Christmas Tree 4725 Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 Sadie the Bra Lady Arena. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetleftpeg 0 Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 Possibly negotiated a new, better deal and also gets to sell more shirts as fans queue up to buy ones with the new sponsor on despite already having the virgin one. Quids in Mike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4725 Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 Derek Llambias, Newcastle United's Managing Director said: "We have enjoyed a very successful partnership with Virgin Money which we thank them for. However we have decided to end the agreement early and we will be announcing a new sponsorship partner shortly which represents an excellent commercial deal for both parties." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 7027 Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 Nufc have said an exciting new sponsorship deal will be revealed in the coming weeks. I really do hope the stadium name changes. And I hope the gallowgate sign comes down Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9400 Posted October 1, 2012 Author Share Posted October 1, 2012 and back in the real world he has a 71% shareholding. Which means nowt in real world corporate governance/decision making. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 Let's remain positive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 The fast tracking of new sponsor and the early announcement means it must be big money. Think it will be around 15-20m a year and I think we're looking at car makers or insurance. Something like that. There would be little fuss if it was just a tiny increase and in many ways Virgin are an excellent brand partner. Think it will a pleasant surprise although I did have an immediate dark moment. It could still be SD and it could still be just as good for the business, 25% sales growth, company now trading above 300. Things are going well for them as a business. If it means more income then great. Obviously if a brand with a better image are in for the deal then everyone is going to prefer the more pleasing brand. Hopefully a brand that makes flashy trinkets that compensate for our modern disassociation with traditional values, or whatever it was you were blethering on about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 It could still be SD and it could still be just as good for the business, 25% sales growth, company now trading above 300. Things are going well for them as a business. If it means more income then great. Obviously if a brand with a better image are in for the deal then everyone is going to prefer the more pleasing brand. Hopefully a brand that makes flashy trinkets that compensate for our modern disassociation with traditional values, or whatever it was you were blethering on about I'd accept Apple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howmanheyman 33195 Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 Breaking news on SSN; Newcastle United to announce 4 year deal with feminine care product 'Tampax' our sources can reveal. Newcastle Chairman Derek Llambias has said "We are delighted to announce this package with Tampax as we have a couple of big fannies in the squad and one or two amongst our flourishing message boards. More importantly though, this package will help Alan Pardew and his staff cope should the team have any bad periods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 I'd accept Apple. I didnt mean them specifically, just wanted to highlight the role of brand in this discussion as its got a strong emotional dimension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Your Name Here Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 I already flagged this. http://www.telegraph...ike-Ashley.html I was already aware of his shareholding but i still went ahead and posted that 'perhaps the SD board are willing to pay more than Virgin?' because owning 70% of shares doesnt mean you can do absolutely anything you want. In theory, in practice it gives somebody huge clout. Not really worth arguing about until details of this 'exciting' new deal come out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 17257 Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 Which means nowt in real world corporate governance/decision making. Well tell us mighty business-knower, how much clout does Ashley's 71% give him at SD?... I watched the Everton game with a couple of scouse mates and they reckoned its irrelevent to the finance side of the club that we earn nothing from the stadium being named after Ashleys main business. I begged to differ, and we had an unseemly row about it in the public bar ...but I think it was Demba's equaliser that had truly pissed them off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Your Name Here Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 Which means nowt in real world corporate governance/decision making. If you want to believe Ashley doesn't make the decisions at SD that's your prerogative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 In theory, in practice it gives somebody huge clout. Not really worth arguing about until details of this 'exciting' new deal come out. I think there's a strong chance it will be SD but if it is, it must mean that there is direct funding involved which is bigger than Virgin's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 I didnt mean them specifically, just wanted to highlight the role of brand in this discussion as its got a strong emotional dimension. Of course. I was just looking up local players ie Sage and so on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 I honestly can't see him cutting off Virgin's 10m to add another tier to the SD visibility which is massive already anyway. He is Samurai however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 If you want to believe Ashley doesn't make the decisions at SD that's your prerogative. In that article i posted, that wasnt a theoretical 'no' to Ashley's remuneration btw, it was a 'no' in practice. Ashley did not make the decision on his own share scheme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 Wish I shared you confidence. Every season since he's been here MA has come up with a way to promote SD on the back of NUFC. The signing on the Gallowgate, the signage on the roof, the sportdsdirect@sjp nonsense, the signage in the atrium, the signage on the dugout, the signage in the tunnel, the signage on the sponsors backboard, the signage on the East Stand and finally the full blown renaming of SJP. It just comes in dribs and drabs to reduce the protests.There hasn't been any extra SD stuff this season and a stadium/shirt deal seems a cert. It'll head off questions