The mancityfans.net football forum

https://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/foo ... --sow.html

Warrior Sports are owned by New Balance and the parent company have decided they want to be the kit manufacturer now, just like our Umbro and Nike deal. I dont remember us getting a shit load more money.

I think its time the senior management told Nike to up the cash.

Rodgers will get 310 players in.

clearly we need a 1B kit deal then.

Now.

cheers

I think it's quite interesting to note that from next season Nike has lost most of biggest European clubs to Adidas & others.
Aren't the only big ones left the gods own, Barca, PSG and Juve ?

...another reason to spend big so they don't lose us too!! ;-)

A big money Adidas contract for our kits would be brilliant as: A) I like the kits and the quality surely has to be better than the Nike efforts and B) it would have to be a bigger earner than what the swamp dwellers are on. Win win as far as I can see!!

If NB can pay Liverpool 300 million then Nike better get their hands in their pockets the stuff they have produced for us hasnt been the most cutting edge either.

NB 1.65 Billion turnover
Nike 26 Billion turnover


As it goes i think City WANT to forge strong links with Nike as they are a world renowned brand and the two brands work on lots of levels,but if the money isnt right and all that.

do we think that the powers that be at city are watching these teams.making massive deals and waiting to let them go through so when we up all ours we can say we are the Champions and have won more last few years than all these so UEFA can't pull us up

Feed The Goat wrote:do we think that the powers that be at city are watching these teams.making massive deals and waiting to let them go through so when we up all ours we can say we are the Champions and have won more last few years than all these so UEFA can't pull us up

Being the champions and having won more means little if our global support or at the very least brand awareness does not rapidly increase towards the likes of liverpool and United.

Increasing our support towards those levels is a good 10 years away, if indeed it's even possible, as you have to accept that these two clubs were at the forefront of the game at a time when it was going global, and to try to muscle in on that action 20 years after the fact requires a seismic shift.

We can claim that liverpool have won fuck all of note bar the champs league in 2005, but despite that, and our perception that foreign fans are fickle and glory hunters, they still have a huge global fan base that we can only dream of.

For a firm like new balance, Liverpool will be their Crown Jewels to improving their brand (selling shirts is not their game I don't think) as they have recently expanded into the lifestyle clothing sector in addition to their excellent products for running enthusiasts.

With Nike, we are just another of the clubs with the swoosh on the shirt, and in these foreign markets Nike already are the biggest cheese in town. For them it's about selling shirts, not the extended range of their products, as other clubs far bigger than us have historically done that.

Just because many clubs are defecting from Nike, that doesn't mean that should pay us more, because we still don't have the global support necessary to make such a huge deal profitable for them..........UNLESS a new deal gives us the financial firepower to us becoming an undisputed heavyweight in short order (eg an additional £30m a year on top of what we get specifically to go towards marquee signings.

Let's not forget that the scum and the dippers both signed away their percentage profits from these deals, meaning they are both banking on dwindling support over the next few years and all the shops that they own and run to sell these shirts will nett them nothing.

Ted Hughes wrote:Rodgers will get 310 players in.

...but will still have time to have a pop at City who "should win the league with all the money theyve spent"

I'll never tire of ripping hypocrites to bits

Well the dippers surely have huge worldwide support, but if you look at the revenue numbers of late the overall global merchandise sales have been in our favour. (From memory I believe this is true - but even if not I don't think they are far ahead of us on the commercial side by any means. Maybe just in category "candles" but not overall I'd think.)

Foreign support ramps up quickly. The chavs and even us being a great example.

So I am sure a renegotiation of the Nike deal has to be in order and that we can up that figure substantially.

Aggressive Walkling wrote:Well the dippers surely have huge worldwide support, but if you look at the revenue numbers of late the overall global merchandise sales have been in our favour. (From memory I believe this is true - but even if not I don't think they are far ahead of us on the commercial side by any means. Maybe just in category "candles" but not overall I'd think.)

Foreign support ramps up quickly. The chavs and even us being a great example.

So I am sure a renegotiation of the Nike deal has to be in order and that we can up that figure substantially.

Dippers & rags, are hugely ahead in their favourite traditional markets I recon (but not unassailable) but i don't think they have quite the same advantage around the rest of the world.

There may be loads more Norwegians & Irish Americans etc who favour those clubs, but I'm not convinced, at all, that it is quite so strong around the whole planet.

We are worth more than we are getting, imo, & that will become apparent.

