Caporegime
Nailed it.
Obviously he couldn't just say "I dont condone anything he did" and leave it at that. ****** clown.
Zouma - bit of a ****
- Thread starter fez
- Start date
Nailed it.
Obviously he couldn't just say "I dont condone anything he did" and leave it at that. ****** clown.
He was responding to Chris Kirkland....who decided to bring racism into it.
Caporegime
Eh?
What's Chris Kirkland got to do with anything? The video I've seen just sounds like some reporter asking Antonio a question through his car window.
Edit: Google Kirkland and Zouma. Hadn't seen that previously tbh.
Last edited:
Because Kirkland brought racism into it causing a debate hence the question.
Just on this though...how is Antonio bringing racism into the argument if he’s asked that question?
He hasn’t randomly just said “racism is worse”
Caporegime
What question was he asked?
Because he sure seems to be bringing racism into the argument to me.
He wasn't asked about racism though
He was literally asked whether Zouma deserved a harsher punishment and he did randomly come out with "do you think it's worse than racism?"I misread your post.
Even so, Kirkland made the argument that it wasn’t and he’s responding is how I see it
Caporegime
He wasn't asked about racism though
Exactly.
Zoumas less famous brother (who was in the video) has been suspended by Dagenham and Redbridge until the RSPCA has completed its investigation.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,310
Advertisers, who had presumably already put in a decent amount, have since dropped their sponsorships of both the individual and the club.
Seems money isn't quite everything, just yet...
Sponsors didn't pay a £30m fee to sign him, they were paying him an ongoing fee (a fraction of his West Ham wage, let alone transfer fee) to sponsor him so by dropping him they're not losing money.
Morales?
Pedro Morales, the Chilean who played for Dinamo Zagreb and Vancouver Whitecaps, or José Luis Morales the Spaniard who plays in La Liga for Levante ? Take it easy, I’m only kidding.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,310
But they did put their names to him and that carries a lot of weight... which is kinda why people like getting sponsors from big name companies.
Consequently it makes the news when a high profile sponsor pulls out and influences where other sponsors choose to put their money.
Sorry, how's this relevant to your initial post? You pointed to sponsors cutting ties with him as some sort of indication that money isn't quite everything, in response to my post about West Ham standing to lose huge amounts of money if they sacked him.
You cannot compare the financial consequences to West Ham if they sacked Zouma with that of Adidas for ending their sponsorship. Adidas (or whoever) didn't pay £30m to acquire his boot sponsorship rights, where as West Ham did pay that to acquire his playing rights. What Adidas have paid is an ongoing fee for him to wear their boots - what they've paid for, they have received. There will be little to no loss to Adidas.
Contrary to what you said, Adidas' decision was almost certainly about money. They don't want to continue to pay a player that will now cause them negative publicity and result in them losing revenue.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,310
From a quick Google, Betway paid £10m to get their name on West Ham's jersey. This presumably then earns them several times that amount from rights fees from all the kit sales and associated stuff that has Betway's name across it.
Adidas paid £77m to ManU for that sponsorship, so presumably paid something around these two figures to sponsor Zouma?
So why were Adidas pressuring ManU over their faling shirt sales? Must be worth something to them, else why would they put their name to it?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...-Adidas-unhappy-club-falling-shirt-sales.html
What they're paying for is the return on that investment, which I presume is far higher than what they put in.
Presumably West Ham also get some money from merchandising, so it's really down to that £30m plus the sponsorship, versus how much more or less they'd lose from not sacking the ******.
They can make money from pretty much whoever they sponsor, but it's their name itself and the reputation behind it that has the value, not the amount they put in.
Yes, money is a factor, but it hinges more on reputation and with what it's associated.
Your argument is so all over the place it's difficult to know where to start.
It appears that you don't seem to understand the difference between a transfer fee and a sponsorship deal and trying to compare a kit sponsor (and kit manufacturing deal) with a boot sponsor of a fairly low profile footballer shows that.
West Ham paid a £30m fee to sign Zouma from Chelsea. Adidas did not pay Nike (or whichever boots Zouma used to wear) any fee. In the same way West Ham pay Zouma wages to play for them, Adidas will be paying Zouma a fee for him to wear their boots. And according to Daniel Geey (a sports lawyer who deals with these contracts), commercial deals are typically paid quarterly. There may have been some sort of golden handshake but for a low profile player, it won't be anything meaningful and the overall value of Zouma's deal with Adidas will not be close to the value of West Ham's shirt sponsor, it won't even be 10% in fact.
Even assuming that Adidas have no mechanism for clawing any money back and they paid their quarterly payment to Zouma 1 day before they ended their agreement with him, Adidas stand could lose a couple of hundred grand. That's worst case scenario but the likelihood is it will be even less, for a business with revenues of over $20bn (so around 0.0015% of their revenue). West Ham on the other hand stand to lose £30m which is around 15% of their total revenue.
So, replying to my post about West Ham not wanting to write off a huge sum of money on a player by citing Adidas ending their agreement with Zouma made zero sense.
Kurt Zouma: West Ham boss David Moyes says defender available for Leicester City game
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/60345306
Tone deaf decision if you ask me, hope it backfires.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/60345306
Tone deaf decision if you ask me, hope it backfires.
Why wouldn't he be available. If they weren't going to ban him just after this happened they sure as hell aren't going to do it now. They simply don't care. This isn't really a surprise.
The only reason United have taken the steps they have with Greenwood is because his supposed crime is so horrible and is completely career ending if true.
Caporegime
Moyes said they’re standing by their decision, their decision that shows he and West Ham are scum.
Hope they get no way near top 4.
Hope they get no way near top 4.