Samsung Merely 'Extend' Shirt Sponsorship Deal

[Term-X 7,891]

By exercising their option to renew, Samsung will continue to pay £15m per year (until 2014-15), whilst Liverpool, Sunderland, and the Manchester clubs will be on £20m per season. On the positive side, Aesthetically Samsung looks great on the kit, it's not intrusive nor is it vulgar like the betting sponsors the lesser clubs have. Although in hindsight, the club must be kicking themselves for adding that renewal option.

http://www.dailymail...arles-Sale.html

[Duppy Conqueror 1,539]

Samsung takin` us for a ride` .we should have stuck with Bai Lin Tea!

[Strike 7,492]

don't seem to be affected by the lawsuit with apple.

[Kezza 1,965]

AUTOGLASS AUTOGLASS AUTOGLASS

[Term-X 7,891]

don't seem to be affected by the lawsuit with apple.

This is a drop in the ocean to Samsung though..

It isn't a 'new' deal, just a renewal, Sunderland earn more from their shirt deal than the European Champions!

[Jype 6,398]

£15m seems a bit low for the Champions of Europe imo, considering that United's Chevrolet deal which begins in 2014 is worth well over £40m a year.

[The Skipper 20,609]

Well, Samsung's loss. If I were them I'd renegotiate a longer deal with a bigger payout because I'm sure we won't renew with them after the contract expires.

[Jype 6,398]

Well, Samsung's loss. If I were them I'd renegotiate a longer deal with a bigger payout because I'm sure we won't renew with them after the contract expires.

No, it is really our loss. The previous contract was expiring next year and as the current Champions League title holders we should have been able to negotiate a better deal, be it with Samsung or someone else. An extra £10m / year would surely have meant a lot with the FFP right around the corner.

[Waterfall 893]

Well, Samsung's loss. If I were them I'd renegotiate a longer deal with a bigger payout because I'm sure we won't renew with them after the contract expires.

This doesn't even make sense. Samsung had absolutely nothing to lose from exercising this option. Samsung has just as much chance of signing a long term deal now as it did before exercising the option.

[The Skipper 20,609]

No, it is really our loss. The previous contract was expiring next year and as the current Champions League title holders we should have been able to negotiate a better deal, be it with Samsung or someone else. An extra £10m / year would surely have meant a lot with the FFP right around the corner.

Well yeah short term wise it's more of a loss for us, but I'm talking about long term wise. Samsung miss out on being sponsors on a top five European football team!

[The Skipper 20,609]

Lol, sorry guys don't mind me, I'm a little drunk.

[coolhead23 1,147]

Lol, sorry guys don't mind me, I'm a little drunk.

Now that makes sense

[CHOULO19 24,332]

Despite being just an extension, surely it must happen with consent of both sides, which means that the board believes is 18m is enough. I think this is because our 'secondary' sponsors, like Gazprom, Delta Airlines..etc probably pay a lot too.

[chelsea maniac 40]

I've read it was £15m and in other reports £18m . We also have Gazprom and Delta plus a few more so we are keeping up with the Joneses .

As far as FFP is concerned I have no doubt we have some good accountants on board and the club know what their doing .

[gary gordon 1,777]

Coors :cry:

[unclezillion 23]

aha not to forget Emirates who jumped to Arsenal and we all know how much Arsenal have won in the meantime lol

[Hutcho 8,443]

Not to keen on the fact we don't get the maximum we could from the shirt sponsership though i do love having samsung as our shirt sponser as it looks a lot better than some of the crap sponsers out there... Though arsenal only get about 5 which is very funny.

[xPetrCechx 13,571]

Miserly Samsung... After 2015 we need to find a better Sponsor.

[capriccioso 2,545]

It doesn't matter what they pay us. We have diversified sponsorship, many other clubs don't. Man City for example only have deals with a handful of corporations, whereas we are sponsored by/have links to Sauber, Delta, Gazprom as well as Samsung.

[Jype 6,398]

It doesn't matter what they pay us. We have diversified sponsorship, many other clubs don't. Man City for example only have deals with a handful of corporations, whereas we are sponsored by/have links to Sauber, Delta, Gazprom as well as Samsung.

Of course it matters. If we have done well in getting a lot of money from our secondary sponsors, why should we then settle for a lower amount with the main sponsor if we could / should get more? Having great sponsorships with Gazprom, Audi and Delta doesn't rule out negotiating a monster deal for the shirt sponsor as well. Chelsea's status as a major European club has gone up significantly since the previous contract with Samsung was signed and during that time every other top club have negotiated a lot higher deals which we should have used as a benchmark, but for some reason the club just accepted whatever Samsung were offering.

Or was there even a choice? I read somewhere that Samsung had a written option in the previous contract of renewing for an additional three years if they wanted to. There was speculation before the CL final that if we lose the game, Samsung will dump us next year. Now we won it and Samsung basically got to be the shirt sponsor of the European Champions for peanuts because someone at the Chelsea board gave them the option of renewing without even first negotiating a proper value based on today's market. All this is speculation of course, but imo that's the only way any of this makes sense and it would explain why this new contract doesn't give the club any more money than the last, even though we just won the CL and Chelsea became an even more prestigious club (= more money and more coverage for the sponsor too). If that's the case, then someone at the board should get sacked for negotiating a deal like that which pretty much gave Samsung the upper hand and now proved to be a costly mistake.