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

[Guest Heneage]

Its great the semantics journalists use with us. I could ring Ashley tomorrow and say "I'd like to buy the club" doesn't mean its gonna happen.

[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.

 

Its all bad press at the minute though

 

There's a famous saying to that regard.

[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

 

There's a famous saying to that regard.

 

I had already edited the post you've replied to

[Thespence]

Will the club even bother to refute this latest rumour?

 

They say they don't respond to these sort of things.....................unless a company that says it has been approached, publicly comes out & says they have "no interest."

 

 

[OzzieMandias]

If there's no such thing as bad press, I wonder why Nike cancelled their sponsorship of Joey Barton?

[Liam Liam Liam O]

If there's no such thing as bad press, I wonder why Nike cancelled their sponsorship of Joey Barton?

 

To get the good press from doing it

[DJ_NUFC]

If there's no such thing as bad press, I wonder why Nike cancelled their sponsorship of Joey Barton?

 

I know, they usually like beating kids into a pulp. And paying them 12 cents for doing so.

[Thespence]

If there's no such thing as bad press, I wonder why Nike cancelled their sponsorship of Joey Barton?

 

The biggest mystery is why did they sponsor him in the first place, who would buy a pair a boots because he wears them.

[OzzieMandias]

If there's no such thing as bad press, I wonder why Nike cancelled their sponsorship of Joey Barton?

 

The biggest mystery is why did they sponsor him in the first place, who would buy a pair a boots because he wears them.

 

Maybe some Merseyside aggro crew.

[Thespence]

If there's no such thing as bad press, I wonder why Nike cancelled their sponsorship of Joey Barton?

 

The biggest mystery is why did they sponsor him in the first place, who would buy a pair a boots because he wears them.

 

Maybe some Merseyside aggro crew.

 

Maybe but as he as he hated by both Everton & Liverpool fans I doubt it.

[Robster]

Been out washing the car.. how many times have I missed David Craig on SSN telling us more news from "His Sources"

[OzzieMandias]

If there's no such thing as bad press, I wonder why Nike cancelled their sponsorship of Joey Barton?

 

The biggest mystery is why did they sponsor him in the first place, who would buy a pair a boots because he wears them.

 

Maybe some Merseyside aggro crew.

 

Maybe but as he as he hated by both Everton & Liverpool fans I doubt it.

 

Aye but there's that burgeoning Tranmere Rovers market.

[Thespence]

Been out washing the car.. how many times have I missed David Craig on SSN telling us more news from "His Sources"

 

None, as the England test cricket captain with the most amount of wins as captain has quit & some ginger cheating mackem has chucked in the towel as captain of the limited overs team.

[Robster]

Been out washing the car.. how many times have I missed David Craig on SSN telling us more news from "His Sources"

 

None, as the England test cricket captain with the most amount of wins as captain has quit & some ginger cheating mackem has chucked in the towel as captain of the limited overs team.

 

 

So there really wasnt any need for the top of the hour news item that I saw at 9 o'clock this morning then when he was getting himself all worked up as if it was going to to one of those stories that was going to rumble on all day.

[J7]

Just heard about this on SSN at 3. They showed a clip of them interviewing a fan who was obviously 'not right'! Sky Sports have no shame.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

 

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.

 

Coca Cola sponsor the Olympics because they are targeting a mass demographic in a none offensive way, buying a football club is not targeting a mass demographic and will offend some. Spending such sums sponsoring the Olympics is a better way to spend money for Coca Cola than buying a football club. United Emirates would never buy Arsenal, and why? No self respecting Chelsea, Liverpool, Man Utd, Spurs fans et al would fly with them if they owned Arsenal. Now sponsorship... people don't care about that. Although some get in a pickle over that. mackems and sugar puffs?

 

If owning football clubs were such a cost effective way to promote ideas and a message, all your big companies would be getting on the act. In truth football is one of the most complicated, financially taxing and insecure forms of business there is. Business likes to deal with peoples wallets, not their lives and football clubs represent peoples lives.

 

It is purely for the mega rich (Abramovic), local men turned good (Jack Walker), the mega vain (Simon Jordon), Venture Capitalists & portfolio investers (Dic, Enic) or the deluded (every other chairman or owner).

 

If I were a multi-national, I'd stay well clear of a football club other than through safe forms such as advertising, sponsorship, partnerships etc. Owning a football club would be a bad idea because for one, you're going to create anamosity from rival fans, secondly you're going to have to spend vast sums and lastly the returns are none existant almost.

[bobbydazzla]

quick question about the wider footballing world: are the money men also buying up European clubs or is it just the premiership they're focusing their sights on ?

