** January Transfer Window 2011/12 Season Rumours/Signings **

Status
Not open for further replies.
platypus said:
Tevez to AC milan eh? Now why would they need him.
Click to expand...
Cassano is injured for 7months?

Anyways, good deal for both parties. I would rather see him rot etc but looking at it we are going to get a fee for the loan and it might be like an Ibra deal where they buy at the end so ultimately a good deal.

I am sure if there was no FFP we would keep him and run his contract out but...
 
BaZ87 said:
snip?
Click to expand...

Ok - I admit I forgot about sneijder being sponsored by Nike, but that would make sense (if the story was true of course as you suggested)

Just out of interest - I guess you also disbelieve the story from a few years ago that Real Madrid got back the Ronaldo transfer cost from his shirt sales within the first season?

I personally wouldnt write off the possibility of RM being able to sell a million shirts world wide with his name on the back - however I would doubt even they could make back that amount in pure profit in that period.
 
Yea I do disbelieve the Real/Ronaldo stuff if that's been reported. As I said, clubs sell the manufacturing rights to their shirts, therefore they would only make additional money (their mark up on top of whatever they pay Adidas for a shirt) on shirts they sell from their club stores. Even if you said they make £20 profit per shirt, they'd have to sell an extra 4m shirts (all from their club store) to recoup that £80m. Adidas only sell ~1.2m Real shirts through all channels worldwide.

There's certainly a case that signing a high profile will increase a clubs exposure and lead to increased commercial deals, merchandise sales etc, however it's massively exaggerated and in a strange way, the bigger the club, the less effect it has. The biggest clubs already have the greatest exposure; there's less room for improvement.
 
BaZ87 said:
As for what DM's said: the part about Nike paying more for each different player is simply wrong. Nike pay Utd a fixed fee each year for the rights to manufacture the kits, training gear etc. What he says about the renegotiating of the kit deal is true; if you're selling more shirts then you can get more money out of Nike. However Nike aren't going to be paying too much attention to any increased sales during Beckham's 6 month period at Utd, when they come to renegotiate a 10 year deal in a few years time, are they?
Click to expand...

No, but think of it this way, if Utd win nothing this year, Rooney gets no bonus, if they win the league, he gets £x bonus, if they win the champs league, he gets £y bonus, if they win the cup he gets £z bonus, and if they win 3 he probably gets £x+y+z+bonus A for getting the treble.

He'll get a bonus for goal's, assisting, and potentially a bonus for breaking certain marks, a bonus if he hits 25 goals, etc, etc, etc.

So the question is, with bonus's in the industry being standard, can you say for a fact that Utd don't get a bonus based on shirt sale volume? More so, would you think a huge corporation such as Utd would sign a sponsorship deal where they get the same payment if they sell 1million shirts as 10million shirts, no neither do I ;)
 
DM, you fail to understand that it's Nike selling the shirts not Utd. Why would Nike give Utd a bonus for Nike's improved performance?

edit: If, as somebody said on here before, Utd's club stores are outsourced to Nike then it's very likely that payments Utd receive for that will be effected by performance. But that still only applies for shirts sold through offiical stores, as I've said all along.
 
Last edited:
Because shirt sales are not solely dependent on Nike's performance.

Look at it this way, the more successful a team is, the more likely their shirts are to sell. Therefore a manufacturer may agree to pay more if they sell more shirts because they know that if that scenario arises, they're making more profit anyway and part of that rise in sales could be down to good 'marketing' from the club (which includes not only success on the pitch but other stuff like media days etc). The inverse is also true in terms of bad marketing, if MU players run around hurling racist abuse, urinating over disabled fans and flicking Vs at the cameras all the while kissing their shirt, that probably won't go down too well at Nike, affecting their sales. In other words MU can have an influence on how many shirts Nike sell.

Effectively MU are acting as a marketing agent for Nike's shirts - the more shirts they sell, the more the agent gets paid.
 
Last edited:
Utd's past and potential future success and how many shirts they may or may not sell are already taken into account when the deal was negotiated. As would any marketing stuff Utd may or may not have to do. Beckham may have still been a Utd player when the deal was negotiated; Nike didn't cut what they were paying Utd when he left, did they?

As I said in my last post to Frank, it does make some difference but it's massively exaggerated and wouldn't pay a fraction of a star players wage. And it's even less relevant in very short deals like Beckham on a 6 month dea, as we've been discussing.
 
Last edited:
Tummy said:
Sheffield Wednesday have signed Sanchez Watt on loan until (mid) January :)
Click to expand...

Not a bad deal really, he's good enough for league 1. I'd be a bit worried if they looked to sign him if they get promotion, he's too lightweight to step up IMO.
 
