It's Sunday, it's half twelve, it's number one... it's ASHLEY TO SELL UP!

[Alberto2005]

Why has this reached 7 pages, what is different about this story than the same shite written in previous weeks?

[Syrette]

Will the club even bother to refute this latest rumour?

[The College Dropout]

Why has this reached 7 pages, what is different about this story than the same s**** written in previous weeks?

 

Because it sounds good.

 

 

& it's just a continuatoin of the old thread i believe.

[thomas]

Why has this reached 7 pages, what is different about this story than the same shite written in previous weeks?

The papers wouldn't print it if it wasn't true mackems.gif mackems.gif

 

No smoke without fire mackems.gif mackems.gif

[Parky]

Well, my question was about how owning a club gave you more than sponsorship does, and you quoted an example of sponsorship not ownership -- as well as PSV. What's their situation? Another works team of old? I don't know.

 

Berlusconi is probably a better example.

 

Having read a few articles about this Ambani this morning. I'd see branding for Reliance Communications as an unlikely motive. It's currently involved in some super-complex global merger where it's essentially being taken over by someone else while Ambani becomes chairman and largest shareholder of the merged entity. It won't simply be "his" brand anymore.

 

 

The thing about Emirates or for instance DIC, is that with the funds at their disposal, buying a club is really no great shakes. For thm at this point to have 'The Emirates Stadium' for 200m odd or close to that iirc, is how this kind of brand wants to develop, they would buy the club however if they could, but have been shut out.

 

I have clients who I work with, with regard to developing their footprint and in all the scenarios you can look at just 'buying space' is the biggest hit and miss (shotgun approach out there). When you want to tell 'a story' however then you have to engage and ideally in stream compatible ventures (Ashley SD and us being an example). Taking something 'highly visible' like a football club is one of the cheapest ways there is (bang for bucks)...to tell the story of your ideas and philosophy. People engage with football, they don't with advertising.

 

I'm just mulling here as to the motives and of course, none of us really know. But you can be rest assured the world-wide viewing fig regarding the PL is gargantuan. If you wat to tell a story and develop a footprint with reg to how the world sees you, football is now one of the most cost effective ways on the planet.

 

Gazprom own Zenit iirc.

[GG]

Well, my question was about how owning a club gave you more than sponsorship does, and you quoted an example of sponsorship not ownership -- as well as PSV. What's their situation? Another works team of old? I don't know.

 

Berlusconi is probably a better example.

 

Having read a few articles about this Ambani this morning. I'd see branding for Reliance Communications as an unlikely motive. It's currently involved in some super-complex global merger where it's essentially being taken over by someone else while Ambani becomes chairman and largest shareholder of the merged entity. It won't simply be "his" brand anymore.

 

It's not. That'll never go through, the Sarf Africans pulled out of it.

[NE5]

I don't know why people are falling for this?

 

What people? The only person who seems to assume it must be true is NE5, that great champion of the "cockney-based media".

 

nah Ozzie, it wasn't me who dished the dirt on the club to the cockney based media

 

So you think that mikey will never sell the club then  mackems.gif

[Liam Liam Liam O]

Well, my question was about how owning a club gave you more than sponsorship does, and you quoted an example of sponsorship not ownership -- as well as PSV. What's their situation? Another works team of old? I don't know.

 

Berlusconi is probably a better example.

 

Having read a few articles about this Ambani this morning. I'd see branding for Reliance Communications as an unlikely motive. It's currently involved in some super-complex global merger where it's essentially being taken over by someone else while Ambani becomes chairman and largest shareholder of the merged entity. It won't simply be "his" brand anymore.

 

 

The thing about Emirates or for instance DIC, is that with the funds at their disposal, buying a club is really no great shakes. For thm at this point to have 'The Emirates Stadium' for 200m odd or close to that iirc, is how this kind of brand wants to develop, they would buy the club however if they could, but have been shut out.

 

I have clients who I work with, with regard to developing their footprint and in all the scenarios you can look at just 'buying space' is the biggest hit and miss (shotgun approach out there). When you want to tell 'a story' however then you have to engage and ideally in stream compatible ventures (Ashley SD and us being an example). Taking something 'highly visible' like a football club is one of the cheapest ways there is (bang for bucks)...to tell the story of your ideas and philosophy. People engage with football, they don't with advertising.

 

I'm just mulling here as to the motives and of course, none of us really know. But you can be rest assured the world-wide viewing fig regarding the PL is gargantuan. If you wat to tell a story and develop a footprint with reg to how the world sees you, football is now one of the most cost effective ways on the planet.

 

Gazprom own Zenit iirc.

 

Whilst I agree with you for the most of that, it seems a bit of a "text book" type of appraisal of the ways to do things.  I don't mean that as a criticism of what you've said though.

 

Whilst it might be a way of attracting attention (for want of a better word), its still not exactly common place as a method.

 

The other thing to consider of course is, is what you've said not exactly the reason Ashley has invested in us, ie being a means to growing & developing his brand?

[Nicky]

Just posted this on the blog...

 

 

"What a great story..  One question though - why didn't he sell after the previous 10 storys or so you published about it?

 

 

Was this published purely because Rob Shepherd couldn't get away with having an article bashing Joey Barton instead (imagine the hypocrisy!),  and needed something equally crap to publish?"

 

 

 

 

Assume they won't publish that comment though.

[OzzieMandias]

Well, my question was about how owning a club gave you more than sponsorship does, and you quoted an example of sponsorship not ownership -- as well as PSV. What's their situation? Another works team of old? I don't know.

 

Berlusconi is probably a better example.

 

Having read a few articles about this Ambani this morning. I'd see branding for Reliance Communications as an unlikely motive. It's currently involved in some super-complex global merger where it's essentially being taken over by someone else while Ambani becomes chairman and largest shareholder of the merged entity. It won't simply be "his" brand anymore.

 

 

The thing about Emirates or for instance DIC, is that with the funds at their disposal, buying a club is really no great shakes. For thm at this point to have 'The Emirates Stadium' for 200m odd or close to that iirc, is how this kind of brand wants to develop, they would buy the club however if they could, but have been shut out.

 

I have clients who I work with, with regard to developing their footprint and in all the scenarios you can look at just 'buying space' is the biggest hit and miss (shotgun approach out there). When you want to tell 'a story' however then you have to engage and ideally in stream compatible ventures (Ashley SD and us being an example). Taking something 'highly visible' like a football club is one of the cheapest ways there is (bang for bucks)...to tell the story of your ideas and philosophy. People engage with football, they don't with advertising.

 

I'm just mulling here as to the motives and of course, none of us really know. But you can be rest assured the world-wide viewing fig regarding the PL is gargantuan. If you wat to tell a story and develop a footprint with reg to how the world sees you, football is now one of the most cost effective ways on the planet.

 

Gazprom own Zenit iirc.

 

Whilst I agree with you for the most of that, it seems a bit of a "text book" type of appraisal of the ways to do things.  I don't mean that as a criticism of what you've said though.

 

Whilst it might be a way of attracting attention (for want of a better word), its still not exactly common place as a method.

 

The other thing to consider of course is, is what you've said not exactly the reason Ashley has invested in us, ie being a means to growing & developing his brand?

 

That was my point, really.

[Parky]

Well, my question was about how owning a club gave you more than sponsorship does, and you quoted an example of sponsorship not ownership -- as well as PSV. What's their situation? Another works team of old? I don't know.

 

Berlusconi is probably a better example.

 

Having read a few articles about this Ambani this morning. I'd see branding for Reliance Communications as an unlikely motive. It's currently involved in some super-complex global merger where it's essentially being taken over by someone else while Ambani becomes chairman and largest shareholder of the merged entity. It won't simply be "his" brand anymore.

 

 

The thing about Emirates or for instance DIC, is that with the funds at their disposal, buying a club is really no great shakes. For thm at this point to have 'The Emirates Stadium' for 200m odd or close to that iirc, is how this kind of brand wants to develop, they would buy the club however if they could, but have been shut out.

 

I have clients who I work with, with regard to developing their footprint and in all the scenarios you can look at just 'buying space' is the biggest hit and miss (shotgun approach out there). When you want to tell 'a story' however then you have to engage and ideally in stream compatible ventures (Ashley SD and us being an example). Taking something 'highly visible' like a football club is one of the cheapest ways there is (bang for bucks)...to tell the story of your ideas and philosophy. People engage with football, they don't with advertising.