[Parky]

 

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.

 

Coca Cola sponsor the Olympics because they are targeting a mass demographic in a none offensive way, buying a football club is not targeting a mass demographic and will offend some. Spending such sums sponsoring the Olympics is a better way to spend money for Coca Cola than buying a football club. United Emirates would never buy Arsenal, and why? No self respecting Chelsea, Liverpool, Man Utd, Spurs fans et al would fly with them if they owned Arsenal. Now sponsorship... people don't care about that. Although some get in a pickle over that. mackems and sugar puffs?

 

If owning football clubs were such a cost effective way to promote ideas and a message, all your big companies would be getting on the act. In truth football is one of the most complicated, financially taxing and insecure forms of business there is. Business likes to deal with peoples wallets, not their lives and football clubs represent peoples lives.

 

It is purely for the mega rich (Abramovic), local men turned good (Jack Walker), the mega vain (Simon Jordon), Venture Capitalists & portfolio investers (Dic, Enic) or the deluded (every other chairman or owner).

 

If I were a multi-national, I'd stay well clear of a football club other than through safe forms such as advertising, sponsorship, partnerships etc. Owning a football club would be a bad idea because for one, you're going to create anamosity from rival fans, secondly you're going to have to spend vast sums and lastly the returns are none existant almost.

 

I explained everything in your first para earlier in the thread as to why they don't get too invloved with football clubs. The post you quote was if I WAS a multi-national and of course your analysis applies in many ways. But YES if I WAS a big player, like this Indian telecom bloke I would buy into the club. Of course global brands such as Coke have to be at the olympics and Mastercard support the CL, because the global theme is bigger than any one club.

 

Listen big companies have diversifyied portfolios hence Barton and Nike, Barton is clearly NOT a Nike type, but somewhere in their research, his typeage needed addressing, there is only so much you can do with bland Amercan golfers..  

 

I don't honestly think fans from other clubs neglecting the product is an issue, because the portolio would be diversifyied to cover such exposure and the public is way more sophisticated now than saying I ain't flying Emirates or Virgin or whatever cause who they give their money to.. So I would disagree with that part.

 

Footbal as a vehicle can be complex if you've got idots running the shop.

 

 

Don't forget Murdoch (essentially sky) were only stopped from buying Man U by the monopolies comission iirc. They would have serious market analysis to have even been considering it.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

 

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.

 

Coca Cola sponsor the Olympics because they are targeting a mass demographic in a none offensive way, buying a football club is not targeting a mass demographic and will offend some. Spending such sums sponsoring the Olympics is a better way to spend money for Coca Cola than buying a football club. United Emirates would never buy Arsenal, and why? No self respecting Chelsea, Liverpool, Man Utd, Spurs fans et al would fly with them if they owned Arsenal. Now sponsorship... people don't care about that. Although some get in a pickle over that. mackems and sugar puffs?

 

If owning football clubs were such a cost effective way to promote ideas and a message, all your big companies would be getting on the act. In truth football is one of the most complicated, financially taxing and insecure forms of business there is. Business likes to deal with peoples wallets, not their lives and football clubs represent peoples lives.

 

It is purely for the mega rich (Abramovic), local men turned good (Jack Walker), the mega vain (Simon Jordon), Venture Capitalists & portfolio investers (Dic, Enic) or the deluded (every other chairman or owner).

 

If I were a multi-national, I'd stay well clear of a football club other than through safe forms such as advertising, sponsorship, partnerships etc. Owning a football club would be a bad idea because for one, you're going to create anamosity from rival fans, secondly you're going to have to spend vast sums and lastly the returns are none existant almost.

 

I explained everything in your first para earlier in the thread as to why they don't get too invloved with football clubs. The post you quote was if I WAS a multi-national and of course your analysis applies in many ways. But YES if I WAS a big player, like this Indian telecom bloke I would buy into the club. Of course global brands such as Coke have to be at the olympics and Mastercard support the CL, because the global theme is bigger than any one club.

 

Listen big companies have diversifyied portfolios hence Barton and Nike, Barton is clearly NOT a Nike type, but somewhere in their research, his typeage needed addressing, there is only so much you can do with bland Amercan golfers..  

 

I don't honestly think fans from other clubs neglecting the product is an issue, because the portolio would be diversifyied to cover such exposure and the public is way more sophisticated now than saying I ain't flying Emirates or Virgin or whatever cause who they give their money to.. So I would disagree with that part.

 

Footbal as a vehicle can be complex if you've got idots running the shop.

