magic weeds 446 Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Gala kit without the logo. Doesn't look bad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barbara 15,149 Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 How much was Samsung paying for us and how much is Turkish rumored to pay now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
different level 1,056 Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 If they're on the back of our shirts just for the Champions League ties and we keep Samsung for the front I'll be more than happy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xPetrCechx 13,573 Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 How much was Samsung paying for us and how much is Turkish rumored to pay now?From 18 to 25 Mil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barbara 15,149 Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 From 18 to 25 Mil.seems so little money if we think that's our main sponsor... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nyikolajevics 2,703 Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 seems so little money if we think that's our main sponsor...There are rumours about 30 million pounds too. Either way, it's not bad.7 million pound is an annual salary of a top class player(Pogba? . We seem to care about the FFP so extra 7 or 12 million pounds is nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyalBlues 4,050 Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 Okay, maybe our fans base and market value are not the largest in the world at the moment, but we're still growing bigger, as other English clubs like MU, Liverpool, Arsenal are stuck (if not decrease because of their current form).I accept this sponsor amount at the moment, because we are still growing and establish ourselves, so I'm more worried about how long this contract with be. Hopefully not for 5 years or so, as we will be leaving behind by our rivals, in term of amount.Hoping for 2 or 3 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Term-X 7,891 Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 There are rumours about 30 million pounds too. Either way, it's not bad.7 million pound is an annual salary of a top class player(Pogba? . We seem to care about the FFP so extra 7 or 12 million pounds is nice. Not really, it's a very poor deal actually, an extra £7m is nothing.. Gourlay fucked up. This was clearly a case of Samsung just not wanting to stay rather than us finding a better deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Styles 9,790 Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 The 25m hasn't been confirmed; no-one knows how much the deal is worth besides the two parties involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
We Hate Scouse 10,327 Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 Not really, it's a very poor deal actually, an extra £7m is nothing.. Gourlay fucked up. This was clearly a case of Samsung just not wanting to stay rather than us finding a better deal.As I mentioned earlier in the thread £7 million equates to about 230,000-280,000 shirt sales which is rather substantial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidEU 2,023 Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 Not really, it's a very poor deal actually, an extra £7m is nothing.. Gourlay fucked up. This was clearly a case of Samsung just not wanting to stay rather than us finding a better deal.You're an expert on these things now are you? Stop embarrassing yourself.Do you not think the club have been negotiating with various possible sponsors for months to get the best deal, and this will be it. Lets be honest: we're not at Man Utd levels in this regard, we're not going to get a trillion £ a season or whatever. £25-27m is a significant increase from the current Samsung deal, 35% increase roughly? Cant complain with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZanSnake 1,211 Posted October 4, 2014 Share Posted October 4, 2014 From this page of 16, is there any concrete evidence or even a single indication of a deal with either Samsung or other ompanies about a deal?All i have read is that we should all get rid of Samsung device because of some morbid reason, and that we are somehow harming the image of the club by having Samsung devices, like have Samsung phones, televisiob, DvD players, etc. really matters to Chelsea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Term-X 7,891 Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 City will now be getting double what we're gonna get from Turkish Airlines..http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/manchester-city-set-400million-jackpot-4377857#ixzz3FGj4WLBb£50m per season, corrupt bastards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jype 6,398 Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 City will now be getting double what we're gonna get from Turkish Airlines..http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/manchester-city-set-400million-jackpot-4377857#ixzz3FGj4WLBb£50m per season, corrupt bastards.£50m includes naming rights for their stadium as well as the training complex, completely different to us getting £25m for shirt sponsor only. If we were to sell naming rights for Cobham and Stamford Bridge (CPO permitting of course), I'm pretty sure we'd be looking at a lot more than £50m a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Term-X 7,891 Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 £50m includes naming rights for their stadium as well as the training complex, completely different to us getting £25m for shirt sponsor only. If we were to sell naming rights for Cobham and Stamford Bridge (CPO permitting of course), I'm pretty sure we'd be looking at a lot more than £50m a year.Nah, they are also getting extra revenue from separate sponsors for the training complex. In the same exact deal (shirt+stadium) Arsenal only get £30m per season, and they are more established as a brand and have more fans than City. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidEU 2,023 Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 Nah, they are also getting extra revenue from separate sponsors for the training complex. In the same exact deal (shirt+stadium) Arsenal only get £30m per season, and they are more established as a brand and have more fans than City.I think City are seen as having far more potential over the next ten years as a brand than Arsenal because they're far more likely to win things.Its a good deal for City, but again, we're not going to get those sort of numbers unless we give away naming rights for Cobham and the Bridge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Term-X 7,891 Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 I think City are seen as having far more potential over the next ten years as a brand than Arsenal because they're far more likely to win things.Its a good deal for City, but again, we're not going to get those sort of numbers unless we give away naming rights for Cobham and the Bridge.Not enough to justify the £20m difference, what it comes down to.. is the fact Etihad are basically from the same family as the City owners, so they are practically sponsoring themselfs.*That £50m per season does not include the training complex, other companies are coming in for that.* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidzeret 2,257 Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 Not enough to justify the £20m difference, what it comes down to.. is the fact Etihad are basically from the same family as the City owners, so they are practically sponsoring themselfs.*That £50m per season does not include the training complex, other companies are coming in for that.*Clearly making a mockery of FFP. The oil cunts are just putting money on the club indirectly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OhForAGreavsie 6,078 Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 Clearly making a mockery of FFP. The oil cunts are just putting money on the club indirectlyI wouldn't exactly say that it's making a mockery of FFP. After all, it was precisely because uefa refused to accept this particular sponsorship as a genuine business relationship that City were sanctioned. If they had been allowed to count the full value of that 'related party' deal in their FFP accounts, City would have passed the FFP test and would have had no problem. uefa did not allow them to count all of it however. Only the part of it which was deemed to be a reasonable commercial value was accepted by the governing body and so City failed FFP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidzeret 2,257 Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 I wouldn't exactly say that it's making a mockery of FFP. After all, it was precisely because uefa refused to accept this particular sponsorship as a genuine business relationship that City were sanctioned. If they had been allowed to count the full value of that 'related party' deal in their FFP accounts, City would have passed the FFP test and would have had no problem. uefa did not allow them to count all of it however. Only the part of it which was deemed to be a reasonable commercial value was accepted by the governing body and so City failed FFP.So the entire sum of £50m from the new sponsorship deal won't be accounted as club revenue? What are the exact figure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts