Samsung Merely 'Extend' Shirt Sponsorship Deal

[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]

  On 07/09/2012 at 10:53, capriccioso said:

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.

[Tricky 301]

Douche bags!!!

I think we let ourselves down commercially, Jesus even Uniteds lunch time tooth picks have a sponsorship deal. I mean it's kinda sad that Subderland can muster up a better deal than us.

Give me a go, I'll take 5% on what ever we earn which exceeds our existing deals. Reckon u could boost it by 50%!!!

[Muzchap 8,966]

  On 07/09/2012 at 10:27, Hutcho_CFC said:

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.

Yeah but that was part of the financing deal for the new stadium... I'd rather have the ground capacity Arsenal have....

15 mill is not great - but it's not bad...

We really need to increase the ground capacity though - the bi-monthly revenue (more with Cups + CL ) is the key to running a business - Utd+Arse get much more revenue than we do per game - if we could increase this, then our FFP troubles will be significantly reduced.

Maybe we could do a deal with Samsung to get a Stadium as well....

[Muzchap 8,966]

  On 07/09/2012 at 11:33, Pr22 said:

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.

EVERYTHING looks EASY with hindsight...

When the contract was first announced - it was a lucrative contract, in the past few years things have changed massively in Football and revenue despite a GLOBAL recession has increased.

If it had gone the other way, we would have been lauding this business decision as a stroke of genuis... as it is - it's not bad/good - it's middle of the road, guaranteed revenue....

If they had of dumped us after CL final - we might not have got a sponsor this year - so we'd be 15 million down...

Life isn't that easy - trust me...

EDIT: To clarify, the decision to renew at then current market prices was a punt that could have worked in our favour or against us - as it stands, we're a few million of current market value, but certainly not that bad... You can't sack someone for not being able to accurately predict the future. In terms of risk management it made sense to keep it at 15million a year, in case the money in football (as every so called expert predicted) tanked - and at a renogitation we could have ended up with 5 million (market value if the football market had tanked)...

Tell you what - predict the price of 'wheat' grain in 3 years per tonne here and now - and we'll see how easy it is - would be a cool competition

[5354 204]

I got to say Samsung is really 1 of the nicer logos lol!

Anyway its only 5m!

[Ollie 4,400]

SAMSUNG looks good on the shirt. I think £15m seems ok, it's not that bad. We have many sponsors and partnerships and a mega rich owner. All is fine.

[Jype 6,398]

  On 07/09/2012 at 11:45, Muzchap said:

EVERYTHING looks EASY with hindsight...

When the contract was first announced - it was a lucrative contract, in the past few years things have changed massively in Football and revenue despite a GLOBAL recession has increased.

If it had gone the other way, we would have been lauding this business decision as a stroke of genuis... as it is - it's not bad/good - it's middle of the road, guaranteed revenue....

If they had of dumped us after CL final - we might not have got a sponsor this year - so we'd be 15 million down...

Life isn't that easy - trust me...

Yes, I know it's pointless to complain about this now if the decision was made years ago and seemed like a good idea at the time, but are things ever really going to improve if no one tells them they fucked it up this time?

And as for the speculation whether they wanted to continue being our sponsor or not, the truth is they couldn't have dumped us after Munich because there was still a year left and had they decided not to continue sponsoring a team that's not playing in the Champions League we would have had more than enough time to negotiate a new deal with someone else before next summer. Had that happened, I'm sure we could have got at least that same £15m because even clubs like Sunderland get more than that and Chelsea without even playing in the CL is still a lot better than Sunderland.

But yeah, it's not that bad actually. Only two additional years and hopefully the board are constantly negotiating with Samsung to improve things. Surely they realize it themselves at Samsung that we got the short end of the stick this time (if it's true what they say about the option) and if they want to continue being our sponsor from 2015 onwards they better be prepared to open their wallets or we'll take our business elsewhere.

[Waterfall 893]

I think people are way too focused on the annual payment number without realizing OTHER benefits of the partnership FOR US. Having a main sponsor no longer means simply having their logo on your shirt in exchange for money. Would you rather have Standard Charted printed on your shirt and get 20M or have CFC advertised by the industry leader in cell phones, TV's etc.? I would think a club as big as Chelsea would gladly take a 5M hit every year to market its brand globally.

[Muzchap 8,966]

  On 07/09/2012 at 12:11, Pr22 said:

Yes, I know it's pointless to complain about this now if the decision was made years ago and seemed like a good idea at the time, but are things ever really going to improve if no one tells them they fucked it up this time?

And as for the speculation whether they wanted to continue being our sponsor or not, the truth is they couldn't have dumped us after Munich because there was still a year left and had they decided not to continue sponsoring a team that's not playing in the Champions League we would have had more than enough time to negotiate a new deal with someone else before next summer. Had that happened, I'm sure we could have got at least that same £15m because even clubs like Sunderland get more than that and Chelsea without even playing in the CL is still a lot better than Sunderland.

But yeah, it's not that bad actually. Only two additional years and hopefully the board are constantly negotiating with Samsung to improve things. Surely they realize it themselves at Samsung that we got the short end of the stick this time (if it's true what they say about the option) and if they want to continue being our sponsor from 2015 onwards they better be prepared to open their wallets or we'll take our business elsewhere.

