Craig 6682 Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Yet elsewhere in the football world, new sponsors are unveiled months ahead of their names actually appearing on the shirt. Ones that come to mind are Arsenal with Emirates, Chelsea with Samsung, Liverpool with Standard Chartered, Man Utd with AIG, AON & now Chevrolet - even us with Northern Rock was announced about 6 months in advance. I don't get your reasoning either - the annoucements particularly by Man Utd & Liverpool brought brands that were previously little known into massive exposure. Standard Charter became synonomous with Liverpool long before the name actually appeared on the shirt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 (edited) I dont believe that Craig, the incumbent sponsors were happy for the new sponsor to be part of the core communications (via branding etc) of the clubs whilst still paying for the rights to be the main sponsor? You'll have to go into specifics with actual links demonstrating timelines for me to begin thinking that might be credible. There may be a circumstance like with Emirates sponsoring the stadium and paying money for that before taking over the shirt sponsorship, as an example. Not saying thats the case. What TP is saying makes 100% sense for anyone who has spent any amount of time in a marketing team. Virgin will have made it a condition that the announcement has to be delayed, they are contracted to pay money to us to be on the shirt until the end of the season but then the new company gets all the press? Nope and i doubt any of your examples hold up either. Edited October 3, 2012 by ChezGiven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 So lets rule out Arsenal Chelsea as examples then, since Emirtates Airlines sign a 100m deal with Arsenal in 2004 that secures the final funding for the stadium. Of course this is announced ahead of them becoming a shirt sponsor in 05/06 its a massive deal. Funnily enough Chelsea's sponsors in 2004 were ..... Emirates. Chelsea announce the end of the deal with Emirates in September 2004 (as they are now investing in Arsenal) and announce the new deal with Samsung in April 2005. I cant be arsed to look at the others but i doubt they stand up to scrutiny either. So if we announce the new deal in April next year, we act in the same way as Chelsea did when they switched from emirates to samsung. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6682 Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Man Utd have already announed they're off to Chevrolet from next season - was announced in July. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19052970 Liverpool announced Standard Chartered as their new sponsor back in September 2009 yet their name didn't appear on their shirts until the following August. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/liverpool/8261975.stm So yes, my examples do stand up. The Arsenal / Chelsea one perhaps not but these two definitely do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30609 Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 (edited) Aye, I was about to say that Man U always seem to announce their sponsors well in advance. But then again Craig has never worked in a marketing team so what would he know? Edited October 3, 2012 by ewerk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OTF 7295 Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 One difference with ours is that our deal with Virgin is being prematurely ended. Perhaps a condition of theirs to end things harmoniously? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9400 Posted October 3, 2012 Author Share Posted October 3, 2012 One difference with ours is that our deal with Virgin is being prematurely ended. Perhaps a condition of theirs to end things harmoniously? It's not being ended prematurely, it is being ended at the contractualy agreed earliest point in the contract that either party could opt out, it is perfectly harmonious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9400 Posted October 3, 2012 Author Share Posted October 3, 2012 Aye, I was about to say that Man U always seem to announce their sponsors well in advance. But then again Craig has never worked in a marketing team so what would he know? I've never worked in marketing, but the potential reasons I put forward for lack of immediate announcement are perfectly valid and plausible in business terms, there ain't no conspiracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Your Name Here Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 I've never worked in marketing, but the potential reasons I put forward for lack of immediate announcement are perfectly valid and plausible in business terms, there ain't no conspiracy. Whatever the reason Dekka didn't have to be so ambiguous about the situation. A simple 'we can't reveal the new sponsor at the moment due to contractual reasons but I can confirm it's not SD' would have gone a long way to ending concerns before they started. That would never do of course, can't have the supporters knowing what's happening at their club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OTF 7295 Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 It's not being ended prematurely, it is being ended at the contractualy agreed earliest point in the contract that either party could