Daily Mirror Reporting Nike Deal

[TX Bill]

I just hate that a good friend of mine works for Nike.

 

[Philw]

Does this mean that Sergio Tachinardi won't be doing our casual gear any more??

 

[davek]

The fact that it doesn't fit your point of view doesn't make it a bull**** claim.

It has already been discussed why the figure was so high. Warrior are desperate to break into the UK market where they are relatively unknown, and Liverpool are probably only second to Man U in this country in terms of kit sales. Liverpool held all the cards.

The £25m a year is a loss leader of sorts. Did they overpay ? Probably. Will it be worth it in the long run to secure their brand mindshare ? I would say so, especially if the rumoured Liverpool kit is anything like the real thing.

If the £25m was bollocks, surely the legions of news outlets which reported it would have retracted it or changed their story as the Mirror did re:£10m a year Nike deal. No ? It would seem you have zero evidence other than it not fitting the way you see Liverpool's worth.

Also, i'm not disputing the Villa figure, because i also believe that is accurate.



United get £20m a year and sell the most kits for Nike. Liverpool's deal of £25m is more recent, and according to that quote Liverpool actually make more money in overall merchandise than Real, who asked Adidas to pay 60 million euros a year for the privilege of selling their gear.

Again, this is apples and pears. The Mirror retracted the Everton story because it wasn't in the interests of the owners of the club that Moyes had £10M to spend. In contrast, the Liverpool story was not under any pressure to be pulled or corrected because it suited that club to have the positive story that they'd negotiated an unbelievable deal, thus allowing them to trump the Adidas slap in the face and the negative publicity that went with it.

The Liverpool 'deal' was too fantastic to be true. It should be bracketed in the 'Everton get 10M per season off Nike' category.

 

[Brennan]

Again, this is apples and pears. The Mirror retracted the Everton story because it wasn't in the interests of the owners of the club that Moyes had £10M to spend. In contrast, the Liverpool story was not under any pressure to be pulled or corrected because it suited that club to have the positive story that they'd negotiated an unbelievable deal, thus allowing them to trump the Adidas slap in the face and the negative publicity that went with it.

The Liverpool 'deal' was too fantastic to be true. It should be bracketed in the 'Everton get 10M per season off Nike' category.

Sorry, but did you just ignore the rest of my post where i clearly pointed out that (in 2010 at least) Liverpool made the most money for Adidas in terms of overall revenue ?

Real Madrid were already getting 30 million euros a year (£25m) and that deal was signed years before this current one Liverpool have signed. I really don't see why you have such difficulty accepting the figure, as when you look at the facts it is perfectly logical.

But even that does not tell the full merchandise story, because although Liverpool were found to Adidas’s No2 shirt seller behind Real (with 700,000 to 900,000 shirts sold per year), Liverpool are understood to be ahead of Real in overall merchandise sales for Adidas, according to industry sources.

Ahead of Real, who were already on £25m, and that wasn't a deal signed by a company desperate to break into the UK market. I really don't see what is so 'fantastic' about Liverpool getting paid what Madrid were paid for years, when overall they sell more merchandise.

I also guarantee that when United go to re-negotiate their kit deal that they will be asking for a fair bit more than £20m.

Manchester United will attempt to reach a new kit manufacturing deal with Nike in the coming months, which could see The Red Devils earn up to £35 Million per annum and over £450 Million over a period of more than a decade. The current deal with the world's no.1 sports brand expires in 2015, and will soon be renegotiated...

The France national football team recently agreed a €42.5 (£38) Million-a-year contract with Nike, lasting 7½ years.

 

[Brennan]

Does this mean that Sergio Tachinardi won't be doing our casual gear any more??

Yes mate.

 

[davek]

Sorry, but did you just ignore the rest of my post where i clearly pointed out that (in 2010 at least) Liverpool made the most money for Adidas in terms of overall revenue ?

Real Madrid were already getting 30 million euros a year (£25m) and that deal was signed years before this current one Liverpool have signed. I really don't see why you have such difficulty accepting the figure, as when you look at the facts it is perfectly logical.



Ahead of Real, who were already on £25m, and that wasn't a deal signed by a company desperate to break into the UK market. I really don't see what is so 'fantastic' about Liverpool getting paid what Madrid were paid for years, when overall they sell more merchandise.

I also guarantee that when United go to re-negotiate their kit deal that they will be asking for a fair bit more than £20m.

That article goes back to 2010 - and it's largely Ian Ayre in it that's trumpeting Liverpool's sales. When it was published it was so alongside this information http://www.sportingintelligence.com...lds-best-selling-club-football-shirts-310802/ that shows where Liverpool (in 2010) were in the pecking order of shirt sales for Adidas & Nike strips...it placed them then (in 2010) back in a distant 4th on a par with Arsenal, Chelsea and Bayern Munich....none of which, presumably, are getting a £25M shirt deal right now. Now that was back in summer 2010 and Liverpool had pretty much collapsed as a competitive force from that moment to the end of last year when the 'deal' was struck with Warrior.

Doesn't add up really does it? The more you look at it the more you see that when Adidas offered an extrension of their deal up to £18M per seaon they probably had the measure of them. What company worth its salt is going to give the biggest shirt deal to a club that was joint 4th with club's with relatively 'minor' global appeal and that was also on the ropes, as Liverpool undoubtedly where and still are?

As I said all along, that story of their new sooper dooper better-than-everyone-else shirt deal was strictly for the birds. Buy into it if you want. Most sensible people will dismiss it as football club spin.

 

[EFC_1878]

At the end of the day the only badge that matters on a kit is this club badge

The Liverpool deal (if correctly reported) just sums up their luck really. Warrior are trying to break into the football market and offered silly money to get a contract with a team langushing in obscurity! Oh yeah wait, they won the Carling Cup, which IIRC has replaced the Champions League as the premier club competion

 

[chris_b]

Davek - so you are now trying to suggest that the everton board have control over whats printed in the mirror and so can pull stories that are not in their best interests - you do have an interesting view sometimes

 

[Brennan]

That article goes back to 2010 - and it's largely Ian Ayre in it that's trumpeting Liverpool's sales. When it was published it was so alongside this information http://www.sportingintelligence.com...lds-best-selling-club-football-shirts-310802/ that shows where Liverpool (in 2010) were in the pecking order of shirt sales for Adidas & Nike strips...it placed them then (in 2010) back in a distant 4th on a par with Arsenal, Chelsea and Bayern Munich....none of which, presumably, are getting a £25M shirt deal right now. Now that was back in summer 2010 and Liverpool had pretty much collapsed as a competitive force from that moment to the end of last year when the 'deal' was struck with Warrior.

Doesn't add up really does it? The more you look at it the more you see that when Adidas offered an extrension of their deal up to £18M per seaon they probably had the measure of them. What company worth its salt is going to give the biggest shirt deal to a club that was joint 4th with club's with relatively 'minor' global appeal and that was also on the ropes, as Liverpool undoubtedly where and still are?

As I said all along, that story of their new sooper dooper better-than-everyone-else shirt deal was strictly for the birds. Buy into it if you want. Most sensible people will dismiss it as football club spin.

1. Their overall merchandise sales made them Adidas' number one.
2. £25m would not be the biggest deal, as already discussed.
3. Their poor performance in recent years has done nothing to deter their rabid fanbase. More people wearing warrior's gear is what really matters here.

Sometimes I think you only read what you want to read. In footballing terms Liverpool have declined, but they are still huge in terms of media exposure as the sickly way they are spoken about in the media referring to their past glories.

The fact is that United are or were trying for £35m a year, I don't see why you think £25m for a club who brought in more money than Real is so outrageous.

France - £38m a year
United - £25m a year (old deal, they want much more)
Real - £25m a year (again, old and want more (double))
Barcelona - £26m a year

Liverpool sell more merchandise than Real, and would be at parity with them. Then you consider Warrior probably overpaid to get their foot in the UK and voila.

 

[davek]

Davek - so you are now trying to suggest that the everton board have control over whats printed in the mirror and so can pull stories that are not in their best interests - you do have an interesting view sometimes

It wasn't pulled it was corrected. I wonder who woud have asked them to correct it? The club maybe? Seems a safe bet.

1. Their overall merchandise sales made them Adidas' number one.

But we're talking about shirt sales here aren't we, not keyrings and baby bibs (and if you want to use that broader 'merchandising' category you'll have to come up with the data of all those other top shirt selling club's total merchandising performance in the interests of comparison....or you could just accept the word of Ian Ayre, I suppose.)

2. £25m would not be the biggest deal, as already discussed.

No, it'd make them #2 from what I can gather...a great deal for the club with the 4th/5th/6th/7th largest number of shirt sales in the world...a fantastic deal...or should that read fantasy deal?

