manc-mag 1 Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 A late deal was brokered? Didn't Virgin Money announce that they would completely re-brand Northern Rock as Virgin Money by 31st December 2011? Surely that's all that's happened here - we've got the new business name, not a new sponsor? Ironically had we stuck with NTL we'd have soon been sponsored by Virgin Media. I think the Northern Rock Deal was expiring this month. They hadn't taken the option which was on the table for a longer deal while they were a public company. Assume Virgin have just taken up that deal now. But the NR deal was up until the summer wasn't it? And the fact that the NR brand was ceasing to exist on 31/12/2011 after the Virgin Money buyout is anything but coincidence to me. The whole 'new sponsorship' thing is a non-story IYAM. I thought it went to the summer but one of the lads last night was saying it was due to end this month. I've not checked. Llambias said something like he needed to tell Puma who the new sponsors are so they can get it on the next shirt - that implied next summer to me. Also we changed to NR in the summer of 2003. Fairly sure that the initial (and all subsequent) contracts signed would have been in terms of years. As soon as it was announced that VM were buying NR and that they NR brand was 'dying' on 31/12/2011 some of us speculated that VM would become our sponsors after the new year. And they have. It's a extension of the current deal at best and yes Manc-mag, there will be some money involved. But I don't see it as a fab new sponsorship deal the way they're portraying it. It's NR with a lick of paint. Aye agreed. I don't have a clue what the amounts are I just make the point that some money will have to have been involved and thats what he's gone for. The prevailing thought a couple of months ago was that he was deliberately trying to make overall sponsorship untenable for everyone so he could give the shirt to SD for 'free'. It was a popular conspiracy theory on here which was a corollary of the 'Sports Direct masterplan from day one' clairvoyants main premise. He hasn't done that though, he's sold it for cash because someones offered him some. I'm surprised it wont be SD as it happens, but I'm surprised by the fact someone's offered him a deal, not that he's taken it. I'd be astonished if he hadn't taken it in fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 46088 Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 The branches will be rebranded, but it hasn't happened yet. Northern Rock will disappear altogether in due course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6700 Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 But I don't see it as a fab new sponsorship deal the way they're portraying it. It's NR with a lick of paint. It's an extended deal on improved terms. What more could we have hoped for? I've no issue with what we've got. It's the fact that it's being tarted up as some 'fantastic brokered' deal with Ashley and Dekka back-patting each other. In reality we've extended the deal with the company who's bought out our previous sponsors - so why not just say that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 31225 Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 But I don't see it as a fab new sponsorship deal the way they're portraying it. It's NR with a lick of paint. It's an extended deal on improved terms. What more could we have hoped for? I've no issue with what we've got. It's the fact that it's being tarted up as some 'fantastic brokered' deal with Ashley and Dekka back-patting each other. In reality we've extended the deal with the company who's bought out our previous sponsors - so why not just say that? Have I missed something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Me too ewerk. The only thing this does is point to a different business decision-making process than the naive and immature one often found on our forums. it doesnt mean much but it's proved wrong those who insisted the income stream into NUFC was secondary to SD's interests. It also re-casts the debate about payments for physical branding as VM took over a lot of space last night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6700 Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Me too ewerk. The only thing this does is point to a different business decision-making process than the naive and immature one often found on our forums. it doesnt mean much but it's proved wrong those who insisted the income stream into NUFC was secondary to SD's interests. It also re-casts the debate about payments for physical branding as VM took over a lot of space last night. That I will stick my hands up and say I got wrong. I was convinced we'd have SD on the shirts this time next season. And I'm glad they've proved me wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Apologies for the naive immaturity. Hadn't realised the groundshift this reprasented. My brain keeps listening to my eyes rather than you Chez. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 The implicit assumption has always been that SD branding was being favoured ahead of other companies who were able and willing to sponsor the stadium. During the biggest recession since the depression, this assumption is not likely to have been true. Its possible now to argue that a lot of the SD branding could be dead space. This means no other company has bought this space as demand is so low at the minute, so its filled with SD adverts. I read a quote from a lecturer in Sports Business studies saying anything showing internal promotions and discounts on tickets etc inside a stadium is dead space. Anyway, shows you its not as straightforward a business as you'd think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Apologies for the naive immaturity. Hadn't realised the groundshift this reprasented. My brain keeps listening to my eyes rather than you Chez. Its not a groundshift, just confirmation that you get carried away with yourself and talk shit sometimes. So do i tbf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom 14013 Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 The club are advertising this on the online shop - this is obviously without the Northern Rock logo hiding underneath Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 The fixed boards in the East Stand (above the digital/changing boards) opposite the Milburn (ie the main TV view) had the Virgin Money logo the length of the pitch. Dunno if that'll remain but it's no doubt 'worth' a lot more than the Gallowgate roof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asprilla 96 Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 The club are advertising this on the online shop - this is obviously without the Northern Rock logo hiding underneath That actually looks quite cool IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 does it balls, It looks bang snide tbh, but at least it's not SD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 You could see the Northern Rock logos underneath the new Virgin ones during the match as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monroe