To be fair I think if Fat Mike could find someone to pay him to put their signs up at the ground he'd jump at the chance to take their money.
****s sake, we get it...
- Thread starter DuD
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
- Status
To be fair I think if Fat Mike could find someone to pay him to put their signs up at the ground he'd jump at the chance to take their money.
agree
find it funny that we do it and it's a joke but arsenal and man city do it and it's good business sense esp. with the the Financial Fair Play rules coming soon,can see man city using this to cover over spending and huge wage bill seen as the owner also owns the company that sponsors the ground (loophole so to speak).
I think more teams will go down this route as it's a potential money making opportunity,I'm sure shirt sponsorship was frowned upon when it first came into play now there isn't a sport that doesn't do it.
But as someones mentioned on another sign related post the amount of non sports direct adverts inside the stadium has dropped. I can only assume the digital signs create a bigger income fee. Or that he's banking on a big money deal at the end of the season when the northern rock/puma deals expire.
Alot of people see this as fat mike getting at the fans and as much as i hate him i don't.I think this is his attempt at showing potential sponsors the possibilities but i think the reaction of the fans is putting of sponsors,it's going to happen (just like the shirt sponsorship) no matter what we think or do time to let it go imo.
My only gripe is that if an outside party wanted to plaster their brand all over our stadium to the level that mike has they would nearly have to pay us enough to buy the damn thing. so even though he did buy us and he's entitled to advertise it just gripes me that we could be pulling in millions from an outside sponsor that could be ploughed into the transfer kitty.
Not sure there's many willing pay for this level of advertising at the moment and as post above you says MA is just trying to show the potential of advertising at SJP to any potential advertisers.
besides it could be worse we could have the chairman and some of the board walking out to a stunned press carrying miners lamps and stating proudly how they were ripping off one of the most famous stadium names in the world as they can't come up with an original idea which is par for the course of the area.
Fair do's, the reasoning is to show the potential to advertisers for a full stadium & kit deal from next season. Say we get 50 million for a 10 year deal, My fear is Ashley will do a Shepherd and take the sponsorship money up front to pay off the clubs debt to him then try to sell up, stating a debt free club with a +ve squad value, a youth setup capable of producing £35m players and a wagebill half the tv and ticket income. £140 million, he takes out what he put in. But then someone has to buy a club with no income for 10 years. The sales pitch fails so Ashley states the club is unsustainable, debt free but still losing money so he has to pump cash in again just to keep it afloat. catch 22
Ameobi's Apprentice
Active Member
How long untill he just builds a ****ing shop on the pitch and shifts the games to Leazes park?
Leazes park would probably end up getting sponsored too. He might even sponsor the city soon. ' Welcome to Sports Direct @ Newcastle Upon Tyne'
Leazes park would probably end up getting sponsored too. He might even sponsor the city soon. ' Welcome to Sports Direct @ Newcastle Upon Tyne'
Or how much would it cost the fans to buy that advertising package. Then we could replace the Sports Direct logos with either NUFC logos, or those naked pictures of Ashley
Just a small correction, but there isn't a single professional sport in North America that has shirt sponsorship...that said, north american sports have incessant commercial breaks and ice hockey has the boards and ice covered with ads. So the ad money always comes in from somewhere.
I wouldnt care if he took a bit off our debt to him for each sign, but we know for a fact he is paying bugger all for the lot.
Am I right in thinking if we had a minority shareholder he wouldnt be allowed to do that?
Am I right in thinking if we had a minority shareholder he wouldnt be allowed to do that?
Ashley/Sports Direct are paying £47,000 for the sponsorship. The Chronicle reported that it was shown in the accounts last year.
Really? That's a bit ****. Our billionaire owner can spare us a week of Alan Smith's wages to deface our stadium.
- Status