Daily Mirror Reporting Nike Deal

[Goat]

 

[Goat]

Badly Adam fans you 2.

 

[Roztitute]

Pair of Hendersons.

 

[Deleted member 28206]

Badly Adam fans you 2.

XXXXXL for you.

Pair of Hendersons.

Koff lad

 

[Roztitute]

Koff lad

Lolol soz lad I didn't even read the dispute, just love using the word 'Henderson' as an insult.

 

[OneTrueLegend]

Is right lad,grow old gracefully instead of these old men with teenagers names on their backs paying £45 a ticket towards their £20k pay packet.

Haha.

As opposed to what?! Armchair supporters who have never been to Goodison Park? Or only tell people they are Everton fans when we get to a final and dig out their old "hafnia" kit! Supporting the club has to mean supporting them financially and as a fan we can all do that by buying the kit and going the match, if we all do that it makes a difference!

 

[OneTrueLegend]

So now explain how that site is any more legitimate than a variety of news sites such as Reuters reporting Liverpool getting £25m a year. Please.

If i remember rightly it was you who so strongly disputed that figure, correct ?

I just want to clarify what you think is acceptable as a source, because 'football-marketing.com' hardly looks like a very reputable site to me.

I suppose the "new" deal is just more of the same "old" LCS deal. As we still have the same Kitbag deal overall. But I just read that Nike own Umbro and Converse, so we might get Umbro making the training gear and Converse doing the Trainers! )

 

[davek]

So now explain how that site is any more legitimate than a variety of news sites such as Reuters reporting Liverpool getting £25m a year. Please.

If i remember rightly it was you who so strongly disputed that figure, correct ?

I just want to clarify what you think is acceptable as a source, because 'football-marketing.com' hardly looks like a very reputable site to me.

Apples and pears. Clubs aren't going to nail down officialy what comes through on kits and sponsorship deals. There's a lot of status at stake so you tend not to get definitive quotes. The Liverpool figure was in dispute because it was an outrageous figure given the evaluation of Adidas the industry leader that they were worth much less than the New Blalance related offer. This Villa figure is believable precisely because it's not in the slightest an outrageous claim that they're moving from circa £2M per season from Nike to £3.75M per season for the new four year deal with Macron.

All about context mate. .

 

[Brennan]

Apples and pears. Clubs aren't going to nail down officialy what comes through on kits and sponsorship deals. There's a lot of status at stake so you tend not to get definitive quotes. The Liverpool figure was in dispute because it was an outrageous figure given the evaluation of Adidas the industry leader that they were worth much less than the New Blalance related offer. This Villa figure is believable precisely because it's not in the slightest an outrageous claim that they're moving from circa £2M per season from Nike to £3.75M per season for the new four year deal with Macron.

All about context mate. .

So in other words, the site is no more legitimate.

Ta.

 

[davek]

So in other words, the site is no more legitimate.

Ta.

It wasn't really the point whether the site was more legitimate, it's whether the fantasy Liverpool deal could be given weight with a direct quote from the parties involved...none was forthcoming...it was a bullshit claim by LFC. Villa's kit deal cant really be compared to such an obvious spin to avoid blushes. This is the point.

If you need any more assistance in understanding this point I'll be happy to give it some time in the near future.

 

[Neiler]

This is just to make the kit no? That's not so bad! 3 mill a year to make our gear!

Keeping in mind kit ag have exclusive rights for distribution, for 3 mill a year!

All in that's 6 mill a year, I wonder are some of the figures for other clubs, lumped with kit provision and distribution! Where we have split ours!

 

[formerly manx toffee]

I think some of us have had Le Coq for too long

:blink:

 

[Blue and proud]

The club have to try and find the best deal possible financially and if we do receive £30M over three years from Nike it will be an excellent deal for EFC. Even though its all about how much money the club make from the deal, its nice to have a smart kit and Nike make good kits in my opinion.

 

[Brennan]

It wasn't really the point whether the site was more legitimate, it's whether the fantasy Liverpool deal could be given weight with a direct quote from the parties involved...none was forthcoming...it was a bullshit claim by LFC. Villa's kit deal cant really be compared to such an obvious spin to avoid blushes. This is the point.
ey are
If you need any more assistance in understanding this point I'll be happy to give it some time in the near future.

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.

Contrary to a belief in some quarters that leading football clubs sell many millions of shirts around the world each year, Dr Rohlmann studied sales in the period 2005 to 2009 to get an accurate long-term picture, and found that the leading two clubs sold, on average, 1.2m to 1.5m shirts per year each. These clubs were Manchester United (Nike’s best seller) and Real Madrid (Adidas’s best seller).

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. In this instance “overall merchandiseâ€￾ means not just the sale of shirts (which is what Dr Rohlmann measured), but other kit, boots, tracksuits and other clothing, bags and even club-branded balls.

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.

 

[Brennan]

This is just to make the kit no? That's not so bad! 3 mill a year to make our gear!

Keeping in mind kit ag have exclusive rights for distribution, for 3 mill a year!

All in that's 6 mill a year, I wonder are some of the figures for other clubs, lumped with kit provision and distribution! Where we have split ours!

Indeed. All i hope is that the worldwide aspect is sorted out, especially if the long talked about Donovan transfer comes to fruition in 2013.