Guest Your Name Here Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Qatar Airways Arena. http://www.arabianbu...eal-465451.html Nailed on. "the approaches had come from clubs looking to build new stadia" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Your Name Here 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. It's relevant to how commercial deal usually work, but nothing at NUFC is normal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 7171 Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Again, its already confirmed the sponsor is NOT Sports Direct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OTF 7489 Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 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. So you've not even read Virgin's comments then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 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 thought it was that we should be announcing the new sponsor when we announce the end of the previous deal. Otherwise what could possibly be the bone of contention here? We've just announced the Virgin deal will end when the season is over. Chelsea announced the end of the emirates deal in September and Samsung deal the following April. As you would expect. As J69 reckons that's it's definitely not SD that would mean there is definitely not anything unusual about announcing these things at different times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Your Name Here Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 So you've not even read Virgin's comments then? Obviously not.I think Chez his right. There is nothing unusual in a new sponsor not being confirmed immediately in these circumstances. There's also nothing unusual in MA and Dekka ploughing their own strange furrow and what happens elsewhere is no guide to what might happen at NUFC. All things considered the odds are this will be a run of the mill change of shirt sponsor, but when MA is involved it pays to expect the unexpected. I'm just tired of the club's need to know approach to the supporters, namely they know what's going on and we don't need to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trophyshy 7084 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Typical Newcastle United, can't even see it through with a virgin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6700 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 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. My point didn't 'fall apart', you just chose to pick away at the specific areas you knew I'd got it wrong. My point is still very valid and as I've proven, our behaviour is completely different to that of Manchester United and Liverpool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9948 Posted October 4, 2012 Author Share Posted October 4, 2012 So you've not even read Virgin's comments then? Of course I did (I posted it) “…. hoped that this would be a relationship that would flourish for years to come” Bog standard business speak nothing more nothing less . Oh aye, they’d hope it would continue for years and years, IF and only IF the outlay was achieving/beating the targets they set for it (that’s what the use of the word flourish means i.e. growth). End of. Do you think for a second if the first years £10 Mill had gained them nothing , they wouldn’t have exercised the mutual bail out clause, who’s to say they wouldn’t have anyway, they may not have done their sums yet ? It really is a simple absolutely run of the mill business decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9948 Posted October 4, 2012 Author Share Posted October 4, 2012 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. That is hilarious, I mean what's clouded in mystery It's not highly unusual, it's bog standard, and Virgin are our sponsors for £10 Mill this year, next season someone else will be the sponsor the only mystery is who that will be. Obviously not. I think Chez his right. There is nothing unusual in a new sponsor not being confirmed immediately in these circumstances. There's also nothing unusual in MA and Dekka ploughing their own strange furrow and what happens elsewhere is no guide to what might happen at NUFC. All things considered the odds are this will be a run of the mill change of shirt sponsor, but when MA is involved it pays to expect the unexpected. I'm just tired of the club's need to know approach to the supporters, namely they know what's going on and we don't need to. We don't need to know anything tbh. Why should the club tell us who the next sponsors are until they (and the sponsors) judge the time is right. I stand by the reasoning I put up before btw. But when MA is involved it pays to be paranoid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OTF 7489 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Of course I did (I posted it) “…. hoped that this would be a relationship that would flourish for years to come” Bog standard business speak nothing more nothing less . Oh aye, they’d hope it would continue for years and years, IF and only IF the outlay was achieving/beating the targets they set for it (that’s what the use of the word flourish means i.e. growth). End of. Do you think for a second if the first years £10 Mill had gained them nothing , they wouldn’t have exercised the mutual bail out clause, who’s to say they wouldn’t have anyway, they may not have done their sums yet ? It really is a simple absolutely run of the mill business decision. How many times and for how long do you wish to be wrong? The deal was worth up to £10M over 2 years. Newcastle United ends Virgin Money sporsorship deal Virgin Money said, while it respected the club's decision, it had wanted to continue as the team's main sponsor. 'Different option' In a statement, the club said: "Whilst Virgin Money will remain as club sponsor until the end of the current season, Newcastle United has chosen to exercise its contractual right, as both parties had the option to do, to end the two-year sponsorship deal with the bank at the end of this season. "The Virgin Money name will continue to be worn on the iconic black and white shirts for the remainder of this season." Jayne-Anne Gadhia, chief executive of Virgin Money said: "We were delighted to sponsor Newcastle United given the club's importance to the North East and had hoped that this would be a relationship that would flourish for years to come. "However, they have found a different option and we have to respect that. "We remain sponsor until the end of the current season and the Virgin Money name will continue to be worn on the iconic black and white shirts until then." It's plain as day Newcastle United wanted to end the sponsorship deal. It wasn't mutual. Speculating that Virgin may have wanted to do the same shortly is only exceeded in its ridiculousness by its pointlessness. If you needed more comfirmation from an altenate source, then here's Llambias saying that it was the clubs decision to end the deal. Newcastle United managing director Derek Llambias added: "We have enjoyed a very successful partnership with Virgin Money, 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...
