World Exclusive News

[We Hate Scouse 10,260]

wow never heard of this company before. i still hope Samsung to renew the contract!

I heard it's Chelsea that don't want Samsung rather than vice versa.

I'm not sure why, I imagine they wasn't offering enough.

[strong centreback 157]

id of thought that it would boil down to money, samsung arnt in as strong a financial position as they have been in the past and so wouldnt be looking at a vast increase in the amount they paid us, especially as their profile is 5 fold what it was when we first had them on the shirt, so id of thought at a current rate of £18m a year they wouldnt of wanted much more than a 25% hike whereas the club should be aiming for a minimum of a 100% hike to £36m considering the other deals that have been signed by other clubs, id also if I were the club only want to be signed up for 5 years, a 10 year deal can put you behind rivals who only lock them selves in for shorter periods like real madrid or bayern for example.

[We Hate Scouse 10,260]

id of thought that it would boil down to money, samsung arnt in as strong a financial position as they have been in the past and so wouldnt be looking at a vast increase in the amount they paid us, especially as their profile is 5 fold what it was when we first had them on the shirt, so id of thought at a current rate of £18m a year they wouldnt of wanted much more than a 25% hike whereas the club should be aiming for a minimum of a 100% hike to £36m considering the other deals that have been signed by other clubs, id also if I were the club only want to be signed up for 5 years, a 10 year deal can put you behind rivals who only lock them selves in for shorter periods like real madrid or bayern for example.

I doubt it's anything to do with finances. Their revenue is $327 billion it's less than 0.001% of their revenue.

This is the strongest they've ever been in terms of revenue. They are the leaders in the smartphone sector and are expecting huge profits from recent investments in pharmaceuticals.

You know when a companies sponsor horizon goes from Chelsea to Swindon Town that they absolutely love putting their name on anything.

[LDN Blue 7,903]

I doubt it's anything to do with finances. Their revenue is $327 billion it's less than 0.001% of their revenue.

This is the strongest they've ever been in terms of revenue. They are the leaders in the smartphone sector and are expecting huge profits from recent investments in pharmaceuticals.

You know when a companies sponsor horizon goes from Chelsea to Swindon Town that they absolutely love putting their name on anything.

They probably think they have the bargaining power as well. Chelsea's lack of revenue from limited seating at SB places us in a position where negotiations with sponsors is difficult. We can't exactly say 'well we can do better without your contributions'. It's hard to start a bidding war with sponsors when you don't make much anyway.

Samsung probably took it for granted and pissed Chelsea off lmao.

[Term-X 7,891]

Post removed, let's not try and incite a flame war with political comments like that.

Alex.

Edited January 14, 2015 by Alex

[Bosnian Blue 2,471]

who ever offers more can have their name on the shirt as far as I'm concerned, this is the way business works nowadays

[LDN Blue 7,903]

who ever offers more can have their name on the shirt as far as I'm concerned, this is the way business works nowadays

True, but I'm glad there's certain rules on who can be a sponsor. Like tobacco companies are banned, I'm a strong believer in banning loan shark companies like Wonga etc.. But that's down to personal preferences and like you said - It's just business.

[thekid9 418]

Anyone notice the shirt Ipswich are playing in right now? Exactly the same as the supposed new shirt we have!

[Topico 165]

[We Hate Scouse 10,260]

Read the thread...

[thekid9 418]

Read the thread...

Certainly hope it's not the Ipswich template....the one with red is much nicer!

[nadavTKL 1,787]

Mail reports it now.. "Turkish Airlines are still at the table but are believed to be cautious about paying that sky-high price"

[TrueChelseaBlue 105]

Mail reports it now.. "Turkish Airlines are still at the table but are believed to be cautious about paying that sky-high price"

Bit slow aren't they? tut tut...

[We Hate Scouse 10,260]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-2910659/Chelsea-s-25m-year-shirt-deal-Turkish-Airlines-stalls-sky-high-price.html

What a bullshit article More like Chelsea stall at Turkish Airlines pathetic price...

