City’s New Kits

Coatigan said:
Absolutely. All fair pal, not doubting anyones intentions here. Just sticking with my own logic based on what I know and think. Open to be convinced otherwise, but so far not seen anything near enough to make me question it.

Don't disagree that any percentage might not be huge. But just can't comprehend it being none at all.

Anyway, the kit has grown on me. Better than this season's, and the last lne for that matter too, and most recent home kits, with the exception of the treble one.
Click to expand...
Yeah i like it. Kids are all over it. And the new white one with the red n black sash.

Ive just ordered my 1981 fa cup replica retro
 
pride in battle said:
Nothing to do with fake shirts mate its dealing with facts, ie clubs make fuck all from shirt sales.
Click to expand...
That's a fallacy people choose to believe.

Yes, the club get most of the money upfront as part of the deal. However, if Puma and the sponsor then miss out on millions of shirt sales, that will come into play during the next contract negotiations. City will absolutely lose money during those negotiations.

To bring the sort of lost revenue to the likes of Puma to light, studies show that there are about 60% more fake shirts sold than real ones across the Premier League (10m real 16m fake).

City sell about 1.3m shirts per season, so that could mean 2 million fakes are also sold. If even a fraction of that amount was replaced by real shirts, that would put city in a much stronger bargaining position come contract renewals.

I know if I was the boss at Puma I would pay more if I knew I could sell say 2m shirts compared to 1.3m.

At the end of the day though, those who buy fake shirts will justify it to themselves regardless of what the facts say.
 
Moss Side's Finest said:
That's a fallacy people choose to believe.

Yes, the club get most of the money upfront as part of the deal. However, if Puma and the sponsor then miss out on millions of shirt sales, that will come into play during the next contract negotiations. City will absolutely lose money during those negotiations.

To bring the sort of lost revenue to the likes of Puma to light, studies show that there are about 60% more fake shirts sold than real ones across the Premier League (10m real 16m fake).

City sell about 1.3m shirts per season, so that could mean 2 million fakes are also sold. If even a fraction of that amount was replaced by real shirts, that would put city in a much stronger bargaining position come contract renewals.

I know if I was the boss at Puma I would pay more if I knew I could sell say 2m shirts compared to 1.3m.

At the end of the day though, those who buy fake shirts will justify it to themselves regardless of what the facts say.
Click to expand...
Why do you keep harping on about people justifying buying fakes ? All i'm stating is that the club DON'T make money from actual shirt sales, sponsorship YES.
When the rags said Ronaldo's wages were met with the explosion of shirt sales when he rejoined it was absolute bollocks, it didn't make the club any more than the agreed sponsorship.
 
pride in battle said:
Agree, personally i believe clubs don't get a penny from shirt sales.
Click to expand...
Based on what?

Liverpool and United both claimed 20% of individual shirt dales on their books. At the lowest, that was an extra 16m for one season for Liverpool in their previous nike deal.

I have since ask someone who is in a position to know this in detail, and their football club (not City) definitely get at least 15% from individual sales. IF they hit certain thresholds of sales, this rises automatically as part of their deal, if a particular shirt sale is popular.

What City do or don't get, I don't know. But a broadbrush 'clubs get nothing' is quite clearly just plain wrong.
 
pride in battle said:
Why do you keep harping on about people justifying buying fakes ? All i'm stating is that the club DON'T make money from actual shirt sales, sponsorship YES.
When the rags said Ronaldo's wages were met with the explosion of shirt sales when he rejoined it was absolute bollocks, it didn't make the club any more than the agreed sponsorship.
Click to expand...
You just don't want to listen to the facts.

Getting paid upfront by Puma and Etihad definitely IS making money from shirt sales. The money is just made upfront rather than per shirt.

Buying fakes shirts, reduces real shirts sales, therefore that amount of money paid upfront next time by Puma/Etihad (or a another) will not be as much as it could be.

So, City DO lose money from people buying fakes shirts.
 
Coatigan said:
Based on what?

Liverpool and United both claimed 20% of individual shirt dales on their books. At the lowest, that was an extra 16m for one season for Liverpool in their previous nike deal.

I have since ask someone who is in a position to know this in detail, and their football club (not City) definitely get at least 15% from individual sales. IF they hit certain thresholds of sales, this rises automatically as part of their deal, if a particular shirt sale is popular.

What City do or don't get, I don't know. But a broadbrush 'clubs get nothing' is quite clearly just plain wrong.
Click to expand...
Can't be arsed going into it mate
 
Last edited:
Moss Side's Finest said:
You just don't want to listen to the facts.

Getting paid upfront by Puma and Etihad definitely IS making money from shirt sales. The money is just made upfront rather than per shirt.

Buying fakes shirts, reduces real shirts sales, therefore that amount of money paid upfront next time by Puma/Etihad (or a another) will not be as much as it could be.

So, City DO lose money from people buying fakes shirts.
Click to expand...
Its not just shirt sales you lemon, its exposure of the brand, high profile ie champions league etc.
 
pride in battle said:
Its not just shirt sales you lemon, its exposure of the brand, high profile ie champions league etc.
Click to expand...
Ok, start name calling because I disagree. At the end of the day, you are trying to justify something that is both illegal and unfair to legitimate businesses. Whether anyone feels we're being ripped off by those businesses is another matter.
 
Moss Side's Finest said:
Ok, start name calling because I disagree. At the end of the day, you are trying to justify something that is both illegal and unfair to legitimate businesses. Whether anyone feels we're being ripped off by those businesses is another matter.
Click to expand...
Are you for real ? When have i said anything about endorsing fake shirts ? No you're not a lemon you're a turnip!
 
Moss Side's Finest said:
Ok, start name calling because I disagree. At the end of the day, you are trying to justify something that is both illegal and unfair to legitimate businesses. Whether anyone feels we're being ripped off by those businesses is another matter.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's all quite as black and white as that. In terms of what the club would want, they ideally, would want every City shirt out there to be genuine.

However, for a lot of people, the question isn't whether to buy a genuine shirt or a fake - if the fake wasn't an option, they just wouldn't buy one, because of the cost.

So there would be less kids, fans, around the world wearing City shirts, which is a small part of what drives demand.

Would the club prefer those who can't afford the genuine shirts to just not wear City shirts? Probably not. They'd probably prefer them buying fakes to buying nothing, as it still promotes the same thing.
 
Moss Side's Finest said:
That's a fallacy people choose to believe.

Yes, the club get most of the money upfront as part of the deal. However, if Puma and the sponsor then miss out on millions of shirt sales, that will come into play during the next contract negotiations. City will absolutely lose money during those negotiations.

To bring the sort of lost revenue to the likes of Puma to light, studies show that there are about 60% more fake shirts sold than real ones across the Premier League (10m real 16m fake).

City sell about 1.3m shirts per season, so that could mean 2 million fakes are also sold. If even a fraction of that amount was replaced by real shirts, that would put city in a much stronger bargaining position come contract renewals.

I know if I was the boss at Puma I would pay more if I knew I could sell say 2m shirts compared to 1.3m.

At the end of the day though, those who buy fake shirts will justify it to themselves regardless of what the facts say.
Click to expand...
Maybe they shouldnt charge what they charge. Its a rip off
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top