asahartford1
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 15 Nov 2016
- Messages
- 8,833
Bank hapoalim , tel aviv . Deal done great mates with our owners. )
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
New Shirt Sponsor: £50mill A Year?
- Thread starter jrb
- Start date
Metalartin
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 15 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 12,372
Any news on this?
I thought I'd have a slightly off topic ramble, since I don't think any of this deserves it's own thread. The gist of it is, I don't care if we keep Etihad as the main sponsor, the more I think about it.
Despite what anyone says, all our owner has really done, is use his business connections, to secure a deal that benefited both sides long term. The club got a major sponsor that helped them to compete and the club helped promote Etihad Airways, to grow their market-share.
In many ways, that is no different to what many owners do when seeking sponsorship deals. For example, the Glazers with the Chevrolet deal that started in 2014 for United, which IMO was far too much for a club that was slipping for a simple shirt deal. No press fume or conspiracies there though. City's "controversial deal" was £400m over 10 years in 2011, for a shirt, stadium and training complex naming deal that created so much fume, that it still fumes today in some quarters. United's deal, was £450m over 7 years in 2014, just for their shirt(no stadium, no training ground or training kit) and yet our press never once made that comparison fairly for contrast.
Journalists mainly made dishonest/shoddy comparisons to the Arsenal Emirates deal which was signed a full 7 years earlier, without the training complex component.
Here's what the Guardian reported around the time the Etihad deal was announced in 2011:
Rather than what the Guardian printed, this seems more detailed and accurate:
What I'm still confused about, is the numbers given, £100m over 15 years gives you a maximum of £6.7m a year. Surely the shirt deal had to have been separate deal that wasn't disclosed in 2004. Other clubs around the world getting £5m+ for stadium naming rights around that time from what I've read and that's without the PL draw, Arsenal should have been aiming for £6m+ a season for the stadium alone, given their size.
The Guardian were telling us the stadium deal was worth £2.8m a year and made no distinctions between the length of the shirt vs stadium deal(deliberate IMO). This would lead their readers to deduce that Arsenals shirt deal would have been a mere £3.2m a year(over 15 years), with the shirt and stadium not far off parity. This is clearly incorrect without knowing any details but that doesn't bother them.
I've since read that Arsenal were supposed to begin building thier new stadium in 2002 but experienced years of delays because they were struggling to find funding. They were initially told no by the government for a subsidy(interest free loan?) they hoped to get, to cover part of the construction costs. Wenger claimed French clubs paid nothing for theirs and Bayern paid 1 Euro for theirs(is that true?). After being told no, they had to find other ways to fund it instead, so they sold players, reduced the wage bill, raised season ticket prices, they sold a 5% stake of the club to Granada/ITV(£47m). The construction broke ground in Feb 2004 after the finances they needed were secured, the Emirates deal was announced later in 2004. Is that co-incidence or are they are heavily linked occurrences? Either way it makes you think about the hypocrisy of that club doesn't it? Seems to me that they roped themselves into a 15 year stadium agreement because they were desperate to start construction. Even the shirt deal wasn't that great compared to what other top clubs where already getting.
£48m over 7 years at £6.85m per season, doesn't seem enough for a shirt deal for a top 4 club in 2004. United's Vodafone deal was worth £7.5m a season from 2000. They extended and increased it to £9m a year in 2004, the same year that Arsenal deal was being agreed. Chelsea were getting £10m a season from Samsung since 2005. United's deal with AIG was worth £14.1m a season from 2006, over twice as much as Arsenals was worth by the time their shirt deal kicked in. That got replaced by AON in 2010 at £20m a season and in the same season, they became the first PL club to separate match day and training shirt sponsorships. Somehow, American logistics company DHL, felt a training kit sponsorship was worth £10m a season over 4 years(imagine if that was City and a UAE sponsor). That's £30m a season in 2010, just for the the shirts, no training ground or stadium naming rights included. This was clearly the closest example for the press to reference, for comparison with the Etihad deal in 2011 but no, they chose a poorly negotiated Arsenal deal that was agreed 8 years earlier. I wonder why?... Biased, dishonest, hacks, are the words that spring to mind.
https://www2.deloitte.com/content/d...te-uk-deloitte-football-money-league-2010.pdf
City's first sponsorship deal with Etihad, was worth £25m over 3 seasons, working out at around £8.3m a season from 2009. That's around £2m less per season than the deal Chelsea signed 4 years earlier.