Transfer 0 Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 The further into the season we go, the more I'm liking the shirt. I imagine a lot of the hysterical lot who moan about every new kit are used to it by now too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monroe Transfer 0 Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 You could see the Northern Rock logos underneath the new Virgin ones during the match as well. Looked really tacky in the post-match interview with Shola and Ba as they'd clearly just ripped the Northern Rock logo off the tracksuits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 You could see the Northern Rock logos underneath the new Virgin ones during the match as well. Looked really tacky in the post-match interview with Shola and Ba as they'd clearly just ripped the Northern Rock logo off the tracksuits. Aye. I don't even think they'd done that though. Just hoyed a bit of electrician's tape on top of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 The fixed boards in the East Stand (above the digital/changing boards) opposite the Milburn (ie the main TV view) had the Virgin Money logo the length of the pitch. Dunno if that'll remain but it's no doubt 'worth' a lot more than the Gallowgate roof. Like the shirts, just covering the old Northern Rock signs... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6700 Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 You could see the Northern Rock logos underneath the new Virgin ones during the match as well. Looked really tacky in the post-match interview with Shola and Ba as they'd clearly just ripped the Northern Rock logo off the tracksuits. Aye. I don't even think they'd done that though. Just hoyed a bit of electrician's tape on top of it. Not to mention the sponsorship board with the Virgin Money stickers clearly having the Northern Rock logo underneath it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Apologies for the naive immaturity. Hadn't realised the groundshift this reprasented. My brain keeps listening to my eyes rather than you Chez. Its not a groundshift, just confirmation that you get carried away with yourself and talk shit sometimes. So do i tbf. Always happy to pipe up when I've got something wrong. I quoted myself 6 pages ago on what I said about shirt sponsorship back in the day. Though my conclusion - sports direct on the shirts - was shit, I was hardly carried away with anything, I was in 2 minds on it and could see it going either way...it's gone the way I'd thought initially, which was to keep SD away from shirts and not harm the sales of them. I've never said Ashley will always spurn income in favour of promoting Sports Direct. He's not averse to taking the hit of lost income in favour of brand exposure though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 This virgin stuff is good news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 The fixed boards in the East Stand (above the digital/changing boards) opposite the Milburn (ie the main TV view) had the Virgin Money logo the length of the pitch. Dunno if that'll remain but it's no doubt 'worth' a lot more than the Gallowgate roof. Like the shirts, just covering the old Northern Rock signs... Yeah I know. I just mean that's probably the prime TV advertising space (being entirely fixed). It's no doubt associated to the kit sponsorship deal, but it doesn't have to be of course, everythings open for negotiation. It would have been an opportunity to hive it off and use it for SD if that had been his priority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Apologies for the naive immaturity. Hadn't realised the groundshift this reprasented. My brain keeps listening to my eyes rather than you Chez. Its not a groundshift, just confirmation that you get carried away with yourself and talk shit sometimes. So do i tbf. Always happy to pipe up when I've got something wrong. I quoted myself 6 pages ago on what I said about shirt sponsorship back in the day. Though my conclusion - sports direct on the shirts - was shit, I was hardly carried away with anything, I was in 2 minds on it and could see it going either way...it's gone the way I'd thought initially, which was to keep SD away from shirts and not harm the sales of them. I've never said Ashley will always spurn income in favour of promoting Sports Direct. He's not averse to taking the hit of lost income in favour of brand exposure though. Its not just your views on whether SD would go on the shirts, its your views on how they run the club and assumptions behind that which are (or should be) questioned by this deal. You've been very vocal about the overall strategy and vision for NUFC and as far as i can tell, SD on the shirts was the logical conclusion from that global view. I may be being unfair on you though, just the impression i got. If he doesnt want to harm shirt sales, then he is revenue maximising at NUFC which means the tax efficiency and commercial reasons for transferring cash from SD to NUFC for all branding would hold. A major point you argued against iirc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asprilla 96 Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 does it balls, It looks bang snide tbh, but at least it's not SD. What's not to like? "Northern" and "Rock" were admittedly two fairly cool words to have on your shirt but "Virgin" and "Money" aren't bad either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) Apologies for the naive immaturity. Hadn't realised the groundshift this reprasented. My brain keeps listening to my eyes rather than you Chez. Its not a groundshift, just confirmation that you get carried away with yourself and talk shit sometimes. So do i tbf. Always happy to pipe up when I've got something wrong. I quoted myself 6 pages ago on what I said about shirt sponsorship back in the day. Though my conclusion - sports direct on the shirts - was shit, I was hardly carried away with anything, I was in 2 minds on it and could see it going either way...it's gone the way I'd thought initially, which was to keep SD away from shirts and not harm the sales of them. I've never said Ashley will always spurn income in favour of promoting Sports Direct. He's not averse to taking the hit of lost income in favour of brand exposure though. Its not just your views on whether SD would go on the shirts, its your views on how they run the club and assumptions behind that which are (or should be) questioned by this deal. You've been very vocal about the overall strategy and vision for NUFC and as far as i can tell, SD on the shirts was the logical conclusion from that global view. I may be being unfair on you though, just the impression i got. If he doesnt want to harm shirt sales, then he is revenue maximising at NUFC which means the tax efficiency and commercial reasons for transferring cash from SD to NUFC for all branding would hold. A major point you argued against iirc. I'd love to see where I argued about the tax efficiency of any move. I know as much about tax as I do about effective douche use. Edited January 5, 2012 by Happy Face Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now