"Turkish Airlines are still at the table"....Errr no, so you've said they're not sponsoring Chesea, but they might still sponsor Chelsea and haven't reported on anyone else "at the table"....You're guessing Daily Mail.

[supporter 3,088]

It is a joke that Manchester United win every year £ 53 millions! (€ 68.36 million!) And Turkish Airlines (or any other company) just offers us £ 25 million (€ 32.25 million) for sponsoring our shirt. We can not accept such a ridiculous offer, it's embarrassing, we must demand an offer according to our level and history.

I hope we finally get a rational sponsorship. This is a matter of respect. We are no less important than Manchester United.

Respect for us

[LDN Blue 7,903]

This is a matter of respect. We are no less important than Manchester United.

As I mentioned before, it's not that simple. United have one of the largest stadiums in England, their global brand is probably the biggest in English football and so they're a sponsor's ideal club. Their following is massive where ever you go and their shirt sales probably outdo most clubs in Europe (bar the obvious giants).

We're in a very limited position. Our commercial revenue only increases due to TV deals and our stadium revenue barely go up by 0.5% a year due to the limited capacity of our stadium. While our global reach continues to grow in Asia and Africa, we're still behind most giant clubs.

In that sense, we need sponsorship more than they need us. That's why for now we have to accept such low offers behind the likes of United & City.. We're doing better than Liverpool which does actually speak volumes considering their global brand.

[supporter 3,088]

As I mentioned before, it's not that simple. United have one of the largest stadiums in England, their global brand is probably the biggest in English football and so they're a sponsor's ideal club. Their following is massive where ever you go and their shirt sales probably outdo most clubs in Europe (bar the obvious giants).

We're in a very limited position. Our commercial revenue only increases due to TV deals and our stadium revenue barely go up by 0.5% a year due to the limited capacity of our stadium. While our global reach continues to grow in Asia and Africa, we're still behind most giant clubs.

In that sense, we need sponsorship more than they need us. That's why for now we have to accept such low offers behind the likes of United & City.. We're doing better than Liverpool which does actually speak volumes considering their global brand.

Totally agree with you. This is difficult to understand thinking only with passion. But all you say is true.

But I think that only £ 25 million is ridiculous. Perhaps £ 50 would be too demanding for our part now, considering how little economic performance that we can take the bridge and our current global impact in terms of publicity about as powerful markets like Asia or America.

Step by step we are a bigger club, but maybe it's too early for us to ask for £ 50 million, but I think £ 25 is a little ridiculous amount, but teams like Real Madrid receive a similar amount but also the Premier League is a much larger and many more commercial league.

In this thread supply Yokohama discussed Runners Company with an amount of £ 30/40 million. Maybe that number is closer to the value of the Chelsea brand.

Also a signing like Messi would suppose for us the final impetus for us to be important in markets such as Asia and America definitely.

I also commented in another thread in this forum about the poor performance we get with our field revenue each year, and I talked about the possibility of upgrading the field as they have done or will do teams like Bayern or Real Madrid. But many forum members told me that to make changes in the Bridge is very complicated by legal building permits in London (I do not know a lot about this topic because I've only been in London for short periods of time). And sell the Stamford Bridge stadium and build a new stadium is too complicated for emotional reasons.

I will put the link from another topic where talk of possible changes at Stamford Bridge to improve its economic performance if anyone wants to comment. .

http://forum.talkchelsea.net/topic/9808-the-stamford-bridge-thread/page-77

Regards.

[strong centreback 157]

I'm not sure it's as complicated as that, I think it's just the way the Samsung deals were sorted, if you tie in for too long then you will fall behind rivals who go for shorter deals, chelsea should be in a strong position to get more than arsenal (30m) we are more successful on the pitch over last decade and are more likely of the 2 to be successful over the next decade, sponsors want to have their brand on a winning teams shirt so the big clubs who win the most trophies get the best deals, Man Utd are the most successful club in England over last 20 years so will get the best paid deals, we will always be second for a while yet and before the new deals for arsenal liverpool and the like we were second.

The Man Utd deal only serves as a reference point for our upper limit the arsenal one as our lower limit I'd say 40m is market value for our club.