 

I'm just mulling here as to the motives and of course, none of us really know. But you can be rest assured the world-wide viewing fig regarding the PL is gargantuan. If you wat to tell a story and develop a footprint with reg to how the world sees you, football is now one of the most cost effective ways on the planet.

 

Gazprom own Zenit iirc.

 

Whilst I agree with you for the most of that, it seems a bit of a "text book" type of appraisal of the ways to do things.  I don't mean that as a criticism of what you've said though.

 

Whilst it might be a way of attracting attention (for want of a better word), its still not exactly common place as a method.

 

The other thing to consider of course is, is what you've said not exactly the reason Ashley has invested in us, ie being a means to growing & developing his brand?

 

It is becoming commonplace however and over the last 5 years or so people are begining to catch onto it. Mittal and Ecclestone didn't buy into QPR for a profit, they are there because once the club develops say into the PL it is a fantasic pr vehicle and at very sensible costs. If you look at say Coca Cola and mcD and the Olympics the core budget is 500m. Now these mega brands can't afford to identify to a single entity ie one football club, but if there was a way they could pull it off they would buy Man U in 5 secs.

[Parky]

Well, my question was about how owning a club gave you more than sponsorship does, and you quoted an example of sponsorship not ownership -- as well as PSV. What's their situation? Another works team of old? I don't know.

 

Berlusconi is probably a better example.

 

Having read a few articles about this Ambani this morning. I'd see branding for Reliance Communications as an unlikely motive. It's currently involved in some super-complex global merger where it's essentially being taken over by someone else while Ambani becomes chairman and largest shareholder of the merged entity. It won't simply be "his" brand anymore.

 

 

The thing about Emirates or for instance DIC, is that with the funds at their disposal, buying a club is really no great shakes. For thm at this point to have 'The Emirates Stadium' for 200m odd or close to that iirc, is how this kind of brand wants to develop, they would buy the club however if they could, but have been shut out.

 

I have clients who I work with, with regard to developing their footprint and in all the scenarios you can look at just 'buying space' is the biggest hit and miss (shotgun approach out there). When you want to tell 'a story' however then you have to engage and ideally in stream compatible ventures (Ashley SD and us being an example). Taking something 'highly visible' like a football club is one of the cheapest ways there is (bang for bucks)...to tell the story of your ideas and philosophy. People engage with football, they don't with advertising.

 

I'm just mulling here as to the motives and of course, none of us really know. But you can be rest assured the world-wide viewing fig regarding the PL is gargantuan. If you wat to tell a story and develop a footprint with reg to how the world sees you, football is now one of the most cost effective ways on the planet.

 

Gazprom own Zenit iirc.

 

Whilst I agree with you for the most of that, it seems a bit of a "text book" type of appraisal of the ways to do things.  I don't mean that as a criticism of what you've said though.

 

Whilst it might be a way of attracting attention (for want of a better word), its still not exactly common place as a method.

 

The other thing to consider of course is, is what you've said not exactly the reason Ashley has invested in us, ie being a means to growing & developing his brand?

 

That was my point, really.

 

Yes but I'm 5 years ahead of you two.

[OzzieMandias]

You can imagine the Premiership, or the Champions League, becoming nothing but a great big board game for the plutocrats of the 21st century. It's not far off that already, but needs a few more Abramovichs to start really throwing around the Monopoly money.

[OzzieMandias]

Well, my question was about how owning a club gave you more than sponsorship does, and you quoted an example of sponsorship not ownership -- as well as PSV. What's their situation? Another works team of old? I don't know.

 

Berlusconi is probably a better example.

 

Having read a few articles about this Ambani this morning. I'd see branding for Reliance Communications as an unlikely motive. It's currently involved in some super-complex global merger where it's essentially being taken over by someone else while Ambani becomes chairman and largest shareholder of the merged entity. It won't simply be "his" brand anymore.

 

 

The thing about Emirates or for instance DIC, is that with the funds at their disposal, buying a club is really no great shakes. For thm at this point to have 'The Emirates Stadium' for 200m odd or close to that iirc, is how this kind of brand wants to develop, they would buy the club however if they could, but have been shut out.