Soon after the Etihad deal in 2011, United started getting creative again in 2013, by coupling the training kit with the training ground, to get £15m a season from AON from 2014. You could say that the training ground added £5m and take it back to the comparison above. At the same time, they switched the main shirt sponsor with the £450m Chevrolet deal(£64.3m a season), which lead to the executive who brokered deal, leaving the company soon afterwards.
It's shame nobody has done a proper timetable of the progression of shirt sponsorship values in the PL. I've got a feeling it will be nothing like what they've been making out in the press.
https://www.myfootballfacts.com/pre...premier-league/premier_league_shirt_sponsors/
It slipped my memory that Chelsea were the first PL club to be sponsored by Emirates from 2001 too, I really can't remember them having it on their shirt personally. Better still, that deal was worth £6m season, 2 years before the Abramovich takeover, 5 years before Arsenal's £6.85m a season shirt deal started with Emirates. Just shows you all the City comparisons to Arsenal are pretty much void, they just did some lousy negotiating around that time compared to most big 6 clubs.
I thought I'd have a slightly off topic ramble, since I don't think any of this deserves it's own thread. The gist of it is, I don't care if we keep Etihad as the main sponsor, the more I think about it.
Despite what anyone says, all our owner has really done, is use his business connections, to secure a deal that benefited both sides long term. The club got a major sponsor that helped them to compete and the club helped promote Etihad Airways, to grow their market-share.
In many ways, that is no different to what many owners do when seeking sponsorship deals. For example, the Glazers with the Chevrolet deal that started in 2014 for United, which IMO was far too much for a club that was slipping for a simple shirt deal. No press fume or conspiracies there though. City's "controversial deal" was £400m over 10 years in 2011, for a shirt, stadium and training complex naming deal that created so much fume, that it still fumes today in some quarters. United's deal, was £450m over 7 years in 2014, just for their shirt(no stadium, no training ground or training kit) and yet our press never once made that comparison fairly for contrast.
Journalists mainly made dishonest/shoddy comparisons to the Arsenal Emirates deal which was signed a full 7 years earlier, without the training complex component.
Here's what the Guardian reported around the time the Etihad deal was announced in 2011:
To put it into context, the deal Arsenal struck with Emirates in 2004 was valued at £90m over 15 years. Around £48m of that came via shirt sponsorship, with the naming rights worth only £2.8m a year.
Rather than what the Guardian printed, this seems more detailed and accurate:
Later in the year Emirates bought naming rights for the stadium, in a 15-year deal estimated at £100 million that also included a 7-year shirt sponsorship, starting in the 2006–07 season.
What I'm still confused about, is the numbers given, £100m over 15 years gives you a maximum of £6.7m a year. Surely the shirt deal had to have been separate deal that wasn't disclosed in 2004. Other clubs around the world getting £5m+ for stadium naming rights around that time from what I've read and that's without the PL draw, Arsenal should have been aiming for £6m+ a season for the stadium alone, given their size.
The Guardian were telling us the stadium deal was worth £2.8m a year and made no distinctions between the length of the shirt vs stadium deal(deliberate IMO). This would lead their readers to deduce that Arsenals shirt deal would have been a mere £3.2m a year(over 15 years), with the shirt and stadium not far off parity. This is clearly incorrect without knowing any details but that doesn't bother them.
