Chang Extension

[mankers88]

Robert Elstone on 25th November 2010 (last time we extended our deal with Chang, £12m up front) ...

"It is a big increase on the current deal and allows us to flow that into our financial forecast and can only really strengthen our resolve to continue to strengthen the playing squad."

January transfer window 2011 ...

In: Vellios (250k)
Out: Pienaar (£3m) Jutkiewicz (200k)

Summer transfer window 2011

In: none
Out: Arteta (10m) Beckford (£4m)

 

[BoysInBlue]

This deal is poor at best meh/average. I was hoping for 10 million but expecting 7 million and we got 5 !

As said Spurs signed a deal last year for 19 million. Newcastle get 6 million and Man Utd looking at a 53 million deal. So next year:-

Man Utd 53 million
Arsenal 30 million
Liverpool 20 million
Man City 20 million
Spurs 19 million
Chelsea 18 million
Newcastle 6 million
Everton 5 million

We would have to sell 2 Fellainis every year just to get back what Man Utd make on shirt sponsor alone ! Our sponsorship will be 10% of Man Utds. What ever way you look at it we are falling further behind.

On the playing side we extract everything we can from the money invested but the commercial side has yet again let down the entire club.

Why on earth do people keep mentioning Spurs???

They are regularly in Europe - they have qualified for Europe 6 times in the last 6 years, that's more than we've qualified for Europe in the past 29 years combined.

Of course Spurs are going to get more sponsorship money than us - European regulars, CL quarter finalists 2 years ago, London-based thus far more attractive, already a very wealthy club.

An old saying - 'Money gets money' - old, but still very true to this day.

There is clearly a ceiling on what non-rich, not-in-Europe-regularly clubs can get a year for sponsorship, and that is clearly £5m/£6m. I just don't get this disappointment/surprise that some are expressing.

Nothing will ever change at Everton until we have a new, richer owner that heavily invests HIS OWN MONEY into the club. That is how Man City, Chelsea, and even Spurs are seen as 'big clubs' now - HEAVY INVESTMENT IN PLAYERS FROM THEIR OWNERS PERSONAL FINANCES.

Their big money didn't come from sponsors - that comes later once you've invested and got a degree of success.

 

[artetas_biggest_fan]

This deal is poor at best meh/average. I was hoping for 10 million but expecting 7 million and we got 5 !

As said Spurs signed a deal last year for 19 million. Newcastle get 6 million and Man Utd looking at a 53 million deal. So next year:-

Man Utd 53 million
Arsenal 30 million
Liverpool 20 million
Man City 20 million
Spurs 19 million
Chelsea 18 million
Newcastle 6 million
Everton 5 million

We would have to sell 2 Fellainis every year just to get back what Man Utd make on shirt sponsor alone ! Our sponsorship will be 10% of Man Utds. What ever way you look at it we are falling further behind.

On the playing side we extract everything we can from the money invested but the commercial side has yet again let down the entire club.

We have the same stature of clubs like Newcastle, Villa, so around the 6m range is about par for the course. We aren't fashionable and don't have the gravitas of the top clubs so I really dont see why any blame can be attached to Elstone and co. The critiquing "experts" on here couldn't run a corner shop.

 

[davek]

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/robert-elstone-says-16m-chang-6855339

Imagine you're regularly an average 6th best at something for the past half decade and are looking to capitalize on your status, and someone you employ to do that comes back to you telling you they've got the 7th/8th best deal from a sponsor and are telling you "the values are right"?

I mean come on, WTF is going on here? If someone pisses down your leg and tells you it's raining you dont accept it do you? That's basically what's being asked of us (again) here.

It's outrageous.

 

[artetas_biggest_fan]

There is clearly a ceiling on what non-rich, not-in-Europe-regularly clubs can get a year for sponsorship, and that is clearly £5m/£6m. I just don't get this disappointment/surprise that some are expressing.

Shhh...can't be having any sensible talk on here.

 

[BoysInBlue]

Remember when people were touting how great Villa's sponsorship deals were, when they were changing their sponsor every year, and how they were teaching us a lesson?

Now their sponsorship deal is £3m LESS a year than it used to be, worse than ours. There's a good argument that chopping and changing your sponsor for the best deal every chance you get, as some on here would have us doing if they had their way, as if you're shopping for annual car insurance or something, is a very bad thing as it erodes your core value. A sponsorship is a two way street, it is a business partnership.

There's something to be commended for having a very stable, 13 year partnership with a sponsor. There's clearly something good happening there.

