Deloitte Football Rich List (merged)

Maldeika

Well-Known Member
Joined
27 Aug 2011
Messages
2,688
Again missing the point completely.
Nobody who sponsors City has a stake in the club unlike many of the various corporations that sponsor Bayern.
Many clubs around the world have close contacts whose companies sponsor them (City, United, Liverpool for example), but not too many are sponsored by organisations that part own them.
Overpaying Bayern for inflated sponsorship deals does help those companies as it increases the value of an entity (Bayern) that they have a stake in by increasing it's turnover and balance sheet value.
It also increases their chances of success in what is already a one team league which by default leads to a bigger share of the pot for prize money, even in a league that is far less lucrative than the EPL.
You have again failed to address the point about the vastly inferior TV audiences Bayern attract for Bundesliga and UCL matches when compared with clubs in the EPL which is the main attraction for sponsors who want global and not just domestic exposure.
Like you said, may as well leave it at this point as I'm basically pissing in the wind labouring a key point that you either can't or won't answer.

Just as an example...

You and 13 others own a supermarket. Would you overpay for your groceries in that shop - the other 13 profit from it in the same way you do...

That does not make any sense.

There is a reason why this companies invest into Bayern - they can make profit of it as the footballing companies have improved in their value over the last 10 to 20 years and to be ahead of competitors of the own branch, when it means sponsoring contracts with the club. The Bayern fans even think that it is even a disadvantage for the sponsoring contracts and we would get more out of the sponsoring contracts when there weren't any affiliations between the club and the companies.

Bayern's sponsoring contracts aren't overinflated. It is mainly German manufacturing companies advertising with the biggest German footballing team of the biggest economy in Europe in the World's biggest sport. And there is different manufacturing companies of the same branches competing with each other.
 
Last edited:

Blueboy73

Well-Known Member
Joined
3 Aug 2020
Messages
828
Team supported
Manchester City
Just as an example...

You and 13 others own a supermarket. Would you overpay for your groceries in that shop - the other 13 profit from it in the same way you do...

That does not make any sense.

There is a reason why this companies invest into Bayern - they can make profit of it as the footballing companies have improved in their value over the last 10 to 20 years and to be ahead of competitors of the own branch, when it means sponsoring contracts with the club. The Bayern fans even think that it is even a disadvantage for the sponsoring contracts and we would get more out of the sponsoring contracts when there weren't any affiliations between the club and the companies.

Bayern's sponsoring contracts aren't overinflated. It is mainly German manufacturing companies advertising with the biggest German footballing team of the biggest economy in Europe in the World's biggest sport. And there is different manufacturing companies of the same branches competing with each other.
Oh hello, where have you been hiding for the last week?
The companies mentioned benefit by over paying sponsorship as they own a part of the club so they're benefiting directly from the increase in value that results in them paying into something they already own.
It's quite simple really,perhaps the convicted criminals that run Bayern thought this one up?
As I've stated previously, the football world doesn't start and end at the German border despite your over inflated opinion of the attraction of the Bundesliga to sponsors.
I asked you almost a week ago to explain why a club playing in a league that isn't particularly popular when compared to the EPL and has nowhere near it's exposure is able to attract deals of this size and you still can't answer.
The Bundesliga is small fry compared to the EPL for worldwide exposure and popularity and the exposure of the UCL doesn't make up for this either.
Wherever I travel around the world or on holiday, I see plenty of Real Madrid, Barcelona, Man Utd, Liverpool, Juventus, AC Milan and more recently Man City shirts but I never see any Bayern shirts on my travels.
You've basically admitted that Bayern's sponsors are paying for domestic exposure to around 80 million people, most of whom follow other clubs and hate Bayern.
Other clubs sponsors such as those listed above, are paying less for worldwide exposure to billions of people than Bayern's sponsors are to a mainly domestic market.
You can claim that Bayern's deals aren't over inflated until you are blue in the face but the facts speak for themselves and show that they clearly are.
 