BaZ87 said:
Utd's past and potential future success and how many shirts they may or may not sell are already taken into account when the deal was negotiated. As would any marketing stuff Utd may or may not have to do. Beckham may have still been a Utd player when the deal was negotiated; Nike didn't cut what they were paying Utd when he left, did they?

As I said in my last post to Frank, it does make some difference but it's massively exaggerated and wouldn't pay a fraction of a star players wage. And it's even less relevant in very short deals like Beckham on a 6 month dea, as we've been discussing.
Click to expand...

Yet Rooney's past performance should take into account roughly how much he scores, and do away with a goal, assist/appearance bonuses and based on the average number of titles Utd win that would be factored in. Meaning everyone gets a predetermined wage based off their average........ except, that does not happen, at all.

UTd shirt sales should grow year on year, they simply won't know how much and a year in which they lose 5 star players, selling and retirements could have a significant effect, as could buying a couple of huge star names.

Again, you think Utd won't factor in the CHANCE they might sign a megastar type who would be worth more to them financially..... and lock themself into a deal that won't increase their earnings...... not a chance. You know why no chance, because I thought of the idea of a deal whereby if they signed someone who was worth more in image rights, then Utd make more. Several other people here thought of it...... that means Utd thought of it, that means Utd did it. You know how I know Utd did it, if they were a crap team BEGGING for shirt sponsorship they take what they can get. Its utd, sponsors are begging Utd to take them, not the other way around, that means playing off one company against another to get the best deal.

I don't buy for a second that Utd wouldn't have a either a bonuses based on various shirt sale targets, or a clause that increases payments based on who they buy, in their deals, because it would be throwing away money not to and they don't have to be picky in what they ask for because if one company won't offer it, another will do to steal the contract.
 
DM if you think shirt sales at a club like Utd vary dramatically based on the odd player then you're deluded. Any change could just as easily be negative as it could be positive. All of this was taken into when the deal was agreed; it was just as likely that sales didn't grow as expected and Utd ending up doing even better out of the deal, as it would be if sales rocketed and Nike ending up with a great deal.

edit: If you're asking me if I know for certain whether there's a clause in Utd's Nike agreement that protects them from a massive up lift in shirt sales (or the opposite protecting Nike), then I don't know. It's possible but I'm not aware of it. However in the 9 years since Utd joined Nike nothing's happened so I suspect it's unlikely that any clause (if it exists) will come into play.
 
Last edited:
BaZ87 said:
DM if you think shirt sales at a club like Utd vary dramatically based on the odd player then you're deluded. Any change could just as easily be negative as it could be positive. All of this was taken into when the deal was agreed; it was just as likely that sales didn't grow as expected and Utd ending up doing even better out of the deal, as it would be if sales rocketed and Nike ending up with a great deal.

edit: If you're asking me if I know for certain whether there's a clause in Utd's Nike agreement that protects them from a massive up lift in shirt sales (or the opposite protecting Nike), then I don't know. It's possible but I'm not aware of it. However in the 9 years since Utd joined Nike nothing's happened so I suspect it's unlikely that any clause (if it exists) will come into play.
Click to expand...

Our shirt deal was structured with built in jumps anyway. Next time round we might go for a freer approach but the nike deal has worked out well enough for us. With this step up it still keeps us either at or very near the top of the sponsorship tree.

Sometimes people comment on United's low in house merchandising but outsourcing to Nike has had loads of benefits IMO.
 
Yea it went from £23.5m to £26m(?) the other year but that was predetermined not performance related.

As for the outsourcing; its got positives and negatives. You lose some control but on the other hand their distribution channels are far greater than Utd could ever put in place themself.

It will be interesting to see whether you do go for a freer (is that a word?) approach with your kit deal. If the debt/bond stuff is anything to go by then the Glazers may prefer the safety of a fixed deal again.
 
Last edited:
BaZ87 said:
DM, you fail to understand that it's Nike selling the shirts not Utd. Why would Nike give Utd a bonus for Nike's improved performance?

edit: If, as somebody said on here before, Utd's club stores are outsourced to Nike then it's very likely that payments Utd receive for that will be effected by performance. But that still only applies for shirts sold through offiical stores, as I've said all along.
Click to expand...

For the record I did try and suggest only 1m shirts @ £80 each (ie sales income rather than profit) - just to ease calculation, which would still be incredible if RM did it, with however many 10's if not 100's millions of fans worldwide it would still be vdifficult, so I take your point

I understood it to be 2013/14 season when the new shirt deal came into effect (but with anything this big, I can understand it being signed and sealed a while before it comes into effect) - but havent seen it referenced for a while so that might be wrong. I would have also thought if it was for 2012/13 and considering the length fo time /amount of money its usually done for it wont be a quick deal to negotiate lol
 
Last edited:
Anderson out til February, so that'll make them stronger anyway but they must sign someone now.

Looks like Beckham is joining PSG.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom