Very good news about Nike

[Thaksinssoldier]

I just posted this in the United thread, but it seemed apt to share here also.

LoveCity wrote:
A new precedent is being set from their kit + sponsorship deals and all top clubs will now want deals at least within touching range of their's. For example, Arsenal's Puma deal is half of what United's Adidas deal is going to be.

We're making around £52m/year from Etihad (the apparently inflated and unfair deal that ALSO covers a stadium + training campus) + Nike compared to about £135m/year they will be getting from Adidas and that car firm. Etihad deal needs pushing up to at least £60m per year and the Nike deal to in the £30m vicinity if renegotiations are possible.
The Etihad deal might go up, but the Nike deal will be based entirely on how many shirts they can sell. The reality is that we still don't sell as many as the perennial 4th placed team or the 7th place (when they signed the deal) history professors. But yeah, it makes of mockery of Liverpool and Arsenal fans claims that our sponsorship deals were inflated, when they're signing bigger deals than us despite doing fuck all for years.

Not true. Shirt sales for Nike is only a secondary concern for them. With a brand as big as ours the big concern for them will be their own brand growth piggybacked off of ours, so it has more to do with how much PR and success we get. Sales is secondary, trust me. I know an awful lot about Nike's history in American sports and they have never been a company to just latch on to the team of the moment. They invested and practically built Oregon into a powerhouse(out of local college loyalty by Phil Knight) and once that was done they did the same for rival Oregon State. They are currently doing the same at Oklahoma State. All of these colleges were sporting minnows but big investment came in(at Oregon from Phil Knight himself) and Nike partnered up and invested heavily, and reaped the rewards due to the success. None of these teams have huge shirt sales...but are having them now due to the success.

Meanwhile, Adidas are a whole other story. In the US they've been well and truly ousted by under armour as Nike's main rival(Not right now but any industry expert sees the growth of under armour vs the shrinkage of adidas brands as an inevitable power shift to see Nike v Under Armour). Adidas has also lost it's most recognisable partnership with the University of Notre Dame who they were so in bed with they neglected other deals and lost them to Nike and Under Armour, and now have no major US sports team. They also have no chance of getting in with one thanks to sleeping on them when they thought Notre Dame would be in bed with them forever. So they need a team and they need one bad...

...and the Glazers know that all too well. Its a move of desperation by both brands and United being dropped by Nike is a sign that Nike sees that brand as peaked, whereas Adidas is just looking to show it's still relevant and therefore fashionable.

 

[stonerblue]

I think people underestimed the influence of Nike worldwide and in sport. The exposure of ADUG and Abu Dhabi has been the main reason for the take-over, and Nike fits perfectly for reaching that goal. Umbro is not and is nothing more than a small part of Nike. Yes they made some terrific kits for us over the last few years, but none of them were sold abroad, let alone any other part of the merchandise. Over in Holland you see Umbro only in the stores that sell cheap clothing. Now you see City-tops in various sportshops, some of them with a range of trainingkits as well. And people actually buy it. Same goes for Italy, France, and Belgium. To name the countries I have visited last year.

Adidas only wants to sponsor a club that is the best in it's area. They prefer United. Therefore Nike was a better option for City. The deal may not look spectacular, but we don't know the ingredients other than what papers state. I like to think the money put in by Nike pro year will depend on City performing in the PL, in Europe, and how the sales go worldwide.

Forget the sentiment that goes with Umbro, it will not fit our club the way we are heading. Nike has positively surprised me with last season kits, all three of them who looked class. I still do have my Umbro-tops since ADUG took over and I wear them regularly and with pride. But I like the Nike-ones as well. You can't discuss taste I guess.

All very true in a global business, let's all make billions by fleecing fans sort of way. There was a time not too long ago when Blues would rightly criticise united for that business plan.
Closer to home, fans want good quality gear at a decent price, both of which are alien concepts for Nike.

 

[SWP's back]

Nike have always been my favourite make.

 

[SWP's back]

A lad I work with claims to be a fairly clued up Rag. He's of the belief that Adidas have a agreed or proposed a deal worth approx £75M a season!

By "clued up" you mean he read one of the 7 papers stating that story today>?

 

[I'm With Stupid]

I have a strict adidas only trainer policy as well as almost all of my lounging about and gym clothing being adidas.

I don't buy anything that sponsors anything. You just end up paying more for the same product to help put David Beckham's kids through school.

 

[jonmcity]

I have a strict adidas only trainer policy as well as almost all of my lounging about and gym clothing being adidas.

I don't buy anything that sponsors anything. You just end up paying more for the same product to help put David Beckham's kids through school.

Thats going to be an issue. Need to find another trainer manufacturer.

 

[whp.blue]

Since Nike became our shirt sponsors I've not bought one city related clothing

+1
I don't own anything made by Nike I was hoping for Adidas after umbro

 

[I'm With Stupid]

I have a strict adidas only trainer policy as well as almost all of my lounging about and gym clothing being adidas.

I don't buy anything that sponsors anything. You just end up paying more for the same product to help put David Beckham's kids through school.

Thats going to be an issue. Need to find another trainer manufacturer.

Go for New Balance myself. I have bought Adidas in the past, but just the cheap ones. If I buy something that's made in a sweat shop, I at least want it to be cheap because it's made in a sweat shop. If you're gonna sell a shirt for £5, then obviously you have to rely on cheap labour. But there's something a bit wrong about a £50 shirt being made by someone who makes less than $40 a month.

 

[Tim of the Oak]

Nike's statements make it clear that they are not to pay above the market rate and that's £12m pa for us at the moment / during this contract.

I see the rags Nike deal includes sponsoring soccer schools and competitions so that may be an area where Nike could increase their investment in us (but I doubt that is megabucks - at the moment).

 

[bluechampion7891]

Don't know if this is relevant or not:
<a class="postlink" href="https://twitter.com/mikekeeganbbc/status/486913501903216640" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">https://twitter.com/mikekeeganbbc/statu ... 1903216640</a>

"Chances are there will be kit news from the other side of Manchester first..."