Guest CabayeAye Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 Will it fuck be Sondico, man! SD, and the away kit will be red white and blue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OTF 7295 Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 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. Why must it mean that? If Ashley has decided that having SD on the Newcastle shirt is worth more to him that the money coming in from Virgin's deal then who could stop him from going ahead with it even if it means a reduced revenue for NUFC? I'd wager that revenue from stadium advertising at the moment could be increased if the SD monopoly was removed. At the end of the day Ashley is entitled to do whatever he thinks better represents his collective interest, whether or not it's at the detriment of one entity seems to largely be irrelevant. At least there will be continuity between our stadium, the seats in the stadium, the advertising boards in the stadium and our strips. Can anyone explain why they would announce the premature end of one sponsorship deal without also announcing the details of the new deal? The only possible explanation I could come up with is that it's a condition of Virgin Money allowing the deal to end early without financial penalty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj 17 Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 Maybe Ashley's going to do what Man City are doing and put a fuck load of money in via the sponsorship route to say fuck you to financial fair play? No? No? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Your Name Here Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 No. It's a good question though. Are there any precedents for football clubs ending sponsorship deals early? My suspicion is Pardew's eight year deal and this are connected. That the ground is being prepared for unpopular news. What that might be if it's not SD is anyone's guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OTF 7295 Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 Unicef. The signs are clearly there. We're Barcelona Mark II... Pardiola.... Ferguson.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asteroidblitz 12 Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Qatar Airways Arena? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4725 Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Who needs Wolfys conspiracy theories I quite like the Sports Direct logo. Think its nice and fresh (as well as getting some of my best clobber there). I cant see him ending the deal early to change to SD mind. Theres enough coverage within the ground to wait a year imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OTF 7295 Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 I quite like the Sports Direct logo. Think its nice and fresh (as well as getting some of my best clobber there). At an insane 90% off who can argue with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman 2207 Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 At an insane 90% off who can argue with it? Certainly not the Chinese slave labour that was used to manufacture it for peanuts..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asprilla 96 Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 I dread to think what he's got planned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asprilla 96 Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 If it is going to be SD then I can see a fair few people not being able to wear the shirt anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman 2207 Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 (edited) I dread to think what he's got planned. Edited October 2, 2012 by Kitman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OTF 7295 Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Certainly not the Chinese slave labour that was used to manufacture it for peanuts..... Should have added a safety wink in case anyone missed my sarcasm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Why must it mean that? If Ashley has decided that having SD on the Newcastle shirt is worth more to him that the money coming in from Virgin's deal then who could stop him from going ahead with it even if it means a reduced revenue for NUFC? I'd wager that revenue from stadium advertising at the moment could be increased if the SD monopoly was removed. At the end of the day Ashley is entitled to do whatever he thinks better represents his collective interest, whether or not it's at the detriment of one entity seems to largely be irrelevant. At least there will be continuity between our stadium, the seats in the stadium, the advertising boards in the stadium and our strips. Can anyone explain why they would announce the premature end of one sponsorship deal without also announcing the details of the new deal? The only possible explanation I could come up with is that it's a condition of Virgin Money allowing the deal to end early without financial penalty? It doesnt have to mean that, i could have used 'should' instead of 'must' as lots of things Ashley does dont make sense from the outside as his objectives are quite opaque. My thinking was: If the virgin deal was worth doing then it was because it made sense from a business perspective. I dont buy into convoluted theories that this is stage managed PR where he took a deal with virgin to pace out the changes to the branding/sponsorship. On one level, a PR expert would say not to do this, its best to get things done and dusted and then move on. Constantly making changes which antagonise customers is not in anyones PR playbook. Secondly, business doesnt work like that, the best deal is always sought and as early as possible. If Virgin were offering money and the board of SD refused to sanction giving the club e.g. 10m, then the club goes with Virgin. Ashley is not the CEO of SD and its his decision to say if SD gives NUFC money. If Ashley was seen to be overly influencing the CEO for his own personal interests this would lead to huge problems with the institutional investors. Thirdly, revenue from advertising in stadiums has been massively squeezed over recent seasons. There are some big deals from the main sponsors but secondary sponsorship has been under pressure due to the recession. One article i read on finance in football said that every time you see an advert for the club shops, upcoming games etc, this is dead advertising space. Which makes total sense, the ROI on space advertising the thing that people are actually attending is quite low, the ROI for complimentary businesses is clearly much higher. There is no SD monopoly on advertising at