I've since read that Arsenal were supposed to begin building thier new stadium in 2002 but experienced years of delays because they were struggling to find funding. They were initially told no by the government for a subsidy(interest free loan?) they hoped to get, to cover part of the construction costs. Wenger claimed French clubs paid nothing for theirs and Bayern paid 1 Euro for theirs(is that true?). After being told no, they had to find other ways to fund it instead, so they sold players, reduced the wage bill, raised season ticket prices, they sold a 5% stake of the club to Granada/ITV(£47m). The construction broke ground in Feb 2004 after the finances they needed were secured, the Emirates deal was announced later in 2004. Is that co-incidence or are they are heavily linked occurrences? Either way it makes you think about the hypocrisy of that club doesn't it? Seems to me that they roped themselves into a 15 year stadium agreement because they were desperate to start construction. Even the shirt deal wasn't that great compared to what other top clubs where already getting.
£48m over 7 years at £6.85m per season, doesn't seem enough for a shirt deal for a top 4 club in 2004. United's Vodafone deal was worth £7.5m a season from 2000. They extended and increased it to £9m a year in 2004, the same year that Arsenal deal was being agreed. Chelsea were getting £10m a season from Samsung since 2005. United's deal with AIG was worth £14.1m a season from 2006, over twice as much as Arsenals was worth by the time their shirt deal kicked in. That got replaced by AON in 2010 at £20m a season and in the same season, they became the first PL club to separate match day and training shirt sponsorships. Somehow, American logistics company DHL, felt a training kit sponsorship was worth £10m a season over 4 years(imagine if that was City and a UAE sponsor). That's £30m a season in 2010, just for the the shirts, no training ground or stadium naming rights included. This was clearly the closest example for the press to reference, for comparison with the Etihad deal in 2011 but no, they chose a poorly negotiated Arsenal deal that was agreed 8 years earlier. I wonder why?... Biased, dishonest, hacks, are the words that spring to mind.
https://www2.deloitte.com/content/d...te-uk-deloitte-football-money-league-2010.pdf
City's first sponsorship deal with Etihad, was worth £25m over 3 seasons, working out at around £8.3m a season from 2009. That's around £2m less per season than the deal Chelsea signed 4 years earlier.
Soon after the Etihad deal in 2011, United started getting creative again in 2013, by coupling the training kit with the training ground, to get £15m a season from AON from 2014. You could say that the training ground added £5m and take it back to the comparison above. At the same time, they switched the main shirt sponsor with the £450m Chevrolet deal(£64.3m a season), which lead to the executive who brokered deal, leaving the company soon afterwards.
It's shame nobody has done a proper timetable of the progression of shirt sponsorship values in the PL. I've got a feeling it will be nothing like what they've been making out in the press.
https://www.myfootballfacts.com/pre...premier-league/premier_league_shirt_sponsors/
It slipped my memory that Chelsea were the first PL club to be sponsored by Emirates from 2001 too, I really can't remember them having it on their shirt personally. Better still, that deal was worth £6m season, 2 years before the Abramovich takeover, 5 years before Arsenal's £6.85m a season shirt deal started with Emirates. Just shows you all the City comparisons to Arsenal are pretty much void, they just did some lousy negotiating around that time compared to most big 6 clubs.
Last edited:
Uncle Wally One Ball
Well-Known Member
Do you know much about crop rotation in the 14th century?Any news on this?
I thought I'd have a slightly off topic ramble since I don't think any of this deserves it's own thread but I don't mind if we keep Etihad as the main sponsor the more I think about it.
Despite what anyone says, all our owner has really done, is use his business connections, to secure a deal that benefited both sides long term, the club got a major sponsor that helped us compete and the club helped promote Etihad Airways. In many ways that is no different to what many owners do when seeking sponsorship deals. For example, the Glazers with the Chevrolet deal that started in 2014 for United, which IMO was far too much for a club that was slipping for a simple shirt deal. No press fume or conspiracies there though. City's "controversial deal" was £400m over 10 years in 2014 for a shirt, stadium and training complex naming deal that created much fume that still fumes to this day. United's was £450m over 7 years in 2014 just for their shirt and yet our press never once made that comparison fairly for contrast.
