Ehab, March 2014 "However, asked if the club had had any sponsorship offers based purely on changing the clubâs name, he admitted: âNo, itâs a marketing strategy for the longer term.â" http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Ehab...e-eventually/story-20854704-detail/story.html FLC
Well yes, but I was saying even what the club is claiming to have lost wouldnt have been anywhere near justifiable. If they were saying we'd lost £20m per season through not changing our name then some people - not me obviously - might have thought twice about it. But £1.5m per season? ****ing pathetic.
You seem to swallow every litre of effluent those people spout. There was never a sponsorship deal based purely on a name change.
That's a ****ing shameful bit of reporting by the HDM. The sponsor is a load of bollocks and they've worded the article to turn what should be a story about yet another example of the club hierarchy's inability to run the club properly and profitably, into a dig at the fans and a big pat on the back to the club. We've got a **** sponsorship deal again. No cash converters to blame any more but we still make **** all money. Of course it can't be the Allams to blame, or that we don't have a CEO or any more, no it's the fans' fault.
It's just as likely that our failure to attract a new sponsor is due to the widely-perceived idea of our club as being an unstable ego-vehicle for the current owner and the concomitant negative publicity he generates for the club.
The Allams have not helped themselves regarding shirt sponsorship with the ongoing 'public debate and arguments over the proposed name change', they've shot themselves in the foot big time. If I was a prospective sponsor I would be very anxious about being associated currently with City! That said its a step in the right direction, and any sponsor worth his salt would be examining the brand exposure from past and projected TV rights which forms the main ingredient to the value for short sponsorship of City. They key to maximising the brand equity is stability and fro that we need the name issue to be dropped short term, and to establish ourselves in The Prem and ideally higher up the table.
Some of the more clued-up potential sponsors who buy into the heritage and prestige of the PL will want nowt to do with a gimmicky tackily-named little club. It deters decent sponsors.
I admire your intelligent viewpoint, but reading words such as brand equity and exposure with regards to a football club make me ill.
I'cant believe the amour of bullshit,backtracking and lies that are constantly spouted by this current regime. I find even harder to believe that any half sane person would believe any of it. Unbelievable there's more honesty in the House of Parliament. I despair at times if I were a potential sponsor I'd decline because of the squabbling amateurish goings on. Not name change bullshit
1) Ehab stated that there was no such deal so where has the HDM got this from 2) £2.5m is still a **** sponsorship deal when compared to similar clubs, especially something that supposedly required a huge change in the identity of the club. 3) £1m is an absolutely pathetic deal for a club that got a lot of exposure last season. It is the commercial depertment of the club which is letting us down, not CTWD
i like the way the HDM fanfare is about it being 'the biggest sponsorship deal in the club's history'. We've just had our best season ever and reached the final of a major competition for the first time ever - even Gerald ****ing Ratner could negotiate us our 'best ever sponsorship deal' in those circumstances. If it wasnt our best ever deal somebody should be shot.
