Media Discussion - 2023/24

[Rory Bluelow]

BBC "have your say" has taken the dippers one off, made good late night reading last night, so it either got toxic or the dipper in charge has had a meltdown and thrown his toys out of the pram.

The BBC love to allow people to “Have Your Say” as long as you say the right things !

 

[IrishBlueSince92]

We're only 3 results away (if we win our next two and Spurs take anything off Arsenal) from a barrage of moaning resuming in the media about us ruining football, making it boring, cheating, human rights abuses, oil etc etc

 

[hammocity]

I'm not sure where else to put this but after talkSport's 'Celtic are bigger than City' nonsense topic. I've been reading all sorts of arguments to try and do City down and support the claim.

Stuff like: "Celtic have twice the number of supporters clubs as City do." That is easy enough to deal with since although it's correct: 800 is twice the official 400 City states on their site. It doesn't tell you much about the current fanbase size globally, it can be quite a misleading stat in truth. Especially since United and Liverpool state 300 and Arsenal 179 globally on their official sites...

I've been telling Arsenal fans the shirt sales data shows City outsold Arsenal in shirt sales for 2022/23(how annoying have they got, now they're relevant again?).

That is according to research by German industry expert Dr. Peter Rohlmann from PR Marketing, which includes unit sales:

The eight best-selling club shirts in the world for 2022/23 have been revealed

Chelsea do NOT make the list after selling 800,000 replica shirts last season

www.givemesport.com

Best Selling Club Football Kits

According to research by German industry expert Dr.

www.footyheadlines.com

I noticed people trying to discredit that on talkSports comments. Based off UEFA's 'The European Club Finance and Investment Landscape' report for the financial year of 2023(must have missed this). This prompted a number of publications to show Spurs 1 place above City(who were not in the top 10). Looking into the actual data analysis and explanations they provided though, it makes very little sense to me:

View attachment 115826

Firstly, what it says it's showing in the introduction, is kit deal revenue combined with the total merchandise revenue, for a calendar year and it's in Euros.

The first thing I noticed is, it does show City(€67m) outdid Arsenal(€65m) in 2022(in grey). However, it shows Spurs above City, which doesn't seem right since we know the value of the kit deal revenues of each PL club:

Club	Kit supplier	Value per year	Duration
Man United	Adidas	£90m (€104.8m)	2015-2035 (extension)
Man City	Puma	£65m (€75.7m)	2019-2029
Liverpool	Nike	£60m (€69.9m)	2020-2026
Chelsea	Nike	£60m (€69.9m)	2017-2032
Arsenal	Adidas	£60m (€69.9m)	2019-2024
Tottenham	Nike	£30m (€34.9m)	2018-2033

Things get more confusing still for me, reading the small print at the bottom:

So besides conflating different financial years for certain clubs without it being clear in their chart. Doesn't that mean, according to their analysis; Spurs and Chelsea beat Arsenal and City in 2022 by a clear margin, with Arsenal coming last in the Big 6? Arsenal's first title race in years. City after signing Haaland and going for treble. Both fanbases buzzing with excitement early on in the season. Chelsea and Spurs being awful, fans unhappy, both finishing outside of European places completely.

Also, if Spurs' starting point is around €35, to get to €74 is a much larger jump(they more than doubled it) than any of the other Big 6 clubs could manage. Are Spurs selling Levy gold coins in their club shop? What explains this discrepancy?

Lastly, to point out the obvious, €67m and €73m are both lower that the €75.7m per season City receive from Puma. I realise it's a CFG deal but even still, the vast majority will go to City's revenue, especially since NYCFC's shirts are made by Adidas. It's supposed to be the kit deal plus merchandise revenue figure also... To, in their words: "provide probably as good a measure of club popularity as any". Are City selling merchandise at a loss in their club shop, for the combined total to be lower?

Have I missed something?

Or

Is this whole particular kit and mechandise analysis as misleading as it is confusing? I wouldn't mind but it's published by UEFA, yet it's the sort of thing a Liverpool fan from twitter would come up with, to raise more questions over City's revenues. I hope someone at City at least quizzed them on that and questioned the validity.

Good research, I can also tell you Haaland Shirts are going like hotcakes on the Costa Del Sol, must have a separate deal with the African “Lucky Lucky” community:-).

 

[Jam Tomorrow]

I'm not sure where else to put this but after talkSport's 'Celtic are bigger than City' nonsense topic. I've been reading all sorts of arguments to try and do City down and support the claim.

Stuff like: "Celtic have twice the number of supporters clubs as City do." That is easy enough to deal with since although it's correct: 800 is twice the official 400 City states on their site. It doesn't tell you much about the current fanbase size globally, it can be quite a misleading stat in truth. Especially since United and Liverpool state 300 and Arsenal 179 globally on their official sites...

I've been telling Arsenal fans the shirt sales data shows City outsold Arsenal in shirt sales for 2022/23(how annoying have they got, now they're relevant again?).