KPXBLN

Well-Known Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
848
Location
Berlin
The companies mentioned benefit by over paying sponsorship as they own a part of the club so they're benefiting directly from the increase in value that results in them paying into something they already own.
To be fair to him, leaving aside the question about TV audiences, he's pointed out that the companies concerned only own a small portion of the club. Allianz, Audi and Adidas own about 8.3% each. If your theory is that these companies are overpaying on sponsorship because they reckon they'll make the money back (plus extra) as a result of increasing the club's profits, then you have to reckon with the fact that more than 90% of any increased profit the club makes as a result of money put in by any one of those three companies is not coming back to that company. If I'm Allianz and I overpay on a sponsorship by, say, €100 million, then I have to expect that profits are going to increase by a minimum of €1.2 billion as a result for it to be worth it.

Unless what I'm really interested is not increasing the club's profits through prize money or shirt sales or whatever, so I can get my 8.3% of the increase, but instead raising the profile of my company through connecting my company's brand with a major sporting brand a.k.a. what a company typically has in mind when it sponsors a club. From my perspective that's why I reckon these companies are paying what they (and their accountants, advisors, shareholders etc) will perceive to be market value. At the end of the day they're big companies run by ruthless people who love making money.
 

Blueboy73

Well-Known Member
Joined
3 Aug 2020
Messages
828
Team supported
Manchester City
To be fair to him, leaving aside the question about TV audiences, he's pointed out that the companies concerned only own a small portion of the club. Allianz, Audi and Adidas own about 8.3% each. If your theory is that these companies are overpaying on sponsorship because they reckon they'll make the money back (plus extra) as a result of increasing the club's profits, then you have to reckon with the fact that more than 90% of any increased profit the club makes as a result of money put in by any one of those three companies is not coming back to that company. If I'm Allianz and I overpay on a sponsorship by, say, €100 million, then I have to expect that profits are going to increase by a minimum of €1.2 billion as a result for it to be worth it.

Unless what I'm really interested is not increasing the club's profits through prize money or shirt sales or whatever, so I can get my 8.3% of the increase, but instead raising the profile of my company through connecting my company's brand with a major sporting brand a.k.a. what a company typically has in mind when it sponsors a club. From my perspective that's why I reckon these companies are paying what they (and their accountants, advisors, shareholders etc) will perceive to be market value. At the end of the day they're big companies run by ruthless people who love making money.
You've hit the nail on the head which is what I've been saying all along.
Adidas, Allianz,Audi and co are basically overpaying as it increases the balance sheet value of an organisation that they part own.
Whilst the criminals who run Bayern are holding prominent positions in UEFA and the ECA this won't be called out any time soon.
The amount they are paying doesn't tally when you compare it with the amount other clubs who receive far greater exposure receive which is my point.
 

KPXBLN

Well-Known Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
848
Location
Berlin
You've hit the nail on the head which is what I've been saying all along.
Adidas, Allianz,Audi and co are basically overpaying as it increases the balance sheet value of an organisation that they part own.
Whilst the criminals who run Bayern are holding prominent positions in UEFA and the ECA this won't be called out any time soon.
The amount they are paying doesn't tally when you compare it with the amount other clubs who receive far greater exposure receive which is my point.
that's not exactly what I'm trying to say though. My point is that I would find it hard to understand why they would overpay, given that once the money has left the bank account of Adidas or whoever and gone into the Bayern coffers, 91.7% of whatever profit comes back doesn't belong to Adidas. to me, (and like I said, I'm no football business expert it's just my opinion), it seems more probable that Adidas views the relationship with Bayern as a way of making more money directly for Adidas rather than more money for Bayern and therefore very indirectly for Adidas.
 

Blueboy73

Well-Known Member
Joined
3 Aug 2020
Messages
828
Team supported
Manchester City
that's not exactly what I'm trying to say though. My point is that I would find it hard to understand why they would overpay, given that once the money has left the bank account of Adidas or whoever and gone into the Bayern coffers, 91.7% of whatever profit comes back doesn't belong to Adidas. to me, (and like I said, I'm no football business expert it's just my opinion), it seems more probable that Adidas views the relationship with Bayern as a way of making more money directly for Adidas rather than more money for Bayern and therefore very indirectly for Adidas.
It's a long term investment for them.
They pay, or should I say overpay into an organisation that they partly own which then increases steadily in value over the years.
It's like me sponsoring my own company which basically has a monopoly in my domestic market.
The Bundesliga is predictable and no longer competitive, which may be why the international TV deals they secure are so low when compared to say the EPL, so Bayern are guaranteed to be successful and will therefore grow in value.
Fundamentally nobody can explain why these deals are comparable or bigger than those with clubs that receive far more domestic and international exposure.
 

Eebo

Well-Known Member
Joined
25 Jan 2014
Messages
202
To be fair to him, leaving aside the question about TV audiences, he's pointed out that the companies concerned only own a small portion of the club. Allianz, Audi and Adidas own about 8.3% each. If your theory is that these companies are overpaying on sponsorship because they reckon they'll make the money back (plus extra) as a result of increasing the club's profits, then you have to reckon with the fact that more than 90% of any increased profit the club makes as a result of money put in by any one of those three companies is not coming back to that company. If I'm Allianz and I overpay on a sponsorship by, say, €100 million, then I have to expect that profits are going to increase by a minimum of €1.2 billion as a result for it to be worth it.

Unless what I'm really interested is not increasing the club's profits through prize money or shirt sales or whatever, so I can get my 8.3% of the increase, but instead raising the profile of my company through connecting my company's brand with a major sporting brand a.k.a. what a company typically has in mind when it sponsors a club. From my perspective that's why I reckon these companies are paying what they (and their accountants, advisors, shareholders etc) will perceive to be market value. At the end of the day they're big companies run by ruthless people who love making money.
Not quite correct as company valuations are based on a MULTIPLE of earnings (profits), so the value mod all the shares in the company is calculated using X times profit. The multiple (X) used depends on the growth and prospects of the business. If the the multiple is 13 or above then overpaying by £1million increases the value of the whole company by £13million+, and if you own 1/13 of the business you are no worse off.
It is unlikely that the multiple would be that high, but my point is that the business is not valued by its profits but by a multiple of those profits.
 

Sir Joe Aguero

Well-Known Member
Joined
9 Feb 2012
Messages
2,301
So, we're favourites to win the league, which makes it 5 league titles in 10 years. The best manager in the world. One of the best defences in the world. Best midfielder in the world. Best youngster/English player in the world. Arguably the best squad in the world. 10 clubs under CFG. Never missed the Champions League in 10 years.

The Etihad deal is coming up. For stadium & shirt rights, £40mil a season looks a bargain. Considering the above, we could easily push for £80mil a season.

If we expand the stadium as planned, that's another 6-8000 seats, which could increase matchday income by 10% (around £6mil a season), and we'd be able to push for better deals as more people would see our sponsorship.

Fucking hell it's looking rosy.
 

aguero93:20

Well-Known Member
Joined
21 Oct 2013
Messages
79,567
Location
Pep Out
Team supported
Pep Out
So, we're favourites to win the league, which makes it 5 league titles in 10 years. The best manager in the world. One of the best defences in the world. Best midfielder in the world. Best youngster/English player in the world. Arguably the best squad in the world. 10 clubs under CFG. Never missed the Champions League in 10 years.

The Etihad deal is coming up. For stadium & shirt rights, £40mil a season looks a bargain. Considering the above, we could easily push for £80mil a season.

If we expand the stadium as planned, that's another 6-8000 seats, which could increase matchday income by 10% (around £6mil a season), and we'd be able to push for better deals as more people would see our sponsorship.

Fucking hell it's looking rosy.
I think we renegotiated the Etihad deal a few years back to 60m.
 

Don't have an account?

Register now!
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.