Virgin booted out at end of the season !!

[Toonpack 9963]

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

 

First Bold bit:

 

Not a chance, for many reasons. Firstly Ashleys reported management ethos is the promotion of dissent and confrontation being drivers to excellence.

 

Secondly, at corporate governance level, it just doesn't happen, at lower or middle management oh aye, there's jobs for the boys. At Corporate level it's the best people for the job because as Chez mentioned if the institutional investors caught a whiff of Ashley driving the bus roughshod over everything (as he saw fit) they'd be less than happy which in turn would/could effect the share price and even a penny off SD share value would be a tidy sum taken away from his holding I reckon.

 

This majority shareholding thing and it's day to day influence is way over blown, if he wanted to run things day to day he'd be CEO. Majority shareholders take a back seat their primary interest being comfort that the business is being run/grown properly (with them having to do as little as possible whilst that happens). They put in the 24/7 graft to bring the business into a position that being the majority share holder is worth bazzilions, once there, they just want it to run/grow smoothly so they can concentrate on the things they enjoy doing, when they want to do them - Likely the reason behind Ashleys directorship role, he patently likes doing the aquisition expansion stuff. He wants to see SD the biggest on the planet, read their annual report (easy to find via Google) and where they want to expand to.

 

Second Bold bit:

 

They don't have one to comment on.

[Happy Face 29]

I wouldn't mind SD on the shirts, if it was paid for. I wouldn't mind it plastered all over the stadium if it earned any money.

 

The fact we're refunding a £10m deal suggests someone is going to pay more handsomely for shirt sponsorship at least.

 

The only money in Stadium deals is for new stadia though, companies stay well away from messing with heritage, and if they do get involved, they pay peanuts relatively.

[OTF 7492]

 

It doesnt have to mean that, i could have used 'should' instead of 'must'.....

 

Thanks for the lengthy reasoned response. On the subject of stadium advertising the effectiveness of general advertising boards is compromised by larger SD hoardings with more visual impact IMO. That's not to say that this is the reason why there is so little alternate sponsorship in the ground. I would say they could gain additional revenue from alternate advertisement on the more prominent boards but they are not available as a result of the agreement between SD and NUFC.

 

On the subject of Ashley I was saying that as the owner of NUFC he could make whatever deal he wanted. For example if the Virgin deal was good for 3 million for the second year Ashley could well seek to end it prematurely and replace it with a SD deal worth 2 million to he club. If he deems the immediate revenue loss to the club to be worth it for the benefit to his own interests in SD then there would be nothing stopping him - assuming SD are happy to make the 2M deal knowing full well that the market rate was 3M.

[David Kelly 1260]

I wouldn't mind SD on the shirts, if it was paid for. I wouldn't mind it plastered all over the stadium if it earned any money.

 

The fact we're refunding a £10m deal suggests someone is going to pay more handsomely for shirt sponsorship at least.

 

The only money in Stadium deals is for new stadia though, companies stay well away from messing with heritage, and if they do get involved, they pay peanuts relatively.

But Ashley's already done that and took the stick for it. I think anyone that came in now and put some money into the club to buy these rights would be looked upon favourably by the majority so someone might see it as a good idea now.

[Happy Face 29]

But Ashley's already done that and took the stick for it. I think anyone that came in now and put some money into the club to buy these rights would be looked upon favourably by the majority so someone might see it as a good idea now.

 

I think it'll depend. "St James Park, sponsored by Apple" for £200m is palatable.

 

"The pound store@SJP" in a £10m deal will raise hackles.

[OTF 7492]

I wouldn't mind SD on the shirts, if it was paid for. I wouldn't mind it plastered all over the stadium if it earned any money.

 

Exactly. We've seen already that when it comes to divulging information in relation to SD sponsorship income the club is ambiguous. Why?

[David Kelly 1260]

I think it'll depend. "St James Park, sponsored by Apple" for £200m is palatable.

 

"The pound store@SJP" in a £10m deal will raise hackles.

Not if the £10m was put into the transfer fund it wouldn't. Admittedly if someone were to come in and pay a sizeable chunk you would get near blanket approval and very positive advertising that goes with it. But anything that people can see as putting any money and in turn getting rid of all the Sports Direct crap will be fairly easily accepted imo.

[Guest Your Name Here]

First Bold bit:

 

Not a chance, for many reasons. Firstly Ashleys reported management ethos is the promotion of dissent and confrontation being drivers to excellence.

 

Secondly, at corporate governance level, it just doesn't happen, at lower or middle management oh aye, there's jobs for the boys. At Corporate level it's the best people for the job because as Chez mentioned if the institutional investors caught a whiff of Ashley driving the bus roughshod over everything (as he saw fit) they'd be less than happy which in turn would/could effect the share price and even a penny off SD share value would be a tidy sum taken away from his holding I reckon.