Yup 99% agree...

But nobody has fucked up, or made a mistake - it's predicting future events, to only be a few million off is pretty good judgement IMHO.

Like I said - it only appears that Samsung have a good deal with relative events in 2012 - if the market would have tanked, then Samsung would have looked like idiots for paying more than everybody else.

Nobody, anywhere in the world is going to enter into such a contract - by definition a contract has to give equal rights to both parties - we (CFC) + Samsung decided a 'renewal' option would make sense in X years - based on the unpredictability of the financial markets, this, again IMHO, seems like a good deal for both parties. We have a consistent sponsor, Samsung are sponsors of the European elite etc.

We also don't know what other deals / commitments Samsung have to CFC - they could be providing 1000's of Free TV's / Phones / Tablets / Laptops etc. - there's probably a shed load of money in that as well...

[Muzchap 8,966]

  On 07/09/2012 at 12:37, Waterfall said:

I think people are way too focused on the annual payment number without realizing OTHER benefits of the partnership FOR US. Having a main sponsor no longer means simply having their logo on your shirt in exchange for money. Would you rather have Standard Charted printed on your shirt and get 20M or have CFC advertised by the industry leader in cell phones, TV's etc.? I would think a club as big as Chelsea would gladly take a 5M hit every year to market its brand globally.

Agreed - I had a choice of 2 American Style Fridge Freezers - I chose the Samsung one as it's linked to CFC - I also got the missus a Galaxy 3, again because it's Samsung... (So I've spent EUR: 2000 in the last few months on Samsung products, because of their association with CFC)

So people who view Samsung products, could subsconsciouly be aware of Chelsea Football Club - because that close association exists over a number of years.

I also now find myself as a die-hard McLaren fan, looking out for the Sauber's on F1 day - I love the CFC logo on the car!

[Tricky 301]

  On 07/09/2012 at 11:45, Muzchap said:

EVERYTHING looks EASY with hindsight...

When the contract was first announced - it was a lucrative contract, in the past few years things have changed massively in Football and revenue despite a GLOBAL recession has increased.

If it had gone the other way, we would have been lauding this business decision as a stroke of genuis... as it is - it's not bad/good - it's middle of the road, guaranteed revenue....

If they had of dumped us after CL final - we might not have got a sponsor this year - so we'd be 15 million down...

Life isn't that easy - trust me...

EDIT: To clarify, the decision to renew at then current market prices was a punt that could have worked in our favour or against us - as it stands, we're a few million of current market value, but certainly not that bad... You can't sack someone for not being able to accurately predict the future. In terms of risk management it made sense to keep it at 15million a year, in case the money in football (as every so called expert predicted) tanked - and at a renogitation we could have ended up with 5 million (market value if the football market had tanked)...

Tell you what - predict the price of 'wheat' grain in 3 years per tonne here and now - and we'll see how easy it is - would be a cool competition

Per tonne? Okay I'll throw out $450.... World food prices are being driven up by erratic weather, increasing demand and a larger population. Want to make a quick buck? Bet on food going up...

[Tricky 301]

  On 07/09/2012 at 12:45, Muzchap said:

Agreed - I had a choice of 2 American Style Fridge Freezers - I chose the Samsung one as it's linked to CFC - I also got the missus a Galaxy 3, again because it's Samsung... (So I've spent EUR: 2000 in the last few months on Samsung products, because of their association with CFC)

So people who view Samsung products, could subsconsciouly be aware of Chelsea Football Club - because that close association exists over a number of years.

I also now find myself as a die-hard McLaren fan, looking out for the Sauber's on F1 day - I love the CFC logo on the car!

Samsung make shit hot products. But there association with CFC helped me make my decision. This year alone I've picked up a art TV and laptop from Samsung.

£15 million well spent by them.

[capriccioso 2,545]

Not to worry... soon we'll be playing at the "US Postal Service Stadium Presented by Coca-Cola" or some such.

[Muzchap 8,966]

  On 07/09/2012 at 23:23, Tricky said:

Per tonne? Okay I'll throw out $450.... World food prices are being driven up by erratic weather, increasing demand and a larger population. Want to make a quick buck? Bet on food going up...

Yup, this year prices will increase, people will look for alternate suppliers

In 3 years who knows where the price of grain will be - if other countries pick up the slack, the US will be forced to drop its prices, bringing the market down

Think it's called elasticity of demand - was 20yrs ago when I did economics though

[BlueLyon 9,359]

I know its always good to have 10mio more than less, BUT what do you want;

Nice looking sponsor kit with bit of 'tradition' or some new kit sponsor with fucking ugly logo and a better deal?

I pick Samsung ahead of something else, even if we get more money. I wont have more money personaly and I will have to look at ugly kits every match. No way. Keep the Samsung and thats it. We have contracts with Gazprom, Delta, Sauber, Audi,...they sure must give us enough money too.

[Porthos 35]

Reports today that PSG going to sign a €100m a year shirt deal with Qatar Bank, current deal €3.5 per year from Emirates

FFP what's that?

[Superblue 6,372]

  On 20/09/2012 at 09:01, Porthos said:

Reports today that PSG going to sign a €100m a year shirt deal with Qatar Bank, current deal €3.5 per year from Emirates

FFP what's that?

If that happens it will show up FFP to be a fucking joke!