Nike Sponsorship

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Agreed, that is an interesting development if true.

i'm sure i heard its the other way round in that utd keep more of the revenue as well as adidas paying for the privilege

hence the reason for nike bailing

i hope i'm wrong as i much prefer dam's version

I'm pretty eager to find out, hopefully it's as damocles says.

While I find all these kinds of discussions deeply interesting I do wonder as a relative newcomer to football in general (only ever supported City, started in about 2009) was there anything like this discussed way back when, hell even 10years ago? Maybe it's just to do with the fact we can all easily come online now to find other fanatics with boundless information. Any of you kind sirs want to enlighten me? Can't imagine many people in the 80s all getting to the pub to discuss media buys, shirt deals and the like.

Sadly, Damocles is off beam.

United purposely drove a hard bargain so they could get a bigger revenue split from sales outside of shirts.

Worryingly, they are also in talks with Uniqlo, the Japanese firm, for a deal which will look after branding training gear etc.

They look after Novak Djokovic and throw big money around for stuff like that.

 

[jrb]

Let's look at it like this.

United still owe £360mill on their remaining debt.(we have no debt) Apparently they are paying down in the region of £60mill each season. That's 6 yearly payments of £60mill to clear the debt. Add our current kit sponsorship deal which is £12mill a season, combine both and that comes £72mill. So in essence United will be better off by £3mill each season. Yes I appreciate that £60mill would have to come from other revenues United have, but let's just focus on this new United kit deal and tie that in with their current debt.

And don't forget. We are expanding the stadium to £62,000. How much money is that going to bring in over 10 years? We will also gain revenues from the new £100mill training academy. How much money will that bring in over 10 years. Then we have the yet to be revealed leisure destination of national and international significance and the Etihad Campus around the stadium. How much will that bring in over 10 years? And finally, the £1bill housing proposal in East Manchester, with Sheik Mansour and ADUG being the largest investor. How much will that bring in over 10 years?

The difference being. The Glazers don't have the money up front like Sheikh Mansour does. They are still paying off their massive debt. Sheikh Mansour has the money and is ready to invest it. He is investing in proposals the Glazers and United can only dream off. United rely on a successful team and their fans to generate revenue. City rely on Sheikh Mansour and his business acumen to generate revenue. Of course, having a successful team also helps. ;-0

This isn't right.

They are already paying down that debt, so you can't double count their payments in the way you're doing.
The extra revenue from the Adidas deal is just that... extra revenue for them.

What you're suggesting is as though they are currently paying of NO debt, and suddenly 60 million will be lost from the 75 coming in from Adidas. It won't.

They will of course lose CL money, but for how long? not long if they spend big (which they can now do being out of FFP for CL - not that it would have mattered much anyway with their astronomic revenues).

That's right, they are £60mill better off. I shifted that £60mill debt from their other revenues, just for their new kit deal, in comparison to ours. I appreciate I'm just juggling with figures, but let's play along for now. Robbing Peter to pay Paul. Basically that's what the Glazers have been doing since they bought United.

However, regardless of how far they are in front of us revenue wise, they will start with a -£60mill deficit for the next 6 seasons, or as long as it takes to pay off their remaining debt. This season you can add an additional -£50mill for finishing 7th in the PL, missing out on the CL, and paying off Moyes and his coaching staff. Regardless of how I, you, or anyone juggles their/those figures about, that's still an additional £110mill they could have had this season, on top of their other revenues. By any standards that's a substantial amount to lose.

Just because they spend big, that doesn't guarantee success or a CL place either. What guaranteed United's success was Alex Ferguson. Moyes wasn't Akex Ferguson. Will Louis Van Gaal be Alex Ferguson? Only time will tell. Spending aside, there will be 6 other teams fighting for 4 CL places next season. It's getting harder and harder to get one of those places.

At the end of the day every team can only play 11 players. Apart from those players, it's down to the Manager and coaching staff. Let's be honest, up to now, and even with their new found wealth, which they knew was coming, Manchester United have hardly set the transfer market a light. In the past the name and #istory of Manchester United would guarantee a player/signing, not anymore. And as it stands, United need at least 2-3 good and expensive players to mount a CL challenge, never mind a title challenge. Then factor in a new Manager, new players, and new tactics, etc, and you've got a very tuff ask for Van Gaal to get United into the top 4, never mind making a serious and sustained PL title challenge this season.

Yes they will be there or there abouts, but I can see us, Chelsea, and Arsenal taking the 1st 3 places next season. That leaves one Play off CL place up for grabs between United, Liverpool(minus Suarez), Everton, and Spurs. And don't forget, the new BT CL deal kicks in in 2015/16. Could United afford to miss out on that and CL football again?

 

[FanchesterCity]

Let's look at it like this.