3. Their poor performance in recent years has done nothing to deter their rabid fanbase. More people wearing warrior's gear is what really matters here.

Nonsense. How can their performance not affect their sales? They got the numbers now attributed to them by being successful in the first place. Starve a club of success and they'll get that 'loyalty' flushed away eventually...and we both know that since 2005 that *brand* has suffered bady, no period more so than the last two years with the off-field shenanigans factored in.

Sometimes I think you only read what you want to read. In footballing terms Liverpool have declined, but they are still huge in terms of media exposure as the sickly way they are spoken about in the media referring to their past glories.

The fact is that United are or were trying for £35m a year, I don't see why you think £25m for a club who brought in more money than Real is so outrageous.

France - £38m a year
United - £25m a year (old deal, they want much more)
Real - £25m a year (again, old and want more (double))
Barcelona - £26m a year

Liverpool sell more merchandise than Real, and would be at parity with them. Then you consider Warrior probably overpaid to get their foot in the UK and voila.

I think it's you doing that mate. You're turning yourself inside out here trying to pull figures this way and that way to avoid the crushing expert industry-informed conclusion that Liverpool were having a laugh asking for anywhere near parity with the big boys sitting at the top table.

 

[Brennan]

But we're talking about shirt sales here aren't we, not keyrings and baby bibs (and if you want to use that broader 'merchandising' category you'll have to come up with the data of all those other top shirt selling club's total merchandising performance in the interests of comparison....or you could just accept the word of Ian Ayre, I suppose.)

Even with the merchandising aside, Liverpool were Adidas' second best selling kit brand and were joint fourth in the world. Real, United and Barcelona are all either getting more or are currently negotiating for much more than the £25-26m they were receiving. So even if Liverpool did agree a deal for £25m, they still wouldn't be getting more than their rivals, and would probably be getting noticeably less sooner or later.

Furthermore, the fact is that the quote i posted earlier specifically says that overall Liverpool were making more money for Adidas than Real. When people say 'kit deals' they mean 'merchandise deal' 99% of the time. Look at all of the top clubs like Barca, United, Arsenal et al. Their merchandise is made by the same person who makes their kit. As a result if Liverpool are making more money overall then they would be perfectly within reason asking for a similar amount.

No, it'd make them #2 from what I can gather...a great deal for the club with the 4th/5th/6th/7th largest number of shirt sales in the world...a fantastic deal...or should that read fantasy deal?

Where are you getting 5th 6th and 7th ? I am aware that the picture shows Chelsea, Munich etc having the 'same' number of kit sales, but when you look at the actual text to match the picture in the article i quoted it specifically says Liverpool is Adidas' second highest selling kit. At worst it would be 5th overall behind Arsenal, because it doesn't specify whether Arsenal beat out Liverpool or not.

But, as i already said, a 'kit deal' almost never ends with just the kit, it extends to many other forms of merchandise. Look at the bigger picture.

Nonsense. How can their performance not affect their sales? They got the numbers now attributed to them by being successful in the first place. Starve a club of success and they'll get that 'loyalty' flushed away eventually...and we both know that since 2005 that *brand* has suffered bady, no period more so than the last two years with the off-field shenanigans factored in.

I did not say their performance couldn't affect their sales in the long run, but unless you have proof that between the summer of 2010 (when that study was performed) and now that Liverpool's merchandise sales have dropped significantly it's a moot point.

I think it's you doing that mate. You're turning yourself inside out here trying to pull figures this way and that way to avoid the crushing expert industry-informed conclusion that Liverpool were having a laugh asking for anywhere near parity with the big boys sitting at the top table.

From who ? Adidas ? Not going to turn around and say that they were simply outdone, are they ?

Anyway, i'm not sure we will ever agree on this, but as far as im concerned there are no concrete facts which disprove the possibility of Liverpool having a _merchandise_ deal worth £25m, especially not when you take into account the ridiculous numbers that Real and United are talking about, £50m and £35m respectively. If Real can get anywhere near £50m and Liverpool make more money on merchandise, i fail to see £25m being ludicrous.

But at least i can have a discussion with you without getting multiple fonts thrown at me and facepalming everywhere, which is nice.

Least you're not Damon !

 

[davek]

Even with the merchandising aside, Liverpool were Adidas' second best selling kit brand and were joint fourth in the world. Real, United and Barcelona are all either getting more or are currently negotiating for much more than the £25-26m they were receiving. So even if Liverpool did agree a deal for £25m, they still wouldn't be getting more than their rivals, and would probably be getting noticeably less sooner or later.