SJP, there is a monopoly on branding. The advertising spaces in the ground are those that can be changed for new customers, so every permanent fixture of the ground is not open space for advertisers, only the hoardings and various smaller opportunities around the ground are open spaces. These are sold to a multitude of advertisers. To remove permanent SD branding makes no difference is no one wants to pay for a permanent replacement. Advertisers dont take out permanent spaces, sponsors do. Completely different financial and ROI ball game. For the announcement, the deal with Virgin lasts until January, so they i'm sure the deal precludes us announcing the new name whilst the deal with Virgin is still in place. This is straightforward. Why announce it all then? Perhaps because its a good deal and they want to say at least that publicly, perhaps the new sponsor wanted them to announce the end of Virgin to ensure that people anticipated the new brand so as to maximise the impact and to ensure there was no confusion in the minds of supporters who the sponsor is come January. Thats exactly how brand teams talk by the way. There is a strong possibility that its SD and a much weaker one that this is an extension of the 'free advertising to SD model'. All is possible given what we know, all my comments are just opinion on what makes sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9400 Posted October 2, 2012 Author Share Posted October 2, 2012 (edited) Why must it mean that? If Ashley has decided that having SD on the Newcastle shirt is worth more to him that the money coming in from Virgin's deal then who could stop him from going ahead with it even if it means a reduced revenue for NUFC? I don’t know who could stop him, but I know what could stop him and that’s common sense. If there was a shortfall in NUFC revenue’s which in turn weakened the team which in turn meant they started making losses again Ashley personally would have to cover that gap out of his own pocket (as he has previously). To expose himself financially for the benefit of the corporate entity just doesn’t stack up. The sums we’d be talking about “diverting” from NUFC to SD are buttons to SD but a decent wedge to NUFC (i.e. exposure to Ashley’s pocket). I'd wager that revenue from stadium advertising at the moment could be increased if the SD monopoly was removed. Has anyone tracked if any SD signage has been replaced (or not) by other sponsors anywhere ?? We don’t know if he’s using area’s that could have been sold elsewhere for SD marketting, or rather, turning down offers to advertise in deference to SD. At the end of the day Ashley is entitled to do whatever he thinks better represents his collective interest, whether or not it's at the detriment of one entity seems to largely be irrelevant. Significantly there is only one entity, the detrimental effect or exposure bestowed on the “other” is Ashley’s own pocket. At least there will be continuity between our stadium, the seats in the stadium, the advertising boards in the stadium and our strips. Can anyone explain why they would announce the premature end of one sponsorship deal without also announcing the details of the new deal? The only possible explanation I could come up with is that it's a condition of Virgin Money allowing the deal to end early without financial penalty? Nope NUFC are simply exercising the contractual clause that allowed either party to terminate after 12 months, Virgin announced that they’d been given notice, of said termination, before NUFC did. This was simply the exercising of an agreed contractual clause ending the deal at the earliest time it was agreed it could be terminated. Technically it’s not really as emotive as “ending the deal early” or premature. Edited October 2, 2012 by Toonpack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Why must it mean that? If Ashley has decided that having SD on the Newcastle shirt is worth more to him that the money coming in from Virgin's deal then who could stop him from going ahead with it even if it means a reduced revenue for NUFC? I'd wager that revenue from stadium advertising at the moment could be increased if the SD monopoly was removed. At the end of the day Ashley is entitled to do whatever he thinks better represents his collective interest, whether or not it's at the detriment of one entity seems to largely be irrelevant. At least there will be continuity between our stadium, the seats in the stadium, the advertising boards in the stadium and our strips. Can anyone explain why they would announce the premature end of one sponsorship deal without also announcing the details of the new deal? The only possible explanation I could come up with is that it's a condition of Virgin Money allowing the deal to end early without financial penalty? The early announcement is to build interest and start anticipatory discussions amongst the target group. Us. It is also an old technique to gauge response and possible barriers to impact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 It doesnt have to mean that, i could have used 'should' instead of 'must' as lots of things Ashley does dont make sense from the outside as his objectives are quite opaque. My thinking was: If the virgin deal was worth doing then it was because it made sense from a business perspective. I dont buy into convoluted theories that this is stage managed PR where he took a deal with virgin to pace out the changes to the branding/sponsorship. On one level, a PR expert would say not to do this, its best to get things done and dusted and then move on. Constantly making changes which antagonise customers is not in anyones PR playbook. Secondly, business doesnt work like that, the best deal is always sought and as early as possible. If Virgin were offering money and the board of SD refused to sanction giving the club e.g. 10m, then the club goes with Virgin. Ashley is not the CEO of SD and its his decision to say if SD gives NUFC money. If Ashley was seen to be overly influencing the CEO for his own personal interests this would lead to huge problems with the institutional investors. Thirdly, revenue from advertising in stadiums has been massively squeezed over recent seasons. There are some big deals from the main sponsors but secondary sponsorship has been under pressure due to the recession. One article i read on finance in football said that every time you see an advert for the club shops, upcoming games etc, this is dead advertising space. Which makes total sense, the ROI on space advertising the thing that people are actually attending is quite low, the ROI for complimentary businesses is clearly much higher. There is no SD