Of course, this doesn't change the fact that the only way the club will improve is if it has a richer owner that invests HIS OWN MONEY into the club.

 

[davek]

Shhh...can't be having any sensible talk on here.

Never mind Europe. The PL is the biggest game in town. No sponsor is half as arsed about EL tv audiences. However, they know the PL is a global platform for the tat these spivs are flogging.

 

[davek]

Remember when people were touting how great Villa's sponsorship deals were, when they were changing their sponsor every year, and how they were teaching us a lesson?

Now their sponsorship deal is £3m LESS a year than it used to be, worse than ours. There's a good argument that chopping and changing your sponsor for the best deal every chance you get, as some on here would have us doing if they had their way, as if you're shopping for annual car insurance or something, is a very bad thing as it erodes your core value. A sponsorship is a two way street, it is a business partnership.

There's something to be commended for having a very stable, 13 year partnership with a sponsor. There's clearly something good happening there.

Of course, this doesn't change the fact that the only way the club will improve is if it has a richer owner that invests HIS OWN MONEY into the club.

Hoe does this 'good' manifest itself? The manager has said on the link you provided that it wont make an impression on his transfer activities.

 

[Garrick]

It's still not that great of a beer.

 

[BoysInBlue]

Hoe does this 'good' manifest itself? The manager has said on the link you provided that it wont make an impression on his transfer activities.

Dave, what would you rather have - £5.3m a year from Chang, or £6m a year from Wonga?

Forget the figures, who would you rather we had on our shirts - a alcoholic beverage company, or a payday loans company? Or a casino. Or a betting company.

 

[njligernj]

Premier league shirt sponsors lunch:

"My team was pushing for a CL place and still looks fairly well positioned for Europe and possibly even their highest Prem points total ever." - 5m.

"My team is about to be relegated." - 5m

"My team is about to be relegated." - 5m.

Seems about right to me don't see what all the fuss is about.

 

[BoysInBlue]

Never mind Europe. The PL is the biggest game in town. No sponsor is half as arsed about EL tv audiences. However, they know the PL is a global platform for the tat these spivs are flogging.

Yes, and we very rarely finish high enough in the PL to qualify for Europe. It goes hand in hand.

 

[Toffeemeister]

Why on earth do people keep mentioning Spurs???

They are regularly in Europe - they have qualified for Europe 6 times in the last 6 years, that's more than we've qualified for Europe in the past 29 years combined.

Of course Spurs are going to get more sponsorship money than us - European regulars, CL quarter finalists 2 years ago, London-based thus far more attractive, already a very wealthy club.

An old saying - 'Money gets money' - old, but still very true to this day.

There is clearly a ceiling on what non-rich, not-in-Europe-regularly clubs can get a year for sponsorship, and that is clearly £5m/£6m. I just don't get this disappointment/surprise that some are expressing.

Nothing will ever change at Everton until we have a new, richer owner that heavily invests HIS OWN MONEY into the club. That is how Man City, Chelsea, and even Spurs are seen as 'big clubs' now - HEAVY INVESTMENT IN PLAYERS FROM THEIR OWNERS PERSONAL FINANCES.

Their big money didn't come from sponsors - that comes later once you've invested and got a degree of success.

Our deal is almost 25% of what Spurs get. We were in Europe 4 out of 5 seasons a few years back but we didn't get a huge rise in sponsorship. I was hoping for 50% of what Spurs get I don't think that is unreasonable.

Sunderland and Fulham are scraping for relegation but get the same as us. Are you really pleased with our deal ?

 

[BoysInBlue]

Premier league shirt sponsors lunch:

"My team was pushing for a CL place and still looks fairly well positioned for Europe and possibly even their highest Prem points total ever." - 5m.

"My team is about to be relegated." - 5m

"My team is about to be relegated." - 5m.

Seems about right to me don't see what all the fuss is about.

So what you're saying is that everyone else that doesn't regularly qualify for Europe and doesn't have mass riches has the same problem finding a shirt sponsor to pay much more than £5m a year as Everton do.

Which is precisely what I've been saying.

 

[BoysInBlue]

Our deal is almost 25% of what Spurs get. We were in Europe 4 out of 5 seasons a few years back but we didn't get a huge rise in sponsorship. I was hoping for 50% of what Spurs get I don't think that is unreasonable.

Sunderland and Fulham are scraping for relegation but get the same as us. Are you really pleased with our deal ?

I'm pleased it hasn't declined by £3m a year as Villa's has.