opt out, it is perfectly harmonious. If you wish to be pedantic about it it's not 'perfectly harmonious' as Virgin wished to continue the deal into its second year. Perhaps then it's a goodwill gesture? By definition anyway it is being ended prematurely as the expected term of the deal was 2 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9400 Posted October 3, 2012 Author Share Posted October 3, 2012 Whatever the reason Dekka didn't have to be so ambiguous about the situation. A simple 'we can't reveal the new sponsor at the moment due to contractual reasons but I can confirm it's not SD' would have gone a long way to ending concerns before they started. That would never do of course, can't have the supporters knowing what's happening at their club. Can't account for paranoia tbh Inventing non existent sticks to beat them up with again IMO Even if it was SD and they are contracted to pay more than Virgin, what's wrong with that ? seriously ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Your Name Here Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 (edited) Can't account for paranoia tbh Inventing non existent sticks to beat them up with again IMO Even if it was SD and they are contracted to pay more than Virgin, what's wrong with that ? seriously ?? There's no evidence the next sponsor will be paying more, it's just assumption based on guess work. It's not paranoia. The naming rights for SJP are supposedly up for sale an any unexpected change in the shirt sponsorship is bound raise questions about whether the two are connected. Also SD have apparently been paying SFA for the saturation advertising they've had at NUFC for the last five years, the possibility of them becoming the shirt sponsors is naturally going to raise concerns about how the clubs assets are being managed. Edited October 3, 2012 by Your Name Here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9400 Posted October 3, 2012 Author Share Posted October 3, 2012 If you wish to be pedantic about it it's not 'perfectly harmonious' as Virgin wished to continue the deal into its second year. Perhaps then it's a goodwill gesture? By definition anyway it is being ended prematurely as the expected term of the deal was 2 years. Seriously I am not being pedantic at all, even your post quoted above reeks of an impression that Virgin got shat on, they didn't, both parties wanted (otherwise it wouldn't have existed) the early get out of the deal after 12 months clause, one of the parties exercised it, it's really a nothing situation, it's business, it happens all the time and absolutely both parties are perfectly happy. Virgin are not disappointed/upset/miffed, other than announcing it, they'll have forgotten about it already except next years marketing budget has had a £10 mill boost (although I expect the budget will be trimmed accordingly and the £10 mill get "banked"). There is no-one in Virgin walking around muttering "the bastards!!!!". The deals done its job for Virgin anyway, local bank taken over by corporate giant(ish) but sponsors local football team, what thoroughly splendid chaps Mr Bransons crew are, job done. This is business, it is different, the is no emotional element, there is just the contracts and what they allow the contracted parties to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9400 Posted October 3, 2012 Author Share Posted October 3, 2012 There's no evidence the next sponsor will be paying more, it's just assumption based on guess work. It's not paranoia. The naming rights for SJP are supposedly up for sale an any unexpected change in the shirt sponsorship is bound raise questions about whether the two are connected. Also SD have apparently been paying SFA for the saturation advertising they've had at NUFC for the last five years, the possibility of them becoming the shirt sponsors is naturally going to raise concerns about how the clubs assets are being managed. I would suggest that an assumption that the next sponsor will be paying less than the mutualy terminated agreement is a much wilder (paranoid even) assumption than to assume they will be paying more or the same for longer. Surely ?? Give Ashley's track record with the finances of NUFC I have no concerns over how the clubs assets are being managed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exile 0 Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 It occurs to me that we have an international break coming up. If they are going to announce Sports Direct as the new sponsors of everything, then you can bet that will when they drop the bombshell. They love to give bad news when there's no game for a couple of weeks to reduce any protests. I'd love to be wrong, but it's been a while since Ashley has pushed the self destruct button with those pudgy digits. He's due another one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monroe Transfer 0 Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Have heard it's Invest In Africa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9400 Posted October 3, 2012 Author Share Posted October 3, 2012 It occurs to me that we have an international break coming up. If they are going to announce Sports Direct as the new sponsors of everything, then you can bet that will when they drop the bombshell. They love to give bad news when there's no game for a couple of weeks to reduce