 

This majority shareholding thing and it's day to day influence is way over blown, if he wanted to run things day to day he'd be CEO. Majority shareholders take a back seat their primary interest being comfort that the business is being run/grown properly (with them having to do as little as possible whilst that happens). They put in the 24/7 graft to bring the business into a position that being the majority share holder is worth bazzilions, once there, they just want it to run/grow smoothly so they can concentrate on the things they enjoy doing, when they want to do them - Likely the reason behind Ashleys directorship role, he patently likes doing the aquisition expansion stuff. He wants to see SD the biggest on the planet, read their annual report (easy to find via Google) and where they want to expand to.

 

Second Bold bit:

 

They don't have one to comment on.

KK and the media outlets that were banned from SJP might disagree about the dissent as driver of excellence stuff.

 

I can't see how you can say SD don't have a relationship with NUFC. The advertising they have at Newcastle must be the biggest sponsorship deal they have in terms of market reach. SD plc wouldn't let a completely separate company use their branding without their consent, they must have approved the 'partnership' with NUFC. Unless MA has run roughshod over the formal channels, which you insist he can't do.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Your Name Here

[Toonpack 9963]

KK and the media outlets that were banned from SJP might disagree about the dissent as driver of excellence stuff.

 

I can't see how you can say SD don't have a relationship with NUFC. The advertising they have at Newcastle must be the biggest sponsorship deal they have in terms of market reach. SD plc wouldn't let a completely separate company use their branding without their consent, they must have approved the 'partnership' with NUFC. Unless MA has run roughshod over the formal channels, which you insist he can't do.

 

I bet there's no formal contractual deal in place between SD plc and NUFC, it will be an informal "can I use the logo"/"aye OK" now I accept that wouldn't normally happen as companies are incredibly precious about their logo's, and their use, but given who the owner of NUFC is all the normal "yes you can use it but caveat caveat caveat etc." won't likely have been necessary.

 

I would guess their standard TV adverts reach more people than the SJP stuff.

[Matt 0]

because as Chez mentioned if the institutional investors caught a whiff of Ashley driving the bus roughshod over everything (as he saw fit) they'd be less than happy which in turn would/could effect the share price and even a penny off SD share value would be a tidy sum taken away from his holding I reckon.

 

The same investors he labelled 'cry babies'? Ashley owns most of the shares and knows the business inside out. If his actions at a corporate level lose him favour with institutions then all the better for him, he's not planning to sell up so he will care little about the price as long as the underlying performance is solid. It won't change the way SDI operates or the cash it throws off, all it does is make it easier to buy back shares at a lower price (which he has been doing gradually over time).

 

This majority shareholding thing and it's day to day influence is way over blown

 

He can have as much or as little control as he likes- clearly as chairman he is 'hands off' but there is nothing to things being 'ran past Mike' and it should be obvious that he will have a significant say in how SD advertises at NUFC given his role at both businesses.

 

As for comments on the relationship, if auditors feel it is material, there should be comment made in related party transactions. However, the sums involved would not be material for a business the size of SDI, but may well be for NUFC.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Matt

[Guest Your Name Here]

I bet there's no formal contractual deal in place between SD plc and NUFC, it will be an informal "can I use the logo"/"aye OK" now I accept that wouldn't normally happen as companies are incredibly precious about their logo's, and their use, but given who the owner of NUFC is all the normal "yes you can use it but caveat caveat caveat etc." won't likely have been necessary.

 

I would guess their standard TV adverts reach more people than the SJP stuff.

The PL has a global audience of 4.7 billion.

[Kid Dynamite 7173]

I dont think that many people in the world have TVs let alone watch football

[Toonpack 9963]

The PL has a global audience of 4.7 billion.

 

Which is completely irrelevant outside of where SD has a presence, SD are not looking beyond Europe in terms of further expansion in the next 5 years, SD promotion in China/Singapore/USA, for example, is worthless:

 

If SD has a TV add in the break in the Belgian version of Corrie bet it's seen by more Belgians than one of our games is.

 

Stores

International Retail

TOTAL RETAIL SALES SPACE OF c.

778,000* SQ FT

118

Stores

44 Belgium

39 Ireland

14 Slovenia

04 Netherlands

04 Cyprus

10 Portugal

02 France

01 Luxemburg

 

SD is the company name but that in the UK is known by most as it's retail arm brand, I'm surprised we're not the Everlast/Slazenger/Dunlop/No Fear Stadium at SJP because he owns those brands and they are global, you can buy Everlast and No Fear stuff in Sears (and Wallmart I think) in the US for example.

[Guest Your Name Here]

I dont think that many people in the world have TVs let alone watch football

Check the net if you want. It's a well established figure.