United still owe £360mill on their remaining debt.(we have no debt) Apparently they are paying down in the region of £60mill each season. That's 6 yearly payments of £60mill to clear the debt. Add our current kit sponsorship deal which is £12mill a season, combine both and that comes £72mill. So in essence United will be better off by £3mill each season. Yes I appreciate that £60mill would have to come from other revenues United have, but let's just focus on this new United kit deal and tie that in with their current debt.

And don't forget. We are expanding the stadium to £62,000. How much money is that going to bring in over 10 years? We will also gain revenues from the new £100mill training academy. How much money will that bring in over 10 years. Then we have the yet to be revealed leisure destination of national and international significance and the Etihad Campus around the stadium. How much will that bring in over 10 years? And finally, the £1bill housing proposal in East Manchester, with Sheik Mansour and ADUG being the largest investor. How much will that bring in over 10 years?

The difference being. The Glazers don't have the money up front like Sheikh Mansour does. They are still paying off their massive debt. Sheikh Mansour has the money and is ready to invest it. He is investing in proposals the Glazers and United can only dream off. United rely on a successful team and their fans to generate revenue. City rely on Sheikh Mansour and his business acumen to generate revenue. Of course, having a successful team also helps. ;-0

This isn't right.

They are already paying down that debt, so you can't double count their payments in the way you're doing.
The extra revenue from the Adidas deal is just that... extra revenue for them.

What you're suggesting is as though they are currently paying of NO debt, and suddenly 60 million will be lost from the 75 coming in from Adidas. It won't.

They will of course lose CL money, but for how long? not long if they spend big (which they can now do being out of FFP for CL - not that it would have mattered much anyway with their astronomic revenues).

That's right, they are £60mill better off. I shifted that £60mill debt from their other revenues, just for their new kit deal, in comparison to ours. I appreciate I'm just juggling with figures, but let's play along for now. Robbing Peter to pay Paul. Basically that's what the Glazers have been doing since they bought United.

However, regardless of how far they are in front of us revenue wise, they will start with a -£60mill deficit for the next 6 seasons, or as long as it takes to pay off their remaining debt. This season you can add an additional -£50mill for finishing 7th in the PL, missing out on the CL, and paying off Moyes and his coaching staff. Regardless of how I, you, or anyone juggles their/those figures about, that's still an additional £110mill they could have had this season, on top of their other revenues. By any standards that's a substantial amount to lose.

Just because they spend big, that doesn't guarantee success or a CL place either. What guaranteed United's success was Alex Ferguson. Moyes wasn't Akex Ferguson. Will Louis Van Gaal be Alex Ferguson? Only time will tell. Spending aside, there will be 6 other teams fighting for 4 CL places next season. It's getting harder and harder to get one of those places.

At the end of the day every team can only play 11 players. Apart from those players, it's down to the Manager and coaching staff. Let's be honest, up to now, and even with their new found wealth, which they knew was coming, Manchester United have hardly set the transfer market a light. In the past the name and #istory of Manchester United would guarantee a player/signing, not anymore. And as it stands, United need at least 2-3 good and expensive players to mount a CL challenge, never mind a title challenge. Then factor in a new Manager, new players, and new tactics, etc, and you've got a very tuff ask for Van Gaal to get United into the top 4, never mind making a serious and sustained PL title challenge this season.

Yes they will be there or there abouts, but I can see us, Chelsea, and Arsenal taking the 1st 3 places next season. That leaves one Play off CL place up for grabs between United, Liverpool(minus Suarez), Everton, and Spurs. And don't forget, the new BT CL deal kicks in in 2015/16. Could United afford to miss out on that and CL football again?

Sadly, our form of financing (actual money up front) is being inhibited, whilst their form (debt) isn't. They have the advantage, massively. It was less so before FFP hit us, but now the odds are massively back in their favour since their revenues dwarf ours, and so there spending limits will also dwarf ours.

You're right that money doesn't buy success, but it does improve the odds massive, as we ourselves have proven. If United can spend at least twice the amount we can (quite likely) we will have our work cut out.

FFP really does work against our investment model, but at least we got a huge chunk of the investment in before FFP.
One area where we MIGHT be able to make up some ground though, is in our infrastructure. We can spend on that as we like - it's exempt from FFP, so providing we can actually make the improved infrastructure pay dividends for us, it's a possible route to closing the gap.

I think the only realistic way of every catching them up requires them to falter as well as us being successful. If that happens I think we could one day match them, but it's a long way off, and in all likelihood might never happen.

 

[Chippy_boy]

The above analysis fails to ask the question, how much will the Glazers let United spend?

They may be better off in terms of income, but their owners are in it ONLY for the money and will want to trouser as much as possible. Our owner is in it for the long term, and although he may be in it for the money ultimately (I am not sure he is), he's demonstrated a willingness to invest HUGE sums of his own to see us achieve our goals.

The bottom line is, we can spend ALL of our income, United cannot and that's always going to be big advantage for us.

 

[panzer1311]

So , not only are us fans paying through the nose for Nike's overpriced tat , we've also got the shit end of the stick when it comes to kit deals ....
fuckin brilliant work by MCFC merchandising ,

Not a businessman, are we?!