Furthermore, the fact is that the quote i posted earlier specifically says that overall Liverpool were making more money for Adidas than Real. When people say 'kit deals' they mean 'merchandise deal' 99% of the time. Look at all of the top clubs like Barca, United, Arsenal et al. Their merchandise is made by the same person who makes their kit. As a result if Liverpool are making more money overall then they would be perfectly within reason asking for a similar amount.

I see you conveniently leave out Liverpool's real peer group in that lot: Arsenal, Chelsea and Bayern Munich. Why you keep bracketing Liverpool with the Madrid's and Barcelonas of this world when it's there for all to see that they and United are streets ahead in terms of shifting gear is a mystery. But you keep hammering your head on that wall if you like!

And here's a crucial thing you also have to understand: Adidas' deal with Liverpool stretched to the 'branded' and 'non-branded merchandise'. If you read around the proposals for the Warrior deal you'd have read that Liverpool are not giving the non-branded' side of the business (which apparenty amounts to 50% for them) to Warrior. So we're expected to believe that Warrior came forward and are about to give £7M per season more than Adidas were offering...and only getting half of the merchandise of LFC Adidas were enjoying! Unbelievable isn't it? Literally unbelievable.

I did not say their performance couldn't affect their sales in the long run, but unless you have proof that between the summer of 2010 (when that study was performed) and now that Liverpool's merchandise sales have dropped significantly it's a moot point.

Answer me this (and here's another way of going about it) if a team is firing blanks on the pitch and falling way, way short of the results of a 'global power' (Lol!) dont you think that a negotiator would use that to drive a hard bargain? I know what I'd be doing...exactly what Adidas did and laugh in their faces for wanting what the real big boys get. Liverpol do not get the going rate for football superpowers anymore. They haven't even qualified for the CL for what will be two seaons come May. Their PR efforts to suggest otherwise are simply that...PR exercises.

From who ? Adidas ? Not going to turn around and say that they were simply outdone, are they ?

Not worth responding to this, just to say that Adidas know their shit rather better than you I reckon.

Anyway, i'm not sure we will ever agree on this, but as far as im concerned there are no concrete facts which disprove the possibility of Liverpool having a _merchandise_ deal worth £25m, especially not when you take into account the ridiculous numbers that Real and United are talking about, £50m and £35m respectively. If Real can get anywhere near £50m and Liverpool make more money on merchandise, i fail to see £25m being ludicrous.

But at least i can have a discussion with you without getting multiple fonts thrown at me and facepalming everywhere, which is nice.

Least you're not Damon !

...and no concrete evidence via quotes from manufacturers and/or club to suggest the 'deal' (at least at the figures quoted) was/is true. We just have to rely on how we interpret the matter. I'm reasonably happy I've done that fairly rationally.

 

[Brennan]

I see you conveniently leave out Liverpool's real peer group in that lot: Arsenal, Chelsea and Bayern Munich. Why you keep bracketing Liverpool with the Madrid's and Barcelonas of this world when it's there for all to see that they and United are streets ahead in terms of shifting gear is a mystery. But you keep hammering your head on that wall if you like!

Except they're not the real peer group, as i already pointed out. Liverpool shift way more merchandise than Real Madrid, and were specifically pointed out as being the 2nd highest seller for Adidas, above Bayern, Chelsea etc.

Not worth responding to this, just to say that Adidas know their **** rather better than you I reckon.

So you believe everything any corporation says ? Thought you knew better than that, especially as a supporter of EFC.

...and no concrete evidence via quotes from manufacturers and/or club to suggest the 'deal' (at least at the figures quoted) was/is true. We just have to rely on how we interpret the matter. I'm reasonably happy I've done that fairly rationally.

Fair enough. Agree to disagree until/if their finances are published in detail down the line.

 

[Kay20]

Better marketing, better brand. Expands our name globally.

Don't see how this is an issue.

Great deal. Hope we made some money off of it - we should have.

Hmmmm...also wonder if this will help us with players too - Nike sponsors quite a few athletes across the globe, and is a helpful player in some of those negotiations...

 

[TheFinnFan]

Better marketing, better brand. Expands our name globally.

Don't see how this is an issue.

Great deal. Hope we made some money off of it - we should have.

Hmmmm...also wonder if this will help us with players too - Nike sponsors quite a few athletes across the globe, and is a helpful player in some of those negotiations...

this.