 

I have clients who I work with, with regard to developing their footprint and in all the scenarios you can look at just 'buying space' is the biggest hit and miss (shotgun approach out there). When you want to tell 'a story' however then you have to engage and ideally in stream compatible ventures (Ashley SD and us being an example). Taking something 'highly visible' like a football club is one of the cheapest ways there is (bang for bucks)...to tell the story of your ideas and philosophy. People engage with football, they don't with advertising.

 

I'm just mulling here as to the motives and of course, none of us really know. But you can be rest assured the world-wide viewing fig regarding the PL is gargantuan. If you wat to tell a story and develop a footprint with reg to how the world sees you, football is now one of the most cost effective ways on the planet.

 

Gazprom own Zenit iirc.

 

Whilst I agree with you for the most of that, it seems a bit of a "text book" type of appraisal of the ways to do things.  I don't mean that as a criticism of what you've said though.

 

Whilst it might be a way of attracting attention (for want of a better word), its still not exactly common place as a method.

 

The other thing to consider of course is, is what you've said not exactly the reason Ashley has invested in us, ie being a means to growing & developing his brand?

 

That was my point, really.

 

Yes but I'm 5 years ahead of you two.

 

So, then, back to my original question: In what ways can ownership be used to give you more than mere sponsorship. I'm looking for practical possibilities here, not smoke and mirrors about "telling a story".

[Liam Liam Liam O]

Well, my question was about how owning a club gave you more than sponsorship does, and you quoted an example of sponsorship not ownership -- as well as PSV. What's their situation? Another works team of old? I don't know.

 

Berlusconi is probably a better example.

 

Having read a few articles about this Ambani this morning. I'd see branding for Reliance Communications as an unlikely motive. It's currently involved in some super-complex global merger where it's essentially being taken over by someone else while Ambani becomes chairman and largest shareholder of the merged entity. It won't simply be "his" brand anymore.

 

 

The thing about Emirates or for instance DIC, is that with the funds at their disposal, buying a club is really no great shakes. For thm at this point to have 'The Emirates Stadium' for 200m odd or close to that iirc, is how this kind of brand wants to develop, they would buy the club however if they could, but have been shut out.

 

I have clients who I work with, with regard to developing their footprint and in all the scenarios you can look at just 'buying space' is the biggest hit and miss (shotgun approach out there). When you want to tell 'a story' however then you have to engage and ideally in stream compatible ventures (Ashley SD and us being an example). Taking something 'highly visible' like a football club is one of the cheapest ways there is (bang for bucks)...to tell the story of your ideas and philosophy. People engage with football, they don't with advertising.

 

I'm just mulling here as to the motives and of course, none of us really know. But you can be rest assured the world-wide viewing fig regarding the PL is gargantuan. If you wat to tell a story and develop a footprint with reg to how the world sees you, football is now one of the most cost effective ways on the planet.

 

Gazprom own Zenit iirc.

 

Whilst I agree with you for the most of that, it seems a bit of a "text book" type of appraisal of the ways to do things.  I don't mean that as a criticism of what you've said though.

 

Whilst it might be a way of attracting attention (for want of a better word), its still not exactly common place as a method.

 

The other thing to consider of course is, is what you've said not exactly the reason Ashley has invested in us, ie being a means to growing & developing his brand?

 

It is becoming commonplace however and over the last 5 years or so people are begining to catch onto it. Mittal and Ecclestone didn't buy into QPR for a profit, they are there because once the club develops say into the PL it is a fantasic pr vehicle and at very sensible costs. If you look at say Coca Cola and mcD and the Olympics the core budget is 500m. Now these mega brands can't afford to identify to a single entity ie one football club, but if there was a way they could pull it off they would buy Man U in 5 secs.

 

If that was the main idea of Mittal & Ecclestone, they could have done that deal with another club and got themselves the exposure quicker, at a lower risk & potentially more cost effectively, by taking a current Premier League side. 

 

I'd still say its not done much at all, certainly not for the reasons you've mentioned.  Football has become a bit of an expensive "play thing" for multi-millionaire/billionaires (unfortunately IMO)

 

I'll say it again though, I do think what you've said is a reason for Ashley taking NUFC on.  That would be the main reason I'd be surprised if he was looking to get out.

