City extend their partnership with Puma to 2034/2035

King Jay said:
Is 100M really good for 10 years? I mean how it’s going it could easily be 120M a year in 5 years.
Click to expand...
It’s a trade off. Guaranteed income vs Time and inflation. Also it may be front loaded in terms of what is paid when. Very handy if you are under PSR pressure.
 
King Jay said:
Is 100M really good for 10 years? I mean how it’s going it could easily be 120M a year in 5 years.
Click to expand...
Puma are protecting a brand. And it’s in City’s advantage to stick with Puma, even though Adidas and Nike were sniffing around. And what’s to say, Puma won’t increase it again in 5 yrs
 
King Jay said:
Is 100M really good for 10 years? I mean how it’s going it could easily be 120M a year in 5 years.
Click to expand...
Most of the deals negotiated recently have either stagnated or decreased in value. Juve the only other "big" deal done this year and theirs went down in value on an annual basis.
 
I’m a FOC and have no interest in replica shirts. I do take note of how they look on the team - in contrast to fat fucks in the stands. If I was a Puma Exec - and read this forum - I’d be concerned about the number of fakes people are buying. I get why people buy fakes given the ridiculous cost of genuine replicas. I wonder what plans Puma and City have to get fans back on board and to squeeze out the fakes because it must be undermining their business. I wonder whether the percentage of fakes in replica football shirts is comparable to other commodities like cigarettes and alcohol, designer clothes, electrical goods etc….
 
Ric said:
Decent article in The Guardian regarding the deal:

www.theguardian.com

Manchester City’s record £1bn deal with Puma and the value beyond bottom line

The 10-year contract is worth £1bn but it has also opened the door to increase the club’s global profile with other lucrative partnerships
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...
Good to see plenty of independent industry experts saying the deal is good value for both parties and that Puma are not a company likely to overpay for anything. I’m sure if the Guardian had come up with any credible opposing views from supposed neutrals they’d have been quick to include them!
 
I have irrefutable evidence that Mansour has given Puma a billion pounds to help with the massive sponsorship costs. We really should stop cheating this way. Luckily RAWK has spotted the transaction on Mansour’s bank statement and will issue a formal complaint to the PL. The PL is expected to enquire into this for about five years and then issue charge 116.
 
nmc said:
I’m a FOC and have no interest in replica shirts. I do take note of how they look on the team - in contrast to fat fucks in the stands. If I was a Puma Exec - and read this forum - I’d be concerned about the number of fakes people are buying. I get why people buy fakes given the ridiculous cost of genuine replicas. I wonder what plans Puma and City have to get fans back on board and to squeeze out the fakes because it must be undermining their business. I wonder whether the percentage of fakes in replica football shirts is comparable to other commodities like cigarettes and alcohol, designer clothes, electrical goods etc….
Click to expand...

Kit deals are a branding/marketing exercise. Puma’s association with the most successful club in England in the last 15 years is what the company are buying. The income generated directly into Puma’s balance sheet from each shirt sold is relatively low (£20 from £100 retail price) - once you take off manufacturing it, distribution, retailer cut, advertising and tax).

Whether the market is flooded with fakes isn’t a huge deal to Puma - people all over the world are still seeing the Puma badge next to the Manchester City badge, and worn by Erling Haaland, and that’s what matters. This association generates brand value for Puma and drives up the value of every other item they sell - that’s how they make their money. If Puma didn’t have this brand value that comes from deals like this one with City then they would end up with the same brand reputation as the bargain bucket sports brand you might pick up in Sports Direct such as Lonsdale or Donnay.

As proof of the above, the money to pay for football kit deals at Nike and Adidas comes out of their marketing budgets. I’m sure it’s the same at Puma.

The only real effect that the number of genuine kits sold would have would be when it comes the ROI measurement when looking to renew the deal. And you would probably be able to factor the number of fake kits out there into that calculation.
 
Last edited:
Ric said:
Decent article in The Guardian regarding the deal:

www.theguardian.com

Manchester City’s record £1bn deal with Puma and the value beyond bottom line

The 10-year contract is worth £1bn but it has also opened the door to increase the club’s global profile with other lucrative partnerships
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...
Graun trying desperately to re align in the light of widespread belief that City will be cleared of any major findings by the panel and also fears that City might sue miscreants.
Nevertheless, a decent article, despite quoting a brand expert who clearly doesn’t know about PSR.
 
KS55 said:
Graun trying desperately to re align in the light of widespread belief that City will be cleared of any major findings by the panel and also fears that City might sue miscreants.
Nevertheless, a decent article, despite quoting a brand expert who clearly doesn’t know about PSR.
Click to expand...
Good post.
I think the inability of the PLs brand experts to assess potential has been exposed. Etihad Airways are an example of trust in the City business plan.
 
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