More than that, journalists weren't even honest when comparing it to other deals, when I look back at what the Gruaniad said:
I've since found out that Arsenal were struggling, after being told no by the government for a subsidy(interest free loan I'm guessing) to cover the construction cost. Wenger claimed French clubs paid nothing for theirs and Bayern paid 1 Euro for theirs(is that true?). After being told no, they had to find other ways to fund it instead, so they sold players, reduced the wage bill, raised season ticket prices, they sold a 5% stake of the club to Granada/ITV(£47m). Finances for the construction were secured in Feb 2004 when they broke ground, the Emirates deal was announced later in 2004, is that co-incidence or is it likely they are heavily linked occurrences? Either way it makes you think about the hypocrisy of that club doesn't it?
Rather than what the Guardian printed, this seems more detail and accurate:
What I'm still confused about is the numbers given, £100m over 15 years gives you a maximum of £6.7m a year. Surely the shirt deal had to have been separate deal that wasn't discussed. Other clubs were getting £5m+ for stadium naming rights around that time from what I've read, Arsenal should have been aiming for £6m+ a season for the stadium alone given their size.
The Guardian were telling us the stadium deal was worth £2.8m a year, which would mean their shirt deal would have been £3.2m a year(over 15 years), with the shirt and stadium not far off parity. This is clearly incorrect without knowing any details but that doesn't bother them.
I could be wrong but even £48m over 7 years at £6.85m per season doesn't seem enough in 2004. United's Vodafone deal was worth £7.5m a season from 2000, a deal that came 4 years before it. They extended and increased it to £9m a year the same season as the Emirates shirt deal kicked in.
https://www2.deloitte.com/content/d...te-uk-deloitte-football-money-league-2010.pdf
City's first sponsorship deal with Etihad was £25m over 3 seasons, worth £8.3m a season from 2009. Chelsea were getting £10m a season from Samsung since 2005. United's deal with AIG was worth £14.1m a season from 2006. That got replaced in 2010 by AON at £20m a season and in the same season they got "creative" and managed to become the first PL club to separate match day and training shirt sponsorship. Somehow American logistic company DHL felt a training kit sponsorship was worth £10m a season over 4 years. Then United started getting creative again in 2013 by coupling the training kit with the training ground to get £15m a season from AON while they switch the main shirt sponsor again to the "controversial" £450m Chevrolet deal(£64.3m a season), which lead to the executive who brokered deal leaving the company soon afterwards.
It's shame nobody has done a timetable of the progression of shirt sponsorship values in the PL. I've got a feeling it will be nothing like what they've been making out in the press.
https://www.myfootballfacts.com/pre...premier-league/premier_league_shirt_sponsors/
It slipped my attention that Chelsea were the first PL club to be sponsored by Emirates from 2001 too, I really can't remember them having it on their shirt personally.
Nascent Blues
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 20 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 5,355
It was considerably wider after...John.Do you know much about crop rotation in the 14th century?
aguero93:20
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2013
- Messages
- 90,256
- Location
- Hunting Cats.
- Team supported
- Some gobshites in day-glo green and black.
Nobody knows :)Is Etihad going to renew? When does this expire?
The original 10 year deal would have ended this season but it was renegotiated a while back, not sure if the length was extended or not.
Citycity76
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2014
- Messages
- 649
I think Etihad will continue for the next 5 years.
Or until the oil runs out or our owner gets bored which ever comes first.I think Etihad will continue for the next 5 years.
Dave Ewing's Back 'eader
Well-Known Member
Bovril
Dave Ewing's Back 'eader
Well-Known Member
The oil ain't gonna run out - it's the Rag/Dipper Environmental Agency lobbying for diesel and petrol to be banned. And the only way the Good Sheikh would get bored would be by being bored with the best football currently displayed anywhere on the planet.Or until the oil runs out or our owner gets bored which ever comes first.