[Parky]

You can imagine the Premiership, or the Champions League, becoming nothing but a great big board game for the plutocrats of the 21st century. It's not far off that already, but needs a few more Abramovichs to start really throwing around the Monopoly money.

 

I would 'buy' the league every year given the choice. From now on it won't happen any other way...The era of the likes of Forest being successful is gone.

[Liam Liam Liam O]

 

Yes but I'm 5 years ahead of you two.

 

Eh?

[Liam Liam Liam O]

You can imagine the Premiership, or the Champions League, becoming nothing but a great big board game for the plutocrats of the 21st century. It's not far off that already, but needs a few more Abramovichs to start really throwing around the Monopoly money.

 

I would 'buy' the league every year given the choice. From now on it won't happen any other way...The era of the likes of Forest QPR being successful is gone.

[Parky]

Well, my question was about how owning a club gave you more than sponsorship does, and you quoted an example of sponsorship not ownership -- as well as PSV. What's their situation? Another works team of old? I don't know.

 

Berlusconi is probably a better example.

 

Having read a few articles about this Ambani this morning. I'd see branding for Reliance Communications as an unlikely motive. It's currently involved in some super-complex global merger where it's essentially being taken over by someone else while Ambani becomes chairman and largest shareholder of the merged entity. It won't simply be "his" brand anymore.

 

 

The thing about Emirates or for instance DIC, is that with the funds at their disposal, buying a club is really no great shakes. For thm at this point to have 'The Emirates Stadium' for 200m odd or close to that iirc, is how this kind of brand wants to develop, they would buy the club however if they could, but have been shut out.

 

I have clients who I work with, with regard to developing their footprint and in all the scenarios you can look at just 'buying space' is the biggest hit and miss (shotgun approach out there). When you want to tell 'a story' however then you have to engage and ideally in stream compatible ventures (Ashley SD and us being an example). Taking something 'highly visible' like a football club is one of the cheapest ways there is (bang for bucks)...to tell the story of your ideas and philosophy. People engage with football, they don't with advertising.

 

I'm just mulling here as to the motives and of course, none of us really know. But you can be rest assured the world-wide viewing fig regarding the PL is gargantuan. If you wat to tell a story and develop a footprint with reg to how the world sees you, football is now one of the most cost effective ways on the planet.

 

Gazprom own Zenit iirc.

 

Whilst I agree with you for the most of that, it seems a bit of a "text book" type of appraisal of the ways to do things.  I don't mean that as a criticism of what you've said though.

 

Whilst it might be a way of attracting attention (for want of a better word), its still not exactly common place as a method.

 

The other thing to consider of course is, is what you've said not exactly the reason Ashley has invested in us, ie being a means to growing & developing his brand?

 

It is becoming commonplace however and over the last 5 years or so people are begining to catch onto it. Mittal and Ecclestone didn't buy into QPR for a profit, they are there because once the club develops say into the PL it is a fantasic pr vehicle and at very sensible costs. If you look at say Coca Cola and mcD and the Olympics the core budget is 500m. Now these mega brands can't afford to identify to a single entity ie one football club, but if there was a way they could pull it off they would buy Man U in 5 secs.

 

If that was the main idea of Mittal & Ecclestone, they could have done that deal with another club and got themselves the exposure quicker, at a lower risk & potentially more cost effectively, by taking a current Premier League side. 

 

I'd still say its not done much at all, certainly not for the reasons you've mentioned.  Football has become a bit of an expensive "play thing" for multi-millionaire/billionaires (unfortunately IMO)

 

I'll say it again though, I do think what you've said is a reason for Ashley taking NUFC on.  That would be the main reason I'd be surprised if he was looking to get out.

 

KK has brought it to his attention that even he can't compete on the terms he was dreaming about. That came as a shock to him I'm sure.

[Parky]

Well, my question was about how owning a club gave you more than sponsorship does, and you quoted an example of sponsorship not ownership -- as well as PSV. What's their situation? Another works team of old? I don't know.

 

Berlusconi is probably a better example.