any protests. I'd love to be wrong, but it's been a while since Ashley has pushed the self destruct button with those pudgy digits. He's due another one. If it was SD but they pay more than Virgin are is it a problem, serious question ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Your Name Here Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 If it was SD but they pay more than Virgin are is it a problem, serious question ?? No, assuming it's a stand alone deal that has nothing to do with the naming rights for the stadium. The problem now is the easily avoidable lack of clarity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exile 0 Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 If it is, do you think that they would tell us? They haven't let us know what Ashley is paying for the stadium rights or to have his tacky logo slapped on every available surface. If it meant that he would give a transparent figure for the sponsorship that would be invested back into the club, then I'd probably moan for a bit and then put up with it. I can't help feeling that it will all be disguised by creative bookkeeping though. I can just see the press release now. "Our new sponsorship deal fell through, so in order to showcase the combined package we are just going to put "Sports Direct" on there for a while. Just until we get another sponsor." Like I say, I hope I'm wrong, but nothing that those clowns do would surprise me anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Your Name Here Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 (edited) If it is, do you think that they would tell us? They haven't let us know what Ashley is paying for the stadium rights or to have his tacky logo slapped on every available surface. If it meant that he would give a transparent figure for the sponsorship that would be invested back into the club, then I'd probably moan for a bit and then put up with it. I can't help feeling that it will all be disguised by creative bookkeeping though. I can just see the press release now. "Our new sponsorship deal fell through, so in order to showcase the combined package we are just going to put "Sports Direct" on there for a while. Just until we get another sponsor." Like I say, I hope I'm wrong, but nothing that those clowns do would surprise me anymore. I'm inclined to agree. I simply don't trust them and your point about the international break was also bang on the money. It doesn't mean unpopular news is inevitable but it makes me apprehensive about what's happening. The relationship between NUFC and SD should have been clarified years ago. Nothing the club come out with is ever properly scrutinised by the media. Lee Ryder in particular does my head in. Edited October 3, 2012 by Your Name Here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Aye, I was about to say that Man U always seem to announce their sponsors well in advance. But then again Craig has never worked in a marketing team so what would he know? Craig's point has fallen apart though, Chelsea and Arsenal were acting exactly how we are acting now. I'm therefore not going to bother looking any further into the specifics of the man u or Liverpool deals. If I did I'm sure it would be easy to unpick the commercial specifics. Doesn't matter though, the club's behaviours is consistent with other major marketing deals amongst the biggest clubs. Which was the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asteroidblitz 12 Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Qatar Airways Arena. http://www.arabianbusiness.com/qatar-air-mulls-uk-football-sponsorship-deal-465451.html Nailed on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30609 Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Craig's point has fallen apart though, Chelsea and Arsenal were acting exactly how we are acting now. I'm therefore not going to bother looking any further into the specifics of the man u or Liverpool deals. If I did I'm sure it would be easy to unpick the commercial specifics. Doesn't matter though, the club's behaviours is consistent with other major marketing deals amongst the biggest clubs. Which was the point. Craig's point was that other clubs announced their new sponsors prior to the expiration of their current deals and they do. Man U, Liverpool, Arsenal and Chelsea have all announced their current sponsors well before their predecessor's deals were up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Your Name Here Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Craig's point was that other clubs announced their new sponsors prior to the expiration of their current deals and they do. Man U, Liverpool, Arsenal and Chelsea have all announced their current sponsors well before their predecessor's deals were up. I'm not sure comparisons are of any relevance. The sponsorship/branding situation at NUFC is highly unusual and clouded in mystery. How Chelsea and Arsenal behave is no guide to what going on inside MA's head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30609 Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 No but it is relevant to how commercial deals work in the football industry and the likelihood of any clauses that would preclude the announcement of a new sponsor prior to the expiration of the VM deal. 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