid for, or not (yet).

An outside body paying a lot of money for sponsorship is a clear difference though, ridiculous to argue otherwise tbh. And I'd suggest we'd know if Ashley was paying sponsorship because they'd be constantly reminding us about it.

 

IF a third party comes along and gets knocked back, then it's different.

 

So do you think he should pay advertising fees and charge interest?

[Guest alex]

The Emirates one is different, given the sponsor is paying a huge amount for the privilege and making a big contribution to paying for the new ground.

 

 

Nee difference at all (execpt that it's not Ashley), in our case the "sponsor" is making a big contribution (the equivalent of paying a huge amount for the privilege even) to the club by not taking interest (as yet)

 

BTW, we don't definitively know if the sponsorship is being paid for, or not (yet).

An outside body paying a lot of money for sponsorship is a clear difference though, ridiculous to argue otherwise tbh. And I'd suggest we'd know if Ashley was paying sponsorship because they'd be constantly reminding us about it.

 

IF a third party comes along and gets knocked back, then it's different.

 

So do you think he should pay advertising fees and charge interest?

I'm not saying Ashley has knocked back a 3rd party but YOU said the situation at the Emirates was no different to the sponsorship of SJP, when it's clearly completely different for the reasons I've already given. Like I said, it's a ridiculous argument on your part. If it wasn't I doubt you'd feel the need to put words into my mouth. Nice try though.

[Matt 0]

So do you think he should pay advertising fees and charge interest?

 

Well, then they couldn't use the line 'Mike hasn't taken a penny out of this club", which clearly he is but in kind rather than in cash.

 

So yes, I'd rather he did. Of course he could also convert his tax-efficient loans into cumbersome equity. It wouldn't help him financially, but it would stop daft discussions like this.

[Toonpack 10032]

So do you think he should pay advertising fees and charge interest?

 

Well, then they couldn't use the line 'Mike hasn't taken a penny out of this club", which clearly he is but in kind rather than in cash.

 

So yes, I'd rather he did. Of course he could also convert his tax-efficient loans into cumbersome equity. It wouldn't help him financially, but it would stop daft discussions like this.

 

It wouldn't help the club either

[Matt 0]

It would make no difference to the club.

[Craig 6700]

The Emirates one is different, given the sponsor is paying a huge amount for the privilege and making a big contribution to paying for the new ground.

 

 

Nee difference at all (execpt that it's not Ashley), in our case the "sponsor" is making a big contribution (the equivalent of paying a huge amount for the privilege even) to the club by not taking interest (as yet)

 

BTW, we don't definitively know if the sponsorship is being paid for, or not (yet).

An outside body paying a lot of money for sponsorship is a clear difference though, ridiculous to argue otherwise tbh. And I'd suggest we'd know if Ashley was paying sponsorship because they'd be constantly reminding us about it.

 

IF a third party comes along and gets knocked back, then it's different.

 

So do you think he should pay advertising fees and charge interest?

I'm not saying Ashley has knocked back a 3rd party but YOU said the situation at the Emirates was no different to the sponsorship of SJP, when it's clearly completely different for the reasons I've already given. Like I said, it's a ridiculous argument on your part. If it wasn't I doubt you'd feel the need to put words into my mouth. Nice try though.

 

This.

 

And Chez, your second point about there being the opportunity to ask/answer the question last week is extremely valid. It was raised several times to Lee Ryder in that webchat but surprise, surprise didn't manage to make the final cut.

 

tbh I'm amazed a limit was put on the questions without being questioned particularly by the 'self-advertised impartial' local rag. Surely it's in the club's best interests to deal with all queries being raised by their customers? No matter how small or trivial they may seem?

[ohhh_yeah 2991]

The Emirates one is different, given the sponsor is paying a huge amount for the privilege and making a big contribution to paying for the new ground.

 

 

Nee difference at all (execpt that it's not Ashley), in our case the "sponsor" is making a big contribution (the equivalent of paying a huge amount for the privilege even) to the club by not taking interest (as yet)

 

 

 

Your second sentence proves it's different.

 

 

 

How ??

 

 

obvious question is obvious...

[Toonpack 10032]

The Emirates one is different, given the sponsor is paying a huge amount for the privilege and making a big contribution to paying for the new ground.

 

 

Nee difference at all (execpt that it's not Ashley), in our case the "sponsor" is making a big contribution (the equivalent of paying a huge amount for the privilege even) to the club by not taking interest (as yet)

 

 

 

Your second sentence proves it's different.

 

 

 

How ??

 

 

obvious question is obvious...

 

Nope it's not, nee different. A party is benefitting the club by a large sum, as part of that large sum (or in consideration of) they appear to be getting advertising.

 

You cannot consider one a disgrace and ignore the other.

[Guest Your Name Here]

The Emirates one is different, given the sponsor is paying a huge amount for the privilege and making a big contribution to paying for the new ground.

 

 

Nee difference at all (execpt that it's not Ashley), in our case the "sponsor" is making a big contribution (the equivalent of paying a huge amount for the privilege even) to the club by not taking interest (as yet)

 

 

 

Your second sentence proves it's different.

 

 

 

How ??

 

 

obvious question is obvious...

 

Nope it's not, nee different. A party is benefitting the club by a large sum, as part of that large sum (or in consideration of) they appear to be getting advertising.

 

You cannot consider one a disgrace and ignore the other.

OK. Arsenal are getting £100m over 15 years off Emirates Airlines. How much are NUFC getting off FMADirect?

[peasepud 59]

The Emirates one is different, given the sponsor is paying a huge amount for the privilege and making a big contribution to paying for the new ground.

 

 

Nee difference at all (execpt that it's not Ashley), in our case the "sponsor" is making a big contribution (the equivalent of paying a huge amount for the privilege even) to the club by not taking interest (as yet)

 

 

 

Your second sentence proves it's different.

 

 

 

How ??

 

 

obvious question is obvious...

 

Nope it's not, nee different. A party is benefitting the club by a large sum, as part of that large sum (or in consideration of) they appear to be getting advertising.

 

You cannot consider one a disgrace and ignore the other.

OK. Arsenal are getting £100m over 15 years off Emirates Airlines. How much are NUFC getting off FMADirect?

£15 over 100 years

[Guest Your Name Here]

The Emirates one is different, given the sponsor is paying a huge amount for the privilege and making a big contribution to paying for the new ground.

 

 

Nee difference at all (execpt that it's not Ashley), in our case the "sponsor" is making a big contribution (the equivalent of paying a huge amount for the privilege even) to the club by not taking interest (as yet)

 

 

 

Your second sentence proves it's different.

 

 

 

How ??

 

 

obvious question is obvious...

 

Nope it's not, nee different. A party is benefitting the club by a large sum, as part of that large sum (or in consideration of) they appear to be getting advertising.

 

You cannot consider one a disgrace and ignore the other.

OK. Arsenal are getting £100m over 15 years off Emirates Airlines. How much are NUFC getting off FMADirect?

£15 over 100 years

At the moment it looks like minus £42k over infinity.

 

TPs strange logic states that value of the interest not being paid on loans equates to the value of the SD advertising package – it would be good if he could put a figure on this.