Kit manufacturer

Status
Not open for further replies.
They have twice as many Twitter followers mate.

I know you will scoff, but its a decent metric in this day and age.

I mean why would people support Spurs over City?


The answer lies in your own question,

City have been a force for about what, ten years?

My first memory of football is Spurs winning the Double nearly 60 years ago.

And they have remained one of the biggest and most glamourous clubs in England ever since......whilst City languished in the doldrums for 40 years between the Joe Mercer team and the Arabs arriving, falling as low as the third tier not so very long ago.

So during that forty years, who would have supported City over Spurs?

Now, it is undoubtedly true that City are in the process of amassing a global fanbase which will eclipse Spurs if things keep going the way they are but that will take time.

So right now I would say Spurs have more worldwide fans than City.
 
The answer lies in your own question,

City have been a force for about what, ten years?

My first memory of football is Spurs winning the Double nearly 60 years ago.

And they have remained one of the biggest and most glamourous clubs in England ever since......whilst City languished in the doldrums for 40 years between the Joe Mercer team and the Arabs arriving, falling as low as the third tier not so very long ago.

So during that forty years, who would have supported City over Spurs?

Now, it is undoubtedly true that City are in the process of amassing a global fanbase which will eclipse Spurs if things keep going the way they are but that will take time.

So right now I would say Spurs have more worldwide fans than City.

Your whole basis rests on Spurs winning a double 60 years ago mate.

Ima gonna leave this here.
 

They have twice as many Twitter followers mate.

I know you will scoff, but its a decent metric in this day and age.

I mean why would people support Spurs over City?
The answer lies in your own question,

City have been a force for about what, ten years?

My first memory of football is Spurs winning the Double nearly 60 years ago.

And they have remained one of the biggest and most glamourous clubs in England ever since......whilst City languished in the doldrums for 40 years between the Joe Mercer team and the Arabs arriving, falling as low as the third tier not so very long ago.

So during that forty years, who would have supported City over Spurs?

Now, it is undoubtedly true that City are in the process of amassing a global fanbase which will eclipse Spurs if things keep going the way they are but that will take time.

So right now I would say Spurs have more worldwide fans than City.

I’d have to agree with MG here. At a wild guess I before the riches Spurs maybe had 10-15% more fans than City.

Since then City have put a lot of resources into building their fanbase in the newer/growing football countries like China - it doesn’t take much to make up the numbers if you’re one of the most followed clubs there lol.
 
Nah.....Spurs would have a bigger international fanbase than City.

Sorry Khal, on this one mate I think you're wrong. In my travels over the past 15 years, the City presence on the streets of the US and Africa is considerably bigger than that of Spurs.
City and their parent group have a very definite and well devised global marketing strategy related to their acquiring clubs in other countries and setting up soccer schools and local initiatives in key locations.
Spurs may well be the more 'romantic' of the two clubs on the back of the first double winning side and the Ardilles era, but City are considerably 'bigger' these days and will continue to grow their global brand on a scale few others will be able to match, certainly (sadly) not Everton till we have some real serious business people on the board of directors and not jobsworths.
 
Nowt, it's part of the Fanatics deal.

Obviously that's been renewed but the original desk it was a fixed pittance.
Herein lies the problem the other "Big" clubs market themselves to the hilt where we are second rate in that department.

City cant even fill their ground yet can strike exorbitant kit deals like this one.
 

Sorry Khal, on this one mate I think you're wrong. In my travels over the past 15 years, the City presence on the streets of the US and Africa is considerably bigger than that of Spurs.
City and their parent group have a very definite and well devised global marketing strategy related to their acquiring clubs in other countries and setting up soccer schools and local initiatives in key locations.
Spurs may well be the more 'romantic' of the two clubs on the back of the first double winning side and the Ardilles era, but City are considerably 'bigger' these days and will continue to grow their global brand on a scale few others will be able to match, certainly (sadly) not Everton till we have some real serious business people on the board of directors and not jobsworths.

While I agree that City have a bigger worldwide support than Spurs due to the glory hunters, I still struggle to see how brand city is worth a similar amount to utd, and be above Munich and Real etc. Yes I understand the other factors like Puma being a level below Nike and Adidas so they may have to pay a premium but still.

Thing about city is they have never really dominated for all the money spent, consistently picking up a trophy here and there but you can say the same for a few clubs. Chelsea, Arsenal, utd and the RS all having 10 + years head start out there, not to mention the Barca's and Real's of this world, that actually win the big eared jug and then the world club championships.

Just smells to me like a dodgy deal. City have potential and that might be enough for a company to bet on but if city lose their backers for whatever reason and then Pep, you would have to say they have no chance of keeping up with utd and they would slowly return to what they were before.
 
Probably less about Puma paying to become sponsors than City's owners doing a deal with Puma to launder money into City to avoid Fair Play regulations.

What are the odds on Puma being given a subsidy by the UAE for a similar sum for shops in the Middle East that never open?
 
City just signed a new kit deal £650 mil over 10 years.
Its with Puma.

Must be an investigation into that surely.

The deal not only covers Man City but also most of their teams in,the City Football Group;
A-League side Melbourne City, La Liga club Girona, Atletico Torque in Uruguay and the newly bought Chinese team Sichuan Jiuniu.
New York City, who are also part of the City Football Group (CFG), are bound by the MLS-wide sponsorship with Adidas.

Man Utd's deal is £75m a year, so I think if you weigh it up, it is within the going rate. Our commercial deals are just gash, though if we were regularly winning trophies and in the champions league, we might get better commercial deals
 
It’s not about shirt numbers anymore, not really. The driving force in these massive deals with the big teams is brand exposure. Puma won’t care if City’s stadium is half empty. World class superstars are wearing their brand and doing so lifting trophies and playing in some of the biggest games in domestic football. If they’re already Puma athletes great (Pogba is a walking Adidas advert and with Utds Adidas deal it’s a marriage made in heaven) but if they aren’t you’re taking players contracted to Nike etc and sticking a Puma Kit, Training Kit, Leasure wear on them... worth every penny
 
As long as the Fanatics deal continues, so will the Umbro deal - unless Everton specifically approach another manufacturer (Nike or Adidas would want distribution rights as well as the ability to design and release their own garments with Everton logos on).

So Umbro will most likely remain in place as long as the Fanatics deal does - as the fanatics deal tends to lock in the production of their own garments with the everton logo on. The Fanatics deals can range from being UK distribution only, to worldwide brand ownership and distribution - such as Villa.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top