monopoly on advertising at SJP, there is a monopoly on branding. The advertising spaces in the ground are those that can be changed for new customers, so every permanent fixture of the ground is not open space for advertisers, only the hoardings and various smaller opportunities around the ground are open spaces. These are sold to a multitude of advertisers. To remove permanent SD branding makes no difference is no one wants to pay for a permanent replacement. Advertisers dont take out permanent spaces, sponsors do. Completely different financial and ROI ball game. For the announcement, the deal with Virgin lasts until January, so they i'm sure the deal precludes us announcing the new name whilst the deal with Virgin is still in place. This is straightforward. Why announce it all then? Perhaps because its a good deal and they want to say at least that publicly, perhaps the new sponsor wanted them to announce the end of Virgin to ensure that people anticipated the new brand so as to maximise the impact and to ensure there was no confusion in the minds of supporters who the sponsor is come January. Thats exactly how brand teams talk by the way. There is a strong possibility that its SD and a much weaker one that this is an extension of the 'free advertising to SD model'. All is possible given what we know, all my comments are just opinion on what makes sense to me. Good read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 7027 Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Chronicle reporting the new sponsor is not Sports Direct so breath people! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4725 Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Chronicle reporting the new sponsor is not Sports Direct so breath people! Theres a lot fucking worse to have one the front of a shirt other than Sports Direct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Your Name Here Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 (edited) It doesnt have to mean that, i could have used 'should' instead of 'must' as lots of things Ashley does dont make sense from the outside as his objectives are quite opaque. My thinking was: If the virgin deal was worth doing then it was because it made sense from a business perspective. I dont buy into convoluted theories that this is stage managed PR where he took a deal with virgin to pace out the changes to the branding/sponsorship. On one level, a PR expert would say not to do this, its best to get things done and dusted and then move on. Constantly making changes which antagonise customers is not in anyones PR playbook. Secondly, business doesnt work like that, the best deal is always sought and as early as possible. If Virgin were offering money and the board of SD refused to sanction giving the club e.g. 10m, then the club goes with Virgin. Ashley is not the CEO of SD and its his decision to say if SD gives NUFC money. If Ashley was seen to be overly influencing the CEO for his own personal interests this would lead to huge problems with the institutional investors. Thirdly, revenue from advertising in stadiums has been massively squeezed over recent seasons. There are some big deals from the main sponsors but secondary sponsorship has been under pressure due to the recession. One article i read on finance in football said that every time you see an advert for the club shops, upcoming games etc, this is dead advertising space. Which makes total sense, the ROI on space advertising the thing that people are actually attending is quite low, the ROI for complimentary businesses is clearly much higher. There is no SD monopoly on advertising at SJP, there is a monopoly on branding. The advertising spaces in the ground are those that can be changed for new customers, so every permanent fixture of the ground is not open space for advertisers, only the hoardings and various smaller opportunities around the ground are open spaces. These are sold to a multitude of advertisers. To remove permanent SD branding makes no difference is no one wants to pay for a permanent replacement. Advertisers dont take out permanent spaces, sponsors do. Completely different financial and ROI ball game. For the announcement, the deal with Virgin lasts until January, so they i'm sure the deal precludes us announcing the new name whilst the deal with Virgin is still in place. This is straightforward. Why announce it all then? Perhaps because its a good deal and they want to say at least that publicly, perhaps the new sponsor wanted them to announce the end of Virgin to ensure that people anticipated the new brand so as to maximise the impact and to ensure there was no confusion in the minds of supporters who the sponsor is come January. Thats exactly how brand teams talk by the way. There is a strong possibility that its SD and a much weaker one that this is an extension of the 'free advertising to SD model'. All is possible given what we know, all my comments are just opinion on what makes sense to me. Fair points and a good post. Still not convinced though. Directors are appointed by shareholders and MA has had a majority shareholding in SD since it was floated. Would you concede that its a possibility yes men have been appointed to the board? I don't understand why SD would block a cut price shirt sponsorship deal if it was on the table. Is there any evidence SD PLC have blocked requests to be a paying sponsor at NUFC? The SD logo and name will be copyrighted. So presumably NUFC have had to negotiate the branding of SJP with Sportsdirect, yet to the best of my knowledge Sportsdirect PLC have never commented on their relationship with NUFC. They talk about everything else (see link). Doesn't this strike you as being a bit odd? http://www.sportsdir...ponsorship.aspx Edited October 2, 2012 by Your Name Here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McFaul 35 Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Theres a lot fucking worse to have one the front of a shirt other than Sports Direct. I'd rather have Andrex with a picture of a turd under neither the lettering, than Sports Direct. I would as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 21921 Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 I'd rather have Andrex with a picture of a turd under neither the lettering, than Sports Direct. I would as well. even that wouldn't look as shite as the sports direct signage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 I'd rather have Andrex with a picture of a turd under neither the lettering, than Sports Direct. I would as well. http://www.greenroomretail.co.uk/#/projects/nike-academy-shirebrook 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