xPetrCechx 13,570 Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 #CFC initiated talks to end Adidas deal early. They're happy to pay £40m termination fee. Much bigger #CFC deal on the way. (via @SkyKaveh) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fulham Broadway 17,311 Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 Still hurting after the severance from Umbro Spike 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinAshburner 1,270 Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 Airlines, electronics, beer, and Autoglass: A brief history of Chelsea shirt sponsors By David Pasztor @D_Peezy on Sep 9, 2014, 8:34a http://weaintgotnohistory.sbnation.com/2014/9/9/6124855/airlines-electronics-beer-and-autoglass-a-brief-history-of-chelsea CHELSEA FC HOME KITS FOR CHELSEA WHEN CHELSEA WON THE ENGLAND DOMESTIC CLUB TOP FLIGHT LEAGUE KIT SUPPLIERS/MANUFACTURERS AND MAIN SPONSORS 1954/1955 – EPL WINNERS/CHAMPIONS i couldn't find info on these - the club didn't have them on their kit back then. 2004/2005 – EPL WINNERS/CHAMPIONS UMBRO / FLY EMIRATES 2005/2006 – EPL WINNERS/CHAMPIONS UMBRO / SAMSUNG MOBILE 2009/2010 – EPL WINNERS/CHAMPIONS ADIDAS / SAMSUNG 2014/2015 – EPL WINNERS/CHAMPIONS ADIDAS / SAMSUNG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Term-X 7,891 Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 Please god. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laylabelle 9,534 Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 Looks like when the printer runs out of ink MichaelDance 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jype 6,398 Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 18 minutes ago, Term-X said: Please god. Samsung? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Term-X 7,891 Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 2 hours ago, Laylabelle said: Looks like when the printer runs out of ink Well obviously it would be a third kit like this one was... 2 hours ago, Jype said: Samsung? Did you not notice the Nike tick then, or have you not being paying attention to the thread? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueLyon 9,359 Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 Btw why is our sponsor so high/close to the badge? If its for looks, it doesnt look that good. All other teams have their sponsor lower on shirt. The Chels 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xPetrCechx 13,570 Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 3 minutes ago, BlueLyon said: Btw why is our sponsor so high/close to the badge? If its for looks, it doesnt look that good. All other teams have their sponsor lower on shirt. you sure? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmk108 1,186 Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 4 hours ago, Jype said: Samsung? Probably a mockup from a couple years ago, back when we had Samsung. There won't be anything real 8-10 months. When a deal is struck, we'll know who will be the manufacturer. Shop owners will have an idea of what the kits will look like about 6 months before they go on sale. Around then is when we may start to see leaks, but there won't be anything official until (I'm guessing) mid-summer next year. When the Samsung deal ran out, we had to wait a few extra months for the official unveiling of the first Yokohama kit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDN Blue 7,903 Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 You guys can deny it, but Term's right lol. Brand value means a lot more than sometimes who pays the most. It's not like they're giving us peanuts.. I really hope we've got a deal with Nike already and they're just formalising everything. Amblève., Term-X and Blue Armour 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post! Spike 12,049 Posted May 13, 2016 Popular Post! Share Posted May 13, 2016 37 minutes ago, LDN Blue said: You guys can deny it, but Term's right lol. Brand value means a lot more than sometimes who pays the most. It's not like they're giving us peanuts.. I really hope we've got a deal with Nike already and they're just formalising everything. Chelsea is the brand, not Adidas or Nike. As long as distribution remains the same, it matters not the creator. People don't buy Chelsea because of Adidas' little three stripes on the chest. The Chels, CHOULO19, xPetrCechx and 2 others 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDN Blue 7,903 Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 10 minutes ago, Spike said: Chelsea is the brand, not Adidas or Nike. As long as distribution remains the same, it matters not the creator. People don't buy Chelsea because of Adidas' little three stripes on the chest. No but they certainly help sell the Chelsea brand. That's why sponsorship works both ways, we show off their brand while they incorporate ours into theirs. You can't ignore that Nike's catalogue of teams and player clearly shows there's a reason they're in the elite with Adidas. Both brands bring up the value of the other. We sign with any other smaller competitor we're essentially trying to carry their weight of branding. Nike's advertising and marketing side alone is enormous. Just step outside and have a look, you can't get away from it. It's beneficial for both parties. Tomo, Amblève., xPetrCechx and 1 other 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Abramovich 175 Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 12 minutes ago, Spike said: Chelsea is the brand, not Adidas or Nike. As long as distribution remains the same, it matters not the creator. People don't buy Chelsea because of Adidas' little three stripes on the chest. I remember Liverpool being ridiculed over here for their Warrior deal though. I think anyone other than Nike would lead to a perceived loss of stature in many people's eyes. I don't think it would be nearly as bad as some are predicting though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spike 12,049 Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 32 minutes ago, LDN Blue said: No but they certainly help sell the Chelsea brand. That's why sponsorship works both ways, we show off their brand while they incorporate ours into theirs. You can't ignore that Nike's catalogue of teams and player clearly shows there's a reason they're in the elite with Adidas. Both brands bring up the value of the other. We sign with any other smaller competitor we're essentially trying to carry their weight of branding. Nike's advertising and marketing side alone is enormous. Just step outside and have a look, you can't get away from it. It's beneficial for both parties. Maybe at the end of the day, I just don't care. The type of people that end up following a team because of the brand exposure aren't the type of people I want to associate with. People who place too much stock into branding, sponsorships and marketing are also people that I don't want to associate with. I don't care now, I won't care in the future. It is the culmination of loss of identity and loss of 'soul' of every football team. Besides, any company is elevated by Chelsea, especially if it's the likes of Umbro, Le Coq (best brand) or whatever second tier. 30 minutes ago, St Abramovich said: I remember Liverpool being ridiculed over here for their Warrior deal though. I think anyone other than Nike would lead to a perceived loss of stature in many people's eyes. I don't think it would be nearly as bad as some are predicting though. Warrior is primarily a hockey brand. They are by no means a small company. Heard of New Balance? Yeah of course you have, they are NB's hockey brand. Liverpool was literally their first foray into football. MichaelDance 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.