 

Having read a few articles about this Ambani this morning. I'd see branding for Reliance Communications as an unlikely motive. It's currently involved in some super-complex global merger where it's essentially being taken over by someone else while Ambani becomes chairman and largest shareholder of the merged entity. It won't simply be "his" brand anymore.

 

 

The thing about Emirates or for instance DIC, is that with the funds at their disposal, buying a club is really no great shakes. For thm at this point to have 'The Emirates Stadium' for 200m odd or close to that iirc, is how this kind of brand wants to develop, they would buy the club however if they could, but have been shut out.

 

I have clients who I work with, with regard to developing their footprint and in all the scenarios you can look at just 'buying space' is the biggest hit and miss (shotgun approach out there). When you want to tell 'a story' however then you have to engage and ideally in stream compatible ventures (Ashley SD and us being an example). Taking something 'highly visible' like a football club is one of the cheapest ways there is (bang for bucks)...to tell the story of your ideas and philosophy. People engage with football, they don't with advertising.

 

I'm just mulling here as to the motives and of course, none of us really know. But you can be rest assured the world-wide viewing fig regarding the PL is gargantuan. If you wat to tell a story and develop a footprint with reg to how the world sees you, football is now one of the most cost effective ways on the planet.

 

Gazprom own Zenit iirc.

 

Whilst I agree with you for the most of that, it seems a bit of a "text book" type of appraisal of the ways to do things.  I don't mean that as a criticism of what you've said though.

 

Whilst it might be a way of attracting attention (for want of a better word), its still not exactly common place as a method.

 

The other thing to consider of course is, is what you've said not exactly the reason Ashley has invested in us, ie being a means to growing & developing his brand?

 

That was my point, really.

 

Yes but I'm 5 years ahead of you two.

 

So, then, back to my original question: In what ways can ownership be used to give you more than mere sponsorship. I'm looking for practical possibilities here, not smoke and mirrors about "telling a story".

 

It's simply  a highly visible way of showing people how you work/can work. Just sponsoring doesn't give you that as you are never hands on.

 

 

[Liam Liam Liam O]

Well, my question was about how owning a club gave you more than sponsorship does, and you quoted an example of sponsorship not ownership -- as well as PSV. What's their situation? Another works team of old? I don't know.

 

Berlusconi is probably a better example.

 

Having read a few articles about this Ambani this morning. I'd see branding for Reliance Communications as an unlikely motive. It's currently involved in some super-complex global merger where it's essentially being taken over by someone else while Ambani becomes chairman and largest shareholder of the merged entity. It won't simply be "his" brand anymore.

 

 

The thing about Emirates or for instance DIC, is that with the funds at their disposal, buying a club is really no great shakes. For thm at this point to have 'The Emirates Stadium' for 200m odd or close to that iirc, is how this kind of brand wants to develop, they would buy the club however if they could, but have been shut out.

 

I have clients who I work with, with regard to developing their footprint and in all the scenarios you can look at just 'buying space' is the biggest hit and miss (shotgun approach out there). When you want to tell 'a story' however then you have to engage and ideally in stream compatible ventures (Ashley SD and us being an example). Taking something 'highly visible' like a football club is one of the cheapest ways there is (bang for bucks)...to tell the story of your ideas and philosophy. People engage with football, they don't with advertising.

 

I'm just mulling here as to the motives and of course, none of us really know. But you can be rest assured the world-wide viewing fig regarding the PL is gargantuan. If you wat to tell a story and develop a footprint with reg to how the world sees you, football is now one of the most cost effective ways on the planet.

 

Gazprom own Zenit iirc.

 

Whilst I agree with you for the most of that, it seems a bit of a "text book" type of appraisal of the ways to do things.  I don't mean that as a criticism of what you've said though.

 

Whilst it might be a way of attracting attention (for want of a better word), its still not exactly common place as a method.

 

The other thing to consider of course is, is what you've said not exactly the reason Ashley has invested in us, ie being a means to growing & developing his brand?

 

It is becoming commonplace however and over the last 5 years or so people are begining to catch onto it. Mittal and Ecclestone didn't buy into QPR for a profit, they are there because once the club develops say into the PL it is a fantasic pr vehicle and at very sensible costs. If you look at say Coca Cola and mcD and the Olympics the core budget is 500m. Now these mega brands can't afford to identify to a single entity ie one football club, but if there was a way they could pull it off they would buy Man U in 5 secs.