 

 

NUFC and SD are completely separate companies but NUFC seem to be treated like a subsidiary of SD. For example, if NUFC needed to showcase the renaming of the ground to encourage possible sponsorship they should have tried to find an organisation that best achieves this objective. SD are a cheap and cheerful domestic brand, whereas most major renaming deals are with major international brands who invest millions in corporate design and presentation, who don't design their logo on MS Word. The naming rights at the Emirates and The Etihad are coherent, with stadium and shirt bearing the same name. The branding at Newcastle is a mess. A tie in with Virgin Money's shirt deal would have made more sense in terms of the showcasing relating to it's potential market.

 

Alternatively if demonstrating the physical mechanics of a renaming was all they were bothered about they could have used a charity, the Sir Bobby Robson Foundation Stadium. The Foundation Stadium. Charlie Crowe Park.

 

What they seem to have done is given the idea five minutes thought and plumped for a random orginisation who just happened to be owned by MA.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Your Name Here

[Toonpack 9963]

Check the net if you want. It's a well established figure.

 

It has to be wrong. There's "only" 7 Billion people on the planet, thick end of half of them live in China, India, USA, Indonesia, Brazil and Pakistan, I severely doubt 67% of the worlds population watch the EPL. More folks don't watch football (across all the leagues) even in this country than do.

[Guest Your Name Here]

It is wrong really, but its calculated the same way as domestic TV audiences. Not by how many individual people watch something but by how many times something is watched.... and then it's just an estimate extrapolated from a ridiculously small sample. If you watched something 10 times a year you would be classed as an audience of ten. It's like saying NUFC have a million supporters because 50k turn up to watch each league game.

 

The reach of the PL is still huge and valuable in marketing terms.

[Toonpack 9963]

It is wrong really, but its calculated the same way as domestic TV audiences. Not by how many individual people watch something but by how many times something is watched.... and then it's just an estimate extrapolated from a ridiculously small sample. If you watched something 10 times a year you would be classed as an audience of ten. It's like saying NUFC have a million supporters because 50k turn up to watch each league game.

 

The reach of the PL is still huge and valuable in marketing terms.

 

Oh aye it is, if you have something to market in the markets, if you see what I mean.

[Guest Your Name Here]

Oh aye it is, if you have something to market in the markets, if you see what I mean.

SD clearly think they have 'something to market' or their logo wouldn't be plastered all over the ground.

[Craig 6700]

What I can't fathom is the content of the announcement and more importantly, why they've found it appropriate to make a separate announcement of the Virgin deal ending from the announcement of the new sponsors. It doesn't make sense to me.

[Toonpack 9963]

SD clearly think they have 'something to market' or their logo wouldn't be plastered all over the ground.

 

It would be if it was showcasing the potential for advertising via NUFC (wind up answer)

 

They do in the UK and to a limited extent Europe, elsewhere nowt though.

[Toonpack 9963]

What I can't fathom is the content of the announcement and more importantly, why they've found it appropriate to make a separate announcement of the Virgin deal ending from the announcement of the new sponsors. It doesn't make sense to me.

 

They gave notice to Virgin that they were excercising the termination clause, Virgin first broke the news on their website (and from what I hear Virgin is from where the rumours started). Not so sure it was a plan.

 

Can't see any issue with it either way personally, still a reasonably long time for the Virgin deal to run.

[Craig 6700]

OK... Even if it was Virgin who broke it then why the delay in announcing the replacement? Surely it's already known who it is otherwise Virgin wouldn't have dumped?

[Guest Your Name Here]

OK... Even if it was Virgin who broke it then why the delay in announcing the replacement? Surely it's already known who it is otherwise Virgin wouldn't have dumped?

The new sponsor already has a deal with another club until the end of the season? To create confusion? They had a row with VM and don't really have a replacement yet? Edited October 2, 2012 by Your Name Here

[jonasjuice 0]

A few weeks of fans wondering who it's going to be gives it bigger impact when it's announced.

[Toonpack 9963]

OK... Even if it was Virgin who broke it then why the delay in announcing the replacement? Surely it's already known who it is otherwise Virgin wouldn't have dumped?

 

I reckon that’ll be down to the new sponsor, most likely (or Virgin possibly – they are still the sponsors for a while yet, won’t want anything detracting from that, they have/are still paying for it).

 

If you think about it from the new sponsor perspective, would you want the announcement of your deal to happen 6 months in advance of it being able to bear any fruit (i.e. logo on shirt) and have another sponsor getting the exposure for those 6 months, so that when your logo is unveiled it’d be a sort of damp squib “oh look new shirt with the new picture on it”. Or would you want the speculation for a while and the big announcement in concert with when the logo can be displayed and it can do what you are paying for it to do.