Aggressive Walkling wrote:Well the dippers surely have huge worldwide support, but if you look at the revenue numbers of late the overall global merchandise sales have been in our favour. (From memory I believe this is true - but even if not I don't think they are far ahead of us on the commercial side by any means. Maybe just in category "candles" but not overall I'd think.)

Foreign support ramps up quickly. The chavs and even us being a great example.

So I am sure a renegotiation of the Nike deal has to be in order and that we can up that figure substantially.

the sales of merchandise hardly ever covers the cost of sponsorship - that era ended ages ago. It's about taking the brand into new territories, which is a particular concern of warrior/new balance, and associated sales of the company's other products.

Nike's game is simply to maintain or slightly increase market share. If city help them gain 1% market share globally, then £50m a year is a drop in the ocean. But I don't see city having that profile yet.

It's got fuck all to do with how many shirts or other bits of club branded tat are sold. If it was we would get next to fuck all as globally we are still a million miles behind the rags and liverpool

Im_Spartacus wrote:

Aggressive Walkling wrote:Well the dippers surely have huge worldwide support, but if you look at the revenue numbers of late the overall global merchandise sales have been in our favour. (From memory I believe this is true - but even if not I don't think they are far ahead of us on the commercial side by any means. Maybe just in category "candles" but not overall I'd think.)

Foreign support ramps up quickly. The chavs and even us being a great example.

So I am sure a renegotiation of the Nike deal has to be in order and that we can up that figure substantially.

the sales of merchandise hardly ever covers the cost of sponsorship - that era ended ages ago. It's about taking the brand into new territories, which is a particular concern of warrior/new balance, and associated sales of the company's other products.

Nike's game is simply to maintain or slightly increase market share. If city help them gain 1% market share globally, then £50m a year is a drop in the ocean. But I don't see city having that profile yet.

It's got fuck all to do with how many shirts or other bits of club branded tat are sold. If it was we would get next to fuck all as globally we are still a million miles behind the rags and liverpool

Everywhere ?

I'm not at all convinced about that.

Ted Hughes wrote:

Im_Spartacus wrote:

Aggressive Walkling wrote:Well the dippers surely have huge worldwide support, but if you look at the revenue numbers of late the overall global merchandise sales have been in our favour. (From memory I believe this is true - but even if not I don't think they are far ahead of us on the commercial side by any means. Maybe just in category "candles" but not overall I'd think.)

Foreign support ramps up quickly. The chavs and even us being a great example.

So I am sure a renegotiation of the Nike deal has to be in order and that we can up that figure substantially.

the sales of merchandise hardly ever covers the cost of sponsorship - that era ended ages ago. It's about taking the brand into new territories, which is a particular concern of warrior/new balance, and associated sales of the company's other products.

Nike's game is simply to maintain or slightly increase market share. If city help them gain 1% market share globally, then £50m a year is a drop in the ocean. But I don't see city having that profile yet.

It's got fuck all to do with how many shirts or other bits of club branded tat are sold. If it was we would get next to fuck all as globally we are still a million miles behind the rags and liverpool

Everywhere ?

I'm not at all convinced about that.

Depends how it's measured doesn't it. If it's measured by how often we are on TV, and in which competitions, then we are up there with any club in England.

But it depends how many people actually switch on to watch each game overseas, where in most countries, most games are available. In this measure I expect we are still a very long way behind the rags, and who knows when it comes to liverpool and / or chelsea.

Even in Abu Dhabi, where one would expect we would have a foothold, it's not as you would expect. If you go in a hotel bar and city and United are both playing, it will be the United game being shown and the bars are still mostly full of rag expats. The locals will watch whoever is most exciting at the time - generally unless it's a big game in the PL, they will choose to watch barca or real instead, who are on every week without fail.

Not sure how that stacks up in India or China, but I've observed the same in recent years across the almost all
Countries in the Middle East, a handful in Africa, along with Thailand, Indonesia, Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia etc

From my travels I'd have to conclude that we really aren't a big draw overseas unless it's a big game!

£50,000,000 for what, you're have a fucking giraffe!

If there was ever a need to give value that's not fucking it.

Im_Spartacus wrote:

Aggressive Walkling wrote:Well the dippers surely have huge worldwide support, but if you look at the revenue numbers of late the overall global merchandise sales have been in our favour. (From memory I believe this is true - but even if not I don't think they are far ahead of us on the commercial side by any means. Maybe just in category "candles" but not overall I'd think.)

Foreign support ramps up quickly. The chavs and even us being a great example.

So I am sure a renegotiation of the Nike deal has to be in order and that we can up that figure substantially.

the sales of merchandise hardly ever covers the cost of sponsorship - that era ended ages ago. It's about taking the brand into new territories, which is a particular concern of warrior/new balance, and associated sales of the company's other products.

Nike's game is simply to maintain or slightly increase market share. If city help them gain 1% market share globally, then £50m a year is a drop in the ocean. But I don't see city having that profile yet.

It's got fuck all to do with how many shirts or other bits of club branded tat are sold. If it was we would get next to fuck all as globally we are still a million miles behind the rags and liverpool

What price to have your brand on the shirt of the Champions of England?

Bianchi on Ice wrote:

Ted Hughes wrote:Rodgers will get 310 players in.

...but will still have time to have a pop at City who "should win the league with all the money theyve spent"

I'll never tire of ripping hypocrites to bits

Where is Ronnie Irani these days?

Peter Doherty (AGAIG) wrote:

Im_Spartacus wrote:

Aggressive Walkling wrote:Well the dippers surely have huge worldwide support, but if you look at the revenue numbers of late the overall global merchandise sales have been in our favour. (From memory I believe this is true - but even if not I don't think they are far ahead of us on the commercial side by any means. Maybe just in category "candles" but not overall I'd think.)

Foreign support ramps up quickly. The chavs and even us being a great example.

So I am sure a renegotiation of the Nike deal has to be in order and that we can up that figure substantially.

the sales of merchandise hardly ever covers the cost of sponsorship - that era ended ages ago. It's about taking the brand into new territories, which is a particular concern of warrior/new balance, and associated sales of the company's other products.

Nike's game is simply to maintain or slightly increase market share. If city help them gain 1% market share globally, then £50m a year is a drop in the ocean. But I don't see city having that profile yet.

It's got fuck all to do with how many shirts or other bits of club branded tat are sold. If it was we would get next to fuck all as globally we are still a million miles behind the rags and liverpool

What price to have your brand on the shirt of the Champions of England?

Fuck all if the majority are switching he telly on to watch United and Liverpool.

This is the problem, the value we might ascribe to the 'champions of England' means nothing overseas. Rags will still turn on the telly to watch the rags, not us, and as long as that continues to be the case, United have the upper hand on in ground sponsorship, shirt sponsorship, shirt manufacturer etc etc. We will pick up fans, but it will take a very long time.

Do you think that Altetico suddenly command a right to parity with barca and Real because they won the title last year?

Im_Spartacus wrote:

Peter Doherty (AGAIG) wrote:

Im_Spartacus wrote:

Aggressive Walkling wrote:Well the dippers surely have huge worldwide support, but if you look at the revenue numbers of late the overall global merchandise sales have been in our favour. (From memory I believe this is true - but even if not I don't think they are far ahead of us on the commercial side by any means. Maybe just in category "candles" but not overall I'd think.)

Foreign support ramps up quickly. The chavs and even us being a great example.

So I am sure a renegotiation of the Nike deal has to be in order and that we can up that figure substantially.

the sales of merchandise hardly ever covers the cost of sponsorship - that era ended ages ago. It's about taking the brand into new territories, which is a particular concern of warrior/new balance, and associated sales of the company's other products.

Nike's game is simply to maintain or slightly increase market share. If city help them gain 1% market share globally, then £50m a year is a drop in the ocean. But I don't see city having that profile yet.

It's got fuck all to do with how many shirts or other bits of club branded tat are sold. If it was we would get next to fuck all as globally we are still a million miles behind the rags and liverpool

What price to have your brand on the shirt of the Champions of England?

Fuck all if the majority are switching he telly on to watch United and Liverpool.

This is the problem, the value we might ascribe to the 'champions of England' means nothing overseas. Rags will still turn on the telly to watch the rags, not us, and as long as that continues to be the case, United have the upper hand on in ground sponsorship, shirt sponsorship, shirt manufacturer etc etc. We will pick up fans, but it will take a very long time.

Do you think that Altetico suddenly command a right to parity with barca and Real because they won the title last year?

Is it true that fans 'everywhere' are tuning into rags' games so much more than ours though, or is it mainly in their traditional strongholds & favourite haunts ?

A pub full of rags, is a pub full of rags, anywhere on earth. Loads of pubs around Manchester were taken over by rags watching them on tv every week, & City fans gradually stopping going in, as it's always full of rags watching them on tv & they were always on tv. Are people at home all watching them in much higher numbers than they do City ?

Does your average football fan in Ecuador or even non Irish American, really follow Utd or Liverpool so much more than City ?