 

If that was the main idea of Mittal & Ecclestone, they could have done that deal with another club and got themselves the exposure quicker, at a lower risk & potentially more cost effectively, by taking a current Premier League side. 

 

I'd still say its not done much at all, certainly not for the reasons you've mentioned.  Football has become a bit of an expensive "play thing" for multi-millionaire/billionaires (unfortunately IMO)

 

I'll say it again though, I do think what you've said is a reason for Ashley taking NUFC on.  That would be the main reason I'd be surprised if he was looking to get out.

 

KK has brought it to his attention that even he can't compete on the terms he was dreaming about. That came as a shock to him I'm sure.

 

That said, I still don't think that will prevent him making some good money out of the link up. 

 

If no one can compete on those terms, there's no value in anyone taking on a club for any reasons other than those you've listed.

[Parky]

Well, my question was about how owning a club gave you more than sponsorship does, and you quoted an example of sponsorship not ownership -- as well as PSV. What's their situation? Another works team of old? I don't know.

 

Berlusconi is probably a better example.

 

Having read a few articles about this Ambani this morning. I'd see branding for Reliance Communications as an unlikely motive. It's currently involved in some super-complex global merger where it's essentially being taken over by someone else while Ambani becomes chairman and largest shareholder of the merged entity. It won't simply be "his" brand anymore.

 

 

The thing about Emirates or for instance DIC, is that with the funds at their disposal, buying a club is really no great shakes. For thm at this point to have 'The Emirates Stadium' for 200m odd or close to that iirc, is how this kind of brand wants to develop, they would buy the club however if they could, but have been shut out.

 

I have clients who I work with, with regard to developing their footprint and in all the scenarios you can look at just 'buying space' is the biggest hit and miss (shotgun approach out there). When you want to tell 'a story' however then you have to engage and ideally in stream compatible ventures (Ashley SD and us being an example). Taking something 'highly visible' like a football club is one of the cheapest ways there is (bang for bucks)...to tell the story of your ideas and philosophy. People engage with football, they don't with advertising.

 

I'm just mulling here as to the motives and of course, none of us really know. But you can be rest assured the world-wide viewing fig regarding the PL is gargantuan. If you wat to tell a story and develop a footprint with reg to how the world sees you, football is now one of the most cost effective ways on the planet.

 

Gazprom own Zenit iirc.

 

Whilst I agree with you for the most of that, it seems a bit of a "text book" type of appraisal of the ways to do things.  I don't mean that as a criticism of what you've said though.

 

Whilst it might be a way of attracting attention (for want of a better word), its still not exactly common place as a method.

 

The other thing to consider of course is, is what you've said not exactly the reason Ashley has invested in us, ie being a means to growing & developing his brand?

 

It is becoming commonplace however and over the last 5 years or so people are begining to catch onto it. Mittal and Ecclestone didn't buy into QPR for a profit, they are there because once the club develops say into the PL it is a fantasic pr vehicle and at very sensible costs. If you look at say Coca Cola and mcD and the Olympics the core budget is 500m. Now these mega brands can't afford to identify to a single entity ie one football club, but if there was a way they could pull it off they would buy Man U in 5 secs.

 

If that was the main idea of Mittal & Ecclestone, they could have done that deal with another club and got themselves the exposure quicker, at a lower risk & potentially more cost effectively, by taking a current Premier League side. 

 

I'd still say its not done much at all, certainly not for the reasons you've mentioned.  Football has become a bit of an expensive "play thing" for multi-millionaire/billionaires (unfortunately IMO)

 

I'll say it again though, I do think what you've said is a reason for Ashley taking NUFC on.  That would be the main reason I'd be surprised if he was looking to get out.

 

KK has brought it to his attention that even he can't compete on the terms he was dreaming about. That came as a shock to him I'm sure.

 

That said, I still don't think that will prevent him making some good money out of the link up. 

 

If no one can compete on those terms, there's no value in anyone taking on a club for any reasons other than those you've listed.

 

I agree.

 

If I was a multi-national and had control of the board I would buy a football club, rather than spend 500m every 4 years on the Olympics. I would buy a club like Newcastle. The growth in identifying with my company and product spreads out easily (as long as their is sucess) from the fanbase, to the city, to the area and across Eurpe as you develop. And you get so much airtime and column inches for free.