The CLUB get FREE MONEY for doing something they have to do already....wear a kit! In that deal, we wear what one company wants to pay us...as they agreed to pay more than anyone else. The shirt sponsor is a sweetheart deal (and no-one can seriously say it isn't, regardless of how legal and anti-FFP it is!).

All that said, City have outsourced Kitbag to do their merchandising, so they get a cut and/or fee for whatever you buy, but that is NOT where the big money is...it is in the UPFRONT SALES OF SPACE, both on the right breast and the chest logos.

There are a few THOUSAND Mancs who appear to care about the shirt maker and/or sponsor, because they have been married tot he club for twenty, thirty, forty years and that's it! It is a merely a commodity that is changed every year to appeal to those people who feel the need to be current and/or cutting edge.

I would imagine EVERY player cares more about how it fits, how it feels, how hot it is, how breathable it is, etc, rather than give a second thought about how it LOOKS. None of them wants to look like a twat in the kit, but we've never had one of those, regardless of which kits you like or dislike.

I recall the 2009/10 shirt, which is my favorite and many people's modern classic, was derided by the players as too hot and heavy when wet!

If you look at the World Cup, almost EVERY SHIRT looked like it was paper thin when soaked in sweat. Heck, those teams wearing white looked like they were showing off their rippling six packs in a ladies wet t-shirt calendar half the time!

Now, the shield?.......!!!

No im not a businessman , just a parent who has to pay extortionate prices for possibly the worst quality football shirts we've ever had .

 

[FanchesterCity]

The above analysis fails to ask the question, how much will the Glazers let United spend?

They may be better off in terms of income, but their owners are in it ONLY for the money and will want to trouser as much as possible. Our owner is in it for the long term, and although he may be in it for the money ultimately (I am not sure he is), he's demonstrated a willingness to invest HUGE sums of his own to see us achieve our goals.

The bottom line is, we can spend ALL of our income, United cannot and that's always going to be big advantage for us.

Fair point there. They'll want their whack, it's just a matter of big a whack they want!

 

[waspish]

Got stop worry about the scum they will always be there or there about all we have to do is beat them on the pitch and finish ahead of them in the league

 

[FanchesterCity]

So , not only are us fans paying through the nose for Nike's overpriced tat , we've also got the shit end of the stick when it comes to kit deals ....
fuckin brilliant work by MCFC merchandising ,

Not a businessman, are we?!

The CLUB get FREE MONEY for doing something they have to do already....wear a kit! In that deal, we wear what one company wants to pay us...as they agreed to pay more than anyone else. The shirt sponsor is a sweetheart deal (and no-one can seriously say it isn't, regardless of how legal and anti-FFP it is!).

All that said, City have outsourced Kitbag to do their merchandising, so they get a cut and/or fee for whatever you buy, but that is NOT where the big money is...it is in the UPFRONT SALES OF SPACE, both on the right breast and the chest logos.

There are a few THOUSAND Mancs who appear to care about the shirt maker and/or sponsor, because they have been married tot he club for twenty, thirty, forty years and that's it! It is a merely a commodity that is changed every year to appeal to those people who feel the need to be current and/or cutting edge.

I would imagine EVERY player cares more about how it fits, how it feels, how hot it is, how breathable it is, etc, rather than give a second thought about how it LOOKS. None of them wants to look like a twat in the kit, but we've never had one of those, regardless of which kits you like or dislike.

I recall the 2009/10 shirt, which is my favorite and many people's modern classic, was derided by the players as too hot and heavy when wet!

If you look at the World Cup, almost EVERY SHIRT looked like it was paper thin when soaked in sweat. Heck, those teams wearing white looked like they were showing off their rippling six packs in a ladies wet t-shirt calendar half the time!

Now, the shield?.......!!!

No im not a businessman , just a parent who has to pay extortionate prices for possibly the worst quality football shirts we've ever had .

You have my sympathies there. Although I'd not say it was something specific to City, it's a general issue with sport as a whole.

The only options you have are:

1) Don't buy (not easy with kids and peer pressure etc)
2) Buy counterfeit (really not great)
3) Wait until mid season / Jan to get cheaper shirts
4) Consider 'retro' / 'vintage' shirts that are usually cheaper
5) Consider other City clothing that's still not necessarily cheap, but it's a lot cheaper than the football shirts.

It's clear to anybody with a brain what a con football shirts actually are. Perhaps con is too harsh a word, but value for money simply isn't there.

 

[SilverFox2]

Good points are being made about quality of shirts.

FFP is forcing the owner to do what UEFA is wanting to see ie as large an income as possible.
Two ways to do this, volume of shirts and secondly larger difference between cost and price per shirt.

Not really a surprise to find that it likely to become a target for copies when its price to cost ratio has been maxed out.

Edit:
Forgot to mention that any 'copy' may actually be made with a better quality of material than the original as a result of any deal made not being in the equation.