Media Discussion - 2023/24

[chesterbells]

Sky will just move them to the game before ours Spurs v Arsenal,no problem.

Yes, could see them doing that seamlessly tbh.
And they have 1 hour build up, we’ll have 15 mins.

 

[Metalartin]

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:



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:

This analysis of the top 20 clubs is based on 2023 data for clubs with a summer year-end and early-reporting clubs. The latest detailed data available for the following clubs is from the 2022 financial year: Chelsea FC, Juventus FC, Tottenham Hotspur FC, Leeds United FC

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 a 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. Edit: My mistake(but UEFA's fault), 2021/22 would be their correct seasons for the figures given, they finished 3rd and 4th respectively. Still, those figures compared to City and Arsenal in 2023 or 2022(Arsenal finished 1 place below Spurs, City finished 1st in 2022) don't make sense, whichever way you slice it.

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 than 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.

 

[Kinkys Left Foot]

Showing those kind of tables for income is like showing the "what the league table looks like without Haaland goals" kind of crap. It means nothing.
The only table for income that matters is the one that includes all income from all sources.
In other relevant news, Spurs are looking for a thief who broke into their trophy room on Saturday, Police are looking for a man carrying a roll of white carpet.
I'm here all week!

 

[Andy TheCatalyst Morrison]

When Liverpool call out a dodgy VAR call, all hell breaks loose.
The audio tapes are demanded and handed over immediately.
Howard Webb comes out and publicly apologises on TV. A written apology
is issued. The media are absolutely up in arms about it.
Forest call out VAR and they are accused of 'questioning the integrity of the officials'.
Martin Samuel does a full blown article, telling everyone that Forest cannot
be allowed to 'damage the game'.
Absolutely fucking laughable. But that is what happens when you are a 'small club'
in today's Premier League. It stinks to high heaven and all the way back.

But Forest DID question the integrity of the officials (or one of them at least!

 

[Prophet of Doom]

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.

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.

 

[Odd socks]

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.

 

[give it to gordon]

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.

Who gives a fuck what talkshit think ?

 

[Centurions]

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.

Was the "Phil Foden’s son Ronnie: 4million" one tongue in cheek or true?

 

[mexico1970]

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.

If anything is going to invoke the cult of Mel Gibson and start a my glen is bigger than your dale row, this will :)

 

[PPT]

But Forest DID question the integrity of the officials (or one of them at least!

And Liverpool didn’t?