Toonpack 9948 Posted October 4, 2012 Author Share Posted October 4, 2012 How many times and for how long do you wish to be wrong? The deal was worth up to £10M over 2 years. Newcastle United ends Virgin Money sporsorship deal It's plain as day Newcastle United wanted to end the sponsorship deal. It wasn't mutual. Speculating that Virgin may have wanted to do the same shortly is only exceeded in its ridiculousness by its pointlessness. If you needed more comfirmation from an altenate source, then here's Llambias saying that it was the clubs decision to end the deal. DOH !! I never once said it was a mutual decision, it was a mutual clause and NUFC chose to excercise it as Virgin could have. The presence of the clause means both sides were happy that one or other could bail out after 12 months with no recriminations. It is no big deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 My point didn't 'fall apart', you just chose to pick away at the specific areas you knew I'd got it wrong. My point is still very valid and as I've proven, our behaviour is completely different to that of Manchester United and Liverpool. Yes it did, as there is nothing unusual about what we are doing. What point are you trying to argue then, that we should announce the new sponsor before the deal is in place? We have 9 months to satisfy this, most clubs dont do all these things on the same day. There is plenty of scope to stagger these things, no reason to announce the new deal earlier than a few months before it comes into place though (not 9 months before) and nothing unusual about what we are doing. Had a look at the other example for you. Man U's commercial interests are on a different planet to ours, using brands with bigger global exposure but also driving a far more attractive option for new sponsors. Not sure how they behave is a model for us. When GM was announced as the new sponsor, AON announced the next day that they will continue to sponsor the Man U business network (there is therefore no need to separate the brands association with the club). They are all still partners, with one brand replacing another on the shirt but the rest, including DHL, all partnering with the club as official sponsors. So there is the specific issue which explains whatever was making you complain we weren't acting like Man U. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6700 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 But you stated: the club's behaviours is consistent with other major marketing deals amongst the biggest clubs Yet now we can't compare us to Man Utd because their commercial interests are on a different planet to ours. Make your mind up - hell of a lot of goalpost shifting going on. Clearly you don't get my point. I don't recall Manchester United announcing that they were terminating their sponsorship deal with AON - that news was swallowed up by the announcement about Chevrolet. It's the manner of the delivery I'm calling into question - seems suss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 No shift in any goal posts at all. I didnt base my point on Man U's commercial interests being on a different planet, i based it on AON remaining a key commercial partner therefore explaining why no care was taken to announce the end of AON as there was no end of AON. Me commenting that how Man U do business is perhaps also exceptional refers to the power they have over the sponsors. I think i covered the 'we act just like all the other bigger clubs' with detailed examples of Arsenal and Chelsea. Now your Man U example doesnt really hold up either. In all seriousness, i'd be surprised if it is SD. Why would they want to pay for space on the shirts when the fuckers get adequate coverage already for nothing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howmanheyman 33845 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Ghuras of Shields Road for the new sponsor. You heard it here first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JawD 99 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 I don't really see a big deal in the whole goings on like. I think Virgin revealed we had ended the deal, as chez pointed out its a deal/clause both parties agreed to. I have to assume something better has come up and maybe will make sense when is announced. That time I assume is when both parties are happy to for whatever reason. No big deal imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6700 Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 No shift in any goal posts at all. I didnt base my point on Man U's commercial interests being on a different planet, i based it on AON remaining a key commercial partner therefore explaining why no care was taken to announce the end of AON as there was no end of AON. Me commenting that how Man U do business is perhaps also exceptional refers to the power they have over the sponsors. I think i covered the 'we act just like all the other bigger clubs' with detailed examples of Arsenal and Chelsea. Now your Man U example doesnt really hold up either. In all seriousness, i'd be surprised if it is SD. Why would they want to pay for space on the shirts when the fuckers get adequate coverage already for nothing? tbf I've never once said I think it's going to be SD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEADMAN 0 Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 you know whats coming here guys sports direct.com on the shirts eh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYD 0 Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Richard Branson is gutted to lose the sponsorship, but in true business like fashion he has turned his attention back to trying to invest his well earned wonga into a famous picked onion firm he'd love to put his name behind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEADMAN 0 Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 yea and its wonga.com as sponsers now fucking joke fucking ashley cashley least our st james park name is back 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