And then we get people like @Trion saying “the world’s gone mad! Higuain for 72 million Ozil for 25 million! bhadofhosdjfsdkljfkldsjflsdfklsdjklfsjd! I’m behind Wenger he’s not bowing down to this financial doping!”
1 Like
the world’s gone mad! Higuain for 72 million Ozil for 25 million!!
I’m behind Wenger he’s not bowing down to this financial doping!
1 Like
He’s a professional Talking Head ,very skilled , this interview is just a PR piece for the Americans.
“We believe, fundamentally, in giving a chance to young players. We believe, fundamentally, in playing aggressive, attractive football. We believe, fundamentally, that we should conduct ourselves as a football club in the right way, in a way that makes our fans proud. So I would say, winning is imperative, but for us it’s not enough to win. We have to win in the right way. And that’s an even higher, more ambitious goal, but that’s something we’re convinced that we can do.”
Sounds like a Martin Luther King speech !
1 Like
He can talk like Hitler, Obama, MLK, Churchill… but only what he and Wenger can put on the field to compete matters in the end.
I think the simplest explanation of Gazidis’ statements now versus two years ago is that he and others running the club once again had little understanding of the broader financial trends in the game. A few years ago we had just signed the biggest kit deal in British history at 30M per year and so he says we can compete with anybody. But his pea brain imagination probably did not comprehend the basic reality that if Puma was going to give us 30M per year then other shirt sponsors were going to give other clubs even bigger deals or that maybe settling for 30M wasn’t such a great idea. And what has happened since? United got 75M a year, Chelsea 60M a year, even fucking Spurs is now about to get 25M a year. Our much lauded sponsorship deals have not only turned out not to give us an advantage over competitors but to actually be pretty shit compared to the way that market developed. We should simply not be earning less on these deals than clubs like Chelsea or Liverpool and we certainly shouldn’t be in the exact same range as Spurs. Its like Gazidids at all saw our revenues climbing and made that cause for celebration without understanding that the same market forces were going to be pushing the revenues of every other big club higher as well, just from a higher starting baseline.
4 Likes
You sound simply ill-informed mate. Wrong fight with the man…
Why not? We’re not that much bigger, if at all, than those clubs. Chelsea has the benefit of being the new kids on the block and attract a lot of interest/fans with their recent success. Liverpool has their enormous (European) history and because of that has probably more fans worldwide than other English clubs bar United, which means more (commercial) earning power.
We’ve got some history, but not like Liverpool, we’ve had some recent success, but not like Chelsea. I don’t have too say how long ago our last title win has been.
Those kind of things also play a factor in (potential) earning power.
1 Like
Also need to take into consideration that Liverpool’s kit dealer are Warrior Sports.
The clubs they sponsor are Liverpool, Porto, Monaco, Stoke and likes.
Nike, Adidas, Puma wouldn’t give them such a deal regardless of their history & fanbase.
Just a question…
Why didn’t we get a sponsor from China (or anywhere) that would pay us more?
What was the benefit to sign with Puma?
Do we need a brand (Puma) to sell our brand or we need one to sell ours?
If Warrior Sports can pay more, I don’t mind.
I don’t even care how the ugly the shirt can be, as long as they pay more and we have more money to purchase in the market.
Of course, willing to spend and able to find a target to spend when you have money are different issues.
1 Like
Fair enough. What I probably should have said is that we should be roughly on par with clubs like Chelsea and Liverpool, not earning half of what they do from our main sponsorships. Judging who has the bigger fanbase is difficult. By global social media presence (not necessarily the best measure, but one of the only available ones), we are a bit behind Chelsea and ahead of Liverpool. That they signed deals more recently naturally will tend to give them more in a rising market. Nevertheless, being locked into 30M per year right now still looks pretty bad given the way this market developed just a few years after our deal began.
1 Like
Yeah. Puma has been the pinnacle of football sponsorships. Us and BVB are their flagship teams…
.
and what do Manure, Liverstool, and Chavs have in common? Something we don’t have maybe? Something we don’t really seem to give a shit about? Something that we finish 2nd in our group in that continually comes back to bite us in the ass? Hmmmmm…
2 Likes
Ill informed about what Iavn gazidis interview and what fight are u on about ?
You are not serious, right?
Warrior has only those 4 I listed.
Puma does Sponsorship across all sports, across all type of footballing categories - National Team, Clubs, Players, Managers.
National Teams - Cameroon, Gabon, Togo Burkina Faso,Ghana ,Ivory Coast,Senegal,Uruguay,Austria ,Czech Republic,Italy ,Kosovo ,Slovakia ,Switzerland.
Granted they only have Dortmund & Arsenal as big brands, They are sponsoring around 100 clubs around the world. around 200 players(once sponsored likes of Maradona & Pires) and notable managerial sponsorship in Kloop, Conte & Tuchel.
Warrior’s sponsorship budget is mere fraction of Puma’s.
[quote=“ronniec, post:111, topic:380, full:true”]
Just a question…
Why didn’t we get a sponsor from China (or anywhere) that would pay us more?
What was the benefit to sign with Puma?
Do we need a brand (Puma) to sell our brand or we need one to sell ours?
If Warrior Sports can pay more, I don’t mind.
I don’t even care how the ugly the shirt can be, as long as they pay more and we have more money to purchase in the market.
Of course, willing to spend and able to find a target to spend when you have money are different issues.[/quote]
- Depends on Warrior’s selling capacity.
Can Warrior sell as many merchandises as brands like Puma, Nike, Adidas.
They don’t have a global presence, which means less audience are reached & your official shirts are sold less.
Clubs get a margin off the shirts sold along with the sponsorship amount.
Warrior clearly had to pay more because they can’t sell as many shirt, hence they can’t give Liverpool the margin they would have received from other brands.
Puma on other hand gave us 30m but we also recoup say 15-20m from shirt sales across the globe; which matches the amount Liverpool received from Warrior.
People are more likely to purchase Puma product than Warriors, down to quality.
- Depends on what are the implication of associating with a brand like Warrior.
What kind of message does it send to other sponsors?
If Liverpool associate themselves with lowly brand, then chances are they take a hit on other sponsors.
Marketing is a strange thing. When you sell your commercial side, you have to have a portfolio of good brands to attract more better brands to sponsor you.
Such a thing can’t be quantified.
Have you ever tried to arrange a festival for your college & went out to gather sponsorship?
If you did, you would know how easy it gets if you have one good entity in your portfolio & accordingly you get more money from several sponsorship.
But if you get good money from ‘Danny’s Fish Market’; other sponsors won’t be willing to be associated alongside such a brand and you receive less money overall.
–
These are management decisions wherein you look at bigger picture than what’s in front of you.
2 Likes
Source?
What are you on about?!
1 Like
What are you basing this on?
Complete assumption that. Perhaps a bit optimistic assumption.
Merely to highlight a point.
1 Like