So when it's said that an expensive player will soon pay for themselves in shirt sales it's not strictly true because the money goes to the sponsor and it'd be more accurate to say that the player pays for themselves by an increased fee from the sponsor?
Pretty sure everyone gets a piece of the pie. Though the maker and the tax man take the bulk. Think I read it was about 12 quid to the club. Though it might have been euros
Yes and no. A club like ourselves will be an agreed annual amount, say a Manchester United will have an image rights/sales percentage built in. Adidas likely lose money in simple terms on a club like us and as such don't offer additional payments, whereas on United etc they make fortunes from advertising etc and as such cut the club in. They will use United players for adverts etc, there's little demand for a Billy Jones poster in South Korea. I read that Bayern Munich get a fixed amount plus 100% of shirt sales revenue, as they are a 'partner' rather than a 'supplier'. Adidas are a kit supplier to us, it's a different ball game altogether. Hence, the super clubs get richer, but in reality there's a value in it. Manchester United sell almost 2million kits per year, we sell closer to 80,000. It's a whole different world mate.
Nads good info so now we have a new shirt sponsor what fee do they get or is it just free exposure of their brand name ?
Well maybe if we go straight back up they'll finish the shirt off with striped back and sleeves and a grandad collar.
Sponsors pay us, and anyone else, a fixed agreed amount for brand exposure. Again, I'd imagine this has reduced due to relegation. Likewise, and again United are the best example of where the financial gulf comes from, they have a shirts sponsor, a training kit sponsor, a sponsor for the seats in the dugouts... it's a different world at the top clubs.
Thanks good stuff now for cup progress - carabo tonight then East Anglian Friendly Cup Final cup on Sunday