That is according to research by German industry expert Dr. Peter Rohlmann from PR Marketing, which includes unit sales:

The eight best-selling club shirts in the world for 2022/23 have been revealed

Chelsea do NOT make the list after selling 800,000 replica shirts last season

www.givemesport.com

Best Selling Club Football Kits

According to research by German industry expert Dr.

www.footyheadlines.com

I noticed people trying to discredit that on talkSports comments. Based off UEFA's 'The European Club Finance and Investment Landscape' report for the financial year of 2023(must have missed this). This prompted a number of publications to show Spurs 1 place above City(who were not in the top 10). Looking into the actual data analysis and explanations they provided though, it makes very little sense to me:

View attachment 115826

Firstly, what it says it's showing in the introduction, is kit deal revenue combined with the total merchandise revenue, for a calendar year and it's in Euros.

The first thing I noticed is, it does show City(€67m) outdid Arsenal(€65m) in 2022(in grey). However, it shows Spurs above City, which doesn't seem right since we know the value of the kit deal revenues of each PL club:

Club	Kit supplier	Value per year	Duration
Man United	Adidas	£90m (€104.8m)	2015-2035 (extension)
Man City	Puma	£65m (€75.7m)	2019-2029
Liverpool	Nike	£60m (€69.9m)	2020-2026
Chelsea	Nike	£60m (€69.9m)	2017-2032
Arsenal	Adidas	£60m (€69.9m)	2019-2024
Tottenham	Nike	£30m (€34.9m)	2018-2033

Things get more confusing still for me, reading the small print at the bottom:

So besides conflating different financial years for certain clubs without it being clear in their chart. Doesn't that mean, according to their analysis; Spurs and Chelsea beat Arsenal and City in 2022 by a clear margin, with Arsenal coming last in the Big 6? Arsenal's first title race in years. City after signing Haaland and going for treble. Both fanbases buzzing with excitement early on in the season. Chelsea and Spurs being awful, fans unhappy, both finishing outside of European places completely.

Also, if Spurs' starting point is around €35, to get to €74 is a much larger jump(they more than doubled it) than any of the other Big 6 clubs could manage. Are Spurs selling Levy gold coins in their club shop? What explains this discrepancy?

Lastly, to point out the obvious, €67m and €73m are both lower that the €75.7m per season City receive from Puma. I realise it's a CFG deal but even still, the vast majority will go to City's revenue, especially since NYCFC's shirts are made by Adidas. It's supposed to be the kit deal plus merchandise revenue figure also... To, in their words: "provide probably as good a measure of club popularity as any". Are City selling merchandise at a loss in their club shop, for the combined total to be lower?

Have I missed something?

Or

Is this whole particular kit and mechandise analysis as misleading as it is confusing? I wouldn't mind but it's published by UEFA, yet it's the sort of thing a Liverpool fan from twitter would come up with, to raise more questions over City's revenues. I hope someone at City at least quizzed them on that and questioned the validity.

there was a "UEFA" table doing the rounds a few months ago showing the "best supported clubs" in Europe, of course City were nowhere to be seen but oddly Newcastle were included even though i know for a fact we have an higher average attendance, when you looked past the headline it showed the table was based on the total number of fans who had attended a Premier League game up to that point, City had played two less games than Newcastle hence no place on the list. It seems there is a whole cottage industry out there who's sole objective is smearing and belittling City. Kin weird if you ask me

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Number of Supporters clubs as a mark of global size is ridiculous. It’s not the 19070s.Celtic supporters clubs with a dozen ex-pats watching SPL games in the back room of an Irish pub is not a sign of global size.
If you want to have a look at the size gulf between Celtic and City here are a few comparisons

Facebook followers :
City 51million
Celtic 2million

Instagram followers:
City 53million
Celtic 893k
Phil Foden’s son Ronnie: 4million

Didn’t hear the Talksport debate but it’s an absolutely ridiculous debate.

Celtic are a huge club in Scotland and Ireland - but globally ain’t a boil on the arse of the modern elite teams in Europe.

Celtic were huge in the 60s and 70s with Irish ex pats, especially in North America. But the world has changed and Scottish football is nowhere nowadays.

 

[laserblue]

Celtic were huge in the 60s and 70s with Irish ex pats, especially in North America. But the world has changed and Scottish football is nowhere nowadays.

Especially as next season the Scottish Champions won't get a pass into the group stages of the Champions League. The champions of the mighty Czech league will take their place.

 

[TinFoilHat]

I get the impression another red shirt won a pundit contract with sky for next season last night.

The media wankfest for Shrek this morning looking like his PR team are very busy today.

 

[Andy TheCatalyst Morrison]

And Liverpool didn’t?

I don’t think so. Obviously it was an absolute howler but I don’t think anyone said “they did it on purpose because the VAR is a City fan”.

There’s a difference between saying that a mistake was made and saying that the officials are corrupt

 

[salfordbluetrue]

Especially as next season the Scottish Champions won't get a pass into the group stages of the Champions League. The champions of the mighty Czech league will take their place.

I know it is a different subject, but i find this horrific, Champions from every league should be in the Champions league, after that other clubs can be added, or even the group stages increased for these other clubs , but you have to start groups with Champions, all of them.

 

[trotsky]

Wow, Simon Jordon has seen the light! I can’t do links but I’ll write his words from the Mail …
on FFP -
“it is clear to me now that it [FFP] is the ultimate form of protectionism. Ask yourself who are the people making these rules? When you work backwards from that, you start to work out why these rules were brought in. It’s pulling up the drawbridge and making it virtually impossible to break into the elite“.

Wtf has happened?