[Guest Alan Shearer 9]

If my aunty had bollocks...

[Thespence]

Why has this reached 7 pages, what is different about this story than the same s**** written in previous weeks?

 

Because as Rob Shepherd writes in his article "But Newcastle fans don't want realism, they thrive on  fantasy - and the kind of fantasy Asia, not a sportswear billionaire can bring" .

 

This is a message board about Newcastle United & some of us don't find offensive to talk about the "what if of a fantasy".

[Liam Liam Liam O]

Well, my question was about how owning a club gave you more than sponsorship does, and you quoted an example of sponsorship not ownership -- as well as PSV. What's their situation? Another works team of old? I don't know.

 

Berlusconi is probably a better example.

 

Having read a few articles about this Ambani this morning. I'd see branding for Reliance Communications as an unlikely motive. It's currently involved in some super-complex global merger where it's essentially being taken over by someone else while Ambani becomes chairman and largest shareholder of the merged entity. It won't simply be "his" brand anymore.

 

 

The thing about Emirates or for instance DIC, is that with the funds at their disposal, buying a club is really no great shakes. For thm at this point to have 'The Emirates Stadium' for 200m odd or close to that iirc, is how this kind of brand wants to develop, they would buy the club however if they could, but have been shut out.

 

I have clients who I work with, with regard to developing their footprint and in all the scenarios you can look at just 'buying space' is the biggest hit and miss (shotgun approach out there). When you want to tell 'a story' however then you have to engage and ideally in stream compatible ventures (Ashley SD and us being an example). Taking something 'highly visible' like a football club is one of the cheapest ways there is (bang for bucks)...to tell the story of your ideas and philosophy. People engage with football, they don't with advertising.

 

I'm just mulling here as to the motives and of course, none of us really know. But you can be rest assured the world-wide viewing fig regarding the PL is gargantuan. If you wat to tell a story and develop a footprint with reg to how the world sees you, football is now one of the most cost effective ways on the planet.

 

Gazprom own Zenit iirc.

 

Whilst I agree with you for the most of that, it seems a bit of a "text book" type of appraisal of the ways to do things.  I don't mean that as a criticism of what you've said though.

 

Whilst it might be a way of attracting attention (for want of a better word), its still not exactly common place as a method.

 

The other thing to consider of course is, is what you've said not exactly the reason Ashley has invested in us, ie being a means to growing & developing his brand?

 

It is becoming commonplace however and over the last 5 years or so people are begining to catch onto it. Mittal and Ecclestone didn't buy into QPR for a profit, they are there because once the club develops say into the PL it is a fantasic pr vehicle and at very sensible costs. If you look at say Coca Cola and mcD and the Olympics the core budget is 500m. Now these mega brands can't afford to identify to a single entity ie one football club, but if there was a way they could pull it off they would buy Man U in 5 secs.

 

If that was the main idea of Mittal & Ecclestone, they could have done that deal with another club and got themselves the exposure quicker, at a lower risk & potentially more cost effectively, by taking a current Premier League side. 

 

I'd still say its not done much at all, certainly not for the reasons you've mentioned.  Football has become a bit of an expensive "play thing" for multi-millionaire/billionaires (unfortunately IMO)

 

I'll say it again though, I do think what you've said is a reason for Ashley taking NUFC on.  That would be the main reason I'd be surprised if he was looking to get out.

 

KK has brought it to his attention that even he can't compete on the terms he was dreaming about. That came as a shock to him I'm sure.

 

That said, I still don't think that will prevent him making some good money out of the link up. 

 

If no one can compete on those terms, there's no value in anyone taking on a club for any reasons other than those you've listed.

 

I agree.

 

If I was a multi-national and had control of the board I would buy a football club, rather than spend 500m every 4 years on the Olympics. I would buy a club like Newcastle. The growth in identifying with my company and product spreads out easily (as long as their is sucess) from the fanbase, to the city, to the area and across Eurpe as you develop. And you get so much airtime and column inches for free.

 

Its all bad press at the minute though

 

EDIT: This is where you say there's no such thing as bad press