I like that it's a small local company, as I'd hate to be a Man City fan walking around like a living Etihad ad. But one can only assume that the income a small local business can provide would be a tiny proportion of the club's total income.
Pretty sure I gaveyou a very simple explanation. Like he says everyone here knows why, so it's not worth going into detail.
Less money spent on player wages because they have a very strong youth system and only sign local lads. End of the day, shirt sponsorship is basically free money, you'd be stupid not to do it.
Can put them into public consciousness when on TV and in newspapers...I'd never heard of aap3 before. I can't put business their way but other people probably could. How much would you have to pay to get on TV...this Saturday their logo will be on the screeen again.
You gave me the reason that most clubs have a shirt sponsor, and I accept that reason. But if you read back you'll notice I didn't ask that question. I'm asking whether it's a necessity, why it is that some clubs don't have shirt sponsors, and what the financial implications would be for our club if it went that way. I've repeatedly acknowledged that it is a source of income, but I believe it's probably a tiny fraction of the club's overall income. Unless you can give me some sort of figures as to what proportion of the club's revenue is generated by the kit sponsorship, then I'm afraid you don't know the answer and nor does anyone else.
I doubt aap3 was a big payer, but to NC it probably seems like free money. Can't see him turning that down. No sponsor is a gesture only a big club can afford.
Give reasons NOT to have a shirt sponsor then. Are you honestly telling me if somebody came up to you and said "If you wear this hat with our logo on it, we'll give you £100" you'd say no? £100 is far from a life changing amount but you'd be a mug to turn it down.
I've posed this question to people in the business as well and they can't give me an answer: For a company like aap3 to be benefiting from this shirt sponsorship deal, they would have to predict that the increase in business which results from the deal would increase their profits by a larger amount than they spend on the deal in the first place, yes? But surely a small local company like aap3 won't be making massive amounts of money, and therefore can't afford to be spending massive amounts? At least not massive amounts in football terms. I understand that a club can get a great deal from a huge corporation like AIG, but from a small local company I can't see that it would make a noticeable difference.
It's quite clear that you do not understand the concept of business. It's an easy source of income, why turn it down?
My reasons would not be monetary so you may not agree with them. For example, if I owned a football club, I would be prepared to make a small loss by opting out of advertising, so long as the club did not suffer as a result. So if the income generated was a tiny fraction of the club's overall income, I would be prepared to lose out on that small amount purely for moral reasons. I know that there is no monetary gain from turning down an advertising deal. That's why my question is "could we afford not to", not "would it be profitable not to". And it depends on which company is offering me the hat. There are a lot of companies I would turn down on moral grounds.
It's quite clear that you don't understand the concept of this thread. I have never proposed that turning down a kit sponsor would be good business. Life isn't just about business.
AAP3 arn't exactly a small company. Locations in several countries, turnover in excess of £27million....
My bad, I probably shouldn't have questioned the life philosophy of a man who once referred to me as a "lefty prick".
It would have been good if NC announced we didn't need a sponsor in a smug kind of way, but I don't condemn him for getting one. We made a loss in League 1, but Nicola says we'll break even in the Championship. We must trust him with the financial side of things.
I dream of one day seeing a striped shirt without a sponsor. I was hoping that would be our kit last year. He did say at the beginning of the season that the principles of the company were equally important as the value to the club, so at least he has a decent ethical standpoint unlike certain posters above.
Joe, consider the "lifetime value" of any new client gained. By this I mean aap3 will not consider the "deal" they get first time from any client gained from the sponsorship, however they may think about what their average customer gives over a lifetime. Now I don't know their business or sponsorship costs, but hypertherically they spend £250k on sponsorship and they gain 1 new client worth £50k a year in profit. In 5 years they have recovered the cost in one customer plus that customer may do business for 10 years. If they et two, three or four then te numbers multiply upwards.
It's not too simple at all. It applies to all clubs. Athletic have CHOSEN not to do it for whatever reason; I not their chairman. However, they will be making less revenue than if they did do it.
Having said all I have, I do agree that I took pleasure in telling friends that I had no sponsor on my Hirt because the club chose not too.