about the showcasing a year on from SJP being renamed and allow them to blart on about how every player we buy has been funded by SD money. It'll be an eight year deal with SD. It doesn't cone in dribs and drabs to minimise protest. It's done to maximie it. 3 years of news stories about sports direct for free. That's brilliant marketing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Your Name Here Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 In that article i posted, that wasnt a theoretical 'no' to Ashley's remuneration btw, it was a 'no' in practice. Ashley did not make the decision on his own share scheme. I'm not doubting your right. What I'm doubting is the idea MA doesn't were the trousers at SD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 That's the beauty about advertising. Piss people off with it and it gets noticed. Putting up small insignificant signs creates little interest, so you have to smash it (not literally) in peoples faces and make them talk about it. You only have to look at the annoying go compare adverts with that bloke singing. Everyone wants to strangle the bastard, yet the company is firmly ingrained into everyone's mind. Ashley owns the club, so his goal is to use the club as a marketing tool, going hand in hand, like 2 loving newly weds. If Newcastle get put on the Euro map, then so does sports direct and it becomes well known world wide. Top firms sponsor top clubs whether it's football, basket ball, baseball or whatever and the reason they do it, is because, they know that their brand is guaranteed to be shown around the world and took notice of because of the top teams that display it. Mike Ashley is no small time Charlie now, he's a big time Charlie and he wants his brand to be known and stand out. To do that, he also knows that Newcastle United's success in the future will catapult his brand to the top, coupled with the saturation of the stadium with the brand name. It's extremely clever marketing and something we would all do if we were in that position. For instance, if you had 2 firms...let's say a window fitting firm and also a carpet firm, you will incorporate your window firm on your carpet firm vehicle and vice versa wouldn't you because it's double advertising in motion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Your Name Here Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 I honestly can't see him cutting off Virgin's 10m to add another tier to the SD visibility which is massive already anyway. He is Samurai however. £10m was the figure including unspecified bonus payments was it not. The base figure was never published, unless somebody knows better? It could be £2.50 for all we know.As always we have to wait for the annual report to get any hard facts, which leaves us two steps behind the truth all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Your Name Here Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 That's the beauty about advertising. Piss people off with it and it gets noticed. Putting up small insignificant signs creates little interest, so you have to smash it (not literally) in peoples faces and make them talk about it. You only have to look at the annoying go compare adverts with that bloke singing. Everyone wants to strangle the bastard, yet the company is firmly ingrained into everyone's mind. Ashley owns the club, so his goal is to use the club as a marketing tool, going hand in hand, like 2 loving newly weds. If Newcastle get put on the Euro map, then so does sports direct and it becomes well known world wide. Top firms sponsor top clubs whether it's football, basket ball, baseball or whatever and the reason they do it, is because, they know that their brand is guaranteed to be shown around the world and took notice of because of the top teams that display it. Mike Ashley is no small time Charlie now, he's a big time Charlie and he wants his brand to be known and stand out. To do that, he also knows that Newcastle United's success in the future will catapult his brand to the top, coupled with the saturation of the stadium with the brand name. It's extremely clever marketing and something we would all do if we were in that position. For instance, if you had 2 firms...let's say a window fitting firm and also a carpet firm, you will incorporate your window firm on your carpet firm vehicle and vice versa wouldn't you because it's double advertising in motion. It's not been of mutual benefit to date though has it. SD have gained lots off NUFC but NUFC have got nothing from SD. The club has been exploited, run for another companies benefit. Clever or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 21921 Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 my eyes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9400 Posted October 1, 2012 Author Share Posted October 1, 2012 Well tell us mighty business-knower, how much clout does Ashley's 71% give him at SD?... Depends what you mean by "clout" tbh - On day to day stuff, if he was majority shareholder and CEO then loads, but he's not. As majority shareholder he can/will influence corporate strategy (in fact that's stated as his actual deputy chariman role on the board - vision and strategy) but day to day application of that strategy will be down to the "management" led by the Chief Exec (David Forsey). Major decisions (like an aquisition of another company) would undoubtedly be run by him and he could block it, but day to day stuff like advertising/marketing spend unlikely, as Chez alluded to, he'd have to convince the board to make spend he couldn't just arbitrarily do it. SD will have an annual marketing budget (set by the board) but the actual spending of that budget will be solely down to the marketing organisation. Ashley could say I want you to spend £15 Mill a year on NUFC, marketing could say OK or they could say "aye OK Mike" but if we do that we can't spend x amount on TV or wherever else they spend dosh and that would hit our bottom line by £y and we'd make more by keeping the TV adds. If it could make money for SD it could happen, but if that money could be spent elsewhere at greater return, pretty sure it wouldn't hit NUFC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Your Name Here Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 It doesn't cone in dribs and drabs to minimise protest. It's done to maximie it. 3 years of news stories about sports direct for free. That's brilliant marketing. The timing of the stadium renaming suggest otherwise. Unless you think Ashley woke up one morning last November and decided to change the name of the ground it seems obvious it was a long term objective and he waited until the going was good, rather than on the day we got relegated for example. 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