 

Ownership and association are two different things, companies will bend over backwards to associate themselves with products and brands in the sporting world from clubs to players via boot deals but stop short of full ownership and for all the reasons I've outlined and more. One of the major reasons why big companies stay clear of football clubs is because they can't be owned, sold and bought, stripped and raised in the conventional business way, a football club is an idea, not a product or brand, it can only ever be owned by the spirit of fans.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

Parky what benefits would Tesco gain from say owning NUFC that traditional business avenues can't bring them and if BT owned sunderland lock stock would you use their services? I know I wouldn't.

[Parky]

 

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.

 

Coca Cola sponsor the Olympics because they are targeting a mass demographic in a none offensive way, buying a football club is not targeting a mass demographic and will offend some. Spending such sums sponsoring the Olympics is a better way to spend money for Coca Cola than buying a football club. United Emirates would never buy Arsenal, and why? No self respecting Chelsea, Liverpool, Man Utd, Spurs fans et al would fly with them if they owned Arsenal. Now sponsorship... people don't care about that. Although some get in a pickle over that. mackems and sugar puffs?

 

If owning football clubs were such a cost effective way to promote ideas and a message, all your big companies would be getting on the act. In truth football is one of the most complicated, financially taxing and insecure forms of business there is. Business likes to deal with peoples wallets, not their lives and football clubs represent peoples lives.

 

It is purely for the mega rich (Abramovic), local men turned good (Jack Walker), the mega vain (Simon Jordon), Venture Capitalists & portfolio investers (Dic, Enic) or the deluded (every other chairman or owner).

 

If I were a multi-national, I'd stay well clear of a football club other than through safe forms such as advertising, sponsorship, partnerships etc. Owning a football club would be a bad idea because for one, you're going to create anamosity from rival fans, secondly you're going to have to spend vast sums and lastly the returns are none existant almost.

 

I explained everything in your first para earlier in the thread as to why they don't get too invloved with football clubs. The post you quote was if I WAS a multi-national and of course your analysis applies in many ways. But YES if I WAS a big player, like this Indian telecom bloke I would buy into the club. Of course global brands such as Coke have to be at the olympics and Mastercard support the CL, because the global theme is bigger than any one club.

 

Listen big companies have diversifyied portfolios hence Barton and Nike, Barton is clearly NOT a Nike type, but somewhere in their research, his typeage needed addressing, there is only so much you can do with bland Amercan golfers..  

 

I don't honestly think fans from other clubs neglecting the product is an issue, because the portolio would be diversifyied to cover such exposure and the public is way more sophisticated now than saying I ain't flying Emirates or Virgin or whatever cause who they give their money to.. So I would disagree with that part.

 

Footbal as a vehicle can be complex if you've got idots running the shop.

 

Ownership and association are two different things, companies will bend over backwards to associate themselves with products and brands in the sporting world from clubs to players via boot deals but stop short of full ownership and for all the reasons I've outlined and more. One of the major reasons why big companies stay clear of football clubs is because they can't be owned, sold and bought, stripped and raised in the conventional business way, a football club is an idea, not a product or brand, it can only ever be owned by the spirit of fans.

 

Broadly agree.

 

Ownership of a relative 'idea' however is the holy grail of branding...Because it supeceeds time and the moment, it goes beyond an attention span and it goes beyond simply generating an interest. Vigin for instance is not a brand it is an 'idea'. SwissAir for instance has been very well re-branded, but it will never be an idea or a vision like Virgin is. That transcendence is cause Richard understood early that an idea or a cause (the fight against BA) embeds in a way glossy visuls doesn't.

[Thespence]

quick question about the wider footballing world: are the money men also buying up European clubs or is it just the premiership they're focusing their sights on ?

 

Only the EPL clubs as it the richest league & has the most exposure. Libya has a stake in Juventus though.

[Parky]

Parky what benefits would Tesco gain from say owning NUFC that traditional business avenues can't bring them and if BT owned sunderland lock stock would you use their services? I know I wouldn't.

 

But we're talking about an Indian organisation. The starting point of the relationship is neutral. No agency will be able to write 'a story' over the Tesco brand or BT that would seem believeable. Waste of time and money for both sides.

[S.S.R.]

"If we had some multibillionaire that wanted a stake in Newcastle, it will help, but sell the club? It's not the same answer.”

 

So you're not selling the club, but you want someone to buy some of it.

 

 

[Guest Sniffer]

If I was a betting man, I'd say Ashley would sell if he received an offer he considered attractive. A football club is an expensive toy these days if you want to compete rather than exist and he may have stretched himself. He's rich but not mega rich.