Away Strip

[Gordon Armstrong]

So that you can see the players' nice bodies, eh, bonny lad

 

[Nacho]

Unfortunately not mate, shirt sales go to Adidas, who pay the club a fixed amount per season. That amount is negotiated in line with forecast and actual sales so we wouldn't see anymore cash until the deal expires and we renegotiate.

As we are outside of the Prem, that deal will be a fraction of what we get now as there's less brand exposure for Adidas.

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?

 

[Burly Hurley]

I like the front of the new home shirt, but not the back. Apparently it is a close match to our original red and white shirt when we couldn't stop winning the league even if we'd wanted to.

Should have been the same theme on the back - and as a matter of fact players should be made to go out with the same thin red and white stripes face-painted.

Money-grabbing away shirts should be banned. All teams playing away should play topless.

x

That does sound a tad gay mate, but whatever floats your boat.

 

[Brian Storm]

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

 

[Nads]

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?

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.

 

[red&white wanderer]

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 ?

 

[red&white wanderer]

I like the front of the new home shirt, but not the back. Apparently it is a close match to our original red and white shirt when we couldn't stop winning the league even if we'd wanted to.
Should have been the same theme on the back - and as a matter of fact players should be made to go out with the same thin red and white stripes face-painted.

Money-grabbing away shirts should be banned. All teams playing away should play topless.

Well maybe if we go straight back up they'll finish the shirt off with striped back and sleeves and a grandad collar.

 

[Nacho]

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.

Cheers good answer, you're wrong about Jones though they bloody love Jones-San in the Far East.

 

[Nads]

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 ?

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.

 

[red&white wanderer]

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